Hal Crowther argues that Mitt Romney's defeat signals the eventual death of white male patriarchy in the US, with a slain vampire metaphor.
After Mitt Romney collected 75% of the white male vote and lost, I fancied that I could hear a strangled snarl and imagine that the bloodthirsty, near immortal thing with the stake in its chest was the white patriarchy — the high-testosterone, low-melanin monopoly that has misguided and misruled this country, and this violent Western civilization, throughout recorded history and long before.
But the point — that sharp, whittled point of the vampire-slayer’s stake — is that three out of four white men rejected the president and it didn’t matter. He didn’t need them.
All this is causing acute chest pain for the patriarchy,...
We can predict fairly confidently that each generation of aging white men will be a little less rigid and arrogant than its predecessor.
Mean old men, the heart, soul and checkbook of 21st-century Republicanism, are not a renewable resource.
The white patriarchy is doomed, make no mistake about that. A few more solid whacks and that pointed stake is going to hit a coronary artery.
That’s why the South, ruled by a dynasty of Big Daddies since colonial times, hates the president so intensely,...
In the foreseeable future, the eclipse of the pale male will mean fewer wars, fewer guns and massacres, less emphasis on violent sports and entertainment, a safer and saner America. [emphasis mine]
I"m all fo r equality, but there is zero evidence for this line" " the eclipse of the pale male will mean fewer wars, fewer guns and massacres, less emphasis on violent sports and entertainment, a safer and saner America"
Wars have been engaged nonstop in all continents and races. It's complete bullshit to claim that having nonwhite people in charge will change that. The Americas were war ridden before one white man set foot here. Africa was war ridden. Asia was war ridden. Centuries if war in China, Mongolia, Manchuria, India. Ancient Egypt. Arabia.
I agree there is a long overdue trend to greater equality in the US. But to claim that will lead to peace? I can say with 100% confidence that will not be the case.
While there's no correlation with race, there is one with gender. The more power women have in a country, the less likely it is to go to war. While I have no evidence for preferences for violent games, sports, and entertainment I suspect women prefer less violent ones.
Men by far commit more murders and assaults than women.
I'd like to think that a (not matriarchal but) gender-equal world would be less warlike. Unfortunately there hasn't been much opportunity to test that so far....
I can say for certain that didn't happen in my former workplace. Emphasis on "former".
It's idealistic, and stereotypes both women and men, and ethnicity. We are all far more complicated than that. Most humans are, by their nature, aggressive. Regardless of gender or ethnicity, humans divide others as "with me or against me". And regardless of gender or ethnicity, humans can be brutal with "them".
I think the book "Animal Farm" remains a classic in demonstrating the idea that "they" are "us" and replacing "us" with "them" does not bring about peace, equality, or fairness.
All of that said, history teaches that complex societies at crossroads of multiple cultures, can be vibrant, advance culture, learning, and development. Thinking, Rome, Egypt, Timbuktu, Manchuria, Aztec and Inca, Greece, England, Spain..... And insular societies that demand rigidity can be a sign of stagnation and decline, or implosion. Also seen in Imperial China, modern N. Korea, Dark Ages Europe.....
I think, humanistic benefits of diverse and fair society make it worth pursuing. I think the decline of monoculture will benefit the US. But I don't have illusions that women are guaranteed nicer than men, and that skin color or ethnicity defines fairness. We are all more complex than that.