Michael Moore, you used to be my hero.
Back in the days of your pro-worker documentary Roger & Me
(1989), I was working construction at a power plant in the South
and you were the one public figure who seemed to speak for
working men. The one who questioned the right of a business to
take what it wants from a community and then pull out in search
of cheaper labor, leaving a trail of unemployment and broken
lives behind. The one who opposed union busting and corporate
plunder.
Spending every day hanging by my hook belt off the side of a
rebar skeleton 50 feet up in the air, my life seemed to be out
of a Michael Moore documentary. I remember one time a journeyman
electrician with a rope in one hand and his tool box in the
other called me down to help him. We walked over to a large room
filled with immense electrical panels. He told me to stand 10
feet behind him and hold the rope. He then made the other part
of the rope into a harness, put it on, and said "I'm gonna work
on these wires, and some of them are live. If I hit the wrong
one and start to fry, you pull me out."
I thought he was joking.
He wasn't.
"Why don't they turn off the power so you can do this without
being in danger?" I asked.
"Company won't do it. Too expensive."
"More expensive than your life?"
"To them."
On our job the pay rate for new construction was significantly
higher than for repairs, so the company chiseled us by
classifying everything as repairs. We built a backup generator
on an empty plot of land absolutely from scratch yet were paid
substantially less because the company classified it as a repair
job. I remember thinking "this would be perfect for a Michael
Moore documentary."
According to a recent New York Times investigative series
by David Barstow, there have been over 170,000 workplace deaths
in the United States since 1982. Working at the power plant I
could believe it. Over lunch every man had a horror story to
tell, either about what happened to him or what happened to his
buddy on this job or at another. The guy who repaired power
lines and hit a live wire while working 20 feet up and is only
alive today because his buddy kicked him off the pole. The guy
who shot his nailgun into a knot in wood and the nail glanced
off and nailed his hand to the wall--just before his ladder came
out from under him. The guy who got his leg jammed in a
threading device, and who ended up with a threaded stump of a
leg which looked like a large bloody screw. These stories, as
well as the powerful brotherhood between the men, would fit well
into a Michael Moore documentary.
Once we saw a standard safety film which depicted all kinds of
workplace maimings, most of which are too gory to describe. I
sat in the back of the room but after a few minutes I couldn't
watch any more and put my head down. A few minutes later I
looked up and realized that everyone in the room was turned
around looking at me. The instructor tried to be polite, but one
worker barked "Nothin' in that film that we ain't seen up
close before."
Michael, I can't say that I ever agreed that corporate CEOs were
devils--I saw them as being more misguided and out of touch than
evil--but you more than anybody articulated the feelings and
views of working class men. The men who put their bodies on the
line on construction sites and in factories, mines, and
refineries so their wives and children can live in safety and
comfort. The millions of men who have been killed or maimed
since the industrialization of this country on what early trade
unionists called the "battlefield of labor." All of these men
have been edited out of our past and present because nobody
wants to remember or acknowledge them. The Right doesn't dwell
on struggling blue collar workers and the Left is beholden to
the feminists, for whom any mention of men as special
contributors or as victims is forbidden.
But Michael, you have betrayed those whose cause you once
championed. Once the voice of the unappreciated working man, I
have watched in amazement and dismay as you have degenerated
into one of the all too common scourges of our society--the low
rent man-basher who pours derision upon the last remaining
politically correct target of bigotry: men.
Men are a target in both your recent book Dude, Where's My
Country? and your mega bestseller Stupid White Men.
In Dude you criticize the Democratic Party for "watering
down their beliefs to appeal to all of the dumb white guys out
there"--I guess you mean the guys at the power plant--and you
imply that the Democrats should simply write them off in 2004.
In your view these are the guys who "long for the days of Strom
Thurmond and legally accepted date rape," and who oppose
abortion because they are male chauvinists who want to control
women. You even compare opposition to abortion to opposing
women's right to vote. These claims don't square with reality,
since polls, including a CBS poll conducted last year around the
30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, have shown that men and
women support choice at equal rates.
In your chapter "The End of Men" from Stupid White Men
you cite declining male birthrates as evidence that "Nature is
trying to kill us off" and that men have done "plenty" to
"deserve this." Men have "made a mess of our world. Women? They
deserve none of the blame. They continued to bring life into
this world; we continued to destroy it whenever we could...how
many women have spilled oil into oceans, dumped toxins in our
food supply, or insisted that the new SUV designs had to be
bigger, bigger, bigger?...[Men] are working overtime to wipe out
this beautiful, wonderful home we were given free of charge...no
wonder Nature is getting rid of us."
On Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher you asked "how
many women have created factories that have polluted this
environment?...most of the crap in this world came from a guy"
and said "[It's not] female fishermen doing all that extra
fishing, ruining the oceans. It's the men ruining the oceans.
Name a woman who's ruined the oceans."
The central flaw in all of these statements is so obvious I
wouldn't bother pointing it out except that it seems nobody else
has. Yes, Michael, few women have created factories which have
polluted the environment, just as few women have created
factories which have produced the staples of modern
civilization. You vilify men for large SUV designs without
giving them credit for the miracle of modern transportation. You
blame men for "spilled oil into oceans" without giving them
credit for the millions of metric tons of oil which are
transported by sea each year, almost all of it without incident.
You also enthusiastically try to sell many of the standard
modern canards about men. For example, you hammer on men for the
largely mythical "wage gap," a gap created by male sacrifice
more than by male privilege. Men work the longest hours at the
most demanding and dangerous jobs--how could they not
earn more money? Do you really believe that the secretaries at
the power plant should have earned as much for working in a
safe, air conditioned office as we did for braving hazards and
working in the 100 degree heat? If demanding and dangerous jobs
didn't pay more than safe jobs of an equal skill level, how
would companies get anybody to do them?
Studies that compare men and women working the same hours at the
same jobs at the same experience level found little if any wage
discrimination against women, and herein lies one more
contradiction in your thinking. You have criticized the greedy
capitalists for breaking unions, leveling entire industries, and
throwing men out of work to shift jobs to cheap labor havens. Do
you really believe that these same capitalists, out of the pure
kindness of their philanthropic hearts, voluntarily choose to
pay male workers more than females?
You tell us that "a woman is five times more likely to be killed
by a husband or boyfriend than a man is likely to be murdered by
his wife or girlfriend." Actually, official statistics put it at
two or three to one, not five to one, and when poisonings, hired
killers, and unsolved murders are properly accounted for,
domestic homicide rates are actually about even. Let's hope that
your female readers understand that your section instructing men
on how they can survive their beds being set on fire by their
angry wives as they sleep is just a joke. Which it is. I think.
You top off your chapter with an asinine semi-endorsement of
fatherlessness at a time when the costs of fatherlessness
couldn't be clearer or more devastating. I doubt many fatherless
children will thank you for it.
What's even more amazing, Michael is that you've gotten away
with all of this. With thousands of conservative pundits, talk
show hosts, and web-based commentators looking for sticks to
beat you with, few if any have cited your anti-male bigotry. To
the limited extent that reviewers (such as CNN's Robert Nebel)
have commented on "The End of Men," it has not been to criticize
its bigotry but to praise it. With your help, Michael, our
society has become so desensitized to man-bashing, man-blaming,
and man-mocking that apparently nobody even noticed.
Needless to say, your friends at the National Organization for
Women ate it up. NOW's Communications Director Lisa Bennett said
'The End of Men' "should warm the hearts of feminists" and
gleefully noted that it "details the havoc that men have wreaked
on women, government, and the planet."
And Michael, don't try to dismiss this despicable chapter as
being a joke or an attempt at satire. After your mother's death
you expressed your grief to the Guardian and said "...she
was reading it and when we came back to the house after she
died, it was sitting out there with the page marked where she
had left off, and she was on the chapter about the end of
men...and I'm sure she loved that."
How wonderful--your dying mother's last connection with the work
and beliefs of her now famous son was to revel in his
man-bashing. Sticking the knife in men's backs warmed mommy's
heart in her final days. You've previously described your
upbringing as being decidedly matriarchal, with your mother and
your two angry feminist sisters calling the shots. It must have
been some childhood.
Interesting too that while you have so often emphasized a class
based analysis of society, you seem happy to chuck all that
stuff overboard when speaking about men. In your words and
writing the men who run a Fortune 500 company are
indistinguishable from the common blue collar worker. They're
all men, so they're all "in control," have all the power, and
are united in one large, extremely profitable conspiracy against
women. Michael, you're the socialist, not me, but even I
know that Marx, Lenin, Trotsky & Co. always held social class to
be a vastly greater determinant of privilege in capitalist
society than gender.
More importantly, is it any wonder that men, including working
class men, spurn the political party you shill for? According to
a recently released ABC/Washington Post poll, white men (pardon
me, Michael, stupid white men) preferred Bush over an
unnamed Democrat in 2004 by a staggering 33 points.
Some of the pro-Bush sentiment may stem from a sense that many
of the left-wing attacks on George Bush--particularly yours,
Michael--seem more rooted in a personal animus than a
disagreement over policies. I suspect that if tomorrow Bush
instituted free universal health care, nationalized industry,
and declared the dictatorship of the proletariat, you still
wouldn't have a kind word to say about him.
But the biggest reason men have turned away from your party is
simple--why should men support a party which doesn't support
them? Why go to a party nobody invited you to? Why go where
you're clearly not welcome?
Michael, it saddens me that the beleaguered men at that power
plant have lost a valuable friend and gained one more enemy. It
saddens me to watch you and your party marginalize yourselves
and slowly commit political suicide by spitting on those who
once admired and supported you. And when your party gets
trounced among male voters in 2004, I know what explanation
you'll give. In fact, you've already written it in Stupid
White Men: "men are just not as smart as women."
Glenn Sacks is a radio talk show host and columnist on men's and fathers' issues.
His nationally syndicated radio show,
His Side with Glenn Sacks,
can be heard every Sunday in Los Angeles and Seattle.
This column first appeared in the Los Angeles Daily News (2/4/04).