Angry white men

Women and ethnic minorities are still underrepresented in virtually all walks of life, despite decades of equality legislation

White men probably aren't the first group that springs to mind when thinking about those who either lack a political voice or are under-represented in any western democracy. If you were to compile a list of the marginalised, ethnic minorities, women, lesbians, gay men, the disabled, and transgendered people would surely lag far behind those who have wielded the power since time immemorial.

Well, not according to one American journalist, whose recent column in a small regional paper seems to have hit a nerve.

In his piece "In Election 2008, Don't Forget Angry White Man," Gary Hubbell accuses the presidential candidates of "carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians". There's a group missing in all this, according to Hubbell, and they are the ones who will decide the election: the Angry White Man.

Quite why white men are so angry is spelled out in the rest of the article: angry white men pay taxes, they work hard, they're used to "picking up the tab", they can build an extension or drill an oil well, they watch football and go hunting, play poker and open doors for women. And yet despite all these attributes, no one takes any notice of them. Their wages are falling, thanks to illegal immigrants taking their jobs, or their jobs are going overseas. But they're not racist, he's quick to point out - they're "willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English".

Starting to sound familiar?

The rise of the BNP in Britain has been ascribed to a similar sense of alienation being felt by working class white men over here. Take out the US-specific references, such as those to guns and the NRA, and this could have been written by Gary Bushell, James Whale, or any of the other self-appointed spokespeople for disenfranchised white men. In America the article was leapt upon by shock-jock Rush Limbaugh, who read it out on air and helped to ensure its speedy progress across the blogsphere. To the author's surprise, what began as a small piece for a local newspaper has now become a rallying cry for conservative men across the country.

But is there really anything to it? Have white men, a group who have always been regarded as the most privileged in society, really got grounds for complaint? Or is this article just another example of the anti-feminist, anti-equality backlash?

Women, ethnic minorities and all the other "special interest" groups that Hubbell rails against are still underrepresented in virtually all walks of life despite decades of equalities legislation both here and in the US. There have been only a handful of women political leaders of western nations and, contrary to initial expectations, it's now looking highly unlikely that the US is about to appoint its first woman president. We are under-represented in boardrooms, in the media, in science, and in the higher levels of the criminal justice system. At current rates it will be another 80 years or more before we achieve equal pay, and another 200 years before we achieve an equal number of women in parliament. There are only 15 black and minority ethnic MPs in the UK, and again at current rates it will take another 100 years to achieve a truly representative number.

Far from being an underprivileged minority group, white men by comparison have always had a seat at the top table. From political leaders to religious leaders, from CEOs to senior civil servants, white men enjoy, just as they've always enjoyed, positions of authority right across the board.

Of course this isn't to say that all white men exercise power. When class is brought into the equation the simplistic division of the world into men, women, and black and white quickly breaks down. Middle class white women today probably exercise more power than working class white men, while black and minority ethnic women suffer a double disadvantage by dint of their race and their sex.

Unfortunately, Hubbell's argument isn't so nuanced, and he has just one target fairly and squarely in his sights:


This isn't because she's a woman, he goes on to say, but because she is who she is.

Well, I for one don't believe him. Hubbell and his new-found cheerleaders across the net give the game away when they reserve the worst of their ire for Hillary Clinton. This isn't about a crisis of identity for poor working class men; it's a defence of masculinity and a last desperate effort to cling on to the power that men have enjoyed for centuries.

Just another anti-Hillary misogynist rant, then.