The Scapegoat
The Ambient Hostility Toward (Straight) White Men
Our culture often tolerates and even encourages hostility and disdain toward straight white men (or men, or white people, or straight people). This is a gleeful and socially celebrated habit in many spaces and it’s a bad thing, more for the haters than for the SWM.
Sanctioned Bigotry
We have authored a self-righteous narrative: a society constituted against judgment, intolerance, persecution, and bigotry. While it is true that our society is more tolerant of many flavors of human behavior (too tolerant, perhaps, in certain cases) there is still one species of bigotry and group-based hostility and resentment which is not just tolerated, but in many instances actively encouraged: bigotry against straight white men (SWM-or just against straight folks, or against white people, or against men, as the case may be).
Before I continue, there’s an idiotic and far too rarely contested claim on the left, that “black people cannot be racist against white people.” The same reasoning applies (just a bit less so) for women and non-straight people, etc. If you don’t have any ‘power’ (of course all of these groups actually do have a great deal of power) you can’t transgress or offend-not really. This is an absurd claim, which essentially tries to redefine what ‘racism’ (sexism, etc.) is. Their meaning would exclude, for example, a hypothetical black man who kills an entire white family, purely out of hatred of white people, plus a million other possible obviously racist acts and thoughts). Their sneaky, attempted redefinition really doesn’t address the issue. If the definition for ‘racism’ changes, then we still need a word for hatred or contempt or violence or disrespect of a person based primarily on their race (‘prejudice’ is often offered, but that only describes a general attitude and so doesn’t suffice). Whatever that kind of thought/word/deed becomes known as, that kind of thought/word/deed would rightly be regarded as a terrible thing. And, of course, black people could be (say/think/do) that thing. Any person can be bigoted against any other on the basis of multiple factors.
Note the definition above-it doesn’t relate to power dynamics or the historical faults or the privileges of the group, at all. That’s because bigotry is always an example of lazy thinking and always a moral error. It is never a good thing to judge another person solely based on their general group membership, even if it is sometimes necessary and/or justified. At best, bigotry is a hasty shortcut in a world of limited information and pattern recognition; at worst it’s a vehicle for systemic disharmony and rage and resentment, which are as bad for their internal effects as they are for the acts they instigate.
This means that, whenever possible, we should try to treat people as individuals and remember nuance and compassion and the complexity of human society. Of course, the left wants this general commandment to be abjured (or quietly ignored). Many anti-Trump partisans violate it every day!
It is simply a fact that our society often cultivates hostility against straight white men (SWM) as a group, and as individuals (based upon group membership). There are two common responses to the mention of this fact: (1) it’s not happening (at least not regularly enough to concern a reasonable person) or (2) there are good reasons for this hostility and it is justified and even useful. Often the two responses are given, in quick succession, by the same person.
I could probably write 10,000 words about the theoretical justification of anti-SWM bigotry (there are a lot of vague gestures toward history and ‘power dynamics’ and ‘liberatory rage’, etc.) but for now I just want to establish that, indeed, such bigotry exists. It exists, and it entails very little social cost or risk. In many places there’s a small and automatic bonus for vocalizing anti-SWM sentiments. In some places it’s now almost perfunctory.
Some of the leftists who claim that this phenomenon does not exist are secretly thrilled and gleeful at its pervasion. It’s a social reality: people know that they’re supposed to denounce the concept of bigotry. But it’s also a social reality that many people harbor a great deal of anger, envy, and inchoate rage toward SWM. References to them (us) are often laden with disgust and hatred. Since SWM aren’t seen as underdogs (a simplistic and often incorrect assumption) this isn’t seen as problematic, but I want to suggest another reason these kinds of words and thoughts are allowed/encouraged: groups are more potent and unified when they have an external enemy to loathe and to fight. Cultivating this kind of bigotry is seen as helpful for activist goals, and for many people that is enough. Plus, it’s emotionally satisfying. Reviling an enemy about whom you feel righteously indignant is a sensation familiar to all people, and one of the most toxic.
Unfortunately, any kind of bigotry risks violence, destroys happiness and relationships, and spiritually stunts the bigots themselves.
SWM
I hardly need to provide examples of what I’m talking about. Go into any convicted progressive space and say something good (or neutral) about SWM. Watch the resistance and annoyance bloom. Now say something bad (and profoundly bigoted). Watch the encouragement erupt! I feel so confident that I can make this statement about virtually any progressive space, anywhere, anytime.
This is a ubiquitous reality.
Notice the PayPal link
Quotas and limitations and rules aren’t necessarily bigotry, but the two things often accompany one another
People know this kind of thing is indecent, but the indecency is outweighed in many educated and elite circles by a kind of theory-laden virtue. This sort of sentiment is lauded, prized, even (especially) by white people and by men themselves. Status games lead people to do strange things.
People who claim that this is not happening usually don’t believe that. What they believe is that there’s not enough of it to be concerned (in which case I encourage you to run the experiment I just suggested)… or that’s it’s actually a good thing.
This is a shockingly popular idea on the left.
The Consequences (For Me AND for You)
Bigotry always feels self-righteous and valid. There are ALWAYS reasons given and those reasons are always insufficient to justify negative sentiments against entire groups of people, disconnected from people’s actual words or actions.
This isn’t primarily a concern for SWM. Sure, it makes some jobs harder to get and some people harder to deal with and narrows relationship and networking opportunities, but we built the railroads (American and Trans-Siberian). We won World War II (and we also lost it). We can take your hostility. It’s actually concerning for the believers themselves, not for the targets. Feeling aggrieved tends to keep your life stunted, and walking around feeling resentful isn’t healthy or easy or productive. There’s a reason that religions often place great emphasis on the virtue of forgiveness. Let’s be honest: if you’re one of these anti-SWM people, you probably have slim reason to even feel so aggrieved. What are the justificatory examples of your 'persecution which demand response, against a hundred million people? An awkward compliment? A lost contest? Some high school bullying?
If Martin Luther King, Jr. could promote forgiveness and reconciliation surely you can. You maintain that you can’t, because of some absurd theory you learned at Yale, or the encouragement of other stunted people on TikTok? Please.
Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
I don’t believe that bigotry is an appropriate or useful reaction to bigotry, but it’s a normal human one. If you want to provoke a group to hate you, hate them. If you want to provoke violence, attack that group. If you want to guarantee hostility and disadvantage in your dealings, treat them badly and meanly when you’re able.
Do you see a pattern here? SWM might have lost a lot of our aggregate social power in recent decades but we’re still doing okay. Ironically, I think our tendency to not blame others for our shortcomings and the necessity for us to take responsibility for our futures (and our failures) are our biggest privileges, as a class. Whatever the case, though, we’re often still successful, competent, formidable. Wouldn’t you rather work with SWM’s… rather than try to turn them into vassals? It’s possible that your experiment won’t go very well. I think (based on my experiences) many SWM are very glad to collaborate. I don’t think we’re looking to dominate other groups at this point. How about you? Would you like to dominate other groups? Be honest.
Incentives & Ideas
There’s clearly a kind of inverted intersectionality here: certain groups and traits are acceptable to revile. SWM are at the nexus of this system. We are the black/indigenous queer, disabled transfemmes of contemporary socially acceptable hostility. I’m sure that Kimberlé (sp) Crenshaw would be gratified to see her theoretical lens applied to a different, but equally valid, social construction.
Of course, there are endless pages of turgid theory written about white supremacy and heteronormativity and patriarchy and blah blah blah. It’s all insanely general, and nearly meaningless when you get down to granular level of actual human behavior. It uses words like ‘subtext’ and ‘rooted in’ and ‘discursive’ to sound scientific, and to hide the fact that it’s half speculation and the other half psychological coping mechanism. It’s certainly never been a useful good to making public policy. Go ahead: give me one example for which I’m wrong.
Forget the theory. Believe whatever you like about society (endlessly complex), history (nuanced and far from morally binary), privilege (as much about family values and attitude as sex and race), or power (never the only ingredient in social interactions and structures). The bottom line is that it is important to treat people well, and that how you treat them is ultimately more important for defining your character than your political opinions or theoretical convictions. There are legions of people who believe the same things you do who are awful people: violent, impulsive, narcissistic, dishonest, cruel. There are hordes of people who disagree with you about basically everything, yet they are still decent and kind and wise individuals. If your belief system is telling you that ideology is of paramount importance, that’s because ideology is all that matters to that belief system. In brief: you’re being used to advance an agenda… no matter how unhappy or fruitless or antagonistic your own life turns out. You’re worth more than that. You’re not just a vehicle for ideological progress. That is, in every sense, a slave mentality. SWM aren’t limiting you. Your beliefs and spiritual convictions are.
As they say often online (and which I say with minimum hostility and condescension, for your own sake and not mine): “please do better.”
Conclusion
I’m not pointing this out because I worry for myself. Sure, I’ve lost great job opportunities (that I know of) due to DEI and adjacent initiatives. Sure, I’ve encountered plenty of this kind of thing (almost exclusively online). But the ‘haters’ don’t scare me. Most of them seem to be shockingly immature and rather sad creatures (many are young women, who haven’t learned their error yet but probably will).
What? Are they going to bring me down with passive aggressive messages, or snide comments? People obsessed with ‘normalization’ and ‘stigma’ and ‘social pressure’ are not, as a rule, very intimating. This issue barely affects me (and other SWM) at all. I long ago resolved to take my future in my hands and do my best, blaming no one and struggling to treat each person with respect and individual consideration. I will continue to do that. I actually think this kind of attitude has given me a powerful advantage in life-much more powerful than my race or my sex (which have time and time again been massive disadvantages in professional and academic selection).
No, the reason I worry about anti-SWM bigotry is because I’m concerned for society. I’m honestly worried about the bigoted people. They’re contributing to a sicker and a more brittle and a worse society, for everyone.
I recommend that they try a little worry or care for their own chosen hated groups. Who knows? It’ll feel strange at first but I bet it ends up being adaptive, and even making them happier, in the long run. As it stands right now there’s an outstanding obstacle to their own success and fulfillment, and it isn’t their race or sex or sexuality or identity status. It’s their bigotry. Compassion for all truly is ‘equal opportunity’. If you desire it, it’s yours. But you must want it. No amount of HR training or equity initiatives can inculcate fairmindedness and general consideration in people who hold hate in their heart. As it stands right now, the angry folks are on the bottom of a hierarchy: a hierarchy of ethical disposition.
They’re down towards the bottom, with all the other bigots.
Thank you for continuing to highlight the malaise that comes with DEI.
I am still working on undoing the 'work' and detangling my thoughts from victimhood mentality. It was so ubiquitous that I didn't see it at the time. Your sober assessments are very grounding for me. Much apprceiated!
“If Martin Luther King, Jr. could promote forgiveness and reconciliation surely you can.”
Martin Luther King was a disgusting rapist who promoted racial quotas and reparations.