For John, BLUF: The term "white" with regard to race shows an inability to see shades of color. It shows a willingness to ignore nuance. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Here is the sub-headline:
The Left is lumping white women together into a giant bloc subject to absurdly broad stereotyping and vitriolic condemnation.
From National Review, by Mr Kyle Smith, 14 October 2018.
Here is the lede plus two:
Using “white men” as a putdown is no longer extreme enough for the Left. Now it is moving on to doing the same for “white women.”If the Democrats find themselves on a losing streak it may be because the Democrats, with their identity politics, are shrinking the circle of who is acceptable.
How rapidly this transpired. It was less than two years ago that the approximately 98.7 percent of white women working in media who were openly rooting for Hillary Clinton saw their hopes dashed on Election Day. The first murmurs of betrayal began. Exit polls showed 52 percent of white women backed Donald Trump, and much sorrowful tsk-tsking ensued. Sorrow turned to disbelief. Disbelief turned to rage.
Today, white women are being lumped together into a giant bloc subject to absurdly broad stereotyping and vitriolic condemnation. They’re being told to step back and know their place by writers in the New York Times (“white women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain”), The New Yorker (“despite the enduring legacy of testimony by black women, white women have often played the protagonists in the history of sexual violence, and black women have been relegated to the supporting cast”) and NBC News (“white women who voted for Trump . . . clearly have no issue with the president’s openly misogynistic behavior, his demeaning of female reporters and his mocking of [Christine Blasey] Ford”).
If Ms Linda Sarsour isn't a "white woman", what is she?
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.
Regards — Cliff