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



## Medicated (Apr 15, 2018)

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 (Apr 15, 2018)

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 (Apr 15, 2018)

*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 (Apr 15, 2018)

It's HK-47 said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2018)

Medicated said:


> In an age where male rational thought has no handhold.


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


----------



## Medicated (Apr 15, 2018)

Vrakks said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2018)

Medicated said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2018)

It's HK-47 said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2018)

Medicated said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


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 (Apr 15, 2018)

It's HK-47 said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2018)

Medicated said:


> 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.'
> _
> ...


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 (Apr 15, 2018)

It's HK-47 said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2018)

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


----------



## McGregor (Apr 15, 2018)

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 (Apr 15, 2018)

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:


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).
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 (Apr 15, 2018)

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 (Apr 15, 2018)

kinglordsupreme19 said:


> 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:
> 
> 
> 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).
> ...



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 (Apr 15, 2018)

McGregor said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 15, 2018)

Jetpack Himmler said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2018)

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.


----------



## Medicated (Apr 15, 2018)

Stock Image Photographer said:


> 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.



Well it's not really due to Feminists, it's due to the fact that there is no money to be made addressing Men's issues, because they are on the way out in terms of a powerful market demographic to cater to.  It also might explain why the media tends to be so benign on things like BLM, Antifa, Radical Feminists.  Because they believe their current demographic has sympathies with these groups and don't want to lose out.

At also explains why the media is so aggressive against White Men who are nationalists and Trump.  They are in many respects representative of the blue collar white men that made up most of the heartland of America in the past and had much of the media and market power in the past.  It also explains why Liberals were so confused and outraged at Trumps win.  Since they have control of the media discourse due to market power, but you don't need money to vote.  And all they heard from Trump was redneck neckbeard white man talk about outdated anti-progressive values like nationalism and border control and protectionism.

The thing I don't don't understand is why is there such a hatred for people, according to the economic and political data, are on the way out?  It's over already.  They are just kicking people who are to them, underemployed loser white hicks.


----------



## ColtWalker1847 (Apr 15, 2018)

Medicated said:


> 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?


That is an incorrect assumption. They marketed to_ *housewives* _directly. It was only after women's lib and the widespread rejection of the homemaker role did a bunch of people go digging through old ads to find a couple condescending ones. The reality was quite different. The woman of the time handled a great deal of the purchases and the marketing directly targeted them, the home economist.


----------



## It's HK-47 (Apr 15, 2018)

Medicated said:


> Well it's not really due to Feminists, it's due to the fact that there is no money to be made addressing Men's issues, because they are on the way out in terms of a powerful market demographic to cater to.  It also might explain why the media tends to be so benign on things like BLM, Antifa, Radical Feminists.  Because they believe their current demographic has sympathies with these groups and don't want to lose out.
> 
> At also explains why the media is so aggressive against White Men who are nationalists and Trump.  They are in many respects representative of the blue collar white men that made up most of the heartland of America in the past and had much of the media and market power in the past.  It also explains why Liberals were so confused and outraged at Trumps win.  Since they have control of the media discourse due to market power, but you don't need money to vote.  And all they heard from Trump was redneck neckbeard white man talk about outdated anti-progressive values like nationalism and border control and protectionism.
> 
> The thing I don't don't understand is why is there such a hatred for people, according to the economic and political data, are on the way out?  It's over already.  They are just kicking people who are to them, underemployed loser white hicks.


Well it's not purely that they won't make considerations for the white male demographic in media because it's a declining market force, you also have to remember that like Testaclese said:  _The Left won the culture war._  That entire war is done and over and they _*own*_ media right now.  That's why someone with a Regressive or even just a Liberal mindset, who was born relatively recently, could feasibly have gone their entire lives up until this point without even _encountering_ a Conservative mindset or political stance in media, outside of them being portrayed as an undesirable, if not a villain outright.

Try and imagine the last show you watched that painted a Conservative opinion in a positive light, if it even had a Conservative character _to begin with_, or the last actor you encountered who lauded candidate Trump the same way that so many of them were lauding _Madam President_, or the last movie you saw that painted the U.S. Military in a positive light rather than just being loaded to the gills with war-mongering generals and completely incompetent soldiers (Although much of the latter is due to Hollywood trying to appeal to the burgeoning Chinese market).  The Left's _complete_ domination of Hollywood and media outlets has made an entire political ideal nearly _unavailable_ to an entire generation of people, but that's where the weakness comes in, because the human mind--especially the _young, rebellious mind_-- *loves* a taboo.

*Extremists always overreach.*  It happens *every* single time, it can't be helped.  The Left won the culture war and stormed Hollywood and the media and the news outlets, and then the U.S. became "more tolerant" than it ever had been.  From gay marriage to (The beginnings of) legalized marijuana to _Affirmative Action_ to Planned Parenthood, the Left had locked in its victory, reinforced every single one of its defenses, and then... Had nothing left to do.  That's where the _problems started_, because for a Conservative, stagnation is the ideal.  Conservatives _do not want to change_, they are the party of "It's *not* broken, so *don't fucking touch it*." where-as the Liberals are the party of change, the party that wants to keep moving; they want _something to improve_ because they think that the world could be better if we just _poked it a bit._

Since they had nothing _Left_ to improve, out came the manufactured offenses.  Out came the trans-trender movement, the "Illegal Alien" to "Undocumented American" movement, out came the "_micro-aggressions",_ and it got so bad that for awhile there _even the pedophiles wanted a go._  The Conservatives had to become full-blown Fascists because the Left had already achieved their goals, and the Left _can't naturally _bunker-down and stay stationary_, especially_ when the bulk of their war machine was manned by bad actors like Clinton and Weinstein and Zuckerberg, who are just donning the mantle of Social Justice as a _defense_ rather than a _legitimate belief_, in order to make power grabs.

You have to keep things like that in mind when you're reading all of these Op-Eds coming out of publications right now, because by-and-large the media has become little more than a _massive_ echo chamber for Regressive ideologues, and that's tainting any information that might be coming out of their camp.  There are _certainly_ problems in culture right now where presenting masculinity and Caucasians in a positive light are concerned, but quite a fair bit of it is also just an echo from the war that they already won that keeps rattling off in a paranoid scream while they try to convince themselves that "the Pendulum" is not going to come violently swinging back over to the Right, after they've spent so much time keeping it nailed-down.


----------



## Medicated (Apr 15, 2018)

It's HK-47 said:


> There are _certainly_ problems in culture right now where presenting masculinity and Caucasians in a positive light are concerned, but quite a fair bit of it is also just an echo from the war that they already won that keeps rattling off in a paranoid scream while they try to convince themselves that "the Pendulum" is not going to come violently swinging back over to the Right, after they've spent so much time keeping it nailed-down.



But thats what I think is the case, the culture war was in effect, the transfer of market and media power from the middle class blue collar to the coastal middle class white collar.

"The Pendulum" is what is middle america going against what the more affluent coastals who are in charge of the media believe to be true.  It's the fact that, no matter how much money a demographic has, a person who is completely broke can still vote.  The question is, can the media effectively shriek at middle america about Trump and convince the voters there he's Hitler during his term?  And can they field an effective candidate that will pander to middle America and then sell them out when they've won?  Because in the end, globalism is the ultimate goal. Tearing down borders to push down wages, reduced power of governments to dictate to corporations.  It's virtually completed in the EU.

Even if all of the EU turned hard right overnight? How do you even begin to put that cat back in the bag?


----------



## SeaPancake (Apr 16, 2018)

Several thoughts:

Instead of saying "Men are bad", people should instead be teaching boys how to be functional, emotionally healthy human beings, and that's not really being done. In some ways boys win out unintentionally in some areas, in others girls do -- just as an example, men are more likely to be diagnosed by doctors as having substance abuse problems or alcoholism *but* doctors are less likely to dig deeper to figure the cause of it, i.e. depression, while depression in women is widely diagnosed. People can say "Oh well I cry and I'm a guy" but trust me, quite a number of guys still subscribe to the stereotypical "boys don't cry. What are you, a pussy?" mentality. If you simply aren't one to get emotional, that's fine, but if you feel you have to be a rock in order for people to respect you, that's a problem society needs to change about itself.

Fathers are important to their kids..if they're good people. Mothers are important to their kids...if they're good people. You can raise a child as a single parent, mother or father, without the kid ending fucked up, a revelation which was a godsend to individuals who were shamed for wanting to leave an abusive spouse for depriving their child of a father or mother. 

Personally, I think that there are two groups speaking here when they expound the declaration that "Society is attacking men". One group believes that truly harmful attributes to be found in men --extreme stoicism, emphasis on aggression instead of cooperation even when cooperation would be a better route to take in the long run, and an almost pathological fear of conveying intimacy or emotional closeness with the same sex-- is shit that should be preserved out of some dumbass belief that men aren't men if they aren't that, or "that's how men are *supposed* to be". The other group is rightfully leery of anyone who declares that anything associated with men is bad, and that's the group I am a part of.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Apr 16, 2018)

Lol no. Neither the far-leftists who make up the mainstream Democrat party, nor the far-leftists who make up the "Alt-Right", believe that people are individuals who can make their own choices in life. Men are free to pay attention in school or not, and to become therapists or not. Making movies about women or ads targeted toward women doesn't oppress men any more than movies or ads about men oppress women. Neither black nor white people, men or women are being kept down by The Man (or The Woman).


----------



## Daughter of Cernunnos (Apr 16, 2018)

McGregor said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Damn. As soon as that tragedy was being widely covered I knew people would be making those type of comments but I didn't see an example til now. Fuck CBC for giving this petty bitch the attention she craves. This is not news.


----------



## millais (Apr 16, 2018)

Except for the emasculated ally types, it is pretty clear that they have been relegated to the Wrong Side of History


----------



## Medicated (Apr 16, 2018)

millais said:


> Except for the emasculated ally types, it is pretty clear that they have been relegated to the Wrong Side of History



I find it quite ironic that the industrial age and culture that "the patriarchy" built eventually led to them signing their own death warrant.



ColtWalker1847 said:


> They marketed to_ *housewives* _directly. It was only after women's lib and the widespread rejection of the homemaker role did a bunch of people go digging through old ads to find a couple condescending ones.



Yes, but could you find that condescending tone towards women in any advertising in the US or UK today?  I think you'd be hard pressed.


----------



## ColtWalker1847 (Apr 16, 2018)

Medicated said:


> Yes, but could you find that condescending tone towards women in any advertising in the US or UK today?  I think you'd be hard pressed.


You were hard pressed to find it then. The context simply changed. When they said "buy our product so that you can keep your home better and your husband and family happy" they weren't being condescending. That was their job. That was their career. Homemaking. And the companies were marketing to those people.

We now look back on it post women's lib and think they were being assholes, but they really weren't. They were just trying to sell their wares to their prime demographic.

The oddballs then are just like the oddballs we see today. A perfect example is this recent Bully Hunters fiasco that was just a hamfisted attempt to sell headphones to girls. Who is to say that in 60-80 years they won't look back at all the pink shit and other assorted dreck they market to women now and brand it as condescending and sexist because times have changed? Or are they simply just trying to sell shit in the context of the time?


----------



## aqua sama (Apr 16, 2018)

Jon-Kacho said:


> Lol no. Neither the far-leftists who make up the mainstream Democrat party, nor the far-leftists who make up the "Alt-Right", believe that people are individuals who can make their own choices in life. Men are free to pay attention in school or not, and to become therapists or not. Making movies about women or ads targeted toward women doesn't oppress men any more than movies or ads about men oppress women. Neither black nor white people, men or women are being kept down by The Man (or The Woman).



whether you want to aknowledge it or not, programs like affirmative action are definitely detrimental to white males.
People make their own choices yeah, but it's crystal clear how some people out there, are clearly trying to push a certain agenda.


----------



## Medicated (Apr 16, 2018)

ColtWalker1847 said:


> Who is to say that in 60-80 years they won't look back at all the pink shit and other assorted dreck they market to women now and brand it as condescending and sexist because times have changed? Or are they simply just trying to sell shit in the context of the time?



60-80 years?  Try 4 years ago.  This is just one example of the many articles.


----------



## Nazi vegeta (Apr 16, 2018)

this was all predicted years ago.





Where do you think all these lefties, trying to claim the blood of White males/the patriarchy, come from?


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 16, 2018)

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/tur...hiring-professors-but-not-against-minorities?

Do we really need anything else but hard evidence?


----------



## SaltAndGoldMine (Apr 16, 2018)

SeaPancake said:


> You can raise a child as a single parent, mother or father, without the kid ending fucked up, a revelation which was a godsend to individuals who were shamed for wanting to leave an abusive spouse for depriving their child of a father or mother.



It's usually better for children to have two-parent households, though.  This paper emphasizes that the parents should be the biological parents of the child in question in order for the best results later in life.



SeaPancake said:


> extreme stoicism, emphasis on aggression instead of cooperation even when cooperation would be a better route to take in the long run, and an almost pathological fear of conveying intimacy or emotional closeness with the same sex



I'd argue that there's a biological basis for these attributes, and that it's helped humanity thrive long enough to evolve.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/karean...sons-why-stoicism-matters-today/#dadb98c7a643

Extreme stoicism - the ability to remain calm and to show that calmness to others in times of panic is a valuable thing.  This trait also demonstrates emotional stability.  
Emphasis on aggression - being able to contend with others and show a competitive side shows prospective mates that the male in question is a winner, and cares enough about survival and procreation to risk a fight.  Women do find aggression in partners to be attractive.

"Fear" (It's more of an aversion) of conveying intimacy with the same sex - the members of the same sex are reproductive competition, and intimacy may mean an exposure of vulnerability in front of those men.
These attributes are important to women, even subconsciously, when selecting a mate.  They show that the mate is a stable leader or alpha who is serious about the continuation of the species.


----------



## ConcernedAnon (Apr 16, 2018)

Daughter of Pomona said:


> Damn. As soon as that tragedy was being widely covered I knew people would be making those type of comments but I didn't see an example til now. Fuck CBC for giving this petty bitch the attention she craves. This is not news.



The worst part is when they manage to somehow contort their way into saying that all the defenders of free speech are white nationalists and that free speech should only be given to the 'worthy'.

These fucking people.


----------



## SeaPancake (Apr 16, 2018)

SaltAndGoldMine said:


> It's usually better for children to have two-parent households, though.  This paper emphasizes that the parents should be the biological parents of the child in question in order for the best results later in life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Those things were fine way back then, but since we all live in a society that depends on us cooperating with others we may not otherwise interact with, being needlessly belligerent is simply a pain in the ass for the system to deal with. Oh sure, your girlfriend may get turned on by your show of "alpha maledom" towards some schlub who was just trying to strike up a conversation with her, but everyone else at the bar just wants to have a fucking drink without you going all Cro Magnon on someone's ass.

We're at 7 billion people and unless we're hit by a supervirus, the survival of our species is not that much of a pressing issue in terms of external threats except those of our own design. 

I also stand by my statement that whatever "benefit" a two parent household may have on a child is definitely negated if one or both of the parents are complete pieces of shit and ill-equipped with raising a child in the first place. I'd much rather deal with someone who has Daddy issues because Daddy wasn't there than someone who has Daddy issues because Daddy beat Mommy every night.


----------



## SaltAndGoldMine (Apr 16, 2018)

SeaPancake said:


> Those things were fine way back then, but since we all live in a society that depends on us cooperating with others we may not otherwise interact with, being needlessly belligerent is simply a pain in the ass for the system to deal with.



Not quite - cooperation doesn't replace resourcefulness or capability.



SeaPancake said:


> Oh sure, your girlfriend may get turned on by your show of "alpha maledom" towards some schlub who was just trying to strike up a conversation with her, but everyone else at the bar just wants to have a fucking drink without you going all Cro Magnon on someone's ass.



I don't have a girlfriend - I am a girl.  I'm sorry you're offended by what most women want because you lack it.



SeaPancake said:


> We're at 7 billion people and unless we're hit by a supervirus, the survival of our species is not that much of a pressing issue in terms of external threats except those of our own design



Half of the world's population resides in China and Africa, and from what I've been given to understand, most people don't want duplicates of the populations there.  White populations are on the decline.



SeaPancake said:


> I also stand by my statement that whatever "benefit" a two parent household may have on a child is definitely negated if one or both of the parents are complete pieces of shit and ill-equipped with raising a child in the first place. I'd much rather deal with someone who has Daddy issues because Daddy wasn't there than someone who has Daddy issues because Daddy beat Mommy every night.



You missed the entire gist of the study - the whole point is that the family is functional because the parents are functional enough individually.


----------



## SeaPancake (Apr 16, 2018)

SaltAndGoldMine said:


> I don't have a girlfriend - I am a girl.  I'm sorry you're offended by what most women want because you lack it.



I didn't mean that you were a man, only speaking theoretically, 'if you were an aggressive man'. I am also female. Howdy-do, fellow bitch.

An "Alpha Male" is only good in the short term for romantic and sexual shit, planting the seed in the belly and staking the claim for resources *at the time*. There's a reason why mens' testosterone levels lower when they end up having kids, because that "aggressive alpha" shit isn't helpful when it comes to handling and caring for a very dependent, very breakable creature i.e. a baby (which remains very breakable for a very long time, in fact).


----------



## Medicated (Apr 17, 2018)

Nazi vegeta said:


> this was all predicted years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You see I don't believe that it's solely due to this.  I think all of that is a symptom of globalization, not a cause.  These various groups, that were mocked publicly and practiced their trade on the sidelines of society beforehand.  They've been "pulled up" as the new demographics now allow them platforms and money they didn't have before.

These groups have been saying the exact same things since the late sixties, it's only 30-40 years later, that now, they can go on prime time and say white men are destructive and evil by nature and must be stopped.  Or saying Blacks are the superior race and the Whites were afraid of their power or something like that.

Just as if say, you decided to hold a public speech in 1936 and tell everyone that your country should avoid taking in peoples of other races/cultures and follow the lead of Germany, and become Nationalistic and proud of your race and heritage, and barely anyone would bat an eye.  Because you were playing to the class of people that valued that, because it secured their prosperity.


----------



## Nazi vegeta (Apr 17, 2018)

Medicated said:


> You see I don't believe that it's solely due to this.  I think all of that is a symptom of globalization, not a cause.  These various groups, that were mocked publicly and practiced their trade on the sidelines of society beforehand.  They've been "pulled up" as the new demographics now allow them platforms and money they didn't have before.
> 
> These groups have been saying the exact same things since the late sixties, it's only 30-40 years later, that now, they can go on prime time and say white men are destructive and evil by nature and must be stopped.  Or saying Blacks are the superior race and the Whites were afraid of their power or something like that.
> 
> Just as if say, you decided to hold a public speech in 1936 and tell everyone that your country should avoid taking in peoples of other races/cultures and follow the lead of Germany, and become Nationalistic and proud of your race and heritage, and barely anyone would bat an eye.  Because you were playing to the class of people that valued that, because it secured their prosperity.



Yes, they were Always there, but now, they do have tools to recruit new members in their cult, which they did not possess or even existed before.

Also, it's definitely easier to make money off of useful idiots, rather than with people who do have values and dont want to sell out their people/country. That's why so many corporations, try to jump on the social justice train.
Weak people are easy to exploit and to guilt trip. ''You're a racist, give me resources!!''


----------



## Medicated (Apr 19, 2018)

Nazi vegeta said:


> Yes, they were Always there, but now, they do have tools to recruit new members in their cult, which they did not possess or even existed before.
> 
> Also, it's definitely easier to make money off of useful idiots, rather than with people who do have values and dont want to sell out their people/country. That's why so many corporations, try to jump on the social justice train.
> Weak people are easy to exploit and to guilt trip. ''You're a racist, give me resources!!''



Yes that's what I'm noticing now that I look at it.  It's not exactly that there is an active war on white men in the media, it's that corporations, and even politicians have dropped the typical working class man as a demographic to cater to on any level.  Movies, TV, news articles, are made as the working class man are on the outside now.  The only ones left in the market are the white collar males that usually make up the "white male allies".  And they are typically subservient to the values and politics of their female and minority collagues in the white collar workforce.







But since white males are now on the outer as a powerful demographic force, certain groups are free to bash men without market repercussions.  Men typically have no strong social media influence or connections, and now have less spending power than ever.


----------



## Save Goober (Apr 19, 2018)

Kind of an appropriate anecdote for this thread, at least I think it's something this forum would find interesting but don't know where else to put it.
I was at the checkout line the other day, behind me were two white guys in office attire talking somewhat loudly about something (I was on my phone, probably reading kiwi farms) I honestly have no idea what but clearly it wasn't obtrusive enough to enter my field of awareness aside from the fact they were there.
In front of me checking out was this pink haired, white (of course) woman. Suddenly she turns around and looks past me at the guys and says "excuse me but would you please shut the fuck up?"
They seem confused and one says "I don't think I will" but she insists they need to stop talking and turns to the cashier and declares "that is some white boy bullshit" and finished checking out and left.
The guys are really confused, the cashier obviously didn't know what to do and was just as clueless as I was I think. It was very strange. I wish I'd heard what they were talking about but I feel it was just like how slow the line was it something. It's not like they were talking about how great Hitler and Trump are, I think I would have noticed had that been the case.


----------



## Vehk (Apr 19, 2018)

Medicated said:


> The thing I don't don't understand is why is there such a hatred for people, according to the economic and political data, are on the way out?  It's over already.  They are just kicking people who are to them, underemployed loser white hicks.



Because their last grasp at political dominance (Trump) is ruining a country's future.

It's like selling your house and then setting it on fire as soon as the check clears (but before you had moved any of your stuff out).


----------



## Medicated (Apr 20, 2018)

melty said:


> Kind of an appropriate anecdote for this thread, at least I think it's something this forum would find interesting but don't know where else to put it.
> I was at the checkout line the other day, behind me were two white guys in office attire talking somewhat loudly about something (I was on my phone, probably reading kiwi farms) I honestly have no idea what but clearly it wasn't obtrusive enough to enter my field of awareness aside from the fact they were there.
> In front of me checking out was this pink haired, white (of course) woman. Suddenly she turns around and looks past me at the guys and says "excuse me but would you please shut the fuck up?"
> They seem confused and one says "I don't think I will" but she insists they need to stop talking and turns to the cashier and declares "that is some white boy bullshit" and finished checking out and left.
> The guys are really confused, the cashier obviously didn't know what to do and was just as clueless as I was I think. It was very strange. I wish I'd heard what they were talking about but I feel it was just like how slow the line was it something. It's not like they were talking about how great Hitler and Trump are, I think I would have noticed had that been the case.



Since the media is constantly telling women and minorities they are oppressed by men, who are virtually powerless in the marketplace, it's actually in reality women and minorities that hold power.  Think of the stories you've heard about accusations of racism or sexism, the men involved lives are basically destroyed in that instant, whether they were guilty or not, while if the women are found to be lying, then it doesn't matter because the media has told them that men either have all the power anyway due to the patriarchy, or they have had power so long, they deserve to be taken down a peg.  It's not like men as a group can boycott anything, due to them being a poor consumer market and having weak social links.

For example.  Remember the "gamers are dead" articles?  This wasn't actually talking about ALL gamers.  What it meant was, "you suburban men who were our traditional demographic in the past are dead to us, market research shows you are on they way out, and you will buy videogames regardless, your time is over"

GamerGate failed because it originated from the same demographic that support for Trump originated from, from where old videogames support originally came from, suburban white low to middle class.  No industry is interested in cultivating a relationship with them.  So they are free to demonize them however they wish.


----------



## Nazi vegeta (Apr 20, 2018)

Medicated said:


> Yes that's what I'm noticing now that I look at it.  It's not exactly that there is an active war on white men in the media, it's that corporations, and even politicians have dropped the typical working class man as a demographic to cater to on any level.  Movies, TV, news articles, are made as the working class man are on the outside now.  The only ones left in the market are the white collar males that usually make up the "white male allies".  And they are typically subservient to the values and politics of their female and minority collagues in the white collar workforce.
> 
> View attachment 430493
> 
> ...




no wonder that in the age of social media, the woman who is more social than the man by nature, is the sex with the strongest grip on society.
Men have rendered themselves useless and are now paying the price for it.




Medicated said:


> Since the media is constantly telling women and minorities they are oppressed by men, who are virtually powerless in the marketplace, it's actually in reality women and minorities that hold power.  Think of the stories you've heard about accusations of racism or sexism, the men involved lives are basically destroyed in that instant, whether they were guilty or not, while if the women are found to be lying, then it doesn't matter because the media has told them that men either have all the power anyway due to the patriarchy, or they have had power so long, they deserve to be taken down a peg.  It's not like men as a group can boycott anything, due to them being a poor consumer market and having weak social links.
> 
> For example.  Remember the "gamers are dead" articles?  This wasn't actually talking about ALL gamers.  What it meant was, "you suburban men who were our traditional demographic in the past are dead to us, market research shows you are on they way out, and you will buy videogames regardless, your time is over"
> 
> ...



If Hulk Hogan can be demonized and made out to be a racist evil man and have his career in the WWE, pretty much obliterated, just because he said ''NIGGER'' in a private conversation, what chances does the average joe stand, in dealing with this sort of shit?​


----------



## Medicated (Apr 21, 2018)

Nazi vegeta said:


> no wonder that in the age of social media, the woman who is more social than the man by nature, is the sex with the strongest grip on society.
> Men have rendered themselves useless and are now paying the price for it.



Well yeah, the whole social media and media at large is skewed towards female viewers these days.






Ghostbusters 2016 basically thumbed their noses at the original fanbase, to chase the womens market.  All of the actresses came from women targeted comedies.  And the smart mouthed secretary from the original was swapped out for a secretary character that was a musclebound airhead.



Star Wars went with a female protagonist, that has parallels with Bella from Twilight.  Plain and blank looking, no clear motivations or character arc, she was there to serve as a proxy for the female audience.




I'm sure you can find more examples of this yourself, but most people don't seem to notice until it's pointed out.


----------



## RadicalCentrist (Oct 8, 2018)

ITT:  People realizing they are the expendable gender.

If you wanted to have intrinsic value just from being born, you should have been born a woman.  Troon out or shut up.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Oct 8, 2018)

Yes and no. Are there groups of people pushing a dislike of white men? Yes. But most actors you see are whites, because white men are generally the most handsome.


----------



## KE 521 (Oct 8, 2018)

y u necro dis


----------



## Secret Asshole (Oct 8, 2018)

I'm going to go full on 'Perhaps'. Realize that identity politics and to an extent, a 'war on men' is meant to create division between mostly the poor and lower classes. Identity politics has always been a tool of control by the rich. They're meant to enhance divisions and have nothing to do with diversity initiatives or capturing new demographics.

Because if we keep fighting each other, we don't notice who are really fucking us. The wealthy. They've got more concentrated wealth than any other time in history, including the 1920s. Shit gets so bad, you need to put that aggressive energy into something. So to drive a wedge between people, you create this divide. Marxists, Progtards, Gender Studies and Leftists are all useful idiots. Just think about how often all of these groups are on their knees deepthroating corporate cock. Think of the love for Silicon Valley and the idea that Tech will save us and these smart people 'deserve' this money even though they're still doing evil dumb shit, just a lot less visible than it was in the 1920s.

The rich need us to keep fighting each other, because if we don't, we turn on them. The rich can couch their language in favorable positions like feminism and equality, driving wedges between people. Its very simple for rich, white men to shit on Trump voters or nationalists or even centrists.

There was a document released to Citibank investors basically saying the US is a plutocracy and could face a revolt during the financial crisis of 2008. Its not like this shit isn't known. Identity politics has been used to divide the plebs for centuries. In the past we did it with religion while kings laughed. Now we do it with 'diversity' and 'feminism', monsters cloaking themselves in the shield of 'progressiveness' and 'right side of history'. Take Kavanaugh. While that circus was going on, more legislation fucking the poor was quietly passed. Nobody noticed, people were too busy LARPing as the Hand Maiden's Tale and playing out power fantasies on Twitter.

The entire culture war is an illusion so the rich can steal more from everyone and not get a bullet in the forehead. Fucking over men is the icing on the cake, because we're the most likely ones to put it there.


----------



## NN 401 (Oct 8, 2018)

> Think of the love for Silicon Valley and the idea that Tech will save us and these smart people 'deserve' this money even though they're still doing evil dumb shit, just a lot less visible than it was in the 1920s.



The entirety of the might of Silicon Valley seems to be geared towards creating social platforms to facilitate the most basic and narcissistic tendencies in human. 

here's an interesting theory I've heard lately: 

There is a group of angry white lefty women that are doing to white men what black men did to their own women.
The shrieks of cultural appropriation, privilege, racism, mayo- ness etc. are nothing but emotional abuse intended to keep white guys from going off the reservation.

And by going off the reservation they mean miscegenation. 

(I've personally seen waaay too much antipathy towards ethnic woman with white guy pairings to think this is anything but. 
The women get REEEE-ed at for "betraying" their own men and hooking up with colonizers and the men are accused of fetishism. I can at least vouch for that.) 


The attack on racial preference is really about White men possibly preferring or hell even being open to the idea of being with someone other than a white woman ( the right kind of white woman mind you).

These women secretly want a stable of emotionally timid men who they can reliably cuck at a moment's notice without fear of the relationship dissolving.

Black men's attitudes towards black women and shaming them for even looking at anything else has essentially trapped black women in a very self- destructive loop where they accept all kinds of shitty behavior just so no one will label them a "race traitor."

The person who floated this theory towards me saw these parallels emerging.


What does everyone think? Or is my friend in question just autistic?


----------



## Audit (Oct 8, 2018)

BlastDoors41 said:


> The entirety of the might of Silicon Valley seems to be geared towards creating social platforms to facilitate the most basic and narcissistic tendencies in human.
> 
> here's an interesting theory I've heard lately:
> 
> ...


I think it's safe to say that white men shacking up with Asian women is not the driving force behind people promoting 3rd wave feminism. Remember, they're turning on the black men now as well. Besides, there's an army of conservative white men who would love to end miscegenation. If this were the goal of 3rd wave feminism, they'd have associated themselves with traditionally socially conservative left wing outfits instead of socially liberal ones. I.e. they wouldn't push intersectionalism because intersectionalists tend to promote homosexuality, race mixing, and everything-is-problematic politics. So, instead of hopping onboard with the DSA, they'd be joining up with the WSWS, who tend to have a rather negative view on petty-bourgeois politics. 

As @Secret Asshole said, demonizing white men only serves to entrench the interests of the elite by keeping the more militant and desperate elements of our society from banding together and changing the system to fit their needs. Their goal truly is the production of a society where the poor men behave timidly and without confidence so that their control over the system will go perpetually unchallenged. Also, a lot of the feminists do simply hate men and use intersectionalism to produce an original sin of having been born white and male (or really any other "privileged" group).


----------



## escapegoat (Oct 8, 2018)

Secret Asshole said:


> The entire culture war is an illusion so the rich can steal more from everyone and not get a bullet in the forehead.



This.


Also, yes, lulz at the idea that white women are trying to develop an ethnically pure stable of white dudes to do the laundry. White women are increasingly in a tenuous situation in the left. Apparently, their "blood pacts" (aka actual familial relationships) with white men are a problem worthy of screeching about in the Times. They will kick the white women out, before they kick the Black men out. "Believe women" will go _right out the fucking window _ the moment the woman is white, and the man is not. Instead, we will all be treated to endless stories about lynchings and lying white chicks from the South.

And, you know, after THAT, it will be just believe women of color. Then just believe LGBT women of color. And eventually the only default believing will be for an Indigenous Woman with a Penis.


----------



## RadicalCentrist (Oct 8, 2018)

Secret Asshole said:


> There was a document released to Citibank investors basically saying the US is a plutocracy and could face a revolt during the financial crisis of 2008.


No doubt they were referring to the Georgetown study that found that 92% of the American populace have 0% influence on policy.  Of course, no matter how bad things get, our bread and circuses are the most advanced in human history.  Nothing will change for the better.


----------



## NN 401 (Oct 8, 2018)

I think what he was getting at is that white women like to fuck around with black men but settle down with white men when they're done slumming around.  

Black men and women routinely heap emotional abuse on black women who date outside their race.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Oct 8, 2018)

BlastDoors41 said:


> I think what he was getting at is that white women like to fuck around with black men but settle down with white men when they're done slumming around.
> 
> Black men and women routinely heap emotional abuse on black women who date outside their race.


Got any sources


----------



## escapegoat (Oct 8, 2018)

Ron /pol/ said:


> Got any sources



Porn. His source is porn.


----------



## dopy (Oct 8, 2018)

BlastDoors41 said:


> I think what he was getting at is that white women like to fuck around with black men but settle down with white men when they're done slumming around.


lmao ever been to a metropolitan area
bonus tidbit: go to urbana/champaign, IL and tell us what you notice about all the women over 30. remember to be nice about it.


----------



## Medicated (Oct 8, 2018)

Secret Asshole said:


> The rich need us to keep fighting each other, because if we don't, we turn on them. The rich can couch their language in favorable positions like feminism and equality, driving wedges between people. Its very simple for rich, white men to shit on Trump voters or nationalists or even centrists.
> 
> There was a document released to Citibank investors basically saying the US is a plutocracy and could face a revolt during the financial crisis of 2008. Its not like this shit isn't known. Identity politics has been used to divide the plebs for centuries. In the past we did it with religion while kings laughed. Now we do it with 'diversity' and 'feminism', monsters cloaking themselves in the shield of 'progressiveness' and 'right side of history'. Take Kavanaugh. While that circus was going on, more legislation fucking the poor was quietly passed. Nobody noticed, people were too busy LARPing as the Hand Maiden's Tale and playing out power fantasies on Twitter.
> 
> The entire culture war is an illusion so the rich can steal more from everyone and not get a bullet in the forehead. Fucking over men is the icing on the cake, because we're the most likely ones to put it there.



I think the "divide and conquer" is part of it, but not completely..  In Occupy, in the same way as GamerGate, as in the same way as the election, the powers that be saw a threat to their status quo of their industry and acted on it.  You saw the media tar and feather the opposition.  The protesters, the gamers, the voters.  I don't think they are smart enough to conspire long term in that way, I think they just call up their marketing/lobbying company when they get worried and as them to do something about it.  Take the focus off the issue and change the narrative to something else.  Like Nazis or something.

The other part of the culture war I think is simply corporations looking at the marketing research in the online age, and realizing it reveals that women, now with more disposable income and independence, and who respond well to media and marketing, are the primary demographic, for most major media.  And the social and cultural changes are reflecting that.

I think the hostility towards men, is just the voices that always existed, simply being amplified by this new media and online social system.  Similarly to say 40 years ago, you'd have similar hostility towards women treated as part and parcel, because media back then was a more male centric and targetted system.  They had more money, they had more social respect.  Today, those voices are called backwards dinosaurs.  While there are people out there now, posting articles about men, which are virtually gender flipped views on women 40+ years ago.  So you can see who holds the power in the marketplace, who they are pandering to.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Oct 8, 2018)

escapegoat said:


> Porn. His source is porn.


Half the people on the internet must get their entire ideas about relationships from shitty porn to come up with these autistic ideas.


----------



## NN 401 (Oct 8, 2018)

dopy said:


> lmao ever been to a metropolitan area
> bonus tidbit: go to urbana/champaign, IL and tell us what you notice about all the women over 30. remember to be nice about it.



I'm confused

I think we're having a class issue here. I get why my post about the friend with the autistic mate guarding theory inspired incredulity but I'm not sure why pointing out that black women x non-black men illiciting hostility from certain sectors of the American public also inspires incredulity.

I thought it was common knowledge that there are certain sub groups of upper middle class white women who fetishize Black and Latino men for sexual reasons.



Are you asking me have I seen the white land whale with the black guy at the Walmart?
Yes. Yes I have.  Those are poor white women.

Black women dislike that dynamic for various reasons. Or perhaps I should say _some_ black women really hate it. 




> Half the people on the internet must get their entire ideas about relationships from shitty porn to come up with these autistic ideas.



Have you ever spoken with a black person?


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Oct 9, 2018)

BlastDoors41 said:


> thought it was common knowledge that there are certain sub groups of upper middle class white women who fetishize Black and Latino men for sexual reasons


Yeah, in porn


----------



## NN 401 (Oct 9, 2018)

Ron /pol/ said:


> Yeah, in porn




Weaboos, yellow fever, sex tourism, and autogynephiles are routinely catalogued here and elsewhere in great detail but the idea that there are some IRL upper middle class white women who might fetishize black/ latino men (for whatever reason) is where we draw the line. 

That's just too silly to be believed, and _never_ happens.

Porn is the only answer, not that some of us happen to be in the right place,  at the right time, to be privy to some of these conversations.


----------



## escapegoat (Oct 9, 2018)

They _are _cataloged here.

So, you know, pony up a link with this agenda, so we can laugh at these ladies, this being a widespread coordinated phenomenon of political import. I mean, surely they're out there. On sites that aren't PornHub. FetLife, maybe?


----------



## NN 401 (Oct 9, 2018)

escapegoat said:


> They _are _cataloged here.
> 
> So, you know, pony up a link with this agenda, so we can laugh at these ladies, this being a widespread coordinated phenomenon of political import. I mean, surely they're out there. On sites that aren't PornHub. FetLife, maybe?



Oh I get it now.

You, and some others, are just confused.

I relayed a theory _I heard from someone else _for friendly discussion here. 

I don't subscribe to the idea that there is overt "coordinated phenomenon of political import."


But I do vouch for what I've seen and heard which you guys are conflating with something else.

I'll break it down for you:

There are a number of people in any given tribe that feel they have ownership over the affections of the opposite sex within said tribe, these people are often hypocrites because they fetishize and covet members of _other _tribes. 
See its okay for them to date and fuck all kinds of people but not their men/women.

Some Asian/Indian men desire white bob and vagene and get all pissy when they see Indian women w/ white men.

Some Hispanic men desire white culo and get all pissy when they see Hispanic/Latina women w/ white or black men.

Some Black men, who chase after all kinds of women, and their cucked baby mamas, hurl abuse at black women who do the same.

Some white men are very anti miscegenation and while they might have Asian wives, usually, they hate seeing white women with non- white men. 

Some white women fetishize Black and Latino men and then get pissy when white men marry/date outside their race. Charges of not being able to handle a "strong woman" are often laid.


----------



## queerape (Oct 14, 2018)

I feel like they are being made to be a scapegoat when in reality the problem is more systemic and everyone is both part of the problem and the solution.  People need a convenient bogeyman though.


----------



## spurger king (Oct 18, 2018)

BlastDoors41 said:


> Charges of not being able to handle a "strong woman" are often laid.



The implication that the strong independent woman needs to be "handled" like a she's a barnyard animal, holy shit


----------



## Snuckening (Oct 19, 2018)

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

Sure, why the fuck not?

It's 2018; _Everyone_ gets to be "oppressed". It'd be unfair to leave out the white males.

Anyone in [current year] who isn't 100% convinced that their demographic are the ones who are _really_ being oppressed just isn't paying enough attention.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Oct 19, 2018)




----------



## Emperor Julian (Oct 22, 2018)

I'd go with no, I'd avoid ascribing malice where incompotance will suffice. The various issues discussed are divergant social issues which interlock to produce an effect.
 It also comes from people you might not expect on occasion,The Democrats are quite happy to exploit identity politics for quick votes and to avoid discussions about a corrupt statuts quo by contrast sections of the right are happy to acknowlague SJW's for an easy win......and to avoid discussions about a corrupt status quo.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Nov 1, 2018)

BigRuler said:


> does it suffice though?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She appears to be a dumb racist shit who makes dumb racist jokes-hardly a cardinal sin for us. More interesting is the system which moved to defend her when this came out. Which I believe is where I believe the incompetance settles in.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Nov 1, 2018)

Well, all I know is Don Lemon told me it's time to stop demonizing people, and realize white men are the biggest threat to this nation.

Does that count as a cultural war? I'd say yeah, if the mainstream media is saying "White men = bad" what more do you need to qualify for a cultural war?


----------



## drtoboggan (Nov 1, 2018)

Yes. Damn shame because white men made the world civilized.


----------



## AF 802 (Nov 3, 2018)

Yes, this is why we need the ethnostate. Make miscegenation laws a thing again.


----------

