Talk:Angry white male

"Derogatory"/"pejorative"/"racist"/"x" term

The Oxford (sourced via Lexico) entries can't even agree as to whether it's derogatory or not. "Angry white male" is labelled as derogatory whereas "angry white man" is not. The only other dictionary entry I can find for "angry white man" it is in V.S. Matyushenkov's Dictionary of Americanisms, Briticisms, Canadianisms and Australianisms which also does not label it as derogatory or a pejorative. Aside from these conflicting dictionary definitions, the only other instances I can find of this phrase supposedly being derogatory are instances of websites that rehost Wikipedia content and (as alluded to in the article body) David Leyonhjelm filing a complaint after "angry white male" was used to describe him.

In the case of Leyonhjelm, his complaint was thrown out:

But that has been turned on its head by the commission's decision to rebuff the claim at the first hurdle, declaring Senator Leyonhjelm's public remarks showed he was not truly aggrieved, and that the terms "white" and "male" were not considered terms of denigration.

Granted, the Australian Human Rights Commission isn't the definite authority on the nature of words but it's the only source I can find of "angry white male"/"angry white man" being commented on by an anti-discriminatory body.

It's easy enough to find instances of the term(s) being used in articles but not so easy to find articles discussing the supposed disparaging nature of the term(s). Given what I have typed above, I don't see how we can safely label it as "derogatory" or "racist" or "pejorative". I think it's best any sort of additional descriptor is left out. Cheers, ToeSchmoker (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

References

• It's SOP to leave in the article in the status quo ante when discussions like this are talking place. A negative descriptor -- either "pejorative" or "derogatory" has been in the article for move than half of its existence, so removing it rewuires a consensus of the editors in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware leaving articles "status quo ante" is not "SOP", it's the work of an essay and not Wikipedia policy. But I digress. I will wait, but bear in mind that WP:CCC. ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course, and WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really taking sides here (on whether this term is racist, or not) because, to be blunt, I'm not really bothered, one way or another... This enquiry is one of pure curiosity... I would be grateful if someone could explain why the term "angry white man" is NOT a racist trope, but "angry black woman" IS considered to be just that, a racist trope. Indeed, the opening sentence of the lede, describes it as exactly that "...is a racist trope in American society." - This is a genuine query, without subtext or insinuation, because to me, except for the very obvious, they SEEM to be identical in every way... Why is one, one way, but the other, the other way? M R G WIKI999 (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

On things like this, the difference tends to be whether the "target" is the class of the perpetrator or victim of institutional or pervasive prejudice. Thus, a stereotype of white people (especially when it is only a specific group of white people, and doubly especially when it's specifically a group of them who are mad that other people aren't being oppressed against hard enough) isn't viewed as a racist one. Does that make sense? DarthCloakedGuy (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

See alsos

28 see alsos is too many. We should put see also links only to a few useful (and the most relevant) related articles. I tried to put a tag to highlight this but it was reverted without a proper explanation. --Jameboy (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

There was a clear explanation in the edit summary: your tag was unnecessary. What policy or editing guideline says that there are "too many"? As long as they're relevant, there's no problem. It's not like the encyclopedia is running out of pixels. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:SEEALSO says that "Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number." --Jameboy (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Define "reasonable". If you think some of the links aren't relevant, discuss those specific links here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

What policy or editing guideline says that there are "too many"

Though not an official policy, see WP:COAT. Wallby (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Why only America and Australia?

Why is this article only limited to America and Australia? Isn't this a global phenomenon? 142.114.116.167 (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@142.114.116.167 Do you have a source that suggests that? I personally haven't heard the stereotype from where I live. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Panamitsu This article is incredibly broken and suggests its just a pejorative, where any half decent political scientist would show you it's a political phenomena that has nothing to do with bias what so ever. It's just another representation of how Wikipedia gets everything wrong and why Wikipedia is not a credible source of information. --27.96.194.5 (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The best thing to do in this situation is to provide reliable source(s) which support your viewpoint. That way, you or another editor can expand the article to make it more neutral in your eyes. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is neither an insult nor a pejorative, like it or loath it, it refers to a political bloc and is well established.

Not sure how this article survived for so long without it being challenged. Angry White Male or AWM for short is a term that is well established, internationally I might add, as a term in political science and international relations theory. If the term is found offensive by some people it might be term to do some naval gazing to understand why it is offensive to the person. Theoretically it dates back as long as the suffrage movement itself, although it was first used as an actual term in the 1990s. Here is an article from 1996 from perhaps one of the most reputable journals in the world establishing the phenomena... The simple explanation given then was whether the questions of Angry White Males will"

"[haunt] American politics [backdated] since women got the vote, in 1920"

and will...

"women vote differently from men, and how will that change politics and public life generally?—had a new salience."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/07/gap-politics/305579/

Looking at it that way you could label it as an attack on women's rights, and the women's rights movement, but its much deeper than that. What it certainly IS NOT is a pejorative. I mean for it even to qualify for that it has to fail the defense of being true, which it does not, therefore the truth can never be insulting.

27.96.194.5 (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that it's a well established term does not mean that it's not an insult. Especially not if it's used by a magazine that publishes predominantly opinion pieces. It's an insult, a pejorative, and a racist stereotype, just like 'Angry black woman' is. The main proof is that there's no Wikipedia article called 'Angry black male.' But certainly there are black men who hold traditional and conservative viewpoints, there are even gay black men who do so. They can be abundantly found on social media platforms or video portals. The great irony is that is group isn't portrayed by science and the media the same way as white men, but instead are, as usual, victimized by them:

https://www.hoover.org/research/loneliness-black-conservative

https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/five-ways-to-explain-away-black-conservatives/ 2A02:8071:60E0:3760:10FE:AD4:6BA1:CB80 (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

" black men who hold traditional and conservative viewpoints, there are even gay black men who do so" We already have an article on Black conservatism. Dimadick (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Le Sigh... Barack Obama is not just a senator or former president in this context

His undergraduate was in political science/international relations on a 3.7 out of a 4 point GPA scale, and he has maintained a strong interest in geopolitics throughout his life represented in the already existing article on Barack Obama.

A person can wear many hats in their lives. His expression of what an angry white male voter based on his educational experience alone is more than credible.

Once again however, politics gets in the way of writing articles.

Anyone from an academic background would learn how to remove themselves from the equation as best they can and stick to the facts of writing an article. There is a whole article on editorial biases here Ideological bias on Wikipedia lets not tumble down the rabbit hole. I've already had to remove a bunch of wp:weasel from this article today. The choice of Barack Obama was not because he was a former sitting senator or president, but because he is considered an expert in the field. 27.96.194.9 (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Violations of WP:SYNTH

Someone using IPs from the middle of Queensland, Australia, has been violating WP:SYNTH by adding sources that don't mention the topic. Examples include adding a dictionary definition of bloc, and adding US-focused sources to describe Australian politics, for instance this CNN article which has no discussion of Australia. Any dictionary cite is unsuitable because dictionaries are tertiary sources. (Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources.)

The WaPo piece about Obama falls short of naming the topic. It talks about struggling working-class white voters and in other places it talks about angry voters. It mentions white male entitlement but it also fuzzes the issue by frequently mixing women into the stats. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)