Sunday, May 10, 2009

Obama’s Economy: Men, Women, and the Welfare State

Recently, Business Week had a story on how Male Unemployment has reached post-War highs. Richard Florida (the “creative class” writer) has written about the subject also in the Atlantic. Both Business Week and Richard Florida wondered about the policy challenges this gap creates. Quite likely they were afraid to ponder the implications.

Which is bluntly that men have no investment whatsoever in Obama’s Economy or his Welfare State, and men are guaranteed, most of them, to want to destroy it. Completely, root and branch.

The Business Week story has the following graphs, illustrating the gap between Male and Female Unemployment (most Male age cohorts are at or near post-War highs).

[Click Image to Enlarge]

[Click Image to Enlarge]

This is nothing new. Older Americans who remember the Depression knew that Male unemployment was far higher than female unemployment, as employers would pay women less than men, and many occupations even then were considered “female” such as retail clerking, book-keeping, and other occupations where some part-time labor was needed. Meanwhile male-dominated manufacturing and resource extraction (mining, timber, etc.) were cut to the bone as inventories went unsold. The old photos of breadlines and unemployment lines had nearly all men. Women could and did get by, often as principle breadwinners for families, although their reduced wages made this a highly stressful proposition.

The danger for Obama and Democrats, however, is that the rising Welfare State, is unsustainable without benefits for men. Bluntly put, men need to receive enough advantages for them to support Welfare Spending, and higher taxes. Now they receive nothing, and in fact are positively hurt by Obama’s Economy, which is roughly the Welfare State super-sized. What neither Obama nor most Democrats understand is that the “cushion” of the 1990’s is gone.

As this Real Clear Politics story from 2007 makes clear, the 1990’s were not all a bed of roses, particularly for men. Wage growth was outpaced significantly by economic growth, until the boom times of the late 1990’s around 1995, where employers desperate for workers, bid up wages and various bubbles including the Dot-Com bubble pushed up wages significantly.

But the 1990’s were different for men than for women. The Real Clear Politics link, citing US Census Bureau data on “Usual Weekly Earnings” (basically all income but capital gains and benefits) produced the following graphs:

[Click Image to Enlarge]

[Click Image to Enlarge]

Men up to the 75th Percentile (low/middle wage earning men) showed significant declines in Usual Weekly Earnings from 1993 to 1995. For 2002 to 2006, the same low/middle wage earners had declines that were much lower than the early 1990’s. While men in the 75th Percentile and higher (high income men) had modest gains in the 1990s, but won REALLY big in the 2000’s under George Bush. This is particularly true for the 75th Percentile men who had very little earnings gain under Bill Clinton but very good gains under Bush.

Meanwhile, only the 10th Percentile (the bottom income earners) among women lost wages in the period 1993-1995. Women showed modest gains (25th and 50th Percentile) to spectacular gains, on the order of nearly 9% (90th Percentile, the super-rich) under Bill Clinton. Women did slightly less better under George W. Bush, across the board, excepting the 25th Percentile (just under the middle wage earners, but not the poorest) which did quite better under George W. Bush.

What does this mean? That for most men, and particularly middle income and upwards earning men, George W. Bush and his economy did better for them than Bill Clinton. While for women, the effect is reversed but not quite as strong.

Structurally, the economy has only “worked” to increase men’s wages in boom times. Which would describe the 1990’s, and the period 2002-2006 (to a lesser extent). Women’s employment and wage growth seem to occur best in Welfare Spending eras, when job and wage growth is confined to things Democrats and Liberals spend on, such as Education, Welfare, Health Care, Social Services, and the like. In short, men “win” when they economy is oriented towards boom-stimulated exports, construction, manufacturing, where workers are needed “now” and training is done on the fly, with an emphasis on flexbility in getting the job done. Women win when the economy is based on qualifications, crucially including gender and race preferences, in female-dominated social services, funded by tax revenues.

This puts forward the big risk to social spending: men don’t win by it, and will only put up with it if the general economic environment is so favorable that it’s easier “not to make waves” while times are good.

Welfare Spending of course degrades the ability of the “beta provider” to compete with other men for the exclusive sexual access to a woman. One of the driving factors in single motherhood and illegitimacy (rising from 17% in 1980 for Hispanics to over 50%, from 4% for Whites in 1965 to 28% or 41%, depending on whose numbers you use, or 24% in 1965 for Blacks to over 70% nationally and over 90% in the Black Urban Core today) has been the inability of a “beta provider” male to compete with either Welfare spending outlays (poor Blacks and Hispanics) to income growth (generated by Welfare-Social Service employment) for White professional women. If a White Woman, of professional social-economic status, makes enough money as a “creative class” worker or through social spending (Health, Education, Welfare, Environment, etc.), she does not need the income of a “beta provider” who is at any rate likely to earn less than her, nor does she need his services. Which can be replaced by the stereotypical nanny from El Salvador, or other places sending many illegal immigrants.

[This is why women fare more than men support Open Borders/Amnesty. Not only do White Women find no competition in the “creative class” category but very little in the social spending employment jobs. Meanwhile, lots of illegal aliens means lots of cheap nannies and other labor to replace a husband or boyfriend in child care and household tasks.]

But Barack Obama’s Economy is more than just a structural imbalance tilted towards women. It positively punishes most men, with wage losses and declines, particularly on high-end men, making powerful enemies. Machiavelli advised to kill enemies before making them poor, and that a man might forgive the murder of his father quicker than impoverishment. Obama’s economy, with high taxes, sluggish job growth, no booms in anything requiring male workers “right now” and thus competition for workers driving up wage growth, promises to take men who made a lot of money and make them poor.

What this means is that men who competed for the most important thing in their life: women, went from ordering $200 bottle service at some nightclub to impress women, to hanging around dateless and poor. While the story about “Dating a Banker Anonymous” was indeed a hoax (and the NY Times fell for it), the general outlook expressed by the women (their men were not desirable after losing jobs/income) is nevertheless broadly accurate.

Men from the 50th Percentile upwards used spare wealth from real wage growth to pay for signaling devices like Iphones, Macbook Airs, bottle service at clubs, and other displays to compete for women who no longer need merely “beta providers” of steady, faithful income and companionship, but flash, excitement, wonder, and greater wealth and social power than their own. These men have suddenly become poorer under Obama, as 82% of Obama-era layoffs are men. With little prospect that any will be hired, much less at wages equalling or exceeding their old jobs, in Government sponsored spending such as Social Services, or the Environment.

Indeed, Robert Reich on his own blog, and in testimony before Congress (and Nancy Pelosi who approves).

No money will be spent in ways that benefit “White Men” according to the Obama Administration. It will all go to White Women, unsurprising since Single Women voted for Obama 70-29.

But this imbalance creates a large mass of opposition towards Obama. Men who were middle wage earners or better, who find declining wages, or no wages, no help for them from Obama, continued preference for Women and non-Whites, and most importantly, lack of success in the dating/mating market. Even putting aside Robert Reich’s words, when was the last time anyone saw a Straight White Male working at the DMV, the local Library, or any government office?

During the Depression of the 1930’s, FDR made move after move that only made the Depression worse. He was re-elected to massive majorities because he took care of patronage, and specifically male patronage. FDR ordered the deportation in massive scales of anyone who might be in the country illegally. Non-citizens were excluded from all social benefits and programs. Blacks were suppressed in unionizing and largely excluded from government programs. White males, the most important demographic group and the only one capable of explosive action (witness the Bonus Army) threatening FDR’s rule, were “taken care of,” in the sense that they got a very public “first call” on benefits even if the net result of FDR’s policies was continued massive male unemployment.

Moreover, the society of the 1930’s was not what today’s is, in terms of male-female relations. Women still preferred the “beta provider” who would be steady and reliable, rather than a series of exciting bad-boy playboys. Women shared the apprehension of a society on the brink of chaos and the threat, very real, of revolution.

Today, most women’s lives have not been affected at all. Most women today are single, not married, a change seen first in 2007. Without an unemployed husband, most women are not affected by either layoffs (focused mainly on men) or wage losses (so far not affecting women much). Since women no longer need or want a “beta provider” the economic downturn has reaped benefits, winnowing out the non “Alpha” or socially dominant men from their lives.

But this creates a false sense of security. Men who made good money, and through that money had a girlfriend, now find themselves with neither. Obama offers not only no hope, but hostility expressed daily to the formerly well off White men who now have little hope of recovery. What does this dynamic create?

It creates a whole class, with no connection at all to the Welfare State, who would instead wish to destroy it. Destroy it on the upper end, so that the economic basis for women’s preference for bad boys is erased. Few men of middle to upper income can quickly turn themselves into thugs as happened to the men in the Black Urban Core, or low-income Hispanic men, or the White British Underclass (the latter famously chronicled by Theodore Dalrymple “Life at the Bottom” and other books). Becoming a violent thug as the only way to compete for women absent the beta male provider is certainly a strategy that works. But it has too many costs (the very real possibility of ending up dead or in prison) that most will not take it. However, all the time and energy (the men will not be dead, as Obama merely made them poor) men who used to have “lives and women” and now have neither will be focused somewhere. Very likely on the destruction of the Welfare State. Taking away women’s economic independence and forcing a choice between bad boys and poverty, or exclusivity to beta providers.

At the very least, we will see pretty much all White Men except those who remain very, very rich become Conservative voters, mostly Republican. Kerry won 38% of the White Vote. Obama slightly less. But even with Obama’s 70-29 edge in single women’s votes, if his share of White Male voters goes to say, 4%, neither he nor Democrats remain in office.

Men don’t have a stake in the Welfare System. Indeed since they pay for it in taxes but get nothing for it (but payment to women to enable the bad-boy selection), they are better off without it. Without the Welfare System, and with a low-tax, high boom/bust economy, they at least have the chance to ride another boom wave and create a life that includes women. Obama offers men nothing but poverty and sexless isolation from women.

Men are likely to reject both Obama and Democratic policies en-masse, and dismantle as much as possible the Welfare State.


JAM said...

> Men are likely to reject both Obama and Democratic policies en-masse, and dismantle as much as possible the Welfare State.

Dude, much as I share your opinion on the merits of conservativism as opposed to nanny-statism... there won't be whole scale roll-back this time around.

This is a recession -- a deep one -- but we're going to pull out of it within a year or so. The amount of economic damage that needs to be done to effect the degree of cultural change that you're suggesting is simply not going to happen. Your logic is cogent, but there won't be enough time in this iteration.

For that we'll need truly radical, disruptive things. A real depression (20-30% unemployment). Cheap off-the-shelf point-of-testing paternity tests. Male contraceptives. Sexbots. This stuff is real and coming... but this recession will be long over by then.

This is not to say that this recession might not be an additional straw to the camel's back. But this won't be the straw that breaks said back.

Novaseeker said...

So fantastic Whiskey.

I need to think and ponder. I will respond here and on my own blog.

Good to have you back, mate. We need you.


Chic Noir said...

Ah, my darling whiskey had returned with a post. I'm so happy but I'm sure I'll be pissed after reading since this is about Obama.

Chic Noir said...

black women
white men

Specialists in Black White Dating Lifetime Profile, Free Chat Rooms
it's funny that this ad should pop up when I come here Whiskey.
*smiles colgate smile*

Chic Noir said...

Whiskey, I really think what we are seeing is a resetting of this economy. Wages and the cost of things are starting to decrease on housing, clothing and for a while fuel. In some sectors like retail, wages of the average worker have started to decrease. What will this mean for the average worker???
Spend less money on junk ex fewer pairs of 200 dollar jeans and upgrading ipods simply because there is a new one when your old one works just fine.

*waves by to whiskey*

Anonymous said...


This is Z from over at Roissy's.

I have a "large" idea about why the US (and Western Societies in general) are the way that they are now, with low fertility, and perpetual singledom. Its actually comically simple, but everybody misses it.

The CHILDREN now belong to mommy legally.

That is it. There is no more to it. When we gave kids to the mother, no questions asked, we asked for the end to the family--and we are getting it.

If you guarantee a woman at least half-custody, plus child support and alimony........she will not stop "being available" for the most-attractive men that she works with or sees out (office girls at lunch are generally on the prowl Whiskey, they slip their rings off..........while their "nice guy" husband is off slaving at the salt mines).

If every woman who had a birth, but wanted child support, had to "find" the husband and have a DNA test, but found that courts gave the men joint custody and the woman did not recieve ANY child support (why not? he has them as much as she does!), this would end.


IMAGINE that MEN got the children they fathered from the court. If you, Whiskey, thought that gal you worked with and had an affair with, had a kid recently, and you thought it might be yours..............and you could take her to court and make a paternity test be administered, and if the kid was found to be YOURS, you could legally take it from her............and she had to pay YOU 21% of the difference in your incomes, or pay you a full 21% of her income, would you keep looking for a hotter chick or settle with this "OK" co-worker?

Whiskey, Ive written about "artificial wombs" at Roissy's. Think about how many men, if they could pay perhaps 10 thousand bucks, would rather have 2 kids of THEIR OWN, that NOBODY COULD TAKE AWAY, would have their kids in this manner if this option were available to them. There would be TONS of men who would do this as they got into their 30's. Getting married is risking financial suicide, but the urge to have children to please yourself, your parents, your grandparents, your aunts and uncles, and your cousins, plus your brothers and enormous. Everyone that likes you and loves you wants you to make more little people like you. Since we have made this financailly hazardous for men, but have made it a gold mine for women, women are still happy to have kids, but want to chase their "dream" guy and have daddy government make some schmuck pay for them while they chase their dream guy. Its hyper-childish, but that is what they want.

It really all comes down to that. Once a woman has her "dream guy", she usually wants to quit her job if he makes a lot of money, and tie him down with a couple of more kids.

Women basically Whiskey, have "artifical wombs" now. They merely have to get pregnant, but what is better...........they get a financial bonus in the form of child support for 18 years when they do, and free health insurance for the kids. Married women who are still looking during those lunch breaks (ever heard of Whiskey? Its full of married office women looking for a guy they can leave their husbands for), never really stop looking to trade up these days. And why not? They are going to get the kids, the house, alimony, free insurance. So when the first "rush" of married life is over, and some of the excitement is gone, why not look to trade "up"? That old singlehood excitement is enticing when you know that you are not going to lose your children, and in fact be financially rewarded for it.

If our laws didn't reward women with child support, mandated joint custody, didn't provide ANYTHING to women who couldn't correctly name a father (who would be verified by DNA testing), many of these things would not be happening at all.

Marxists were the folks who pushed for the family law changes, the destruction of the birthrate and polite Western Society were what they wanted, and its what they are getting. Its had an abomination-like effect on the black community, and I expect it will create a Latino underlcass here within 15 more years as well.

Obama is a SWPL leftist who thinks that all jobs are created by the government because that is all he is used to. Men have shunned office work in the past, will now be turing to it and filling out applications. I wonder if men's groups will follow up and start suing offices for not hiring them? That is probably what will end up happening as our manufacturing/mining/construction jobs disappear. White women, due to latinas not speaking English very well, and so many black gals not having the degree requirements, have not really faced much competition in the "pink" workplace, but I imagine these things will be changing over the next decade or two. I mean, all of these white and black unemployed men arent' going to be on unemployment forever, and will be looking for new jobs wherever they see want ads, and adding whatever pseudo-skills necessary to achive them.

AC said...

Good stuff, but I wish you would lay off the gratuitous capitalization of things like "Obama’s Economy", "White Women", "Welfare System," etc.

AC said...

Also, are you sure that men at the bottom of the economic ladder (who are probably significantly less intelligent than their more successful compatriots) are going to be able to make the connection between welfare state transfers and their own lack of success with women via changing of standards from providers to alphas? That seems like too many moving parts for most people to handle, particularly when the provider/alpha switch is barely in the culture's consciousness

Novaseeker said...

Your general premise is sound -- women are gaining right now due to what has happened in the economy, and Obama's stimulus is mostly not going to help white men, by design. In the short term, many men are going to be screwed by this, because they do not earn enough to attract or retain a suitable woman.

I do think, though, that at different socio-economic levels, and at different age levels, it plays out a bit differently. I know quite a few professional women in their 30s aqnd 40s, and none of them are with thugs or classic "alpha" mates. The ones who are married are with classical "dad" types - a mixture of provider and nurterer. Some of them are with stay at home husbands (not many, but one or two). And a good number of them -- almost half - have never married, are average looking, and have no men in their lives. The fact that men are falling away from good jobs makes it even less likely that these women will find a man for themselves at some stage -- they are not happy to see that happening, and they are not turning to thugs for hot sex. Some of them are bitter about relationships with men that went south. Some of them are at a point where they just can't be bothered anymore. But they're not thugbait.

I think that the idea that women are simply marrying, popping out kids, divorcing, and pursuing endless thugsex is a bit too simplistic. Certainly there are some women who are doing exactly that. But there are also a lot of women who are neither marrying nor shagging thugs. There are a lot of women who stay married (even if increasing numbers of them are cheating as much as their husbands are these days ... but a lot of married women can't pull off cheating very well because they are not attractive enough, have not taken care of themselves and so on). There are couples who do not have kids (I know at least two of these in my workplace -- long term marrieds who decided not to have kids). There's just a lot of variety out there among the women I see in their 30s and 40s.

It *could* be the case that women in their 20s are acting more according to the model described. It might also be the case that women who are "hot" are acting more like the model described. The one professional woman in my workplace who acts more like the model is also quite "hot" for her age (late 30s) -- she definitely loves male attention, dresses the part, and has likely had many sex partners so far in her life. Yet she has never married, and has no kids, and does not appear interested in marrying any time soon. So even she doesn't really fit the model of popping out kids to be paid for by a beta ex-husband or the welfare state.

I think that the current scenario leaves many women behind as well as men. It's kind of "survival of the hottest". Unlike in prior eras, where virtually all wombs were used, this era is not shaping up like that. There's a large group of women who are simply not having kids, period. And who are not having many relationships with men.

Sgt. Joe Friday said...

Actually, the "money quote" was about the Democrats failing to win votes from white males. White men (and married white women) are the natural constituency for the GOP, just as the Democratic party is the natural home for NAMs and poor people in general. But the GOP leadership doesn't want to recognize this and exploit this, because that would be, well, racist. Better to lose elections and ensure that our country is driven off a cliff at 100 MPH than to be thought of as a bunch of racists by the hand-wringing, bed-wetting, do-gooder liberals.

Whiskey said...

JAM --

I think we will reach a lasting, deep Depression. Obama has just announced today that there will be no job growth this year. In addition, he's chocking off Venture Capital funds (seeks to control them directly) and killing investment by violating bankruptcy and other contract law to pick politically connected (UAW, SEIU unions) winners and create losers.

High interest rates, caused by printing money to cover deficits, sky-high taxes, including his carbon cap and trade taxes, and various other taxes (internet aales and use taxes) create what is in California and New Jersey nationally. Which depresses economic activity in almost every single sector.

We are quite likely to see male unemployment, particularly in the "Professional" sector, at around 20% to perhaps almost 30%. Obama and Dems clearly wish to protect FEMALE jobs because they are the party of Women.

Chic Noir -- Costs of almost everything will go up, substantially, as income drops, because of the Carbon Taxes. Winners will be the Al Gore-connected trading firms, losers will be everyone else. It's a massive new tax without any public good benefit: no new highway system, high speed internet, technological advances, cheaper energy. Quite the reverse.

AC -- I don't think it will be low-income men, but rather mid-high income men who go from dating women with $200 bottle service to looking for pick-up work wherever and having nothing much in their lives at all.

These are men college educated. Professional. Who are going to be radicalized through losing their positions and finding no help, but rather discrimination from Obama and his female-oriented Party and social structure.

No firm will hire men, compared to women, because no one EVER got sued for discriminating against White men. Cases get thrown out of court. EEOC actually shows up to SUPPORT such actions. The press and media is on the side of discriminating against White Men.

Joe Friday is right, the GOP is the natural home of White men and married White Women (the latter of whom are endangered). I expect this economic crisis will force this to the front through States, by leaders like Palin, Sanford, and Perry.

People who go from the good life suddenly to the bad life and see whole classes (Women) doing well get radicalized. This is going to push the Gender Gap to extremes. The kicker being some women with sons will vote Republican or against Obama's female-only oriented policy. Many women with sons will put ideology for women/non-Whites first. But enough potentially won't that this could be the game-changer.
As for women, and fertility, I think there is a distinct pattern. Low-income women in the Ghetto Black, White British Underclass, and low-income Hispanic groupings have kids early, with many different fathers.

High income people, particularly White Women, but also women in high-income nations like Algeria, Tunisia, and Iran (relative to other Muslim nations) that are also urbanized and have better income/education for women, find women delaying childbirth to well into their thirties so that only one child if that is born. Particularly in the New York City professional demographic, this seems to be by IVF and sperm donors, to select the most "Alpha" genes and IQ. The stereotypical yuppie designer baby, as a single mother. Or "settling" for some guy, who the woman obviously doesn't love and can't really bond with, due to limited attractiveness for both partners and lots of sex partners for at least her.

This does not make the women "slutty" but is the product IMHO of a perpetual search for "a better deal" mate-wise as women overestimate the duration of their beauty, appeal beyond beauty, and fertility. The bonding due to frequent sex at peak sexual attractiveness can do a lot to "carry people over" humps that inevitably occur -- financial setbacks, deaths, illness, troubles with children.

I see this as both a "timing issue" (women wish to play the field during maximum "mate market power") rather than take advantage of their peak "buying power" so to speak, and a belief that men/husbands are not needed, both re-inforced by culture and commercial messaging, but fueled by women's own short-term interests.

I see no easy fix for this. Precisely because it's in women's own short term interests to do this, i.e. play the field during their twenties.

Chic Noir said...

The bonding due to frequent sex at peak sexual attractiveness can do a lot to "carry people over" humps
only if it's good whiskey. If a woman is given bad "stuff often she will dump you like a hot patato.

Whiskey to AC -- I don't think it will be low-income men, but rather mid-high income men who go from dating women with $200 bottle service to looking for pick-up work wherever and having nothing much in their lives at all.You see the problem is, men are wasting money that they just don’t have. It’s no way any man who isn’t a millionaire should be regularly spending this type of money just to impress a woman. If a woman likes you, she likes you. A 5 dollar bottle of Andre will do you just as well as a 1k bottle of crystalle.

sestamibi said...

Novaseeker said:
"Many of the women I know at work in their 30s and 40s (educated lawyers) are single, never married, and not sleep-arounds or partiers. They are quiet people, some of them would be good partners to similarly-minded men. But they can't find quality men. Why is this? Because the men who are their level or above are either already married to quality women or are “cads” rather than “dads”. They are not looking for a stereotypical “alpha male”, but rather a stable, reliable, loving male who is at least of their level of education and earnings – and it's very hard for many of them to find that."

Cross-posted from Nova's blog:

Sorry, but I don't buy that either. Bottom line is Whiskey is right and you are wrong (and I'll cross-post this on his blog too).

I am in my late 50's and came of age during the early stages of "women's liberation" in the 70's. I spent most of my life having to regard women as competitors rather than potential mates, BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THEY WANTED IT!

Back then I was subjected to the Junior Anti-Sex League mentality, which still prevails today. And as I said, there are fewer and fewer men who can vault this bar to score. There was once a time when someone like me, who had a graduate degree, steady employment, and owned his own home, would have been considered a "catch", but that faded away.

As for your claim that the women you know can't find men, well I'll call bullshit on that one too. They can't because they WON'T!

I thought I might have an easier time as I got older, but to my chagrin it got even more difficult. It took me a while to figure out why, but this is the explanation:

It's a self-sorting process. Those women who either didn't buy into the feminist lies or who were keenly aware of their biological clocks made whatever compromises they had to make early on, with attendant results--good or bad. It stood to reason, then, that the cohort I faced at age 35 was composed in larger part of women whose expectations could never be met, or who in fact had no intention of getting married at all (after all, not everyone, male or female, wants to do so).

I'm glad my story has a happy ending and a beautiful family, but the timing wasn't what I wanted.

PS. Welcome back, Whiskey. Love your work and hope to see more of it.

sestamibi said...

Whiskey said:
"People who go from the good life suddenly to the bad life and see whole classes (Women) doing well get radicalized. This is going to push the Gender Gap to extremes."

Yes indeed. One of the more pernicious trends of the past twenty years that the MSM has taken great pains to cover up is the exacerbation of income inequality resulting from high-income professionals marrying each other, a process called "assortative mating". We are on Assortative Couple #2 in the White House, with #1 already having camped out there in the 90's.

I read an article a couple of years ago about the "problems" of Steve Reynolds, CEO of Puget Energy in Seattle, married to Paula Rosput Reynolds, former CEO of Atlanta Gas Light. Poor Pawwa--she couldn't make the move until she got her very own company to run, so she's now boss of Safeco Insurance. Don't you just feel sooo sorry for them?

Commander Zero, Bill and Hillary and all their minions would rather you not think about this. Move on, nothing to see here.

demosophist said...

I have a friend who interviewed for a number of GS-12 positions recently. These are usually situations where one either sits at a table and answers questions, or does "office rounds" and just visits a string of people in their offices. In one agency he was interviewed by about a half-dozen men, and in another by about a half dozen women.

What I figure is going on is that agencies are dominated by a particular executive, who imparts his or her hiring preferences and kicks off a kind of cultural bias related to gender. Men tend to hire men while women tend to hire women. So you end up with agencies that are almost completely dominated by one or the other gender from the GS-12 level up.

I remember seeing S.M. Lipset debate Betty Friedan about ten years ago. One of the things I recall him saying, which she was unable to refute (I don't think she ever effectively refuted anything he said) was that whatever doors had been opened for women to rise in the social hierarchy they had essentially been "opened" by men, and that if they chose they could shut those doors as quickly as they'd opened them. There was nothing about the trend that insured it was irreversible. He sort of chastised her for having misled women on this score.

One would have thought that she'd bitterly resent such statements, but in fact she had a fairly congenial relationship with Lipset, and as I recall she conceded the point, albeit a little reluctantly.

demosophist said...

Another dangerous thought occurred to me. The thesis of Lysistrata was that women are able to influence the course of political and social events by withholding sex. That's one lever they may have let slip from their grasp... no pun intended.

Chic Noir said...

whiskey don't believe what your "friend" posted.It's a complete lie.

Nilk said...

Which is bluntly that men have no investment whatsoever in Obama’s Economy or his Welfare State, and men are guaranteed, most of them, to want to destroy it. Completely, root and branch.There's your money quote, Whiskey.

Destroying the successful capitalist economy is what Barry O and his band of merry fellow travellers is about.

It's straight from the marxist playbook, and anything that keeps men down is to be encouraged.

Anonymous said...

"You see the problem is, men are wasting money that they just don’t have. It’s no way any man who isn’t a millionaire should be regularly spending this type of money just to impress a woman. If a woman likes you, she likes you. A 5 dollar bottle of Andre will do you just as well as a 1k bottle of crystalle."

Way to miss the point. The point being that due to their inability to signal status with the $200 bottle these men will be unable to get their foot in the door, so to speak, to even display their character which the woman can then like or not like.

Romantic notions of impoverished lovers aside, the class of women that are attracted to someone for opening an expensive bottle won't exactly go for now "second-class" males.

The problem presents itself when males who had been used to that kind of life now find themselves in radically different circumstances. A sudden drop in quality of living creates a lot of resent, bitterness and anger. More so when, propped up by "the system" (if you want to call it that) women can carry on as before.

The issue is not just the drop in quality of living, but the fact that it is largely one-sided. A perfect recipe for disaster.

YA said...

Somebody learned in the Whiskey school of thought is making interesting conversation on Lawrence Auster's blog:

Judging by the style of writing, it doesn't seem to be Whiskey himself...

Whiskey said...

No it's not me.

Charles Murray of "Bell Curve" fame has run the latest numbers and finds some interesting things wrt White working, middle, and upper class women.

In short terms, only Upper Class White women remain with little change upwards over time in illegitimacy. Strongly suggesting that it takes considerable money, power, and prestige to be attractive enough to marry and have children with for women.

More on that later.

Anonymous said...

Oh my God, the paranoia peddled by this marginally-employed crank called "Whiskey" is exactly what is killing this country. If this loser was more high-profile, you'd see his arguments get shot down for the bottom-feeding scaremongering that they are. His small audience is what allows him to go unchallenged. He who takes Sarah Palin seriously is truly an idiot of the first order.

Chic Noir said...

Nilk, did you post that pic with the hopes of stealing my dearest Whiskey away from me?

Chic Noir said...

Way to miss the point. The point being that due to their inability to signal status with the $200 bottle these men will be unable to get their foot in the door, so to speak, to even display their character which the woman can then like or not like.anon 12:43, your grandfather didn't need a $200 dollar bottle of wine to get your grandmother and neither did mine. The point is, men should stop with such foolishness unless they are going for 10's and remember the best think they deserve the best. Otherwise, be yourself and don't go bankrupt to seduce a woman you can't stand to be around after you've hit.

There are plenty of 5's and 6's who don't demand such outrageous things from a man.

Chic Noir said...

Anon 12:43 Romantic notions of impoverished lovers aside, the class of women that are attracted to someone for opening an expensive bottle won't exactly go for now "second-class" males.

Oh but there are plenty of 8 and below who date men who are “second class”. The real question is, What do you look like or are you healthy looking or what our society considers healthy looking:

1.Good straight white teeth
2.Good body with some muscle definition
3.Good posture
4.Health looking fingernails and hands
5.Do you put effort into your looks, have a nice hair cut, smell good?
6.What color are the whites of your eyes?
7.Does your breath smell fresh
8.If you are going bald, shave it off.
The physical does matter to women because when you are walking across a room to introduce yourself to a woman she is scanning you.

Next comes the personality part:
1.Does he seem natural?
2.does he seem desperate?
3.Does he seem creepy?
4.Do I feel safe around him?*
5.what does he do for a living?- this is a personal pet peave. I think it’s very rude to ask someone you don’t know this question. It seems the French agree. Wait, tell me why I love some aspects of French culture so much.

*This one is really random for women since some women like thugs/douchebags/meathead type guys. If you meet a woman like this, dump her with quickness. She comes with drama and why bother. There are 3 billion women out there for you to choose one.

A sudden drop in quality of living creates a lot of resent, bitterness and anger. Agreed that’s why it sucks to be an immigrant when times are hard.

More so when, propped up by "the system" (if you want to call it that) women can carry on as before.But women in NYC have largely moved on from that. Outrageous shows of wealth are very tacky to say the least.

Pseudothyrum said...

Great post.

The scenario you describe is the reason why a new pro-White (and hopefully pro-male) movement will soon arise in the USA...the widening economic dispossession of White men (combined with the decreasing numbers of Whites and the ever-rising numbers of Hispanics in the USA) is going to make this new American pro-White movement (White nationalism, etc) popular than in the coming years.

Anonymous said...

"A real depression (20-30% unemployment)"

We are already in a mini-depression, and it has the potential to get A LOT worse.

Some areas of the USA are already above 20% unemployment, while others are nearing it...the unemployment rate is AT LEAST double what the official figures state, meaning it is about 15% and trending higher.

The grim economic environment, combined with the wholesale sweeping of White men aside even though they are the people which make the USA work correctly, will indeed begin to radicalize many White American men in the near future.

Chic Noir said...

Spain has 20% unemployment. Whiskey maybe you should take a look to see what is happeinging there.

TGGP said...

I have a post here on women's attitudes towards immigration.

Anonymous said...

"that’s why it sucks to be an immigrant when times are hard"

By "it sucks" you mean "it's stupid", right? Immigration is a choice, no?

Indian said...

We are already in a mini-depression, and it has the potential to get A LOT worse.

Some areas of the USA are already above 20% unemployment, while others are nearing it...the unemployment rate is AT LEAST double what the official figures state, meaning it is about 15% and trending higher."

No its not a mini its a FULL blown depression, and housing has yet to hit bottom, commercial real estate/credit card/student loans/auto loans have yet to reach midway, and the debt keeps growing.

And yes, the real unemployment figure that the MSM rarely reports, the U6, is at 16% and will likely hit 25-35% when all is said and done.

This is a depression.

Long said...

I have visited this site and got lots of information about part-time job than other sites that i visited

part-time job

Blogger said...

Trying to find the Ultimate Dating Website? Create an account and find your perfect date.

Blogger said...

You might be eligible to get a Apple iPhone 7.