Mike Murray essay -- Liberal, White, Female (and Foolish)

25 June 2009

Liberal, White, Female (and Foolish)

-- by Mike Murray

Perhaps you’re familiar with these famous words, attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

White women (specifically, liberal white women) would do well to heed Pastor Niemöller’s warning. You’re doing okay now. More than okay. Things are really going your way. As Christina Hoff Sommers points out in a piece in The Weekly Standard (“No Country for Burly Men”), American women are today flying high.

Sommers does not distinguish between white women and women of other races. The author of The War on Boys focuses exclusively on the gender preference that all females currently enjoy. The recently enacted federal stimulus package (“Porkulus,” to some; “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” to others) for example, was successfully steered away from “shovel ready” construction projects – ones that presumably favored men – to those likely to benefit women.

Never mind that women have suffered far less job loss than have men during the recent economic downturn, that America’s infrastructure (the original target of shovel-ready funding) is in desperate need of repair, or that a much greater “stimulus” effect would have been achieved by an influx of capital to the heavy-industry sectors of our economy than to the service ones dominated by women.

No, all that mattered is that women’s groups banded together and flexed their pecs. They quickly coalesced into a powerful lobbying force, one that the President dared not defy. (Obama might be a messiah to some. But even The One knows sacred cows when he sees them.) So, just as he did in Saudi Arabia, Barack bowed.

And, though few are willing to say it out loud (fearing the sharp sword of political correctness), most of the 800-pound gorillas among women’s groups are lily white. Always have been.

They have for decades been making a concerted effort to elevate themselves – largely at the expense of their white brethren. Consider the intense effort to scrub gender-specific language from the lexicon. One of the most absurd involved the first Moon landing. They succeeded (briefly) in altering public references to Neil Armstrong’s famous utterance: “one small step for mankind.” It was laughably sanitized to read: “one small step for humankind.”

To hell with history. There were women – liberal white women, damnit! – who were offended.

When it comes to assessing cultural blame, however, white women haven’t been nearly so concerned with inclusive terminology. While referring to the many (supposed) evils visited upon Planet Earth by people of European heritage, for example, they’ve deemed it perfectly acceptable to make derogatory references to the despicable “white man.” Similarly, it is acceptable to speak of “greedy, rich men” – whose race is implied.

Which brings me to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Liberal white women celebrate the selection. They are not at all troubled by that infamous quote of hers: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white man...”

What’s all the fuss about? they wonder. After all, Sotomayor was only bashing white men (conservative white men, one presumes) – for whom they, themselves, have contempt.

It’s not that simple. While Sotomayor on numerous occasions has employed the “white man” construction, it is not her original one. Back during the mid-1990s, she left-out the racial component in her remarks, saying only: “I would hope that a wise woman would...reach a better conclusion than a man...”

The difference is subtle, but significant. At some point, Sotomayor decided it was not enough to elevate herself solely on the basis of gender. And so she amended her assertion (regarding the attributes that combine to form a truly superior justice) to include culture and race. In her evolved opinion, a person need be both female and non-white – specifically, “Latina” – to reach the pinnacle of judicial qualification.

Though few white women noticed, Sotomayor had relegated them (via indirection) to the rear of the “wisdom” bus – just barely ahead of white men. Because her language was cleverly subtle (she seemed only to be insulting white men) her Caucasian “sisters” paid little attention to her attempt to further rearrange the pecking order.

And that’s the larger point. White women are currently in the catbird seat. Any coalition of liberals – in order to be successful – requires your inclusion. But that won’t always be the case. When the day comes that your numbers are not sufficient to matter – or when political maneuvering leads to the partnering of other bedfellows – you will become dispensable.

When that day arrives, don’t expect those you have abandoned (white men and conservative women) to come to your rescue.

< Back to Berea Bits See Also: Bigotry is Bigotry