It's weird to read this book now, after four years of a Donald Trump presidency, but it remains as relevant now as it was then. Donald Trump isn't mentioned at all this book, but he is the elephant in the room throughout. Kimmel, a sociologist, uses this book to explore who a "angry white man" is, what feeds into their sense of grievance and the dynamics of power in American politics. The author also points out that these men exist at an "end of an era", pointing to massive shifts in both economic forces and personal relationships that make it nearly impossible to truly turn back the clock. ( )

Interviewed the author. Fascinating take on Trump's supporters ( )

Reading this book a few years on, I tended to wonder what it would look like if he wrote it now. Many of the things he says in this work that speak to the future are wrong...very wrong. He failed to anticipate the stunning success of the Angry White Men at electing one of their own to the White House, and the Nazis, misogynists, and white supremacists rampaging through the country as though it belonged to them and no one else. Still, the historical work is great, though there are places where he might have pointed out some of the totally untrue things these guys think, rather than just noting that they think untrue things - such as the constant refrain of white men building everything in this country all by themselves. My main complaint with the book is the extreme level of sympathy that the author shows to some of the most hateful people in the universe. Perhaps it's easier when you yourself are white and male (though this group also despises Jews); for a lot of us, the wounds we still wear from their misplaced anger make it very difficult for us to sympathize with their perceived wounds. Overall, though, a quick read, though it would be hard to say it is "easy". The writing is lucid and competent, but easy is not a word one can apply to immersing oneself in this culture for a few hours. ( )

Michael Kimmel’s Angry White Men is a work of sociology, focusing on the emergent public hostility in white, male masculinity in the twenty-first century. Kimmel’s analysis focuses on what he calls “aggrieved entitlement,” that the anger of white men has come from “[a] sense that those benefits to which to which [they] were entitled have been snatched away…by unseen forces larger and more powerful [than oneself].” Kimmel posits white rage as a product of this aggrieved entitlement, derived from an environment of increasing social equality, and diminishing economic prosperity, though Kimmel insinuates that a great deal of white rage comes from manipulation from [conservative] media and social networking. Kimmel’s revised 2017 edition of Angry White Men, though written prior to President Trump’s election, is easily and often viewed as a product of working white rage, features a number of reaffirmed theses, such as population being an emotion rather than an ideology, white male anger being directed against the institutions that have a chance at helping them, and the idea that there is a kernel of truth to some of their sentiments. Kimmel’s work also covers a variety of topics, devoting chapters to school shootings, men’s rights, divorced fatherhood, antifeminism, and anger-inspired actions of working men.

Kimmel is definitely writing to a very specific audience—one that apparently requires the rejection of academia; Kimmel is writing more for popular knowledge than he is for academic use as or in research. His writings style is conversational and colloquial, and though he uses a number of noted sources, they aren’t explicitly paraphrased or defined: the endnotes (some of which are not properly cited, see note 27 on page 292, which is just a url) are more-or-less used as backings or assurances of him having done research, rather than citations of evidence from credible sources. Furthermore, Kimmel has some problems dealing with his own research as well. While he calls his interviews with white men as “the basis of the research,” he infrequently cites these interviews. When he does bring attention to his own work, Kimmel does it forthright in the narrative, rather than alluding or paraphrasing conversations to support his claims. With so few apparent citations of his own work, one must ask how many interviews did he conduct, and why not bring the reader’s attention to your research? On top of this, Kimmel states in the introduction that he actively chose not to record a conversation with an interviewee. While this is used for dramatic effect, this subsequently calls into question Kimmel’s academic practices.

Perhaps the largest problem with Angry White Men’s choice of writing is its obvious political bias. Kimmel assumes completely that the readership of Angry White Men is an educated liberal living in a blue state, drawing a clear line between working people in flyover states and the readership. Kimmel outright refers to himself and the reader(s) in this regard, “…we northerners are used to feeling horror, revulsion, and more than a little contempt for the white South…” While the author does attempt to approach this bifurcation, “not with contempt or pity, but with empathy and compassion,” the presumption of an excluded/included readership doesn’t lead to the types of narratives that will lead to mending or understanding of this divide. Kimmel does acknowledge his own political opinions, which is a rather customary and responsible measure to take, the decisions he makes in the narrative of Angry White Men creates a feedback loop of “enlightened liberal” thought. Even the publishing decision seems to be motivated by liberalness: the New York-based publisher Nation Books describes themselves as aiming to, “constructively affect and amplify cultural and political discourse and to engender positive social change.” While the statement is fairly universal or nonpartisan, the rhetoric here is notably contemporary liberal, “engendering positive social change” being almost cliché language of social progressives.

This obvious slant is a problem that hurts the integrity of Kimmel and his writings. This is a shame, given that the book is otherwise a great synthesis of political, historical, and cultural narratives of “the forgotten American.” A lot of what Kimmel does is novel, interesting, and important, but given these problems with what could have been a great work of research, the reader is forced to question Kimmel and his thesis. ( )