Sam Fender is right that many white working-class young lads have nothing – but let’s not give them misogynistic beliefs

The Musician Sam Fender has caught some flak for his recent comments in a Sunday Times Magazine interview. A particular paragraph focuses on class stereotypes and moves into a broader discussion about different kinds of privilege, with Fender concluding that ‘we rarely talk about class though. And that’s a lot of the reason that all the young lads are seduced by demagogues and psychos like Andrew Tate’.

Fender makes an astute point about how vulnerable young men are ignored and even criticised by the state and society based on their background. I don’t disagree that working-class white men have been historically marginalised from many creative and public-facing industries. However, I also agree with readers who have noted Fender’s failure to recognise that this is also a problem for working-class women.

I note that although Fender says he is speaking about class privilege, and not white, male or straight privilege, he nonetheless exclusively refers to young ‘lads’ from working-class backgrounds. The erasure of working-class women from his thoughts is seamless. While Fender says he is discussing class, pointedly differentiating it from male privilege, he nonetheless mixes them up.

Of course, within the intersection of gender and class there are contrasting experiences and different problems people face. White working-class boys are the least likely group to go to university for example, while working-class women are doubly impacted by the gender pay gap. But Fender’s coupling of class and gender suggests that misogyny is a legitimate and attractive form of self-expression specifically for working-class white men, who otherwise feel ignored.

There are plenty of men from a span of occupations and class backgrounds who consume and regurgitate Andrew Tate’s ideology. Equally, there are many working-class white boys and men, like Fender himself, who find his words and actions deplorable. And equally, there are many other working-class role models out there who can inspire self-confidence in this demographic and many others.

Take the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, for example. Here is a person who is effectively second-in-command of our country and is proud of her working-class, northern background. According to her website, she was literally told she would ‘never amount to anything’. Who could relate more to these young boys who have ‘f*** all’? Why, then, is an alleged sex-trafficker, rapist, and self-confessed misogynist seen as more of a role model than this professional woman, who despite leaving school aged 16, has risen to represent her country on a national level?

Here’s where Fender’s idea of seduction rings true. Tate and his allies offer all young men with an overly simplistic idea of gender roles which is much easier to digest than the intersectional nuances of Angela Rayner’s success. When you have been encouraged to believe that women are sexual and submissive objects, it may well feel shameful to have that idea challenged, especially while simultaneously working through toxic masculinity.

What Fender highlights is a different kind of shame, a shame related to class. A shame which makes working-class white boys ‘feel like they’re a problem’. I note that although anyone can experience shame, its oppressive and controlling nature has historically been used to silence women and limit their behaviour, particularly their sexuality. Meanwhile, the sexual ideology that figures such as Tate represents is one of traditional exploitation and absolute authority over the female body.

But masculine self-worth derived from a sense gendered superiority is nothing more than misogyny. Coupling this with the image of seduction (another particularly gendered word) makes for the subconscious promotion of misogynistic ideas. Fender’s comments highlight how Tate offers young white lads from nowhere towns the reassurance that they are worth something, simply because they are men. And following the inevitable strands of misogyny, Tate instils the belief that men are worth more than women.

The seductive idea that Fender warns us about, then, is not just that white working-class boys are worth something, but it is precisely that they are worth more than women. Andrew Tate and co may be ‘demagogues’ and ‘psychos’, and I certainly don’t disagree, but this nonetheless displaces the responsibility for individuals, communities, and institutions to challenge misogynistic beliefs. Working-white class boys deserve to be empowered – but this should not be brought about through misogyny.