Reply to White Male Anger

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "White Male Anger"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]
Prior to 1960s/1970s you could be male and white and be successful no matter what. HS Diploma- factory job with pension, have beers with the guys, be a family dude and church go-er, mow you lawn every Saturday, and then make it to higher pay/supervisor/etc.  College degree- man you had it made. Think Mad Men, a majority of white collar professionals were white men, ex. doctors/lawyers/stockbrokers/etc. Positions that made a crap ton of money.

1st AA female on the securities floor happened in 1981 "A decade later in 1981, she would become the first minority female seat holder representing York Securities." [url]https://www.blackenterprise.com/gail-pankey-albert-first-stock-broker/[/url]. In June of 2018 there was only 1 full-time women employed at NYSE. That was 39 years ago. The NYSE has been open since 1817- 203 years!

When your child can succeed no matter what and they see their face everywhere, its not hard to raise "winners". Its a full wind at your back propelling you forward. Marriage was the main way that white women were considered "successful". You married well and then your job was the house and your husbands job was his occupation.

FF a bit when women start going out of the workforce. Well now there's competition because women get a taste of being out of the home and they want more prestige, more freedom, etc.. Add in educated immigrants. More competition. Add in minority men and women and you got a whole lotta competition.

White men can no longer just exist and win. Men in their prime earning years (40-60) were raised in the 1960-1980, which means their parents were raised anywhere from 1960-1925. Generational expectations have been shattered.

Now extrapolate that out to the 40-60 year olds having kids, those kids are 20-40. And they've been raised by parents and grandparents who know their kids will not have the same opportunities because of more competition combined with less jobs. But they are still raised with a sense of entitlement and confidence that only comes from generations.

And its funny to me, because they very people who were in charge during the 70s-90s, disrupting labor unions, etc. were white men. They tried to drop the ladder on minorities and women and managed to drop it on other white people too. The fall of unionization was done by corporations and when unions are weak, the non-unionized forms of labor are able to hold a lesser standard as well.

Income inequality is the main driver of why white men are angry but its easier to shift the blame to non-white people. At play is also the white women belong to white men and/or the purity of race aspect. In really basic terms, women are supposed to choose the most desirable mate. If white women are selecting minority men for mates, then it means that minority men are equally/more desirable compared to white men in terms of desirability.

Not only are they losing jobs, losing income, but they are also losing reproductive dominance. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics