Angry white men's votes count too!

Via Jezebel, a deeply confusing op-ed from the Aspen Times Weekly. Is it satire? Sincerity? Sheer douchebaggery? All of the above? Ultimately, one point is clear: The writer hates him some Hillary Clinton.

"[T]he Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It's not that she is a woman. It's that she is who she is. It's the liberal victim groups she panders to, the "poor me" attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves. There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush. He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum."

It's hard to say what's most insane about this piece—the racism? the sexism? the obsession with owning firearms?—but it is interesting that writer Gary Hubbell, so clearly one of the Angry White Man of which he speaks, completely lacks the stones to own his clueless entitlement, instead attributing it to the four million AWM of whom he speaks. Perhaps he was afraid that a piece titled, "Hey, everyone — I'm really threatened by the idea that I'm no longer the center of the universe" would get laughed out of the newsroom?


by Andi Zeisler
View profile »

Andi Zeisler is the cofounder of Bitch Media and the author of We Were Feminists Once: From Riot Grrrl to CoverGirl®, the Buying and Selling of a Political Movement. You can find her on Twitter.

Get Bitch Media's top 9 reads of the week delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning! Sign up for the Weekly Reader:

6 Comments Have Been Posted


You're getting your news from and linking to Jezebel, huh? I really want to like the Bitch blog, and I know that no blog can please everyone all the time, but I am disappointed.

re: Ummmmm

anonymous, can you elaborate? I get some news from Jezebel, yes. All the news? Hardly. Linking to a source doesn't denote wholesale support -- as you'll see in the new issue, I have a definite beef with aspects of Jezebel. But I would likely never have come across this story without Jezebel on my blogroll, and linking seems like the polite thing to do, no?

Ummmmmm, yeah, I know

I'm saddened if the only outlet (besides the Bitch blog) that mentioned this story was a website of questionable quality and content. (And as an aside, I know I could stand to do a lot of work on my little judgementalness problem, that's a given) And linking is the polite thing to do, I agree. I guess if it's a pertinent story that came from Jezebel I feel conflicted, like taking doctor-prescribed medication that's tested on animals - a necessary evil but not good.

I think I'm extra nit-picky with the Bitch blog because I'm more critical of those I love, and hold them to a higher standard. Like seeing the left-wing media be sexist, it's extra disappointing when the news source you love does something you don't like.

Anyhoo, the other reason I was feeling sensitive to the J-link is because I'm getting really tired and frustrated with the incestuous blogosphere group-think. This is my final beef, and then I will stop being the commenter who always complains ;-)

Reading cross-linked story after story online and then logging off and turning on NPR, for instance, is like leaving a small echo-y room full of children yelling and emerging into a comfortable sitting room where there is an adult conversation. By current feminist blog standards I seem to be a crotchety, old, hairy-legged, fuddy-duddy; I am a 27-year-old former sex worker, drug user, gambling and porn addict who has traveled to Russia and West Africa, and sites like Jezebel make me feel like I'm old enough to be the bloggers mother! So I guess I'm sensitive to the online culture by whose standards I am tragically unhip and outdated (If I was still a drug addict and a sex worker I would be so cool!) and when my favorite magazine cum online media outlet seemed to endorse the culture I feel so rejected by I got my panties in a little bit of a bunch.

So, that's my elaboration. It's me, not you, and aren't you glad you asked?

Definitely worth addressing in the next issue of Bitch!

It's unfortunate that faux-maverick McCain wrapped up the GOP nomination so early, because it gives millions of AWM the opportunity to register as democrats during upcoming state primaries for the sole purpose of ensuring that a woman never becomes president of the US. (Of course, not that they're sexist or anything. As they love to constantly remind us, their hatred for Hillary is not at all related to the fact that she is a woman. And I'm sure they'll find many other thinly-veiled excuses to hate the next woman that tries to run for president in twenty years.)

<b>But what really saddens me is how much the deck was stacked against Hillary from the start, and how little public discussion of these double standards was allowed in the media, or with my fellow "liberals" at bars.</b> (Hillary herself was shouted down by the press when she said that she was treated unfairly.)

I only wish that the media/society would discuss the numerous ways that Hillary was handicapped by political double-standards:

<li><b>Women's minority status was muted!</b> While every major news pundit and columnist was lining up to pen eloquent editorials on how rise of Barak Obama was a victory against racism, the major news outlets avoided mentioning Hillary's rise as a victory for women. And they almost never mentioned women as a legitimate minority group. Since both sides of the democratic ticket were minorities this time around, it was interesting to see how a female candidate even had to take a back-seat to being in the back seat already!</li>

<li><b>There was some restraint from racism, but none from misogyny.</b> From the outset, slinging the word "nigger" at Obama was thankfully off-limits in the mainstream media. (I guess they were having too much fun calling him an Arab to have to stoop to using "nigger" against him, but I digress.) On the other hand, calling Hillary a "bitch" was par for the course. And since calling a woman a bitch isn't even bleeped out on the air (as the word "nigger" thankfully is), let alone seen as bigotry, there was no way for people to call attention to it without getting shouted down my the mainstream media.</li>

<li><b>Women aren't allowed to be seen as inspirational.</b> A few women reporters mentioned the fact that Obama would have been completely dismissed by the media for running a campaign of hope if he was a black woman, and also how Hillary only had the bitch/irrelevant dichotomy to choose from as a female presidential nominee, but their articles were largely ignored. Perhaps NPR will run an hour-long special on the topic of sexism and the campaign, but I won't hold my breath.</li>

<li><b>Our society refuses to see women as charismatic leaders.</b> No one says it, but think of the charismatic figures on TV. Think of the "faces you can trust" that you see in the TV news anchor char every night: Stone Phillips, Tom Brokaw, Mike Wallace, Ed Bradley, Anderson Cooper, Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel, Jim Lehrer, Dan Rather, Brian Williams, and an endless array of other tall, square-jawed, mostly white men. People love their deep voices, the cut of their jib, etc. These are the kinds of faces that millions of Americans can recognize and will trust by default. Now think of their female counterparts: Katie Couric, Paula Zahn, Barbara Walters, and a handful of others. They are charismatic too, but in a cute/sexy/grandmother way. No one would believe you if you placed them in a governor's seat, or a CEO chair, or the white house. Because what do you know: the qualities that typically make someone charismatic and a leader (a sonorous voice, being very tall, a penetrating gaze, a solid stature, solid jaw, swept-back graying hair, ruggedness, clean cut, etc.) just happen to be the same ones that are physically correlated to the Y chromosome!</li>

<li><b>No one in the mainstream will ever point out this blatant sexism against women!</b> The Onion refers to Hillary as a murdering, face-hugging, stomach-egg-laying Alien. The Daily Show has Samatha Bee constantly on the attack against Hillary by making lots of sexist remarks (which are OK because when a woman is saying them, it's FUNNY!), and those are the "liberals"! (It just goes to show that 'liberal' doesn't necessarily mean non-misogynist, as our liberal comedians prove every day.) The conservatives are even worse, but were addressed above. Then again, if the "Hillary Iron My Shirt" bumper stickers and t-shits weren't blatant enough for people to complain, they won't notice anything.</li>

<li><b>Now that Obama will likely win the nomination, all the calls by Democrats for the two of them to form a "minority ticket" or "dream ticket" will stop</b>. Because what do you know, the only minority they wanted on the ticket was a man. Don't worry though, democrats aren't sexist. And I'm sure they'll have a thinly-veiled excuse as to why Hillary can't be the VP within a week or two.</li>

And I could go on, but I'm too depressed. Someone should probably take this AWM crap up and do a story on it though. The presidential campaign gives us a good idea of how thick the glass ceiling is at the top. This would make a good story for the fall/winter issue of Bitch when the US elects its next white male. :-(


PS. Hothead '08

<i>"If people cannot imagine alternatives, they won't seek them, and that's more conducive to the authoritarian agenda than walls and barbed wire."</i>

women are not a minority

Women are generally oppressed, but are not, in fact, a "minority" (roughly half the population, as we know) and trying to label as such is more disempowering than beneficial.

Agreed that the media needs more balanced coverage overall and could take some lessons in critical thinking, but I hope they never start referring (again) to women as a minority.

On a side note, it would be really nice if our representative democracy was even vaguely demographically representative (by gender, race, sexuality, etc.) - if it were, there would sure be a lot more women in power.

Profound ambivalence

Everything that has been said here is all too true. The way the mainstream media cover Hillary is so sexist I can barely contain my rage. I really want to leap to her defense.
I could never vote for her (well, I take that back: if it's between her and whatever jingoistic autocrat the GOP has running, I'll vote for her). Her voting record on the war is dismal. I have heard nothing from her indicating she'll get us out of this bloody, wasteful, immoral, illegal war we're in. So I just can't say I support her as a candidate. I only support her as a woman, and wish the media would treat her equally.
BTW - I find it rather insulting that the media are calling her the first "serious" female candidate...we've had *several* women run for president, and all of them were serious. Hey, that might make an interesting story, esp. Victoria Woodhull Claflin... (hint, hint).

Add new comment