White Straight Male Self-Pity: Is it Justified

Great Debates
1

I see included in these “great debates” a question about whether a bunch of white guys can get together without being called “racist.” I suppose they would just as likely be called “sexist.” And recently I saw a similar question on another bb – a fellow wanted to know if gay people were “hetrophobes” [sic]. I told him no. Later he supposed I’d call him a “Demophobe,” when he said he was a Republican.

Such queries and suppositions, honest as they are, speak to a self-pitying straight white male population who suppose life is easier for Everybody Else and that perhaps centuries of oppression is nothing compared to what they’re going through now, which is… well… not being the oppressors anymore, at least not quite so much.

I find SWM self-pity sickening. :rolleyes:

What about you?

2

BTW, I am all of the above (straight, white, male).

3

Welcome to the boards!

:smiley: [sup]And thanks for the clarification[/sup]

4

Remember that stupid high school kid who sued his school because he wanted to wear a shirt that said “straight pride.” He tried to claim the school was discriminating against heterosexuals. This is the kind of guy I hate. The A-holes who try to fabricate phony issues of “oppression” against themselves in order to justify their own bigotry. IIRC this was a fat kid. Why wasn’t he wearing a shirt that said “fat pride?” That would have at least referenced a genuine issue of discrimination. How stupid is it ti try to claim as a source of “pride” that you are not an oppressed minority. someone should have slapped that kid.
;)(who was obviously a repressed homosexual btw)

5

He wasn’t fat. I remember this kid. He was geeky, but not fat. And who is to say that he wouldn’t have been prevented from wearing a “fat pride” t-shirt? Almost everything is bound to offend someone.

I think you are going overboard to suggest that the kid should be “slapped”. Get a grip. The kid was trying to make a point. I think he was probably making it for the wrong reasons (he wanted to stir up something) but I think (IIRC) that he also wanted to point out the arbitrary school policy about which t-shirts are acceptable to wear, and which are not. Since “straight pride” is not a direct slam against anyone, does not contain hateful or obscene language, technically he thought he should be able to wear it. And when he wasn’t allowed to, he made a stink. I wouldn’t have bothered if I were in his place (I wouldn’t have worn the t-shirt to begin with) but some people like to push the boundaries and see how far they can push school policy. Sometimes they do it for reasons we agree with, sometimes they don’t—but we gotta allow them that right, I should think.

6

He wasn’t fat. I remember this kid. He was geeky, but not fat. And who is to say that he wouldn’t have been prevented from wearing a “fat pride” t-shirt? Almost everything is bound to offend someone.

I think you are going overboard to suggest that the kid should be “slapped”. Get a grip. The kid was trying to make a point. I think he was probably making it for the wrong reasons (he wanted to stir up something) but I think (IIRC) that he also wanted to point out the arbitrary school policy about which t-shirts are acceptable to wear, and which are not. Since “straight pride” is not a direct slam against anyone, does not contain hateful or obscene language, technically he thought he should be able to wear it. And when he wasn’t allowed to, he made a stink. I wouldn’t have bothered if I were in his place (I wouldn’t have worn the t-shirt to begin with) but some people like to push the boundaries and see how far they can push school policy. Sometimes they do it for reasons we agree with, sometimes they don’t—but we gotta allow them that right, I should think.

7

Next thing you know those little bastards are going to start wearing black armbands to protest a war or something.

Marc

8

I find any large amount of self-pity to be sickening. I don’t really see SWM exhibing any more of that kind of behavior then anyone else though.

Marc

9

[ben folds]ya’ll don’t know what it’s like
being male, middle class and white
it’s a bitch if you don’t believe…
i got shit running through my brain
so intense that i can’t explain
all alone in my white boy pain
shake your booty while the band complains[/ben folds

10

I don’t equate agitating for the status quo with agitating for justice (in reference to “the next thing you know they’ll be wearing black armbands”).

Cynic’s example is just what I’m talking about, but the school should have let him wear the shirt. Just because I find something annoying (even sickening) doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal. I’m an ACLU Liberal, not a PC Liberal.

I agree with McGibson, but I hesitate to suggest that complaints about racism and sexism are always “self pity,” especially not historically. Which is not to say there are not specific examples of people who brood too much about their minority status and how much it hurts them and project negativity and hostility that causes them far more problems than their color or gender or orientation. I’ve known individuals like this (and far more African Americans, gays, lesbians, etc., who recognize big-picture discrimination, but are happy and well-adjusted and successful and positive and fair-minded). But the fact remains that the mostly imagined slights against the straight white men of the world is nothing compared to what every other group has been subjected to.

I think Ben Folds was being ironic. He was making fun of white male self-pity.

11

I guess I should clarify my post. I think the kid had a right to wear the the shirt. I just think he was a nimrod for wanting to.

12

[nitpick] To clarify, I don’t currently know anyone in the mainstream U.S. who is enslaved/oppressed. Additionally, I don’t recall enslaving or oppressing anyone. [/nitpick]

Personally, I find self-pity based on any sexual orientation, ethnicity, or gender sickening. What about you?

13

The self-pity may not be based on the sexual orientation, ethinicity, or gender, but the way one is treated because of same. It might not be self-pity, either. It might be outrage. It’s important to distinguish.

Don’t know anyone who’s oppressed, eh? How about the kid in Wyoming who was beat to death by homophobic troglodytes? Or the black fella dragged behind the car in Texas by white yahoos? Sure, these are isolated incidents, but I think it’s ignorant to presume there is no discrimination or oppression, and that minority groups only make noise because of self-pity, and such incidents sugget the hostility minorities may face. As for women, well… perhaps you need to visit an abuse crisis center and see if women are not mistreated by men.

To suggest otherwise, frankly, is akin to what I’m talking about. You can’t equate the outrage of the oppressed with the whining of the oppressor, who may enjoy less power than he once had, and who cheapens and dismisses the nature of the oppression.

As to not participating in oppression, well, good for you. I presume that means you are pro-choice and support affirmative action and that when you were a lad, you never called a kid “fag,” that in you Fraternity days you schooled your “brothers” on how to treat young women with dignity, and that you have an exemplary relationship with your wife, women friends, and colleagues.

14

**

I think the idea behind the courts decision in the armband case was that the back armbands weren’t disruptive. Since they really weren’t agitating anything the school didn’t have any right to ban them. Though I admit I might be getting my facts wrong. If a straight pride t-shirt didn’t violate any dress codes or prove to be a disruptive influence then why would the school ban it?

**

I certainly hope I didn’t give the impression that legitimate complaints counted as self pity.

Marc

15

Last I checked, wife beating and lynching were, umm… illegal.

I thought your phrase “centuries of oppression” was indicative of that oppression that was either approved of, legal, and/or had a blind eye turned to it… such as lynching and wife beating.

That poor man was dragged to death in Wyoming because of his sexual orientation. But I believe that that murder is no more deplorable than any other. A life is a life - motive does not change that, sorry.

Didn’t realize that one had to be pro-choice in order to be oppression free. There are some who would argue that those who excercise their right to choose are oppressing another more vulnerable group. I’ll get right on that. :rolleyes:

Didn’t realize you had to be pro-affirmative action either. I had been led to believe that I cannot be held accountable for the sins of others, and can only be punished for the things I do. I’ll take care of that one too. :o

I’ve never called anyone a fag or date-raped sorority girls. I’m so glad that you inferred that I had.

16

I inferred nothing of the kind. If I did anything, I implied it. But I didn’t do that either. I said nothing about the value of one life being more than another. I said white men acting persecuted is disgusting. You are welcome to continue providing such a great illustration of that point – writing ripostes to points I never made.

17

If you’re allowed to wear a gay pride tshirt, and not a straight pride tshirt. That’s discrimination. Now we can say that gays tend to be oppressed, and straights don’t, but that doesn’t get around the issue of there’s discrimination going on in this instance.

The thing that pisses me off is that if your a SWM the assumption is you got nothing to complain about and no right to do so, so if there is an instance where you are being discriminated against, you’re supposed to keep your mouth shut.

The other thing that pisses me off is when people become wrapped up in their racial, sexual, religious, or gender identity an that pretty much defines them to the point where that becomes the sum total of their being.

For example, there’s a women’s rescue group around here, and back when I lived on the farm my neighbor had a lot of problems with his wife. She was disapearing for days and doing drugs, neglecting the children.

My neighbor decided to get a divorce and when told her that he wanted one. The next day she took the kids and went to this women’s center and claimed that he had been beating her.

Based on this lie, they hid her and the kids away from him, and she then filed charges against him. They didn’t ask him, or investigate or do anything except take his kids away. He didn’t see them for six months, and then only under supervision. It took two years, and he had to spend his life savings to clear the issue and get his kids back. In the meantime he had been arrested both at his home, and his place of residence based on fraudulent charges she had made up against him.

They had nothing other than this women’s (an admitted heroin addict) say so to do what they did. Despite the fact that he was gainfully employed, a churchgoer, had never before beene arrested, and had over two dozen people testifying on his behalf (including some of her friends,) the assumption was that you believe the woman in these matters.

Her most salacious and falsifiable lies were accepted at face value, and he was given the basically impossible task of having to prove his innocence.

Similarly, in a conflict, physical legal or otherwise between a minority and a SWM, the minority can always play the race card if it doesn’t go satisfactorily and all of a sudden a normal conflict between two people becomes a case of discrimination or a hate crime.

It fits well into what people seem to want to believe.

Does discrimination happen? Sure. Do SWM seem to have a disproportionate amount of power? Sure. Nevertheless if the assumption is made that SWMs can’t be discriminated against and don’t have the right to complain about it when they are, then that in itself breeds a discriminatory environment.

I mean look what Skutir says:

Bullshit. It can happen, and it does happen largely because of the attitude that SWM’s have it coming.

If they’re persecuted, they’re persecuted, just like anybody else.

Could you get away with the statement: “Black men acting persecuted is disgusting?”

18

The operating phrase is “acting persecuted”. I presume the OP is saying that because of the loud voices minorities have begun to use in mainstream consciousness and media, there is an unintented reaction from some SWMs (say) who desire the same attention but for trivial reasons. Sort of a subconscious reaction to what they might perceive as an eroding loss of power. Of course, the bottomline is that discrimination is discrimination, no matter who the recipient is. I doubt if anyone will argue that point.
The issue to debate (if at all there is one) is the validation of such a phenomenon amongst a section of the population, and the possible ramifications. I doubt if this mentality exists in more than a few and even so, I tend to think of it as generally harmless.

19

How do YOU know she was lying?

At his home AND at his residence? Next thing you know they’ll be going to his house.

How does any of this prove he wasn’t a wife beater? Most wife beaters have jobs. Plenty of them go to church. It is entirely possible for a woman to have a drug problem and still be abused. One does not cancel out the other.

I’m sorry Scylla, but your friend’s story sounds like a one-side, self-serving load of crap. My wife is a social worker. She did her masters thesis on domestic violence and has had more than a little field experience with it as well. She knows the shelters, she knows the procedures. Children are not taken away and “hidden for six months” with no investigation. Chances are that if the kids were hidden from the father, then the kids corroborated mom’ side of the story or there was some other physical evidence. DV cases are difficult to prosecute. If a case goes to trial, believe me there is evidence.

It is typical, even predictable for an abuser to demonize the victim. “She’s crazy, she’s on drugs, she neglects the kids” are part of the standard repertoire. They tend to do a very good job of putting on a face in public. They often seem like nice, charming guys. It is extremely common for even their closest friends to be shocked at discovering the truth.

It is also extremely common for these guys to accuse women’s shelters, social workers, police and prosecuters of targeting them unfairly, of “not even investigating,” of 'believing everything she says," and so on.

I can assure you that women’s centers do not have it in for men. My wife does not hate men. She married one. Even if they did, it would be extremely unlikely and impractical for them to arbitrarily go after some poor innocent shmo with no evidence and no investigation just because they don’t like men. There are plenty of real abusers to go after, they do not need to waste their time with bogus cases.

I suspect that your friend has not told you everything there is to tell Scylla, and you can’t really know for yourself what the truth was here. My guess is that it’s somewhere in the middle. From what I know of DV procedures, it is exeedingly unlikely that the case was pursued precisely as described in your post.

20

Thanks Diogenes for an analysis of a situation about which you are wholly ignorant.

He was arrested at his work, and his home. My typo.

I know she was lying, because I knew them both for nine years. Neither of the arrests led to a trial, they just led to restraining orders and loss of custody for two years.

I also know she was lying because after the first few false accusations, he was intelligent enough to prove that she was lying.

I was his direct next door neighbor, and one time she showed up at his house about a year into this thing, to try to get some money and belongings. He called me before he answered the door, and said that he was afraid to be alone with her. I told him to call 911 and said that I’d watch what happened from my adjoining field. I saw her scream at him, and strike at him in an attempt to get into the house.

He did nothing to her and the police came and took her away. Two days later she filed charges against him for hitting her.

I saw it with my own eyes.

One of the things that ultimately helped him win his custody case was that he got into the habit, based on his lawyer, of filming the custody exchanges and always having a witness. She made the mistake of accusing him of assault on one of these occasions.

The kids were too young to testify, and they suffered the time with their mother. She was an addict and she neglected them. When he would visit them, or get them for an afternoon they would be dirty and thin.

She was lying from the start to the finish, it just took the system two years to see the obvious. He now has full custody of the children, and she’s not even in the state anymore.

These people were my immediate neighbors for nine years. I knew them both socially and was involved in the case.

The fact that you would sit there and tell me that you know more about what happened then I do because your wife is a social worker is idiotic.