The Fate of White Male Agnostics in America

2/24/08

I watched a segment on CNN this afternoon regarding the glass ceiling for women, that invisible barrier that keeps women from attaining positions of power, and how Hillary Clinton's campaign may be an indicator of the nation's willingness to support a female President. According to some views, if she fails to capture the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, that indicates America's discomfort with a female commander-in-chief.

What this absurd concept obviously fails to take into consideration is that Hillary Clinton, like all women, is more than simply "a woman". The implication that a Clinton failure indicates that America is not ready for a woman in the Oval Office negates any of the particular attributes of this particular woman: A Senator who voted for and continued to fund a war she claims to be against; A party-faithful Democrat who is running a traditional left-wing campaign in an era that requires a unifying centerist; and most famously, the spouse of Bill Clinton, one of America's most beloved and hated (simultaneously, depending on who you ask) former presidents. In short, there are a variety of reasons Hillary could fail to get the nomination, and such an occurance would be a commentary on Hillary, not on women, just as Barack Obama's success or failure is a commentary on a moderately experienced Senator from Illinois, not a verdict on America's willingness to accept an African American president, and Mitt Romney's failure was the result of an inability to connect with America's voters, not America's discomfort with a Mormon president.

If you believe that opinions about Clinton are analogous to opinions about "women", and attitudes toward Obama reflect public feelings about "African Americans", or that Romney is a synonym for "Mormon", then one can make similar extrapolations about other individuals and demographics in America---for instance, I am white, and male, and agnostic, so therefore, anything I experience is the experience of white male agnostics. And let me tell you, there are some disturbing trends impacting white male agnostics in this country today:

White male agnostics cannot get jobs at adidas: White male agnostics have applied to several positions at the company, eager to find employment there because white male agnostics live in the neighborhood and have heard that adidas treats their employees well. That may be true of some employees, but not white male agnostics, because based on my research, adidas doesn't want to hire such people, hiding behind politically correct verbiage like "the job requires that you speak Korean, and what you just said isn't Korean---I don't think it's even an actual language" and "Yes, I'm sure you did read that on the Internet when researching the company, but I assure you that adidas is not an acronym for anything, let alone that."

White male agnostics cannot get published at McSweeneys.net: Granted, white male agnostics have not tried recently, but historical patterns clearly indicate McSweeney's disdain for white male agnostics, despite the fact that it seems to be a website written exclusively by white male agnostics. Apparently, there is such a thing as "not being white enough."

White male agnostics struggle to survive in the record industry: White male agnostics have produced a self-released 10-song CD, sales of which have been slow, indicating that America does not consider white male agnostics to be an essential voice in their modern iPodian view of diversity in America. This is disappointing for white male agnostics because they have, once again, employed foolish optimism with regards to getting CD copies printed. (Will white male agnostics ever learn?)

I'm not running for office, and good thing for you, because a vote for anyone other than me would expose the fear and loathing you secretly harbor for white male agnostics. Though frankly, as white male agnostic record sales indicate, it's really not much of a secret.