I started to include the contents of this post in the last one, “Why More Falsely Accused Don’t Speak Out.” Then I thought the topic of angry white men might be due some room of its own.
The previous post outlined reasons why men and women who’ve been victimized by false accusations and procedural abuse are subdued from voicing their outrage publicly. This post criticizes how victims who have expressed their pain and fury have been perceived and treated.
What complaints have emerged in the past couple of decades have been derogated as the rants of “angry white men” (Google this phrase, and you’ll see what I mean; it’s even the title of a 2014 book). Complaints have been dismissed, that is, as nothing worthier of consideration than the cranky kvetches of the disenfranchised “patriarchy,” yesterday’s top dogs said to resent their loss of dominion.
What members of angry white men’s and fathers’ groups are said to object to really is not their being unjustly vilified, kicked to the curb, impoverished, and stripped of roles in their children’s lives (pfft) but their loss of power and status.
It’s an attractively tidy idea and syncs up with feminist dogma nicely, but it’s critically shallow, besides ethically and empathically vacuous.
One thing the conclusion ignores is culture. Consider the Jews you may know, or the Koreans or the Pakistanis. Do you reckon restraining orders, for example, or domestic abuse allegations are as commonly brought against Jews or East Asians as they are against whites? Would the action be as countenanced in these ethnic communities, whose members may be more accountable to the judgment of other members and whose community conscience may forbid the public airing of familial discord?
Now it could be true that entitled white men, as members of the patriarchy or former patriarchy, are meaner and feel freer to be abusive than Jews and East Asians. Certainly that’s arguable, but it’s not necessarily arguable on the basis of reports of abuse, because it could also be true that entitled white women, as the usurpers of patriarchy (and as white women), feel freer to exploit feminine advantage and cry wolf than Jews and East Asians do.
Consider that feminism—the origin of the characterization angry white men—is criticized even within its ranks as ethnocentric, i.e., Whitey McWhite. If white women are those who are preponderantly pro-litigation, thanks to white feminist indoctrination into the culture of victimhood and “empowerment,” then who would you expect to be a majority of the targets of procedural abuse?
Those who posit that complainants of courthouse dirty dealings are predominately angry white men aren’t necessarily wrong, but they may be right for reasons they haven’t considered.
Another one of these reasons is entitlement.
Has it occurred to them, I wonder, that only white people may feel entitled to complain publicly? Do they really imagine that certain minorities aren’t that much more vulnerable to legal abuse, or that they’re not invisible and mute because of their self-perceived or actual lack of entitlement? People who’ve traditionally been the system’s goats aren’t people eager to stick their necks out. They never had faith in social justice.
If you allow that a majority of entitled victims of procedural abuses are white men, then it stands to reason that a majority of complainants of procedural abuses will be white men.
It further stands to reason that these white men, who had been conditioned to the expectation of justice, should feel disappointed…and angry.
Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
*The book Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era (2014) is by sociologist Michael Kimmel. Dr. Kimmel is a New York Jew with a Ph.D. from Berkeley. His book was reviewed in The New York Times by Hanna Rosin, a Stanford grad, a senior editor at The Atlantic, and the author of The End of Men and the Rise of Women. Ms. Rosin is also 
a New York Jew. While neither one’s conclusions can be dismissed offhand, their cultural and class remove from the subjects of Dr. Kimmel’s book makes their identification with those subjects suspect, and Ms. Rosin’s objectivity and access are plainly dubious. From Ms. Rosin’s review: “Kimmel’s balance of critical distance and empathy works best in his chapter on the fathers’ rights movement, a subset of the men’s rights movement. Members of this group are generally men coming out of bitter divorce proceedings who believe the courts cheated them out of the chance to be close to their children.” Contrast this confidently categorical interpretation of men’s and fathers’ complaints to this firsthand account by a father who was ruined by “bitter divorce proceedings”: “The ‘Nightmare’ Neil Shelton Has Lived for Three Years and Is Still Living: A Father’s Story of Restraining Order Abuse.” A comment on Amazon.com credits Ms. Rosin with being sensitive to “real women’s experience.” The story highlighted in the previous sentence chronicles a real (angry white) man’s—whose telephone number is provided in a comment beneath the post.
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
Joel Bond Gunch
May 20, 2015
I have heard this before from Dr. Phil, and all the psychologists and psychiatrists will tell you (at least from the literature that I have read) that if you are falsely accused, you still feel guilty even if you have done nothing wrong. I have had to struggle with it myself in my own cases and wrestle with it with great difficulty. And some pain and suffering. Add to that, as Dr. Phil pointed out, that if you were raised in one of the Christian faiths which emphasized guilt and original sin and that you were born in sin because of the sins of Adam and the crucifixion of Jesus — the Southern Baptist religion I was catechized in from the time of my first memories — you have been conditioned to live with guilt and shame. The new testament is full of this BS.
Once I learned that all that guilt and sin was a rather despicable scheme of mind-control and respect for authority (no matter how corrupt that authority might be), then I began to resist it. So as a teenager I began asking questions and questioning authority. But the burden from a childhood inculcation of guilt and sin, and respect fro corrupt authority, never goes away. It is always there. There are some aspects of the legal wars that have been waged in my cases which I have been reluctant to publish. And recently I have been slack at blogging them, but I know that sooner or later they must be acknowledged and aired — dirty as they are.
The conclusion I have is that since time immemorial these cruel devices of brainwashing and control and yes, even tyranny, have been used to yoke people into submission. And if you are not rich and powerful, you will get yoked sooner or later.
And as the ancient philosopher Seneca said, “Religion is viewed by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Just substitute “law” for “religion” and that tends to work too. So if you think that the 14th amendment’s equality clause applies to all of us, don’t. It doesn’t.
Like the people of Ferguson, MO which was financed by sticking people with heavy fines and costs for piddling offenses, or none at all, you just came up against money and power, Mr. Moderator, and as usual they won.
LikeLike
Joel Bond Gunch
May 20, 2015
Add this to my comment: Let’s not forget that a black female lesbian professor in black studies at Boston University recently tweeted that white men should be extirpated from the face of the earth. That’s exactly what Saida Grundy meant when she tweeted the following:
“[W]hite masculinity is THE problem for america’s (sic) colleges,” white men are a “problem population…” Then she says she studiously avoids shopping at white-owned businesses.
You can read more about this piece of work, Saida Grundy, here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/18/boston-university-prof-in-racist-tweet-controversy-accused-ridiculing-white/
This is not just a subhuman. She is a monster who should never have been hired to teach college classes to anyone, black or white.
LikeLike
Moderator
May 21, 2015
How disappointing. I like lesbians.
I wonder what Mrs. Grundy would say.
You know what’s ironic is that Ms. Grundy’s nastier remarks are pretty much the same remarks white feminists make when people complain of false accusations and psychic trauma. They do the equivalent in writing of rubbing their eyes and pantomiming “boo-hooo.”
Here’s the Southern Poverty Law Center:
Here’s Manboobz.com:
LikeLike
Moderator
May 21, 2015
To David Futrelle: Dave, have you ever thought that some of what you lampoon is itself intended as sarcasm?
And are men who are attracted to feminism and cats a new species?
LikeLike
Moderator
May 21, 2015
Also to David Futrelle: If you disagree with stoning women, because it involves a mob pointing fingers and urging a ritual justice that mocks morality and the rule of law, then you can’t also advocate for the feminist m.o. or agenda.
LikeLike
Moderator
May 19, 2015
LikeLike
Moderator
May 19, 2015
Kevin Bruce, the student accosted in the video by the “angry white woman”/academic adviser, is a black man.
Eli Goodstein, a Jewish student at a different university (SoCal), reports in USA Today that “Kennesaw State students blame poor advising services, not racism in viral video.” The “students” Mr. Goodstein interviewed were two.
LikeLike