White Man’s Angry Willful Ignorance
By: Martie Sirois
Tags: Culture, Feminism, Racism, White Privilege, Equality

Last April, a piece I wrote attempting to break down what’s meant by the term ‘white privilege’ (and how it’s not a pejorative) ended up being shared a lot, and hotly contested by white men in particular. Which is fine — I’m all for dialogue and debate, but, when comments are clearly someone’s dissolute ire on display, or lacking anything resembling a fair point, it becomes harder to know how to deal with the material (or whether to deal with it at all).

When it comes to freedom of speech, I’ve tried to practice what I preach. With outlets like Medium, that translates to the fact that I allow dissenting viewpoints (even when they’re hateful trolling attempts) to remain displayed in the comments below my pieces. I’ve always felt it would be hypocritical of me to delete, block, or otherwise “hide” dissenting voices (even when hateful).

But now, I’m re-thinking that strategy. Especially in today’s toxic social climate where civilized discourse no longer exists, just as it flows down from the very top of our government. I’m re-thinking it because ultimately, I’m realizing that I don’t have to give hatred a seat at the table. ‘Tolerance of intolerance’ isn’t a thing in a well-functioning (or at least well-intentioned) democracy.

Sifting through the complex maze that is Medium’s system for stacking comments (and responses to comments), I’m sure I’ve managed to miss a few. But one thing I don’t seem to miss out on is the volume of angry white men; there never fails to be an abundance of spiteful comments coming from them, especially in response to what they perceive as ‘polarizing’ topics.

For example, on the white privilege piece, I received a variety of comments. Some friendly, some critical, some fair or valid points. More frequently, though, I was ‘whitemansplained’ to. What I mean by that can best be described by the actual examples of it. (Just for good measure, I want to acknowledge that I’m not special in this regard; whitemansplaining happens to all kinds of writers… who are women.)

In response to my piece on white privilege, white men told me to:

*(Note the three exclamation points used, to really drive home the gentleman’s ire. Y’know, in case I didn’t pick up on it throughout the other four paragraphs he wrote.)

*Snark is intentional here. I mean, hey… let’s level the playing field!!!

Another white man responding to this piece told me:

I’m not really sure what his intention was in mentioning non-profits or inexpensive junior colleges, (or really, any of the things he mentioned) but whatever. He ended with this gentle directive:

Always keepin’ it classy, aren’t ya, gentlemen?!

By Chlorineer — Own work, CC0

Another, slightly angrier white man relayed his thoughts on the topic:

(incorrect use of ellipses his, not mine).

He came back later that day to leave a totally separate comment outlining why I was wrong about Colin Kaepernick’s intentions with the whole #TakeAKnee movement, by further clarifying:

It’s worth noting: this same man would later return to the comments section of this piece to leave more nuggets of wisdom, on at least three more occasions, months apart. I’m not even sure that I’ve seen them all, as I just found another one today that was written some time ago.

But moving on.

Another man (apparently the poster boy for that place where logical fallacies intersect with racism 101) stated this; I kid you not:

Another guy (I presume, based off name only since there was no profile picture at all — but I could be totally wrong) had this sage insight:

And again, another dude — whose race I can’t discern from the profile pic, but I’d venture to say he’s probably white — didn’t even bother reading what I wrote at all. I know because his arguments below were exactly the arguments I broke down in the piece:

After that, though, he left a link to something he’d written, so I’m willing to bet that was the primary point of his leaving a comment in the first place.

One more among the faceless guys chimed in (a prophet perhaps?) writing this:

Mr. Prophet then veered off into a veritable sea of run-on sentences composed of bombast, but he was at least right about one thing: that I “earn a living” from writing. But, it’s not from “picking the low hanging fruit of criticism toward European peoples” as he proclaimed. It’s just social (and sometimes political) commentary, period.

Image by hamiltonjch from Pixabay

But hey, at least I work hard for my money! Unlike the “Schrödinger’s immigrant” example he mentioned, where a bona fide caravan of men exist out there, who are “totally capable of working” but instead choose to “bilk the system” while they simultaneously “steal all our jobs.”

A few comments from other white men were along the lines of psychological projection, where they decided to cast *me as the racist in this scenario, for labeling white privilege to begin with, i.e.,

“the idea of white privilege is inherently racist,”

and

“the ‘white privilege’ meme is nothing but a pretext for justifying racism against white people. Shame on you for enabling and perpetuating it.”

*Note: I don’t deny for a second that we all have biases towards groups of people ‘different’ from us. But this is not the same premise on which systemic racism in America was built.

One self-identified white man told me, “Never saw or heard a whiff of racism except in the news. Still don’t.” And in yet another, a white man implied that perhaps I was the one who was ignorant of racism, and that I should respect when people “disagree” with me or “have different ideology” about what is or is not racist.

And still, some of them have tried to throw the exact same label back on me, by saying that I’m the one who’s “willfully ignorant” of whatever topic I’m writing about. (Seriously, guys? “I’m rubber, you’re glue…” is that really how your logic works?)

White men have also accused me of “virtue-signalling,” “creating problems where they don’t exist,” being “divisive,” and plenty of other similar adjectives. “Divisive” is a familiar accusation for women who speak truth to power. The “divisive” label is lobbed at us from all genders alike, though, not just men.

Calling us ‘divisive’ is simply an attempt to shut down what’s uncomfortable. Or, to “keep the peace” (although it seems to only be the peace of my fellow white people that matters under these circumstances).

Any female writer or speaker who dares challenge a whitewashed, convenient notion of American history knows, there’s a specific kind of white male rage that’s reserved.

Still don’t see it? Look at the current occupant of the White House. Notice Donald Trump’s white male rage in action, whenever he’s challenged by literally anyone. If you haven’t been living under a rock for the last 1,115 days, you know the drill; it has become a predictable pattern since the day Trump took office:

1- Deny

2- Stop denying, but say “there’s nothing wrong with…” [thing he’s guilty of]

3- Attempt to discredit opponent or accuser

4- Fight back with logical fallacies (circular reasoning, ad hominem attacks)

*5- When all else fails, resort to childish insults, inflammatory speech and inane rhetoric, outright mocking, and other undignified, puerile behaviors.

*Sometimes, Trump goes straight to #5, bypassing #’s 1–4 altogether.

This is the trumpian formula for “figthing back.” But, it has also become the fabric of right-wing populism currently occupying the space that was once filled with former, more respectable Republicans. Remember them — the party of family values?

This formula is nothing new. It’s forever been the way of fighting back for white men in America who are subconsciously frightened to the core of losing their status and power. And often, these white men are also suffering some kind of deep-seated complex — one they’ve failed to even acknowledge.

It’s kind of hard to blame them, though, because we all grew up in the same misogynistic culture that tells young boys “crying’s for sissies,” “dolls are for girls,” and to “man up” rather than show any emotion at all.

Whatever their reason, it’s the vile hatred of these men specifically that we see time and again in comments sections. It could be any topic, really. But especially, any online material that makes them feel uncomfortable. They always show up arguing, seemingly, just for the fun of it.

The level of discourse in America was lowered the moment Trump entered the political arena, and has been in steady decline every day since. I don’t know that we’ll ever fully recover.