Is there a cultural war on the "White Man"? -

[Medicated]

I've been thinking about this seriously more and more since I've been covering and reading things here. As well as doing some research myself. To avoid unreadable text walls I'm going to try and summarize information.

• On average, there are 123 suicides per day.
• White males accounted for 7 of 10 suicides in 2016.
• Firearms account for 51% of all suicides in 2016.
• The rate of suicide is highest in middle age — white men in particular.

https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/


In the classroom, too, boys are at risk of losing out on male role models. According to government figures for 2006, the ratio of newly qualified female to male teachers under the age of 25 was approaching seven to one. The introduction of coursework and modular exams is believed to play to traditionally female strengths – girls tend to be more methodical while boys tend to follow high-risk strategies such as cramming the night before an exam.

Some critics argue that this creeping 'feminisation' has led to girls outperforming boys on almost every level: they use more words, speak more fluently in longer sentences and with fewer mistakes. By the age of 11, some 76 per cent of boys have attained government-set literacy standards, compared to 85 per cent of girls. At GCSE level, 66.8 per cent of girls achieved A-C grades in 2007, compared to 59.7 per cent of boys (in real terms, this means they trail behind their female counterparts by nine years).

The Advertising Standards Bureau reports a steady increase each year in the number of complaints about the way men are portrayed on television as 'buffoons' or 'idiots'. A 2007 advertisement for MFI kitchens depicted a woman slapping her husband in a dispute about leaving the toilet seat up. 'If a man belittles a woman, it could become a lawsuit,' says Farrell. 'If women belittle men, it's a Hallmark card.'

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/03/gender.healthandwellbeing



A New York Times article by Benedict Carey (May 21, 2011) titled "Need Therapy? A Good Man Is Hard to Find,"(link is external) highlights the fact that men have been abandoning the psychotherapy field in droves for decades. So much so that the profession has now become almost totally dominated by female practitioners. According to Carey, less than 20% of Master's degrees in psychology, clinical social work or counseling are being sought by men today. Women outnumber men in doctoral psychology programs by a ratio of at least 3 to 1. (See an article (link is external)published by the American Psychological Association on this remarkable development.) But this has not always been so. Certainly not when I was a graduate student back in the mid-1970s. What's happening to the psychotherapy profession? Why have men gradually deserted the field? And does gender really matter in psychotherapists?

Is this really the "end of men" in general? Is what we are seeing in the mental health professions merely a symptom or sign of a much more pervasive trend in American culture?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evil-deeds/201210/end-men-the-feminization-psychotherapy


But let's move on from statistics for a moment, and head to the media. To traditional white male icons, or male identified roles.

This isn't meant to really be an exhaustive list. This is just scratching the surface really. I could spend hours upon hours collating statistics, articles, media, even repeated 4chan shitposting, that look innocent at first, but when placed next to each other form a common theme.

Do I sound crazy here? Or do other people actually see what I'm seeing?

 

[Medicated]

Here's an interesting article I found penned in 1996, about how Women are now the dominant force in politics and the marketplace

Hillary Clinton recently lashed out at those who have detected a " feminization" of American society. "What an unfortunate term," she said. " After all, don't fathers worry about how long their wives and babies can stay in the hospital when they need care? Don't men want to be able to take time off when a family member is gravely ill? Don't they want to ensure that their elderly parents have health-care coverage in the later stages of life?" In place of "feminization," Mrs. Clinton suggested "the maturing of politics" or the "humanization of society."

The "feminization of America" is a paradox. It is a triumph of the feminist movement -- and a sign of anti-feminist backlash. It represents a new level of respect for women's strength and independence -- and a patronizing calculation about female gullibility and weakness. It suggests that cultrural politics has infected the free market -- and that the free market is controlling both politics and culture more than ever.

At the core of these contradictions is an idea new to our culture and our time: Women are now thought to have more in common with other women than they do with men of similar ethnicity, religion, or income level, their interests coinciding more with those of other women than with those of their own fathers and brothers and husbands and sons. Women now constitute a class -- a dominant class.

One phrase that crops up again and again in the mouths of those trying to sell products and shows and candidates to women is "soft focus," which implies gauzy emotional appeals over hard, rational argument. The ultimate in soft focus was this year's major advertising event, the Summer Olympics on NBC. The Olympics are, of course, a sporting event, and sporting events traditionally earn an audience that is something like 75 percent male. Horst Stipp, the network's director of social and developmental research, says, " Our research suggested that men would keep watching, but women could be added. " By placing the 19-day event in soft focus, NBC garnered huge ratings -- they were up 21 percent from 1992 -- and NBC grossed $ 700 million in advertising.

"Women on-line are probably in higher positions and incomes than men on-line -- you're getting influencers." But then she adds that a new marketing campaign from CompuServe will have "a much more emotional pitch . . . that may strike core values particularly present in women." In other words, women are sentimental.

So which is it? Are women power-wielding "influencers" or flowzy, blowzy creatures of emotion? Is this the ultimate triumph of feminism or its savage reversal?

Barbara Lippert, an advertising critic at Adweek, says, "The curious thing going on in terms of ads appealing to women is the imagery: Men and women have essentially reversed roles. For 30 years, if somebody was stupid and bought a product and got smart, it was a woman. Today it's a man. If someone is cooking, it's a man. We're ogling male nipples and breasts and pecs." The most famous of such ads is the one for Diet Coke in which women working in an office scramble to catch a glimpse of a disrobing construction worker. There's a curious con job that's being practiced in the name of feminism here. Women are being peddled the delusion that they're liberated enough to view men as sex objects, in order to get them to buy a product to keep themselves thin.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/christopher-caldwell/the-feminization-of-america


And another later, 2010

Men dominate just two of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most over the next decade: janitor and computer engineer. Women have everything else—nursing, home health assistance, child care, food preparation. Many of the new jobs, says Heather Boushey of the Center for American Progress, “replace the things that women used to do in the home for free.” None is especially high-paying. But the steady accumulation of these jobs adds up to an economy that, for the working class, has become more amenable to women than to men.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women now hold 51.4 percent of managerial and professional jobs—up from 26.1 percent in 1980. They make up 54 percent of all accountants and hold about half of all banking and insurance jobs. About a third of America’s physicians are now women, as are 45 percent of associates in law firms—and both those percentages are rising fast. A white-collar economy values raw intellectual horsepower, which men and women have in equal amounts. It also requires communication skills and social intelligence, areas in which women, according to many studies, have a slight edge. Perhaps most important—for better or worse—it increasingly requires formal education credentials, which women are more prone to acquire, particularly early in adulthood.

The sociologist Kathryn Edin spent five years talking with low-income mothers in the inner suburbs of Philadelphia. Many of these neighborhoods, she found, had turned into matriarchies, with women making all the decisions and dictating what the men should and should not do. “I think something feminists have missed,” Edin told me, “is how much power women have” when they’re not bound by marriage. The women, she explained, “make every important decision”—whether to have a baby, how to raise it, where to live. “It’s definitely ‘my way or the highway,’” she said. “Thirty years ago, cultural norms were such that the fathers might have said, ‘Great, catch me if you can.’ Now they are desperate to father, but they are pessimistic about whether they can meet her expectations.” The women don’t want them as husbands, and they have no steady income to provide. So what do they have?

“Nothing,” Edin says. “They have nothing. The men were just annihilated in the recession of the ’90s, and things never got better. Now it’s just awful.”

 

[It's HK-47]

Yes.

The good news is that a lot of what you hear is purely propaganda and across the board it isn't having the sort of affect that all of these outlets are pushing, and for the most part this entire anti-male offensive is just a bunch of dusty, man-hating lesbians living in an echo chamber who aren't influencing the world nearly as much as they make it seem. They're leaving out enormous brackets of information in all of the sources they're citing, such as when they went out of their way to describe men as being less-literate and less gainfully employed. Those two statements aren't necessarily untrue, but they're omitting whole swathes of facts in order to get their bloated love-handles through the goalpost.

Men have always developed slower than women when it comes to literacy and vocabulary, that's just indicative of the phenotype and the fact that boys are much less social than girls at younger ages, which naturally leads to a slightly-delayed development, but biology also accounts for that. Male brains are also slower than female brains and possess far few interconnecting neurons, but they're more-specialized and more resistant to damage, and where the female brain has a tendency to fluctuate during ovulatory cycles, the male brain remains static. Men are "dumber", technically, but they're reliably dumber and the male brain adapted to that a long time ago.

They're also failing to account for the fact that collegiate environments are being dominated by larger groups of women right now because so many women are pursuing utterly worthless degrees in social studies and gender studies, and men are far more likely to avoid college entirely and just pursue an education through a trade school, or become an entrepreneur, where males absolutely thrash women to the point where it's almost entirely a male-dominated market beyond a certain threshold, with women failing to raise more than $10,000 for their ventures 64% of the time.

That's exactly where certain aspects of the Gender Wage Gap myth come from, too. Men spend more time at higher-paying jobs than women do on average, and that easily accounts for the differences in pay.

The emasculation of men is certainly a facet of it that I find disturbing though, because one of the side-effects of this entire movement has been both to "empower" women in entirely the wrong ways, and encourage them to dismiss their partners for fairly minor slights, rather than to make an attempt to bolster and strengthen the relationship in spite of minor hardships. Neo-feminism is making women miserable. This is one of the reasons that women are rapidly gaining ground on men when it comes to suicide rates, and why women have already met and surpassed men when it comes to chronic depression.

What these utterly vapid, detestable harpies don't fully understand is that we need each other, and the dissolution of core values like maintaining a healthy, stable relationship with a single partner and the proliferation of the "nuclear family" is something that both genders need, not just the men. For all of the Pussy Hats and the Women's Marches and "We Don't Need No Man!" speeches, women have become more "empowered" but more miserable than they've ever been, so while there's certainly a campaign being waged by a whole sect of blue-haired land-whales, it's tragically a war that's been spilling across the aisle into their own camp.

Thankfully, as they all steadily become more toxic as they ramp up their rhetoric--which they have to do, because nothing in the regressive camps can stay alive if it's not escalated-- they keep driving more and more people away. Misery may love company, but increasingly few people want to pay a visit.

 

[Medicated]

The emasculation of men is certainly a facet of it that I find disturbing though, because one of the side-effects of this entire movement has been both to "empower" women in entirely the wrong ways, and encourage them to dismiss their partners for fairly minor slights, rather than to make an attempt to bolster and strengthen the relationship in spite of minor hardships. Neo-feminism is making women miserable. This is one of the reasons that women are rapidly gaining ground on men when it comes to suicide rates, and why women have already met and surpassed men when it comes to chronic depression.

What these utterly vapid, detestable harpies don't fully understand is that we need each other, and the dissolution of core values like maintaining a healthy, stable relationship with a single partner and the proliferation of the "nuclear family" is something that both genders need, not just the men. For all of the Pussy Hats and the Women's Marches and "We Don't Need No Man!" speeches, women have become more "empowered" but more miserable than they've ever been, so while there's certainly a campaign being waged by a whole sect of blue-haired land-whales, it's tragically a war that's been spilling across the aisle into their own camp.

That's exactly why it will fail, too. Misery may love company, but increasingly few people want to pay a visit.

The interesting thing is what is driving it to me. I've read people talk about Jewish and Marxist conspiracies. And while at first glance they look interesting. Until you realize that money makes the world go round. Women are the most valuable market demographic. As some of the articles above suggest, media should be focusing on Women because they will change their minds during advertising and political campaigns.

And whats more interesting, it was found by the advertising agencies they respond better to appeals to emotion. Perhaps this is why so much emotionally charged articles and news reports exist today. Because essentially, despite all the rhetoric from Feminists, and due to most hard labor and manufacturing being ported overseas. Women, at least in the west, are now the dominant sex, economically, and educationally, and therefore this is reflected in the media that's produced. What we see now with Radical Feminists, Marxists, Communists, Trans acceptance. Is not the root cause, but the symptoms of this switchover. In an age where male rational thought has no handhold. Appeals to emotion are the bread and butter of discourse.

At least thats what I'm theorizing, stream of conciousness and all that.

 

[ES 148]

In an age where male rational thought has no handhold.

I was vaguely interested until we went into MRA levels of pettiness

 

[Medicated]

I was vaguely interested until we went into MRA levels of pettiness

I'm talking about on a media and advertiser level. Everything is made for Women now, or at least what they believe works on them, since they are the dominant market force. Rational argument or rattling off specs is made way for emotional pleas. "Connecting with the Audience" and all that. You can read for yourself in the article above.

If you believe I'm wrong then at least say why.

 

[It's HK-47]

The interesting thing is what is driving it to me. I've read people talk about Jewish and Marxist conspiracies. And while at first glance they look interesting. Until you realize that money makes the world go round. Women are the most valuable market demographic. As some of the articles above suggest, media should be focusing on Women because they will change their minds during advertising and political campaigns.

And whats more interesting, it was found by the advertising agencies they respond better to appeals to emotion. Perhaps this is why so much emotionally charged articles and news reports exist today. Because essentially, despite all the rhetoric from Feminists, and due to most hard labor and manufacturing being ported overseas. Women, at least in the west, are now the dominant sex, economically, and educationally, and therefore this is reflected in the media that's produced. What we see now with Radical Feminists, Marxists, Communists, Trans acceptance. Is not the root cause, but the symptoms of this switchover. In an age where male rational thought has no handhold. Appeals to emotion are the bread and butter of discourse.

At least thats what I'm theorizing, stream of conciousness and all that.

I'd posit that it's not necessarily that women are the more-appealing demographic to market to because of an elevated socioeconomic status or because they've become the "dominant sex", but because women are significantly easier to market to. Most advertising in general attempts to appeal to women across the board by default because making an advertisement that appeals to men is "risky." There's a small write-up and a PDF about it over here, but the gist of it is that men respond much better to machismo-based (AXE, for example) advertising or off-colour humour or provocative imagery, and with the exception of the latter, the first two take much more time and effort to produce, and all three run the risk of generating a backlash from the customer base.

Women, though, respond much better to ads that are both easier to produce, (Slice of life, scenes with children, etc) and run the risk of offending basically no one with a pair of eyeballs, so that's almost-assuredly where that difference is coming from, not because women have somehow mysteriously become both the highest-earning sex and yet still "struggle in a man's world." Advertisers just like to play it safe and conveniently that's what women tend to overwhelmingly prefer in their advertising, anyways.

 

[Medicated]

I'd posit that it's not necessarily that women are the more-appealing demographic to market to because of an elevated socioeconomic status or because they've become the "dominant sex", but because women are significantly easier to market to. Most advertising in general attempts to appeal to women across the board by default because making an advertisement that appeals to men is "risky." There's a small write-up and a PDF about it over here, but the gist of it is that men respond much better to humour-based advertising or off-colour humour or provocative imagery, and with the exception of the latter, the first two take much more time and effort to produce, and all three run the risk of generating a backlash from the customer base.

Women, though, respond much better to ads that are both easier to produce, (Slice of life, scenes with children, etc) and run the risk of offending basically no one with a pair of eyeballs, so that's almost-assuredly where that difference is coming from, not because women have somehow mysteriously become both the highest-earning sex and yet still "struggle in a man's world."

If women are the dominant market force, why would anyone change the "struggling in a mans world" premise? Everyone is fed that line all their lives. And if women are so easy to market to, why wasn't it done more in the past? When they were at home all the time in the 1950's? Because now they are financially independent, more of them are earning more than their male partners, more of them or divorcing. They can do and spend on whatever they want.

Let me give you an example of what I'm thinking. Back in the 40's or 50's they'd be having an ad for some household product. The announcer would say, "treat your wife to the new vacusuck 5000 that will really help her get on top of those housework! Don't worry fellas its easy to operate so she can do it by herself!" cause women are dumb right guys?

Now think of an ad today, where the bumbling husband is trying to fix something in the front yard and breaks it, and the woman rolls her eyes at him and makes the call and a real repairperson comes out and the husband looks sheepish and you are supposed to laugh because men are useless right girls?

Does that look like struggling gender equality? No, to me it looks like women are in the same position men were back then.

 

[It's HK-47]

If women are the dominant market force, why would anyone change the "struggling in a mans world" premise? Everyone is fed that line all their lives. And if women are so easy to market to, why wasn't it done more in the past? When they were at home all the time in the 1950's? Because now they are financially independent, more of them are earning more than their male partners, more of them or divorcing. They can do and spend on whatever they want.

Let me give you an example of what I'm thinking. Back in the 40's or 50's they'd be having an ad for some household product. The announcer would say, "treat your wife to the new vacusuck 5000 that will really help her get on top of those housework! Don't worry fellas its easy to operate so she can do it by herself!" cause women are dumb right guys?

Now think of an ad today, where the bumbling husband is trying to fix something in the front yard and breaks it, and the woman rolls her eyes at him and makes the call and a real repairperson comes out and the husband looks sheepish and you are supposed to laugh because men are useless right?

Does that look like struggling gender equality? No, to me it looks like women are in the same position men were back then.

All of that advertising was still slice-of-life and it was still aimed towards advertising primarily to the women, though. The difference was that while women were just as easy to market to back then as they are today, very few women were meaningfully employed in the 40s and 50s compared to the men; the demographics weren't even close, so there really wasn't much of a reason to try and ply for a wallet that barely existed by comparison.

Beyond that, it's not as though the "clumsy husband" motif is even remotely new, you can go back just about as far as you'd like in any sort of media and it's still present. I Love Lucy was loaded with that sort of humour, so were the Flintstones and the Jetsons. Hell, most of the "dumb husband" humour comes from that male-dominated era. It's a bit of an aside, but it's something of a curiousity when it comes to the reversal of gender roles in marketing: Did you know that Marlboro cigarettes used to be exclusively geared towards women?

Back in the 1930s the entire product line was dedicated to being the "high-class, ladies cigarette" and it did alright for itself, but it was nowhere near the globe-spanning mega-product it is today. It wasn't until the sales took a nosedive that they flipped around and rebranded the product to appeal to the male markets as this escapist, machismo cigarette that Marlboro exploded onto the global scene. I always found that really interesting, because it's one of the few instances where a product remained nearly completely unchanged, but with a retooling of the target demographic and the way it was advertised it achieved an entirely different level of success.

 

[Medicated]

All of that advertising was still slice-of-life and it was still aimed towards advertising primarily to the women, though. The difference was that while women were just as easy to market to back then as they are today, very few women were meaningfully employed in the 40s and 50s compared to the men; the demographics weren't even close, so there really wasn't much of a reason to try and ply for a wallet that barely existed by comparison.

Beyond that, it's not as though the "clumsy husband" motif is even remotely new, you can go back just about as far as you'd like in any sort of media and it's still present. I Love Lucy was loaded with that sort of humour, so were the Flintstones and the Jetsons. It's a bit of an aside, but it's something of a curiousity when it comes to the reversal of gender roles in marketing: Did you know that Marlboro cigarettes used to be exclusively geared towards women?

Back in the 1930s the entire product line was dedicated to being the "high-class, ladies cigarette" and it did alright for itself, but it was nowhere near the globe-spanning mega-product it is today. It wasn't until the sales took a nosedive that they flipped around and rebranded the product to appeal to the male markets as this escapist, machismo cigarette that Marlboro exploded onto the global scene. I always found that really interesting, because it's one of the few instances where a product remained nearly completely unchanged, but with a retooling of the target demographic and the way it was advertised it achieved an entirely different level of success.

If you read through some of the articles I've linked above, you'll see the reasoning for my theory. "If a political candidate has 45% male voters and 55% female voters, they are doing fine. If the have 55% male voters and 45% female voters, it's a reason to worry." Women are simply more valuable to the economy, not only as a consumer, but due to their faster attainment of further education, and increasing earning and therefore spending power, and potential to be a social influencer, a better choice than Men to market to.

The Advertising Standards Bureau reports a steady increase each year in the number of complaints about the way men are portrayed on television as 'buffoons' or 'idiots'. A 2007 advertisement for MFI kitchens depicted a woman slapping her husband in a dispute about leaving the toilet seat up. 'If a man belittles a woman, it could become a lawsuit,' says Farrell. 'If women belittle men, it's a Hallmark card.'

So despite everything, who runs the world? Girls!

 

[It's HK-47]

If you read through some of the articles I've linked above, you'll see the reasoning for my theory. "If a political candidate has 45% male voters and 55% female voters, they are doing fine. If the have 55% male voters and 45% female voters, it's a reason to worry." Women are simply more valuable to the economy, not only as a consumer, but due to their faster attainment of further education, and increasing earning and therefore spending power, and potential to be a social influencer, a better choice than Men to market to.

The Advertising Standards Bureau reports a steady increase each year in the number of complaints about the way men are portrayed on television as 'buffoons' or 'idiots'. A 2007 advertisement for MFI kitchens depicted a woman slapping her husband in a dispute about leaving the toilet seat up. 'If a man belittles a woman, it could become a lawsuit,' says Farrell. 'If women belittle men, it's a Hallmark card.'

So despite everything, who runs the world? Girls!

View attachment 427202

I did read it, but that's The Guardian and I'm not in the habit of accepting the opinions of a misery-spreading, neo-feminist rag as anything approaching the truth, so it doesn't worry me.

 

[Medicated]

I did read it, but that's The Guardian and I'm not in the habit of accepting the opinions of a misery-spreading, neo-feminist rag as anything approaching the truth, so it doesn't worry me.

To be fair it's from 2011

Building on the theory I had going there were a series of gender swapped Trump v Clinton debates, where a male actor played Clinton, while a female actor played Trump.

Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.

Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publ...ch/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html

The whole experiment suggests to me that many people are conditioned now, through media exposure and perhaps suggestion, is to have a different perception of someone saying the exact same thing, despite only being of a different sex. Female in the positive, Male in the Negative, when probably the reverse was true in the past.

 

[FBI_Nigger]

This thread is like watching a game of autistic MRA badminton between @Medicated and @It's HK-47

 

[McGregor]

There is in reality, more then ever, a serious war for power over the western world by unworthy political forces. I mean for fuck sake I think this CBC segment really says it all. And let's not forget, this incident seems to have thrust the better part of a nation's population into mourning, and don't fail to notice the likes to dislikes ratio.

If that isn't publicly funded agenda pushing I don't know what is.

 

[kinglordsupreme19]

I'm inclined to extend a claim made by the political scientist Hanspeter Kriesi from the electoral domain to the social domain.

Kriesi claims that the process of economic and cultural globalisation benefits different demographics than those who suffer from it; certain distinct groups of people are the 'winners' and others are the 'losers'. Thus, the political realignment that the west is experiencing at the moment can be seen as the 'losers' and 'winners' of globalisation mobilising to protect and advance their respective interests. For Kriesi, this is a methodology to understand why the political landscape of the west increasingly resembles a Blairite/Clintonite 'centre' on one side against a loosely defined group of nativists and nationalists who seem to cut across the traditional left/right divide.

But let's break it down into the cultural domain. Who are the winners and losers? Let's generalise the attributes of these two groups from what we see in a modest empirical analysis (there's far more than merely this, but for brevity's sake I'm being reductionist):

Winnners

• More likely to work in white-collar professions.
• More likely to live in a city or a large metropolitan area.
• More likely to be non-white.

Losers

• More likely to work in blue-collar industries.
• More likely to live in a peripheral or underdeveloped region of their nation.
• More likely to be white.

These three contrasting attributes of the winners and losers in the division are actually closely related, for what are hopefully obvious reasons. White collar professions tend to agglomerate in major population centres, which in turn typically are more ethnically 'diverse' due to their magnetism for migrants and non-natives. Also, men are far more likely to be in blue-collar jobs than white-collar ones, and also gravitate towards rural or sub-urban locales.

The winners of globalisation can be understood to be either the global ultra-poor or the western elites. In the former case, a Chadian or a Nigerian is afforded access to an increase in wealth and income through taking lower skilled work from a western country, and in the latter case, those who already have money and institutional power will find inefficiencies in the organisations they control reduced as costs of labour drop markedly. The losers of globalisation tend to be the working-to-middle class inhabitants of the western nations who are now finding that a job that once could sustain an entire family is now being moved abroad or is having its wages cut to compete with Pranay's work in Bombay.

Thus, we can see that both the winners and losers tend to have their own divergent interests and tend to compose discernible groups. We have all the makings for conflict between the two; and thus we see the cultural war that has been fermenting increasingly for the past couple of decades. It is born of the fact that white men in the west tend to be the socioeconomic losers of globalisation, whilst women and ethnic minorities are far more likely to be the beneficiaries. Culture being as it is - formulated post-hoc after socieconomic struggles - the 'war on white men' we see in the media is the product of two things:

1. White men tending towards being the opponents of the economic and cultural agenda that tends to prevail in the intellectual or creative professions (seeing as they are the preserve of white collar urbanites).
2. White men being an underrepresented 'other' that those in intellectual or creative professions don't encounter that often, especially white men who themselves are 'losers' and thus indulge in wrongthink (remember, the most proportionally underrepresented demographic in higher education or elite institutions is working class white men).

What can be done about this cultural war, assuming you want to minimise the suffering of the besieged demographics? There are two approaches; hope to make people aware of the underlying socioeconomic conflict and thus cultivate a degree of compassion whilst allowing the 'winners' to win, or work actively to undermine the socioeconomic process that is fueling this conflict. Given first-hand experience at the lack of compassion (and dismissive contempt) felt by many of the winners, my inclination is that the only viable option is to resist the process of sociocultural globalisation and actively work to undermine the efforts of the winners to bring about pozland.

 

[RG 448]

The regressive left won the culture war a couple of years ago. They took that as a blank check to go fucking insane, and now Donald Trump is the president. Every disingenuous movement overplays its hand eventually, society catches wise, resists it, and then everything evens out. The cycle is nothing new.

 

[Medicated]

Thus, we can see that both the winners and losers tend to have their own divergent interests and tend to compose discernible groups. We have all the makings for conflict between the two; and thus we see the cultural war that has been fermenting increasingly for the past couple of decades. It is born of the fact that white men in the west tend to be the socioeconomic losers of globalisation, whilst women and ethnic minorities are far more likely to be the beneficiaries. Culture being as it is - formulated post-hoc after socieconomic struggles - the 'war on white men' we see in the media is the product of two things:

1. White men tending towards being the opponents of the economic and cultural agenda that tends to prevail in the intellectual or creative professions (seeing as they are the preserve of white collar urbanites).
2. White men being a relative 'other' that those in intellectual or creative professions don't encounter that often, especially white men who themselves are 'losers' and thus indulge in wrongthink.

What can be done about this cultural war, assuming you want to minimise the suffering of the besieged demographics? There are two approaches; hope to make people aware of the underlying socioeconomic conflict and thus cultivate a degree of compassion whilst allowing the 'winners' to win, or work actively to undermine the socioeconomic process that is fueling this conflict. Given first-hand experience at the lack of compassion (and dismissive contempt) felt by many of the winners, my inclination is that the only viable option is to resist the process of sociocultural globalisation and actively work to undermine the efforts of the winners to bring about pozland.

Thanks for the input it's really helped make me see where the market forces are coming from. I don't really think there will be much that can be done about it. Globalist interests have far more resources to put toward their agenda than the shrinking middle class blue to white collar male this is impacting. I expect thats why immigration is so sought after, to drive down labor costs by overflowing the labor market in a country. Then every country can be a Sri Lanka or Thailand.

Then we'll virtually be back to peasant farmers and lords and ladies.

 

[Jetpack Himmler]

There is in reality, more then ever, a serious war for power over the western world by unworthy political forces. I mean for fuck sake I think this CBC segment really says it all. And let's not forget, this incident seems to have thrust the better part of a nation's population into mourning, and don't fail to notice the likes to dislikes ratio.

If that isn't publicly funded agenda pushing I don't know what is.

Oh lord. I see that Michael Coren was on that panel and that "man" is a slimy little worm who used to be a conservative who drank the SJW kool-aid because he thought it would benefit his career. Speaking to what @kinglordsupreme19 said, I definitely see it in action in Canada where the predominantly urbanized, white-collar, and "diverse" areas in Ontario/Quebec and coastal British Columbia are at odds with the more conservative and rural prairie provinces.

The recent spat between between British Columbia and Alberta over the expansion of the Trans-Mountain Pipeline is a manifestation of this cultural war with the former overstepping its constitutional authority in stalling the project. Now that the company is threatening to pull the plug on it if the federal government does not take action by May 31. May I remind my fellow Kiwis that the Internet lambasted the head of the current government over his numerous gaffes. Many say that no matter the result, there will be a unity crisis, so this culture war may end up rending at least one nation asunder.

 

[Medicated]

Many say that no matter the result, there will be a unity crisis, so this culture war may end up rending at least one nation asunder.

I'm really beginning to see why things are happening this way. There have been numerous articles such as this:

Where have all the good men gone? These sassy, sophisticated, solvent women say they are struggling to find other halves that can measure up

• Five single women share why they've struggled to find men worth dating
• They ask if it is possible to find independent, attractive mid-life daters
• One dating coach says there are seven women for every man aged 40-55

Very few men are happy to be by themselves, too. They lurch from one relationship to another, whereas middle-aged women are a lot stronger and more self-assured than they were in the last generation.

‘I have two children and a career to manage and I’m forthright. I think men find women like me intimidating.

‘I want a strong, independent man. Why is that so hard?’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4754914/Where-good-men-gone.html

This suggests that the socioeconomics and dynamics have shifted so radically that many Women are starting to occupy the place Men once did, but at the same time they are looking for the traditional breadwinner Husband. And in the modern globalist economy, those guys are disappearing fast. Due to poverty and suicide from loss of the historical middle class white mens manufacturing and labor to overseas markets.

This also reflects in the media as the middle class white man loses work and thus market and buying power. The media and advertsing trend towards the affluent women and minorities that make up the new urban white collar consumer base.

 

[Stock Image Photographer]

Women have been earning more college degrees than men for a while now; actually since the early 90's if you count RN degrees. However, as HK stated earlier a lot of those degrees are in somewhat less useful social science and gender studies degrees. We're currently reaching the end of the lag phase of the effects of this disparity, as shown by the article above. Expect a lot more articles like it in the years to come, especially if women demand to have spouses that have equal levels of formal education to them. The thing is that they've kind of forced themselves into a corner. A lot of American colleges and universities have been quietly applying a kind of affirmative action for male applicants, but it hasn't fully fixed the problem. Anything else would require acknowledgement that the problem exists, which many feminists are loathe to do because they don't want it known that men are actually worse off than women in some ways.