Jef Rouner

White Women are the New White Men

White Women are the New White Men
Decrease Font SizeIncrease Font SizeText SizePrint This Page

Laci Green. Courtesy of her channel on YouTube


Let’s get this out of the way first. I am a white man writing a critical article about privilege in a group that is still marginalized but which I do not belong to. I’m doing that to expound on an idea expressed to me by a white female friend who didn’t want to soak up the hate mail and gifted it to me instead. There is no way this will not be problematic in some ways. I accept that, and I welcome criticism in the comments or on my professional Facebook page. So, content warning: mansplaining.


I’m sure I’m not the only one who viewed the number of white women who voted for Donald Trump with a mixture of confusion and dismay. A majority of white women, 53 percent, did so. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not letting white men off the hook in the slightest. We voted for Der Gropenfuhrer to the tune of 63 percent. I consider my group to be the primary demographic responsible for the election outcome, and I find any attempt to wave that blame away as “just something we do” to be disturbing and wrong — no one owns this dumpster fire like white men.


However, the white women vote split was an unexpected boost to Trump’s win. Many of us assumed Trump’s chances to win a female majority in any racial demographic to be negligible after the famous pussy grabbing recordings surfaced. And there were all kinds of think pieces on the secret places online women were congregating  to cheer on Hillary Clinton, hinting at a silent majority that would catapult the former Secretary of State into the Oval Office. That majority never materialized, however, and one of the most prominent of those groups, Pantsuit Nation, turned from safe space into a milquetoast white feminism money grab.  


I have a theory, and it isn’t a pretty one: white women are becoming the new white men. More accurately, they are becoming identical to the type of white man who always talked a good game on equality, but could not be really counted on to perform the necessary labor in the clinch.


You might have heard about the recent ideological turn of prominent YouTuber Laci Green, who achieved her fame for her feminist sex education videos. I’ve linked to her in articles in the past because she was a very good source of accessible information. Now, she has begun flirting with the alt-right, reactionary YouTube community. Increasingly, her online presence has been an attempt to position herself as the middle-ground between what she considers the far left and the alt-right, and in doing so has begun dancing with prominent personalities most notable for being part of large-scale harassment campaigns against feminists. If you want any proof of her shift, consider that Milo Yiannopoulos wants to interview her from his place in his well-deserved exile.


I bring up Green because she is a perfect example of my premise. In this great article by Martin Hughes, he describes the very real threats that Green has received from the swirling chemical toilet that is often Tumblr feminism. After being confronted over the use of the word “tranny” in an earlier video, she apologized and removed it, but was still being harassed by angry fans. The non-acceptance of her apology seems to be a driving catalyst of her turn, according to a recent video. As Martin says, though, apologies are not about you. They are about the people you hurt, even if those people don’t react with forgiveness.


And that’s what I see in too many white women lately. They act too much like the white men who gift their allyship with the strings attached that you never be upset with them if they fuck up. Real progress will involve even the people who share your beliefs sometimes being mean to you about your mistakes. The answer is to change your behavior — not your beliefs — in order to find a more sympathetic group. At least, that’s the answer if your beliefs are sincere and not just pretentions of convenience.


These sort of defections are incredibly harmful, especially to women of other races who require the numbers of the white women demographic to do things like win presidential elections. As Dahleen Glanton of the Chicago Tribune wrote


“Black women thought you were serious about breaking that glass ceiling. But when you were close enough to touch it, you turned around and walked away. Maybe it wasn’t all that important to you after all.”


My theory for this is very simple. As white women make gains in equality with men, their comfort level rises. Not to say that they have achieved equality. Gender equality does not exist anywhere in the world. However, the level of inequality for many is apparently still comfortable enough of an existence to allow them the luxury of taking a chance on a man unqualified to be president, a man who actively works against the interest of women. In fact, many of these women seem comfortable fraternizing with men who make their livelihood trying to drive women they don’t like off of speaking platforms. They choose to prove their female empowerment and independence by not voting for a woman.


In doing so they throw people of color, who overwhelmingly voted for Clinton, under the bus. There’s a reason that Angela Peoples showed up to the post-inaugural women’s march, not with a pink pussy hat and a sign about sisterhood, but with one saying “stop killing black people.” The marches were inspirational, yes, but Peoples serves as a sober reminder that progress towards equality will require an examination of whiteness and its effects. Because you look around the world we have lived in since January, and you shouldn’t count on women of color to save us from ourselves. They don’t have the numbers yet. At least, not in the right places to tip the Electoral College. White people, including women, need to get serious about our obligations to the rest of America.


As I freely admitted in the first paragraph, I’m almost certainly not the person to be making this case, which is why I’ve tried to link to the writings of people of color whenever I could. My only hope is that the cool girls, the girls that can hang, the ones who want to be just one of the boys, and the ones who support the patriarchy either because of racism or because it suits their own ends, will listen to a white man saying things he maybe shouldn’t.


I mean, it worked for the president.

  • Wolfgang Weicheier

    Why do you blame white men for everything, Your jewish messiah Berniestein Sander took a fall for a epileptic, political retread plugged into a bag of piss. Have you ever once while smoking your herbs of failure, do some self reflecting on why you lost, America turned it’s back on your ideas, and the consequence of drifting from workingman’s concerns to a coalition of freeloaders with narrow, and discrete political agendas? The funny part is that the left is excluding the exact group with the muscle and skill to drive a policy. The new right looks forward to years of weak opposition by illiterate, uneducated, little picture tribalists fighting for control of a once powerful political party. You got no bench. Enjoy that.

  • FascistAntifa

    You’re a ‘white man’. Yeah – pull my middle leg and it plays jingle balls. You’re a mangina – otherwise known as a simp. What do you do for an encore? Ask women if you can lick their feet and do their laundry? You’re what women jokingly refer to as a ‘man servant’.

  • LaDiablaBlanca

    Trump won because of Hillary Clinton. #BernieWouldveWon

    • Sterling Ericsson

      Except for, you know, all of Bernie’s tremendous amount of baggage that he hadn’t been attacked on yet (largely because Hillary was too polite to do so, but the GOP would not have been).

      See the following for examples of his baggage:

      • Sean Boswell

        They had plenty of time to ‘not’ find anything of substance, or what could easily be characterized as “villainy” that has been on ready display by Chancellor Cheeeto and the Fracking Queen.

      • LaDiablaBlanca

        Obama and Bernie really have no scandals. Hillary was just a garbage candidate. As a woman of color, I’m embarrassed America made such a huge mistake during the Democratic primary. Our party deserved to lose, elevating a sleazy cheater.

        • Sterling Ericsson

          Oh please, Bernie had plenty of scandals. Not to mention things like him being extremely anti-science on basically every topic other than climate change. That’s why I voted against him, since he’s a member of the “Liberal Big Three” of pseudoscience. Luckily, the other two are out of office now.

          • LaDiablaBlanca

            You voted against don’t even mind that you put Trump into power at the expense of women, PoC, and the LGBT community. News flash: you primitive neoliberals no longer control the party. Bernie Sanders is the front runner for 2020 and has an 80% approval rating in the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton is still widely viewed negatively, even by Democrats. You lost, big time, stop trying to drag the rest of us down with you, Hillary cultist. 🙂

          • Sterling Ericsson

            Then maybe you should pick a candidate that is actually pro-science? Not one of the people that has been trying to push pseudoscience into legislation and is one of the people responsible for the resurgence of the anti-vaccine groups thanks to the creation of the sham NCCAM governmental organization.

        • scotty perey

          I am in the same boat as Sterling… the consistently anti-science positions of Sanders were a deal-breaker. To me, the most fundamental commodity of politics is *trust*. Someone in Sander’s position has more access than most to the most current and most reliable information out there, so when I see him spreading pseudoscientific claptrap about GMOs, for instance, that is indication of either 1) laziness, 2) faulty reasoning skill , 3) a knowing, disingenuous sell-out to (very well-funded and influential) “organic” or “alternative medicine” lobbies. All of which would render *anyone* undesirable to be in the position of leading the country, regardless of how many soundbites and overtures he might address to my concerns about inequality and the environment.

          • LaDiablaBlanca

            There is no anti science involved in Bernie Sanders positions. That’s a load of bull.

          • scotty perey

            I’m afraid the evidence begs to differ…

            “While his position on the existence of climate change is certainly in line with most climate scientists, his agricultural and climate change policies, as well as his views on alternative medicine, aren’t really informed by science as much as they are by Sanders’ Vermont hippie vision for America. When it comes down to it, Sanders is as erratic in his belief in science as everyone else and, yes, that includes progressives. Progressives love to cast themselves as the smarter, more forward-thinking, science-minded wing of the electorate, but they’re as inconsistent in their regard for science as the so-called ‘anti-science’ right.”


          • LaDiablaBlanca

            Yea that’s bullshit. Bernie Sanders listens to scientists. You’re making sh1t up because your leaders are devoid of class or moral character. Why not get some higher standards rather than trying to pull this weak bullsh1t on America’s most loved and respected leader. 🙂

          • LaDiablaBlanca

            It’s clear you have a vendetta because of Bernie Sanders position on being transparent with GMOs.

          • scotty perey

            well, I wouldn’t call it a “vendetta.” But whether or not a politician on either side of the aisle chooses to stump for the (yes, very anti-science) “Right To Know [sic]” marketing schtick, it’s indeed sort of a litmus test that I’ve found to be a pretty reliable indicator as to whether someone is consistently basing policy on *all* scientific evidence or just the parts that play to their respective camp in the DNC vs GOP puppet show.

            I realize that my comments here are probably not going to persuade you. But for the reasonable folks who might happen upon this discussion and would appreciate some more thorough context regarding the extent to which the anti-science lobby has injected itself into both the radical and mainstream ranks of so-called “progressives”, I highly recommend this wonderful book by devoted socialist and science journalist Leigh Phillips titled “Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence Of Growth, Progress, Industry And Stuff.” It’s clearly written, full of citation, and kinda funny too. 🙂 It is one of those books that is quite powerful in the fact that it has the capacity to **change minds** which I personally feel is one of the most important elements of all if we are to have any hope whatsoever for “progress” in this perplexing times.


            Have a nice day.

          • LaDiablaBlanca

            Tl;dr. No need to read bullshit from someone who is against both transparency and America’s most loved and respected leader.

          • scotty perey

            quick question then, regarding “transparency”–> would you support mandatory labeling for

            1) pesticides used on organic farms (i.e. do I have a “right to know” if there was rotetone, copper sulfate, pyrethrun, etc used in the production of my food)

            2) mutagenic strains such as Ruby Red Grapefruit (i.e. do I have a “right to know” if the DNA of the fruit I am ingesting was created in a lab using radiation or chemicals to force random mutations from which to glean desirable outcomes, even though it might be labeled “organic” and even “non-GMO”, lol, as I often see the with Ruby Reds!)

            ***NOTE: I am not in any way suggesting that there are dangers inherent in either of the examples above. I am just curious how consistent folks’ concepts of “transparency” and “food safety” might be.

  • FascistAntifa

    Feminism is a giant, stinking pile or maggot infested BS. To wit:

    Numero 1: Everything upon the earth was built by men. There’s not a single, substantial structure on the earth primarily built by women.

    Numero 2: It was men that were trafficked, exploited, used, manipulated, brainwashed and disposed of in all the wars for the advancement of women and the state.

    Numero 3: Men have always been primarily responsible for working the most dirty, most dangerous, most life shortening, most back breaking jobs, for the advancement of women and the state.

    Numero 4: Women demand quotas only in the most prestigious, most powerful, most lucrative positions and didn’t demand their place in employment until after men made work relatively safe, broken nail free and mussed hair proof.

    Numero 5: Men pay the majority of taxes, but the vast majority of spending on healthcare, welfare and education is spent at the state and federal level on women.

    Numero 6: The vast majority of alimony, asset division and child support flows from men to women.

    Numero 7: Trillions in wealth and power have been forcefully transferred, via state power, from men to women and the state through Affirmative Action, Title IX, alimony, asset division and child support (alimony++).

    Numero 8: Affirmative Consent – a feminist creation like no-fault divorce (legislation written by NAWL), seeks to remove men’s rights to presumption of innocence and due process at the behest of a woman scorned, on her word alone.

    Numero 9: Feminists, while standing tall against the idea of men defining femininity, insist on defining and redefining masculinity.

    Numero 10: Feminists claim sole ownership of victimhood and ignore the many benefits patriarchy has bestowed upon women whilst also ignoring the billions of male victims of gynocentrism.

    Feminism is a sick, socialist, anti-male cult.

    • Mike AQ

      This load of hate speech drivel brought to you by a 45 year old virgin fapping his dick into shredded ribbons to the thought of someday being an “alpha”.

    • Isa Cambia

      Oh you poor thing! Poor, poor, man!

    • roninbear

      If you, sir, are representative of “men,” I definitely understand the understanding of feminism being an anti-male cult. I have a difficult time believing any human of substance would want to pass more than a few moments with someone of your antique value set.

      Perhaps the problem is not with feminism. If all women hate you, the problem is most likely not with the women.

    • Zachary Bower

      What the heck, let’s bash my head against this wall.

      Numero 1: Presumably you’re discounting architects, even though you wouldn’t discount say a general’s role in winning a battle, which totally doesn’t demonstrate the problem. That aside, we can actually get word straight from female construction workers for why more don’t break into it:

      Numero 2: That’s just laughably untrue if you know anything at all about the history of war. The victors frequently either killed the enemy nation’s women or took them as slaves. The benefit to the victor nation’s women was…that didn’t happen to them that time around. It’s not like they were granted additional rights for the win, or anything. It’s not like they were the heads of states who were directly benefiting from it.

      Numero 3: Leaving aside the points about difficulty breaking into the construction industry & the nonsensical conflation of “women and the state” that I’ve already mentioned, it’s telling that you’re not advocating making conditions safer, they just make a convenient talking point against women.

      Numero 4: Pre-industrial revolution, people just worked, nobody had the luxury of not doing so. This remained true for those of low SES. Middle & upper class women were barred from working by the doctrine of the 2 spheres, until labor was needed in the world war eras. It was when the government wanted to kick these laborers to the curb that the demand for labor equality really started. These are historical facts.

      Numero 5: Taxes are based on how much you get paid, & men get paid more than women, so no duh there’s a tax discrepancy. As for health care costs, “Per capita lifetime expenditure is $316,600, a third higher for females ($361,200) than males ($268,700). Two-fifths of this difference owes to women’s longer life expectancy.” ( Education spending is obviously an attempt to break the proverbial glass ceiling. You should also be aware that spending more doesn’t mean spending better. The US spends considerably more than any other developed nation on health care, but has mediocre results. Similar thing for education. The system is fundamentally broken, & politicians aren’t fixing it because of “muh socialism!” A rallying cry which you clearly know all too well.

      Numero 6: Because of the cases where child custody is disputed (a minority of overall child custody cases), men generally don’t seek custody.

      Numero 7: Repetition of the alimony point doesn’t make it any more viable, & of course the proportion of the wealth men hold would go down as the proportion of women who HAVE wealth goes up.

      Numero 8: No, affirmative consent seeks to establish “clear & unambiguous agreement” as the definition of “consent,” to close legal loopholes that can allow rapists to get away with it as long as the victim didn’t technically say “no,” such as because they were drugged.

      Numero 9: The opposition is toward essentialist gender roles handed down from on high. Plus there’s a fundamental difference when one’s desire to define gender roles winds up coming up with things like “THOT,” while another’s comes up with “maybe telling half of the population that they need to be fixated on aggression, dominance, & denial of emotion is a bad thing.”

      Numero 10: No, the claim is that men generally aren’t victimized *because of* their gender. The rest of this you’ve failed to establish as anything more than a word soup.

      I ask this question again & again, & I never get an answer: If feminism is a “cult,” who is the leader? What is the unifying text that all feminists read from? It isn’t like the modern “men’s movement,” which essentially owes its existence to Warren Farrell, whether its adherents want to admit that or even know about it–seeing as his books are the origin of most of the arguments you people use, which directly inspired sites like AVFM, Return of Kings, r/redpill, & so on.

      Tempting as it is to end this with a NOU, I don’t think you’ve quite shown cult mentality, at least not from this post alone. However, you have shown a tendency to regurgitate pre-prepared talking points uncritically, expecting them to be trusted implicitly, no questions asked. Which is at least halfway there.

      • Rebecca Gibson

        Thank you, Zachary Bower, for doing what I think a lot of us were just too damn tired to do. You rock.

        • Zachary Bower

          You’re too kind. Thank you.

          • FascistAntifa

            Zac: “Thank you Rebecca! Do I get a cookie now?” You people. So Pavlovian. So sad.

          • Rebecca Gibson

            Hey, guess what? We feminists don’t hate all men, just men like you. Don’t take it out on Zachary just because you can’t get laid.

          • Zachary Bower

            Nothing worse than…showing appreciation toward someone who said something nice?

    • Sean Boswell



      2. stfu

      3. stfu

      4. stfu

      5. stfu

      6. stfu

      7. stfu

      8. stfu

      9. stfu

      10. stfu

  • wreckinball

    You know the most successful group in the country. White males. Second most successful. White females.
    So these groups don’t need “left off of any hook”.
    For those who wish to be successful what is one of the common tactics? Whine and b$tch non-stop about some invisible hand or something ? Nope. Emulate the successful.
    Yes be more white.
    And there s no white group per se. Wonder why? Maybe because tribal behavior is also typically unsuccessful.

    • Sean Boswell

      Hi, yes…the most marginalized and oppressed group, of any race, are women.
      Adopting the patriarchal-methodology is probably a sign of Stockholm Syndrome, as the archetypal men they’re emulating would never grant them equal status.