Elizabeth Anderson deserves support, not attacks

[Ken_FSU]

I don't disagree but this is the result of an entire generation of young white men being told that they were responsible for the problems of the world. Countless times I was told growing up blatant lies that made white men appear as the spawn of all evil in the world. Words have power sure, but what really has power is checkbook. In 2021, Bloomberg reported 94% of new Fortune 500 hires were not white men. The fact of the situation is that white men are being affected quite severely in a country with a large quantity of white men.

Thus, you have unjustified attacks on people who look/act a certain way or who they believe to be taking their opportunity. This exact reason is why there aren't many historical examples of a group in power giving that up & being treated well after the fact... we just happen to be living through one of those very few examples but it hasn't fully played out yet.

I am a white male and never felt the way you did growing up.  What I saw and experienced was just the opposite... minorities being told they were second class or worse, clearly discriminated against in so many ways.  And, women were not far behind.  In my formative years, mostly what I saw running the world were white males so, I suppose, this is why so many think the buck stopped there in most cases.

I am not saying that there hasn't been overcompensation to right past wrongs in select cases.  That said, I do think many white males were also raised with unrealistic expectations that the world is their oyster and anything less represents disrespect or worse, creating a certain complacency and entitlement.  Many of those who find this is not how the world works, likely get depressed leading to the sad outcomes you describe.

I note that many of that alleged 94% (would like a source cite on that) are hard working immigrants that were not raised to take things for granted and women who now make up over 50% of degree candidates.  When I went through college, probably 60% to 70% of students were male and very few were minorities.  So, in many ways the last few decades have represented a "catching up" to rebalance the workforce to represent more the makeup of the population at-large.

This rebalancing is what affirmative action was supposed to be about.  Unfortunately, it has been both misunderstood and misapplied in many cases giving it a negative connotation.  The idea was simply to spread a wider net to invite a more diverse populace into the workforce that had not previously been recruited or felt welcome to apply.  It was not supposed to be about quotas as long as reasonable efforts were made to be inclusive in job recruiting.

The other need for corrective action has to do with access to capital and educational opportunities.  Those suffering generational poverty and under-education have lacked the "launching pad" for two major ingredients to move ahead in our capitalist society.  Providing economic advancement opportunities and educational financial aid are efforts to break this repeating cycle of being in the underclass.  Keep in mind, a rising tide lifts all boats so it should be a societal goal to lift up those at the bottom.  Not going to work for everyone, but for many.  History has taught that failure to do so is also a threat to the stability of society at some point.

Today, many jobs are going begging due to a lack of applicants or applicants willing to responsibly work to meet job requirements.  Ask most any employer and you will find they are begging for good workers from anywhere.  So, I don't understand anyone today that says they can't find a decent job and keep it, if they are honest, reliable, educate themselves to standards, collaborative, reasonable and manage their expectations that they aren't going to go from the mail room to CEO in 5 years or less.

Many disillusioned white males also seem to have failed to adapt to changing times and advancing technology.  Today, an autoworker maybe the one who operates or maintains robots, not one that welds or bolts cars together.  Likewise, coal miners, steel workers, lumberjacks, etc.  Car mechanics today must know software as much, or more, than gears and bearings. Failing to adapt is going to marginalize these workers.   You get the idea.

P.S. Donald Trump is amplifying the very concern you have in that he is showing the "white male is boss" in the most explicit way possible.  If you wanted to deflect evil doings being attributed to white men, someone needs to reign him in.  Good luck with that.

Agree with every single word of this.

Extremely well said, friend.

Clowns acting like clowns at City Council today. Least surprising, but most disappointing, thing I've heard all day. Every time you start to think we're maturing and growing as a city, this backwoods hillbilly bullshit rears its head again. Can't fund a homeless support bill, but THANK GOD the wOkE LiBrArIaN is off the streets.

[Jax_Developer]

Progressives, particularly unions were the only ones to oppose off-shoring and the massive REDUCTION in corporate taxation. I'm not sure what you are referring to with regulation. More regulation led to more off-shoring?? Less regulation overseas lead to more off-shoring??

The world has evolved into a more and more global economy, so opposing off-shoring is a losing battle IMO. It's my experience that many white men, of which I am one, tend to take any criticism or acknowledgement of past wrongs or injustices as an affront to them personally, when that wasn't intended nor should they attempt to wear a shoe that doesn't fit them in the first place. Acknowledging and adjusting for those wrongs that occurred does not imply guilt on the sons and grandsons of those that committed them.

A similar narrative seems to prevail with the term 'toxic masculinity'.  Anyone with a brain can see that there is no shortage of toxic men out there, but that is not to indict all men as toxic. The men that aren't toxic should be most offended by the ones that are.         

Don't really care to elaborate but the fundamental item at hand was why has there been so much pushback with these positions & 'approval' of certain rhetoric (not endorsing). It's quite simple when you boil it down & look into the fundamental problems at hand. "Opportunities" are not being afforded in a proportional manner to a large percentage of the population. Not having good employment can lead to alternatives. What else would you expect to happen? It's not so anecdotal now - the news just doesn't care to report this stuff.

Again, not endorsing it - just explaining it. You have stuff like this going on because of it. I don't think this is something that would have even been a thing a few years ago. Now, it feels like everything is under scrutiny - for better or worse.

[jaxlongtimer]

Agree with every single word of this.

Extremely well said, friend.

Ken, coming from you, I will take this as high praise.  Thanks  .

It's quite simple when you boil it down & look into the fundamental problems at hand. "Opportunities" are not being afforded in a proportional manner to a large percentage of the population. Not having good employment can lead to alternatives. What else would you expect to happen? It's not so anecdotal now - the news just doesn't care to report this stuff.

JD, I am reading the above comment as as saying that white males are not getting jobs proportional to their population.  What about all the minorities and women over the first 200 years or so of our country that were sidelined or worse?  Any correction to that past mathematically entails disproportionate hiring of those classes until truly proportional representation is achieved. 

So, yes, I suppose their is a transitional time where white males may not attain the percentage of jobs they traditionally received.  Just like Trump, the champion of white males, said about his tariffs, in the short run, this is painful, but it will be worth it for the rewards at the end.  By the way, the real pain of tariffs is falling on the middle class and poor, as they are effectively a regressive sales tax, while the rich will be more greatly rewarded with income tax breaks funded, in part, by taking away benefits to the less fortunate.  So, those white males that make up the bulk of the wealth in this country, are doing quite well, thank you.  Not so much the rest of the population.

I do repeat, that, today, what excuse does any able bodied and mind group have for not being able to work?

[Ken_FSU]

Agree with every single word of this.

Extremely well said, friend.

Ken, coming from you, I will take this as high praise.  Thanks  .

We might not agree on park space, but I'd rather agree on social issues <3

Right back at you man!

[Jax_Developer]

Agree with every single word of this.

Extremely well said, friend.

Ken, coming from you, I will take this as high praise.  Thanks  .

It's quite simple when you boil it down & look into the fundamental problems at hand. "Opportunities" are not being afforded in a proportional manner to a large percentage of the population. Not having good employment can lead to alternatives. What else would you expect to happen? It's not so anecdotal now - the news just doesn't care to report this stuff.

JD, I am reading the above comment as as saying that white males are not getting jobs proportional to their population.  What about all the minorities and women over the first 200 years or so of our country that were sidelined or worse? Any correction to that past mathematically entails disproportionate hiring of those classes until truly proportional representation is achieved. 

So, yes, I suppose their is a transitional time where white males may not attain the percentage of jobs they traditionally received.  Just like Trump, the champion of white males, said about his tariffs, in the short run, this is painful, but it will be worth it for the rewards at the end.  By the way, the real pain of tariffs is falling on the middle class and poor, as they are effectively a regressive sales tax, while the rich will be more greatly rewarded with income tax breaks funded, in part, by taking away benefits to the less fortunate.  So, those white males that make up the bulk of the wealth in this country, are doing quite well, thank you.  Not so much the rest of the population.

I do repeat, that, today, what excuse does any able bodied and mind group have for not being able to work?

Highlighted part. Are you surprised by the disconnect then? The data clearly shows an overcorrection has been made in the past few years. That coincides almost hand & hand with Trumps second term. Punishing my generation, because yours was not, is creating political strife. The political differences between young men & women is literally at it's peak. There is also not some 'unbalance' that exists now according to data...

Your quotes:

- "Just like Trump, the champion of white males, said about his tariffs, in the short run, this is painful, but it will be worth it for the rewards at the end."
- "So, those white males that make up the bulk of the wealth in this country, are doing quite well, thank you."

Both quotes demonstrate that you admit that there's an overcorrection, yet are saying white males blanketed are doing quite well? Jax, respectfully, this is a conversation you probably aren't willing to have. That's fine. Just understand that this type of rhetoric only furthers the divide with the younger generation & these types of situations will become more common.

[Charles Hunter]

If what Jax-developer describes in hiring is widespread, shouldn't the unemployment rate of white males be higher than the rate for other groups?

This Bureau of Labor Statistics page ( https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm ) doesn't break out unemployment rates by race and gender, so I can't cite the "white male" vs "other male" unemployment rates. But the unemployment rates in April 2025:
Total 4.2%
White 3.8%
Black or African 6.3%
Asian 3.0%
Hispanic/Latino 5.2%

The April 2024 rates, while slightly lower, follow the same pattern.

In one post, Jax_developer says

In 2021, Bloomberg reported 94% of new Fortune 500 hires were not white men.

Later there is this iink

Fortune 100 New Hire Data: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/

Looking at the Bloomberg link, it's neither the Fortune 100 nor the Fortune 500, but

Bloomberg obtained 2020 and 2021 data for 88 S&P 100 companies and calculated overall US job growth at those firms.
...
The group of companies in our data set employs more than 9 million people in the US at some of the country's largest and most lucrative firms, in industries from tech to finance, including Apple Inc., Walmart Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co.

According to the same BLS page, total civilian employment in April 2021, at the time of the Bloomberg snapshot, the 9 million jobs in the Bloomberg data review represented about 5.8% of the US civilian workforce. The Bloomberg article (from 2023) also notes their review was of data from about a year after the George Floyd murder, when big companies were trying to atone by emphasizing minority hiring.

* looking at total employment now, 9 miiion jobs were 5.5% of total civilian employment in April 2025 of 163,944,000

When you quoted JLT, you abridged what he said, to make your point. His full quote, highlighting what you left out:

Just like Trump, the champion of white males, said about his tariffs, in the short run, this is painful, but it will be worth it for the rewards at the end.  By the way, the real pain of tariffs is falling on the middle class and poor, as they are effectively a regressive sales tax, while the rich will be more greatly rewarded with income tax breaks funded, in part, by taking away benefits to the less fortunate.  So, those white males that make up the bulk of the wealth in this country, are doing quite well, thank you. Not so much the rest of the population.

The way I read the second part is that the 'bulk' of the ultra-wealthy are white males (fact); not that the bulk of white males "are doing quite well." Then you left out an important part, "Not so much the rest of the population." which applies to everyone not in the Top One Percent (which is 99% of us).

[Jax_Developer]

Yes, Fortune 100 instead of Fortune 500. Hard to remember every little detail but all the points remain exactly the same. The definition of wealth by JLT is also extremely subjective & was interpreted to mean "the wealth held by white men."

Regardless, you both are enforcing the divide that exists. Nobody here is arguing that White Men 30/35+ have faced these same issues. I can't believe there is really an argument to be made over the S&P 100 hiring data... I don't care about mid-level managers or executives for this conversation... Sure this data makes up ~5% of the workforce, but do you expect the general hiring practices to be widely different? To the tune of 3+ standard deviations from this data set?? Very unlikely to say the least.

Currently, young white men are seeing the fastest decline in college enrollment, are seeing the fastest (negative) employment shift the workforce has ever seen, & have one of the highest suicide rates of any demographic. All that to say, it's really interesting to hear older white men somehow argue against these facts in the name for what.. equality? Yeah, that's actually my point. Respectfully, more listening (not from me) needs to be done on this topic.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

College Enrollment Data: (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/18/fewer-young-men-are-in-college-especially-at-4-year-schools/)

[jaxlongtimer]

Currently, young white men are seeing the fastest decline in college enrollment, are seeing the fastest (negative) employment shift the workforce has ever seen, & have one of the highest suicide rates of any demographic. All that to say, it's really interesting to hear older white men somehow argue against these facts in the name for what.. equality? Yeah, that's actually my point. Respectfully, more listening (not from me) needs to be done on this topic.

College Enrollment Data: (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/18/fewer-young-men-are-in-college-especially-at-4-year-schools/)

JD, the very article you cite about college enrollment among ALL males undermines your argument that it is related to DEI.  You failed to quote this part:

Among adults who did not have a bachelor's degree and weren't enrolled in college, men were more likely than women to say they didn't go to college because they just didn't want to or because they didn't feel they needed more education for the type of job they wanted.

But men and women were about equally likely to say that not being able to afford a four-year degree was a major reason why they hadn't completed college.

The chart by race shows that male enrollment has dropped across all races: White, Black, Hispanic.  So, what is so special about white males?

In addition, thanks to the great recession of 2008 and following years, birthrates dropped precipitously.  As a result, colleges are now begging for students.  Why aren't the white males taking advantage?  Just look locally at the conditions at J.U. as they react to these changing demographics.  And, it is these same changing demographics that are increasingly going to enlarge the shortfall in workers for job openings.  The white males can have a field day filling them if they care too.

I can't tell you why the suicide rate is up...could it be related to drugs taken by "bored", "social media indoctrinated" or "untethered" persons?  Convinced by Trump and his likes that they are being "marginalized"?  I certainly don't see it being tied to DEI and job/education denials to white males.

I find it hypocritical that the right wing blames women and minorities for playing the "victim" card when they are doing the same based on your discussion here.

[Charles Hunter]

This interesting story came across my feed today

Andrew Tate sits poolside. Shirtless. Tattooed. "This is a political witch hunt. And what they are doing to me is the same thing they tried to do to Trump, and it is the same thing they're going to do to every single one of you. Do not forget they tried to put a bullet in Trump's head. And now they want me gone."

The caption reads: "They will kill everyone." The end of the video fades to black, and the words, "You will never know light again" linger on the screen.

While the Tate brothers, Andrew and Tristan, don't position themselves as political influencers, their influence on politics is undeniable. They have lighted upon a lucrative grift: addressing the fundamental insecurities of young men when it comes to women, money, community, and knowing who to blame for your problems. For the Democrats, the ignition of the "manosphere" became a flame they were powerless to combat.

The sociology of young men in America is not a sunny one. ... One in seven men say they feel lonely all the time, although the much-heralded "male loneliness epidemic" may not be real, as women feel lonely at similar rates.

Regardless of who is lonelier, men or women, they tend to deal with the associated feelings differently. For young men, social and romantic isolation too often turns to grievance, and grievance to rage. Internet personalities have tapped into this anger and frustration and exploited it, enriching themselves while telling young men that all of their problems are the fault of someone else.

https://thepreamble.com/p/the-war-for-young-mens-minds

[jaxlongtimer]

^ This focus on isolation and loneliness is, in my observation, a likely a result of over indulging in social media and communicating via text, email and voicemail, vs. direct personal engagement.  People are losing their people skills.  Hiding behind technology seems to assure the result discussed in this article.

Again, if this is more of the cause for suicides, drugs, unhappiness, etc., that has nothing to do with DEI which is what it looks like JD would like to put the blame on.

This is the problem today... people are just looking for scapegoats for all their problems rather than looking in the mirror and asking what more they could do to improve their lot in life by their own actions.

The far left may want to bail everyone out a bit too much, but the far right wants to push everyone in front of them out of the line or to step on/exploit others to elevate themselves.  Neither is the appropriate way to move forward.

[Jax_Developer]

The replies in here are genuinely sad to read. Playing the "victim" card & citing Andrew Tate. I'm sorry, both of you need to take a step back & understand what is happening to folks that look like me. Really sad stuff & your reply on the UF thread only further reinforces the divide in this country JLT.