I've moved — check out my new blog at cassyfiano.com!

Redirecting in 10 seconds...

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Who do white men hate more, blacks or women?

That is the question posed by Nora Ephron -- the writer who gave us such sappy movies as "You've Got Mail", "Sleepless in Seattle", and "When Harry Met Sally". (Emphasis mine, of course.)
... But now there are two and we're facing Pennsylvania and whom are we kidding? This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don’t mean people, I mean white men. How ironic is this? After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can’t even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder — after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power. (As they always did, by the way; I hope you didn’t believe any of those articles.)

To put it bluntly, the next president will be elected by them: the outcome of Tuesday’s primary will depend on whether they go for Hillary or Obama, and the outcome of the general election will depend on whether enough of them vote for McCain. A lot of them will: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them. And McCain is a compelling candidate, particularly because of the Torture Thing. As for the Democratic hope that McCain’s temper will be a problem, don’t bet on it. A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what’s more, they think it’s normal.

If Hillary pulls it out in Pennsylvania, and she could, and if she follows it up in Indiana, she can make a credible case that she deserves to be the candidate; these last primaries will show which of the two Democratic candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son, and who has never had to think of the president of the United States as anyone other than someone they might have been had circumstances been just slightly different.

Hillary’s case is not an attractive one, because what she’ll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can. Nonetheless, and as I said, she has a case.

Holy Christ Almighty. Where to even begin.

I think it's fair that Ephron is saying in this piece that white males are dumb, angry, racist, sexist, and unreliable, and only are in positions of power because they are white males. Can we all be in agreement on that?

Good. Because it's all crap.

Why is it that liberals think that, if white men decide not to vote for Obama, it means they HATE black people? Or that if they don't vote for Hillary, they HATE women? Did it ever occur to them that they, like all intelligent people in the United States, don't like their politics? Gee, what a thought.

And what's interesting is how Ephron sneers at the "suffering" white men receive at the hands of mean women, and points out how these white men are "somehow" able to rise above affirmative action, feminism, and the myriad of benefits handed to minorities simply for... being a minority. The difference, my dear Nora, is that most white men don't see themselves as victims. A lot -- but not all -- of minorities, feminists, and liberals do. Therefore, when white men are presented with overwhelming obstacles, they find a way to overcome them. A lot of people who are women and/or minorities do this, too, but it doesn't fit into the "WHITE MEN IN POWER!!" screed.

It's called being in charge of your own life, and not letting anyone stand in the way of achieving your goals but yourself -- liberal victims should try it some time, rather than relying on government programs to give them the world.

And yes, this next election will be decided mainly by white men. They are the largest voting block. In a democratic society, that is the way it works. If the largest voting block was Hispanic women, then Hispanic women would decide. You can't force equality in the amount of people who vote -- although I'm sure liberals would love to. In the name of fairness, of course! To make sure minority voices are heard, they'd be more than happy to silence white male majority voices.

Right, Nora?

But, of course, we can't rely upon white men to do anything except, apparently, keep minorities and women down. And we women know this having dated them.

Nora, if you're reading this, I want you to repeat this after me five hundred times. Actually, just keep repeating it until it sinks into that hate-filled little brain of yours.

MEN. ARE. NOT. THE. ENEMY.

I don't know if you're single or not, but Nora honey, if you are, it isn't because men are unreliable scum. It's probably because you hate men and your insane ideas of what men should be send them running away from you screaming. If you are married to a white man, well... I'd be curious about how it is your husband lives with someone who apparently thinks so lowly of all white men.

And I hate to break it to you, but white men are not the only ones with awful tempers. In fact, I'd argue that women are worse than men are in the temper department. They may not be able to hit as hard or yell as loud, but women are malicious. They're vindictive. They don't forget anything. The quote "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is in existence for a reason. Piss off a woman, and she will want to make your life a living hell. Settling the dispute won't be good enough, oh no. This is because most women are, quite frankly, vindictive bitches -- ask any twelve-year-old girl which sex is more cruel. I dare you. And that's probably because most women are more emotional than men are. Men can be more logical; when they're in an argument, most of them are able to keep their emotions out of it. A lot of women can't.

I really don't understand the man-hating that goes on so prevalently. Why are white men looked at so much as the enemy? You can say they're "in power", but there are white male CEOs and white male blue collar workers. It isn't like every white man looks like the Monopoly guy, living in some ivory tower, pointing and laughing at the brutal sufferings of his female and minority slaves. What reality do these people live in?

Rachel wonders if it hurts to see the world that way, and kinda hopes so. I really hope so. How awesome would it be if this kind of hate, stupidity, and ignorance was painful?

I know I'd laugh.

Hat Tip: Rachel Lucas

10 comments:

Sassy Poker said...

Thanks for the defense Cassy, If I defended myself, I'd be a chauvinist/racist, or is that a racist/chauvinist. Geez, I can't do anything right!

Amanda said...

"MEN. ARE. NOT. THE. ENEMY."

Only if you can repeat, "Neither are women."

Your denigration of your sex is truly saddening, Cassy.

mkfreeberg said...

You know, I could read Cassy Fiano all day long and never once get the impression that women are the enemy.

Can't say the same about Nora Ephron.

What're you smoking, Amanda?

Angry White Guy said...

Well, I'm the enemy, but only because I'm kind of a jerk... :)

Brian said...

How many white men would have voted for Maragaret Thatcher? A lot. How many white men would vote for Condeleeza Rice? A lot. So if John Kerry or Al Gore ran against Rice, and white men voted for Rice, it must mean that white men hate whie men. And if a lot of women voted for Kerry or Gore, it would mean that they hate black women.

turnidoff said...

I'm a man who hates women who hate men who like women hating women who hate man haters!

I also hate Nicolas Cage.

Wayne said...

I don't know about hurting, but thinking that way certainly does clog the brain. How else could amanda's comment have been created?

Let's try to put more specificity to it, since contextual relevance seems to be lacking there:

"MEN. ARE. NOT. THE. ENEMY." is directed at the women who act as if men ARE "The Enemy." The clause, "Neither are women," is unnecessary clutter, because it is implicit in the direction of the statement. Seeing implied negative connotations where there were none is typically the realm of vindictive, bitchy, presumptive, women who assume victimhood for anything that does not cater to their preconceived notions of the ideal world.

The statement assumes that most women (except those described in the previous statement) are also not the enemy, and anyone with no victimhood agenda to pursue would understand that.

Darwin said...

This white male would be more than happy to vote for the black and female phenom known as Condi Rice.

Nora Ephron is an idiot.

doctorfixit said...

I find the term "White men" racist and extremely offensive. I am a european-american male. At least Ephron let us know where the liberal fascists stand. It's important for them to feel comfortable and protected, so that they will identify themselves and be allowed to take their rant as far as they wish. Out-of-touch elites need no feedback, they need to look around and see everyone nodding. On the other hand, as a european-american male, I have learned to keep my mouth shut and my knife sharp. Keep blogging, lib-fascists.

The Fat Misanthrope said...

doctorfixit said: "I am a european-american male."

Hold it there, Ol' Buddy. I am white, my ancestors originated from Europe but in no way do I connect myself with that bunch of spineless wimps.

Besides, "european-american" sounds like all the other victim-class minority types. A guy I work with, whom I cannot abide, does have my respect in one way: if you call him a Mexican-American he'll take your head off. In his view, he's an American, period.