>>
>>I read something recently about "angry white men"
>
>"Angry white men"....hmmm....let me ask you something.
>
>When the Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of same sex marriage, many bloggers made comments along the lines of, "it must be a sad day for angry white men", "angry white men will now be angrier", etc.
>
>And yet every national poll shows that a much higher % of white men are fine with SSM than non-white men. (Roughly 60% of white men are OK, about 53% Hispanic men are OK, and yet less than 50% for African American men)
>
True, but misleading. Of those who object, at least in my experience, most have been white men.


>And yet where's the focus? Angry white men.
>
>Using the Socratic method. It's easy to use the term "angry white men". Try going out of your comfort zone and replacing "white" with someone else and see how it goes. :)

That's valid.
I'm not vilifying them.
There are lots of them here in Hamilton.
We have white men in their 40's checking people out at the supermarket or driving power mowers to trim the school athletic fields.
I've gotten to know some. One guy who mows the school fields was a really good high school athlete but couldn't hack college. So he's in a municipal union and will get some kind of pension when he retires (If Christie funds it.)
The town operates a golf range and that's staffed by middle aged white men.
You wouldn't find that on Long Island. They'd be teenagers and the older guys would be working in better jobs.