July 10, 2019--White Male Privilege

Continuing to ponder the gender implications of the large vote Trump received in 2016 from white women, Guest Blogger Sharon wrote--

One of the questions I keep hearing is should Dems try to get Obama/Trump voters back or go full out Progressive to motivate more new voters.

As much as I hate many aspects of data mining and micro-targeting, it would probably help if the Dems knew more about these and other more reasonable Trump voters and those Dems that didn’t vote in 2016.

With that said, I suspect the real challenge isn’t what candidates say or how they say it but who they are. There just might not be anyone with a wide enough appeal. I cringed when Bill Maher said the only one who could beat Trump for sure is Oprah. But I fear he may be right.

It’s a tiny sample but when a friend from the Midwest had brunch with a friend from New York, he asked him why he and friends voted for Trump. His reaction was people knew him. For me that was a dis-qualifier. But with so many people not paying attention, this may be the key. 

As for more civilized discourse, an acquaintance assisting at the polls on Democratic primary day last month said a woman drove into the church parking lot screaming at her about representing “the party of death” and how she’d never vote for a Democrat. I thought this might just be a disturbed individual. Then I  googled our moderate businessman Senator and former Governor Mark Warner.  The first entry is an ad to defeat him in 2020 because he sides with the “party of death.” Interesting new branding. Not encouraging. 

I wrote--

The most recent ways the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot is to give so much attention to AOC and three (three!) of her colleagues. This gang of four is the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP now that they have someone even better than Nancy Pelosi to demonologize. How self-defeating can we be.

And then Jill Davenport wrote--

I was just this minute reading your blog about women and I believe you’re exactly right. And Bill Clinton was exactly right when he spoke about white men dying of broken hearts.  

There’s another reason as well, and this affects both genders . . . the white male privilege is on shaky ground, and so is the privilege thereby extended to their female counterparts.  They are terribly fearful of the most awful thing that they can imagine . . . being outnumbered by people of color who by nature they believe should be shining shoes in airports.  

Having a black man for president was an unspeakable affront to the proper order as they see it and they thus feel it needs to be restored.  

Obama brought out the latent and carefully hidden racism which came forth like a toxic flood when T-name took over "my" White House.  All of it is, of course, the result of just fear. 

I thought--

Jill's new idea about how for many conservative women male privilege is extended to them is something important to ponder. For me it helps explain why so many white women voted for Trump and how important it is for progressives to understand this in order to find ways to prevail.

July 8, 2019--Make American Men Great Again

For more than two years, my sister-in-law, Guest Blogger Sharon, and I have been attempting to understand why so many women, white women, 53 percent of them, voted for Trump. It seems so against their best interests. 

Recently she wrote-- 

I still haven’t totally figured it out, including what role religion may have played. I think there are people whose world view or “values” may trump (sorry) self-interest. Just look at the number of women who voted for a misogynist. Or are so pro-life that they are willing to give up control of their own bodies.

Then I wrote--  

About the women who voted for Trump: like you I've been obsessed with trying to understand this since he was elected. Some of it is a version of Evangelical belief about the appropriate place for women in the social and family hierarchy. "In their place" below men. But I have come to conclude it's less about religion than about gender. 

Likely for most of Trump's white men the women's movement tripped off all sorts of scary bells and whistles. Having in many cases to deal with female bosses; having to deal with dramatic changes in sexual behavior where women have come to assume an almost equal role; needing wives to enter the work force not for career reasons but because the men couldn't earn enough to pay the bills and sustain them as stay-at-home wives and mothers, often with the women earning more than their husbands, as a result feeling dispossessed, these men are angry about their shrinking hegemony within the family and the larger society, and voted for Trump in the belief that he would restore things to their natural, their rightful gender dispensation.  

And then for the these women--they want their husbands back. The ones who could support them, dominate them, and make them feel protected and secure. They too feel that something profound has been abrogated, overturned. Thus, that is what making America great again means to them. It really means how to make men a regressive version of great again. 

To progressive women this represents a retreat from all that has been fought for and accomplished during the past 50-60 years; to conservative women this would represent a restoration of the natural order.

The Dems need to figure out how to relate to this in a non-condescending manner for at least two reasons--they'll lose again if they don't and because it's the right way to engage Trump supporters--with understanding and sensitivity. Doing so, though, doesn't mean we need to roll over and come to agree about everything. Or very much. But we do need to show respect for how they are experiencing life in a changed America, and try to find some empathetic common ground.

Toward the end of Hillary Clinton's campaign, when it finally dawned on her and some of her advisors that they were losing white working-class voters--women as well as men--some of her people who had kept Bill Clinton at arms length from participating in campaign strategizing, realizing he was in fact their best strategist, finally asked him what he thought was going on with these voters, mainly the men. He said, "They're dying of a broken heart."

He was right. And since it was too late to reach out to them in appropriate ways, Hillary Clinton lost their votes and ultimately the election.

Fair warning. 

October 15, 2018--Male Privilege

"What was that all about?" We had just had a half dozen homemade donuts and coffee at our favorite local general store.

"I also was a little confused," Rona said, "He seemed to be talking about an incident that he probably heard about on Fox News where some guy stoped a bus and threatened the passengers."

"My hearing isn't good today," I said, "But that's what I think I heard. And then did he say they should have taken him out and shot him?"

'That's what I heard."

"Unbelievable."

"How he's a terrorist and that's how terrorists should be treated."

"That they should be taken out and shot?" Rona shrugged her shoulders and nodded.

This from an otherwise peaceful-feeling 70-year-old who sat next to us, eating his bacon and eggs at the counter.

"He said he's lived here for more than 30 years. That he grew up in upstate New York and moved when things there began to change in ways that upset him."

"Yes," Rona said, "He talked about how the thing he likes most about Maine is that very little changes. That he hates change. Including the smallest things. Like when a new owner bought the store, though he was quick to mention he liked that they kept making donuts every morning."

"I like that too," I said, wanting to move on to lighter subjects.

"He seems to live a version of the good life here and I don't understand why he's so angry about what's going on around him. And from the looks of him, including how he was dressed, he seemed to be OK financially. So I don't think it's that."

"We've been talking recently about why so many middle-aged white guys are so angry and how that's affecting our politics."

"Yes," Rona said, "I've been thinking a lot about how it's not primarily about race, but how these men feel threatened by demographics and the resulting browning of America. With their anti-immigrant views underscoring that. That is a big component of their anger, but the more I think about it the more I am concluding most of the problems these men have comes from gender issues. Their relations with women. How they used to feel empowered just because of their maleness, but in recent decades how that sense of privilege has been eroding."

"We have been talking about that and agree that a lot of the things men depended upon to feel powerful no longer operate so automatically."

"There are many things in the larger culture," Rona said, "that have been delivering the same message--that their days of dominance are over. We've been making a list of some of the things that are undermining men's sense of their place in the world. How losing the war in Vietnam, for example, was a huge blow to men who felt that just being an American, American exceptionalism assured their invulnerability. How up to then we had won every war we entered and then we were defeated by little Asians wearing sandals and black pajamas!"

"These are the guys who are prone to chant 'USA, USA' at Trump rallies. As if that restores their sense of self worth."

"The women's movement didn't help. Calls for equity in the workplace--equal pay for equal work--in family life and the bedroom (there was the pill) deeply threatened so many men."

"How many people do we know, how many men do we know, including some in our families who found themselves with women supervisors and how they hated that. How some even quit their jobs to get away from female bosses. And how in a couple of instances doing so ruined their careers."

"Affirmative action also contributed, especially as many men believed it primarily benefitting women. Again in the workplace they saw women they felt to be less credentialed and less experienced getting promoted to positions they felt entitled to."

"And when the Great Recession hit in 2008," I said, "men became aware that women were able to ride it out better than they were. Ironically, partly because women were still not receiving equal pay for equal work they were more likely than their husbands or partners not to be laid off."

Rona said, "This came decades after tens of millions of women who had been housewives entered the work force, often not just in search of career opportunities but because their husbands' incomes were not enough to sustain the household. We know, again from our own families, that a lot of men felt inadequate because on their own they couldn't make enough money for the families' expenses. My father, your father had to send our mothers to work in order to maintain their lifestyles. Or just pay the bills. How did that make them feel?"

"Not good. Diminished," I said, "In quite a few cases the women wound up making more that their husbands and this alone disrupted the emotional balance within many marriages. And now there is the MeToo movement, which has some men thinking that their or their sons' lives can be destroyed by a false accusation of sexual misconduct."

"And so, here we are," Rona said, "Even in this peaceful place there are men so angry that they want to kill people who they consider to be terrorists."

"All that seems so far away from here and yet . . ."

January 23, 2018--The Statuette Please . . .

At last night's Screen Actors Guild awards ceremony, after an evening of political correctness by an all female corps of presenters and thank-you speeches by winners, when receiving SAG's lifetime achievement award, Morgan Freeman commented about the statuette given to recipients--

"I wasn't going to do this," Freeman said at the end of his remarks, "I'm going to tell you what's wrong with this statue. It works from the back; but from the front it's gender-specific."

The audience laughed and cheered.

The SAG statuette, known as "The Actor," depicts a nude male figure holding two masks--one of comedy, the other of tragedy.

The gender specificness, however, isn't all that specific. The male genitalia is more a PG-13 sort of a lump than anything full-frontal R-rated.

Not all that unlike the Oscar whose maleness is less apparent since all the specifics appear to have been surgically removed. He does, though, hold a nearly body-length Crusader sword that also serves as a fig leaf. The symbolism speaks for itself.

The Golden Globe statuette, on the other hand, is totally non-gendered. Unless one wants to view the spherical "globe" as somehow female.

But there is a simple solution when it comes to Oscar and The Actor--give winners a choice of statues.

There should be male and female versions. And while we're at it, African American as well as Caucasian ones. Maybe even an Asian  choice. Clothed and unclothed. And thinking ahead to the possibility of a Muslim winner, the Islamic female statuette should of course veiled. On the other hand that won't work since Muslims do not permit paintings and sculpture that represent humans.

So maybe my solution isn't so simple after all.

Left to right: Oscar, Golden Globe, "The Actor"

January 22, 2018--The March

Saturday's Women's March was again extraordinary. Hundreds of thousands of largely young people, mainly women, turned out in the United States and around the world in all kinds of weather.

Not intentionally, Rona and I got swept into the periphery of it in New York City. We were in the vicinity of Times Square for another purpose and found ourselves . . . marching.

It was a powerful, emotional experience. I know that there has been some backbiting among the organizers who planned and carried out last year's version, held the day after Donald Trump's inauguration-- the size of that march eclipsing the much smaller crowd that showed up for his swearing in, nasty speech, and his still ongoing smarting that his inaugural turnout was by far the largest in history--but no matter. 

It was remarkable, amazing. So much energy, a palpable feeling of empowerment, which of course is the real goal of these marches--women taking more control of their political lives and destiny. 

Speaker after speaker took note of the fact that thousands of women nationwide, at all levels, are signing up to run for office. This suggests that November may be shaping up to be an historical comeuppance for Trump and his cult of followers. 

Say goodbye, Republicans, to your current majority in the House and I suspect the Senate. That would bring about a new day. That would truly be what is most historic about the current situation--new voters and newly activated citizens taking back their country. In perfect irony, they, we will make America great again. 

But besid the possibility that we will be engaged in a major war in Korea come November which will cause many Americans to rally to a president that they otherwise despise, there is another danger--

With the march itself. 

Rather an unanticipated consequence from its very nature--that it is a women's march. 

Though men are welcome to participate, the vast majority of those who marched were women.

If this becomes the electoral face of those who oppose Trump, with Hollywood stars pushing their way into the spotlight, there is the danger of a backlash among moderate, politically independent men who may come to feel excluded by the movement that the march represents. 

These men are needed as part of the coalition that has the potential in November, for all intents and purposes, to end the Trump presidency. To turn him into an instant lame duck. Domestically at least--powerless. 

These are some of the same men, not Trump acolytes, who could not bring themselves to pull the lever and vote for Hillary Clinton. Next time around, we cannot let this happen. They have to feel welcomed, comfortable being lead by women and willing to vote for women for Congress as well as at the state and municipal levels.

We have to write off Trump's 35-40 percent. They are the ones who would support him even if he murdered someone on Fifth Avenue, as he said with insight during the campaign. But to win and thereby rescue ourselves we need the active support of the persuadables. Some of them the old Reagan Democrats. Or their descendants. There are still plenty of them who are swing voters who live in swing states.

So what to do?

For the next march attention should be paid to the sensitivities and vulnerabilities of these men who must become political allies. In the next march they should have some public role to play. The themes to emphasize need to include a portion that are gender neutral--like inequality and our plummeting position in the world. These themes should not be so much about so-called "women's issues." It would be wise to include more that cross genders and are universal.

I understand that these suggestions will not go down well among some or even many, especially coming from a not-quite-dead-yet white male. But if we want to win--and we desperately should--I put these thoughts forward in the spirit of wanting to help.

June 22, 2015--Black Like Me

In 1957, in The White Negro, Norman Mailer wrote about young white people who so liked jazz and were so turned off by what they saw as conformist white culture, that they adopted black culture as their own.

Four years later, in 1961, journalist John Howard Griffin, wrote Black Like Me. It is a non-fiction account of his six-week experience traveling in the racially-segregated South while passing as a Negro. Reversing the much more common reality of some light-skinned black people who, to avoid discrimination, passed for white.

In Griffin's case he arranged for his skin to be darkened through the administration of Oxsoralen, an anti-vertigo drug that also darkened skin, prescribed for him by a dermatologist. In addition, he spent 16-hour days for weeks under an ultraviolet lamp.

He met segregation, threats, and enough overt racism that within days he feared for his life and tried to blend into the background so as to avoid the dangers he sensed around him. He kept a journal of his travels and it formed the core of his book and then later a major motion picture starring James Whitmore.

Something analogous to this has been going on in the state of Washington where Rachel Dolezal recently resigned from her position as president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP. Like Griffin she is white and was attempting to pass for black.

Aside from the fact that she has become an instant butt of jokes on late-night TV and comes from a crazy-mixed-up family (her parents were the ones ultimately to out her) her claim that she is black (which she still insists is true though acknowledging she does not have "one drop of black blood" in her genetic background) raises a whole set of complicated issues about race and identity and what it means to be black or white or Asian or Christian or Jewish or, for that matter, male or female.

In regard to the latter, Bruce Jenner recently revealed that he was undergoing treatment to become a biological woman because for his entire live he thought of himself more as a woman than a man.

Dolezal says a version of the same thing--growing up with four adopted black children as siblings she claims to have developed a deep commitment to black culture and the issues African Americans, because of their race, still face in America.

She said, and continues to affirm even after being forced to resign and dragged through the media gauntlet, that she "identifies as black"--

But it's a little more complex than me identifying as black, or answering the question of, 'Are you black or white?' . . . Well, I definitely am not white. Nothing about being white describes who I am.

She, though, is genetically white but thinks of herself as black. Jenner is genetically male but identifies as female. Situations of this kind are common enough and are now being more openly discussed.

Mainly, what constitutes gender (clearly more than genitals)? What defines race? Just how much African blood or DNA must one have to be considered black by others? And how much, if any, needs to be present for blacks or whites to deem themselves one or the other? Or determined by society and perhaps the courts if necessary? For example, in affirmative action cases?

Freud famously said, "Biology is destiny."

Perhaps not.

Indeed, many scholars claim that all forms of identity are socially constructed. If so--and I feel a strong case can be made that this is true--why is it all right for Bruce Jenner to think of himself as a woman but inappropriate for Rachel Dolezal to take on a black identity? If it is all right to assume one's own sense of gender, ethnicity, or belief system, why not blackness? Or whiteness? Is race still our hottest button?

August 26, 2014--Midcoast: Maiden Voyage

"Since when did boats become she's?"

It was a glorious Sunday afternoon and a friend had invited us to an open house to see his new boat.

"Open house?" I said to Rona as we were driving over to the marina, "Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it an open boat? Or something more maritime?"

"Can't we just have fun today? I mean . . ."

"Just thinking, that's all. No problem. I'm not being grumpy"--I could see Rona rolling her eyes--"In fact, I'm feeling great and can't wait to see the boat and to hang out with Jack and his friends."

Above the sound of the engine I could hear her mutter, "That'll be the day."

Still thinking about the gender issues, I persisted, "I mean, referring to boats as female . . ."

"Men own boats," Rona said, sounding exasperated, "The same way as in the old days when they thought of themselves as possessing their women. And I guess there's something erotic about the whole boat thing. I don't want to get too graphic but men run boats, they ride them or ride in them. So . . ."

"So that's why they think about them as female?"

"Maybe more like mistresses. They sneak away on them, run around with them, tend to them, take pleasure from them . . ."

"It is true that it's rare to see women with boats of their own or even being the ones driving them, if that's the right way to think about taking them out for a cruise."

"I think it's called running them," Rona said.

"And many of the boat names, if they're not named for wives or sweethearts--which is the usual thing--have double entendre meanings. Like one's we saw the last time we were out on the water. Remember A Little Nauti? And Scrumpy Vixen?"

"And also, Shaggwell and Lucky Sperm.

"Those are more single than double entendres. Nothing subtle about them." Rona laughed at that. She was getting into it.

"Even Columbus had the Nina and Pinta."

"Wasn't it the tradition then to name boats after saints? Like the Santa Maria."

"And, to help make your case, I once read," Rona said, "that the Pinta was not the actual name but one some of Columbus' rebellious crew named, which means 'painted one,' or 'prostitute.'"

"So there you go. That was all the way back in 1490."

"If women were boat owners what kinds of names do you think they'd come up with?"

"Good point," I said. "Let's see if we can make up a few."

"Do you think they'd refer to their boats as he's?"

"Probably, and name them things like Hot to Trot."

"Or Macho Man."

"It'll never happen," I said. "Women have come a long way, to quote that old Virginia Slims' commercial, but women owning boats, which I can easily envision, is very different than naming them that way. Women feel too smart to me to call a boat Big Guy."

"Aren't we being silly." Rona said as we neared the boatyard.

"Not entirely," I said, "I think it's an interesting set of issues."

"Remember, when we get to the boat, behave yourself. We don't know all the people who'll be there and this is supposed to be a low-stress good time."

I promised not to raise the subject or say anything else that might be considered controversial.

After a couple of beers and delicious homemade lobster rolls, while a good time was being had by all, I asked our friend Jack what he planned to name the boat. Rona shot me a look.

"I don't know," he said, "Someone told me it's bad luck to change the name. This one's not a new boat and the previous owner named it for his wife, the Elizabeth II, which is sort of fun since that's the name of the queen and all that. But, I don't know."

"How fuel efficient is it?" Rona asked in an attempt to change the subject. She's never been all that interested in miles-to-the-gallon sort of things.

"It's supposed to use about two gallons per hour when cruising at 18 knots or so."

"That sounds pretty efficient to me," Rona said, not really knowing what she was talking about. She was, though, doing a pretty good job of changing the subject.

"About the bad luck business," I said, "We have a friend here who was in the Coast Guard and I remember him saying after he also bought a new used boat that it you want to change the name and also want to avoid bad luck you write the old one on a piece of paper, set it on fire, and float it out onto the water. Then you can name it anything you want."

"Can I have another beer?" Rona asked.

Jack reached into the cooler and passed one to her. "I'm not that superstitious, but still I like that idea."

"So you have a new name in mind?"

"Yeah, I plan to name her after my mother, just like my last boat."

"A lovely idea," Rona said. "Sorry, but we need to go. We have a few things we have to do this afternoon."

"We can do them tomorrow," I said, to myself sounding wimpy.

"We have to go," Rona insisted.

"She's right. We need to go. But thanks so much for inviting us. It's a great boat," it really is, "And I wish you nothing but happy sailing or cruising."

"But we haven't christened her yet," Jack said. "Please stay for that."

"Christened?" I blurted out, now thinking about boats through a religious lens. With a wink I said, "That's not of my faith."

Our friend who has a Jewish grandmother got it and said, "What should we do? Bar Mitzvah the boat?"

"That's a thought," I said.

And with that, since he doesn't drink, Jack broke a bottle of Matinelli's sparking cider over her bow.

It was all great fun, and with that we really did need to go.

While hugging goodbye he asked, "Are you guys free Thursday afternoon? To join me for her first cruise? You now, her maiden voyage."

Rona jabbed me, hoping I wouldn't say anything about that.