Caitlin Flanagan Is “Thoughtful”?

By way of Kathy G, I see that Caitlin Flannagan won an award for being “thoughtful and bracingly honest, filled with humor and empathy, and free of cliches and political correctness.” This gives me an excuse to rescue from the Google cache an old post, “Hell, I’ll Pile on Flanagan Too”, illustrating some of Flannagan’s thoughtfulness:

I’ll leave to these fine people to criticize Caitlin Flanagan’s efforts to bemoan her sorry lot as a faux stay-at-home mom. What honked me off in the Time article was this:

The Democrats made a huge tactical error a few decades ago. In the middle of doing the great work of the ’60s-civil rights, women’s liberation, gay inclusion-we decided to stigmatize the white male. The union dues-paying, churchgoing, beer-drinking family man got nothing but ridicule and venom from us. So he dumped us. And he took the wife and kids with him.

Many of those saintly “union dues-paying, churchgoing, beer-drinking family” men were pissed because their wages were falling, and their economic security vanishing. Republicans, sensing an opportunity, engaged in race-baiting. The loss of white men had nothing to do with any Democratic disrespect, and all to do with coded appeals to fear, prejudice, and hate (got pathos?). When Reagan ‘Democrats’ talked about the Democratic Party “leaving them”, let’s remember who said that–Reagan. The man who:

In 1980 Ronald Reagan, as a candidate, delivered a speech at the annual county fair to over thirty thousand people who came out on a Sunday afternoon to see and hear the newly nominated Republican candidate for President. On that August day Reagan excited the crowd when he announced “I believe in states’ rights”. “I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.” He went on to promise to “restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them.” This was regarded as quite controversial given Philadelphia’s history of segregation, discrimination, and violence which was memorialized in Mississippi Burning, and marked a continuation of the successful Republican “Southern strategy”.

“Controversial” is one word to describe the speech. Anyone who was sentient during the 80s, if he or she is honest, remembers all the lies about welfare queens-black welfare queens. In the late 70s and early 80s, there was a lot of misplaced anger at African-Americans. Don’t forget that there is a reason Republicans candidates made pilgrimage to segregationist Bob Jones University, and it had nothing to do with the dating policy.
That reason is racial prejudice (and sometimes, flat-out hatred).
The Democratic Party did leave these ‘good’ men: on the ashheap of history. Anytime they want to stop being bigoted or prejudicial towards minorities, and start thinking about how to make the country better for all Americans, we’ll welcome them back with open arms.

This entry was posted in Fucking Morons, News Media, Racism. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Caitlin Flanagan Is “Thoughtful”?

  1. Lenora says:

    I read her little essay three times and it doesn’t make a lick of sense. I think she means that she doesn’t want to be a democrat because democrats don’t have enough traditional family imagery. What do republicans actually offer, according to her? Their families look like hers.
    That is so stupid.
    I really am a stay-at-home mom. We have two special needs kids. We rent in a community that we can’t afford to buy in so that our kids can get good educations. My husband works multiple jobs. What the hell do I care if the other families in my political party look like mine? I have bigger fish to fry. Caitlin’s reasoning is aimed at people without real problems.

  2. Julie Stahlhut says:

    I’m old enough to remember the late 60s. Where was all this alleged Democratic venom against white males? Hell, most Democratic politicians at that time — like most Republicans — were white males. When did Lyndon Johnson or Hubert Humphrey or Robert Kennedy ever heap abuse on working men of any color, or on their families? When did George McGovern or Abraham Ribicoff ever insult their constituents’ jobs, religions, sexes, or ethnicities? When did Democratic Party voters like my white, working-class, union-friendly Catholic parents ever support hatred or contempt towards other people like themselves?
    I don’t know what kind of bizarre mythology of the sixties it is that Flannagan is trying to sell, but it doesn’t hold up. Unfortunately, she’s not the only one trying to pull off this big lie. It’s analogous to the creationist-fundamentalist whine: “If you don’t let us dilute your public-school science lessons with inappropriate religious content, it means you hate Christians.” Flannagan’s calumny — “Democrats were leaders in the movements to secure the rights of women and non-whites, so they must have hated white males” — is exactly the same kind of crap.

  3. Interrobang says:

    And don’t forget that the Republicans were awful quick to pounce on the angle that giving equality to men of colour and also to women was taking something away from those white men, which is true — it was taking their white and/or male privilege away, except they always framed it as “Those People having rights takes your rights away,” which got them a lot of support from the white, male “never learnt to share” voting bloc.
    Of course, Caitlin Flanagan is totally cool with male privilege; it gives her such a handy dodge to avoid being labelled one of those bitchy, societally non-approved ambitious women who are ambitious in ways that don’t involve marrying men for money and status, despite actually being one of those independently-ambitious women on the side. As far as she’s concerned, being a tool of the patriarchy has a great payoff, and more people should do it.
    Since I’m not into the idea of marrying for money and status or being a tool of the patriarchy, I say fuck that noise. Since I’m also not into any other women marrying for money and status or being tools of the patriarchy, I’ll also take every opportunity I can to point out her hypocrisy in reaping benefits from feminism while turning around and claiming feminism is both unnecessary and bullshit.

  4. sex shop says:

    thanks for all

  5. thanks for all

Comments are closed.