|
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 01:05 PM by calimary
I've read and heard and observed, I've gained the impression that the angry white male that's gone so solidly for the GOP is there because of a resentment over inroads in the job market made by women and minorities, and immigrants, legal AND illegal who are perceived as "taking jobs." I'm guessing, also, that there is a HUGE wound in the white male psyche in this country as these men see their traditional dominance from the 50's all but vanished. It used to be that the husband's single paycheck was enough to support the traditional family of mom/dad-two kids/dog/station wagon/house-with-picket-fence in Suburbia USA. It used to be that guys only had other guys to compete with at the office and at the plant (you know, back when plants weren't closing and rusting out all over the country and the operative words weren't "lay-offs" and "outsourcing").
Many men are seriously and deeply WOUNDED in this country. Walking wounded. And frankly, I can understand why. It used to be that the woman in the office was the secretary or receptionist and didn't pose any threat or competition (save, for example, the odd Lois Lane "career-gal" here and there). Women were referred to as "housewives" and they seemed to want nothing more than a new washer-dryer every so often, and their Valium prescriptions, and that was that. Life was simple, easy, predictable, and there was a large measure of control. It stopped being that way decades ago, but I imagine that for many men, those were the good old days. I'm JUST GUESSING here, of course, and my own husband never did fit that mold. He says he always felt like the odd-man-out in his family of all boys and a domineering father and submissive mother (who dealt with her frustrations in a passive/aggressive way by crawling into a liquor bottle during the day - her feelings were certainly nothing anyone sat down together and actually talked about). I know I was something of a jolt to their equilibrium when I married in there, because they just weren't used to having a lot of women in the family, no less an "uppity" one.
I get the feeling that there are many men (I'd say - not all that many in havens like DU here, though) who hate the Age of Enlightenment and Progress that liberal leadership brought to this country. It was far better when potential competitors were suppressed and didn't make any trouble. Back when Blacks were slaves, or just coming out of slavery and not quite finding their footing yet, and Hispanics were housekeepers and farm workers AND NOTHING ELSE (and since they didn't speak English, they were assumed to be "stupid"), and Asians only offered laundry service and Chinese food restaurants, and we laughed at them in Charlie Chan movies. And gays? They were even more cartoony than Charlie Chan, but they did design nice hats for the ladies' auxiliary luncheons.
While I'm no psychologist, it seems to me that people who have inferiority complexes only gain self-esteem if/when others around them are less - either perceived as such already, or made to be that by the person with the complex. I think you see evidence of that in bush's own inclination to give everybody nicknames. We're little more than pets to him, at best - lower life forms to whom he can assign names and identities, and who are subject to his overlordship, as though he were some self-styled Adam in the Garden. Just as, when many of us were kids, we were told you NEVER address an adult by his/her first name. It was ALWAYS Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. On the other hand, the adult, whoever he/she was, was perfectly free to call us kids by our first names - a recognition of pecking order and who's on top versus who's on the bottom. The enlightened, well-rounded, well-grounded, secure person doesn't need to diminish those around him or her to feel good, personally. But too many, especially, it seems, in the red states, flock to somebody like bush who evokes that dominant male crap to which they resonate. I mean, just look at the choice of spouse between bush and John Kerry, and how many people were threatened by a happening woman like Teresa, or like Hillary or Nancy Pelosi (who's being demonized in republi-CON in-house fire-up-the-troops videos), versus how popular quiet, submissive little Stepford laura is. People seem to prefer their First Ladies as anachronisms.
I think the reason republi-CONS are seeing big losses now coming among white males is because white males put all their money on the GOP and its sometimes-unspoken message about bringing back the good ol' days (when men were men, women shut up and found a friend with a coathanger, and everyone else was securely closeted). If they could not BE or ACHIEVE that in their own lives, at least they could sidle up to it - true pack mentality and the alpha male syndrome. But they've seen, especially over the past five years, that what the republi-CONS are selling just doesn't fit, and certainly doesn't work. After all, where are the good-paying, secure jobs-with-benefits that allowed the man to be the king of his castle so the little woman wouldn't have to go out and supplement the family income? Where is the economy with lower prices and a lower cost of living that would allow for a family to rely on one provider only? Where is the America-Stands-Tall-In-The-World when we've lost YET ANOTHER WAR (as if Vietnam wasn't bad enough - the memories of which have NOT faded) and it's dawning on the public that we're far more reviled around the world than we once were? Our military - the symbol of the virile, all-powerful, domineering male - doesn't get us the glowing victories we expected, and there's no Viagra prescription to remedy it. Hell, even the strong, silent, reliable cowboy paradigm has been blown to smithereens with "Brokeback Mountain." And at home, we can't even take care of our own - which Katrina brought so painfully home last year - the difficiencies we STILL SEE AT THIS VERY MOMENT. The "strong, dominant male" ethic that the GOP loves to boast about is as big a wimp as bush's dad was EVER perceived to be, because that "strength" and "dominance" has produced NOTHING of "strength" or "dominance" value. The GOP cardboard cutout has been utterly neutered, and if your delicate ego is riding on the perception of a "strong, dominant male" figure, you'll probably chafe like crazy against the realization that you're a mere eunuch. There's no satisfaction from the usual quarters anymore - which, I think is why hate radio has become such a powerful force in this country. Many of these angry white men wouldn't dream of seeking counseling or other help (REAL men just don't do that), so all they can do is stay mad and threatened like crazy, and lash out.
If the angry white males perceive that the GOP has failed them, their feelings of betrayal will be VERY real, and I doubt they'll forget. I think it is TREMENDOUSLY, GINORMOUSLY significant that the biggest losses are among white males. I think that tells the whole story then and there.
Aw crap - ran on again. Sorry this is so long.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(298 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
more people will ponder whether us tinfoil hat sporting conspiracy theorists might have been on to something after all?
