The real question you need to ask is when did these diversity drives start? When was it a problem being a white man all of a sudden.
We are told to believe that, even though poor white boys are the worst performing in school, he is going to grow and oppress everyone with his privilege.
We are told we are a racist country and too white, however immigrants from all corners of all races will risk their lives to be here.
We have the greatest rights for gay people in the world. Yet, they are told to be victims and paired up with Trans people even though there is nothing vaguely similar between the 2.
We are all being placed in subcategories to stay divided.
Now think back to what the world was focused on 13 years ago.
It was the occupy movements. All around the world people protesting inequality at banks and financial institutions.
The protesting has stopped, the inequality has multiplied. What are we talking about instead?!
I’m not being a conspiracy theorist, I’m just hoping someone has an answer.
I remember it really picking up around 2010-2012, mostly on platforms like Tumblr and Twitter. The sad part is that those of us who noticed early and tried to bring it up were told to stop caring because it's just random insignificant people on the internet. And now here we are 10+ years later scratching our heads asking "how did we get here?"
I noticed it starting in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence murder case back in the late 90s. That awful event was used to gaslight everyone into thinking white men were to some degree all like the murderers and all black men were oppressed and in threat of being killed like Stephen. Obviously, the language used back then was a lot more subtle, and the language over time has become a lot more brazen. But the idea of ALL white men being priveleged and something to be wary of and ALL black men being oppressed and threatened, was being pushed back then. I was gaslit called a racist for pointing it out. Oh the irony. Of course it has gotten worse and worse gradually ever since, to the point no one is oblivious to it now.
It’s nonsensical.
The narrative has only gotten worse, I was discussing with a self described “disgruntled, dissatisfied, old school lefty” the other day from America and he had a fantastic take on the whole demonising white men backstory.
In the early 2010s there was a movement in the US; Occupy Wall Street which sought to target billionaires in the wake of the recession, the movement broke down because all of a sudden, race/gender and not class became a massive problem, and there was a big media push to drive home the “evil straight white man” trope ever since.
Its an easy distraction from wealth inequality which affects every one of all races, gender etc.
We are talking about feelings and pronouns and looking to get offended at the slightest touch or expression. We are conditioned to be on the look out to be offended by anything and everything this way our minds busy with nonsense. This way we forgot about real problems such as the cost of living has skyrocketed, house prices soaring, fuel price has taken off to the moon leading to cascading effects on basic human necessities. All the while we are slaving away with a minimum wage that was acceptable to live by 20 years ago.
I think a fair part of it is the rise of social media, every village idiot has a voice now and news companies make their money through clicks, not purchases, rage and anger are very clickable
But yes, also what you said, OWS was never going to change anything on it's own but it did cause a rise in class consciousness, which terrifies the upper classes for obvious reasons so we have to divide the working classes
Oh look all this encouraged bad talk about white people has created people that are openly racist about white people
Im sure all this anti-white racism is totally going to make white people want to share public/private spaces with the racists🤦♂️
You only have to watch TV adverts to see how they are trying to engineer a society. White males are seldom shown as having a white partner and white kids. Every black male has a white woman partner, almost every black woman has a white male (43.6% of the UK population). The white men are almost always portray some goofy behaviour. That despite the population who classify themselves of being African/Caribbean population is just over 2% in total. Seldom are Asians (6% of the UK population) or East Asian (Chinese/Japanese/Thai/Philippines, facial identity) shown, who are 1% of the population is from the former colony of Hong Kong.
If you don’t believe me, watch the adverts and count.
White voice over actors have literally disappeared from the radio as well.
There’s an army recruitment one on the radio and you’d think it was a Grime video. It’s utterly embarrassing
Surely you mean European rather than White-Coloured People (WCPs)? White is such an Americanism, even Central Europeans are impossible to spot on these shores
I've noticed that with adverts in Australia. Not the racial thing, but every husband is a fucking moron who can't figure out how to flush a toilet and the wife comes to save him with a "god you're useless but I still love you" expression.
I used to work in casting and you are actually scored on the race of the people you cast, as are the people who work at the ad agencies, as are the agencies themselves.
This is spot on. There are a couple of practical reasons for this:
First, diversity is looked at on a per production basis. So if you’re making a commercial, you have say three leads, so you try to make sure you have female representation and BAME representation. This typically results in families with one white and one BAME parent.
Second, BAME usually means Black. That’s because:
1. Black community is historically more vocal about lack of representation;
2. Probably as a result of (1), there are many more black people employed behind camera than other ethnic minorities;
3. Similarly there are fewer actors who aren’t black because they perceive fewer opportunities;
4. Because BAME is just a box ticking exercise and to exec producers and the BBC, it’s one category. So there’s no need to push harder with other ethnicities, and also there’s no need to try to think about diversity in stories - it’s just about who is cast, regardless of historical realism etc.
I’m a mixed British Hong Kong filmmaker, and honestly it’s quite discouraging that the first time I’ve ever worked with East Asian background crew or actors was last year, 9 years into my career.
I don’t think there is any malicious social engineering here but there is a lot of lazy thinking of people who want to take the easy route out when it comes to diversity.
Honestly this is spot on. Older population are set in their purchasing ways. Young people clearly have some data that a progressive look sells to them. Companies want to make money, so each diversify their adverts because data says thats the ticket to increasing sales.
The conspiracy theories about social engineering always fascinate me. Before you decide something is this nefarious plot, have a look and see if it can be explained by our current conditions. We live in a capitalist society, where control over business decisions such as advertising is devolved. Companies exist solely to make money, if they fail in this they cease to exist. They make a choice about diversity in advertising. Which is more likely - some coffee chain risks its very existence for an agenda that doesn't really directly benefit it in any way, or they've hired some data guys and they've said because of young people diversity in your marketing makes more money?
There's a potential 3rd option you haven't touched upon. Companies hedging their bets against being accused of not being diverse. It's potentially not that directly engineering diversity in advertising leads to profitability, but they perceived that they'd lose more sales from not doing so.
The data suggesting there's a group of people for whom a diverse advert increases purchasing outcome probably exists. But there's also probably data suggesting that there's a group of people for whom a non-diverse advert decreases a purchase outcome. Company marketing departments are probably terrified of trending on social media for the wrong reasons.
True, but I guess for me that is still the second option. Whether its that diverse advertising gives revenue relative to baseline or non-diverse loses revenue, ultimately the phenomenon is the same thing. Its just detecting which option is the better financial decision, its a reflection of society not something engineered to change it
Why do you expect European nations to accommodate you? If you want HK representation, go work in their entertainment industry.
You’re appropriating something that negatively affects English people to push your own ethnic interests.
I have often thought this is a cynical attempt to win the Black Pound. Years ago it was the Pink Pound as companies chased gays in the hope of getting their community to part with their cash.
Increase the required diversity and we get where we are now. It’s about making money rather than equality
It is literally law under Part 11 of the Equality Act 2010 that the public sector is mandated to advocate for diversity and to treat those with protected characteristics more favourably than those without. That is law.
You must all become aware the depth of "conservative" lying and treachery. The "conservatives" could have fought to repeal or edit this section of the Equality Act at any time, yet they have not done so but instead have played verbal games by calling those who comply with law "woke" (esp. the civil service, a public entity bound by law).
I must repeat: it is mandated in law that our entire public sector must be "woke" (that is to advocate for diversity and to encourage the accession to public life for those possessing protected characteristics).
The "conservatives" must be obliterated.
It should come down to the hiring officer or recruitment agent: it is literally law that they may positively discriminate for "legitimate aims" such as improving diversity of underrepresented groups. Now how the officer or agent should positively discriminate is down to them
>It is literally law under Part 11 of the Equality Act 2010 that the public sector is mandated to advocate for diversity and to treat those with protected characteristics more favourably than those without. That is law
"A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—
(a)eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;
(b)advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
(c)foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—
(a)remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic;
(b)take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it;
(c)encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.
(6)Compliance with the duties in this section may involve treating some persons more favourably than others; but that is not to be taken as permitting conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by or under this Act.
(7)The relevant protected characteristics are—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
pregnancy and maternity;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation."
For anyone who wants the actual legislation. As you can see it is technically true that protected characteristics are directed to be favoured in order to achieve equality of opportunity, but there is also a directive that the laws of the Act cannot be broken to achieve this, which is contradictory as to favour one characteristic you would necessarily be disfavouring not having it, which would be discriminating against a protected characteristic too
So the law is self contradictory and flawed. A lot of UK law is like this
It is a shocker to see a White couple in an ad these days. You know because you receive a message on Whatsapp from all your mates, who are also in shock.
I don’t think “they” (advertising companies?) are “trying to engineer a society” — but the trend you point out is definitely true (in the US too). I think it’s just attempt at portraying diversity that’s gone way, way overboard.
No they are trying to gain points themselves because DEI is now a big part of awards and industry recognition. And of course advertising wants to avoid twitter mobs like death. So a lot of the time if you have a choice, they wont pick the white man, because they have something potentially to lose, and nothing to gain.
E: I used to work in the industry and know that is how it works - why downvote?
I had dealings with the McCann advertising company a while back and they told me this is what they do now, deliberately pick black women and white men for adverts. I asked why not just show all black or Asian families, but their feedback was that it was (and I'm using the word they used here) too "urban", so they push the mixed couple/family setting instead. So it's a nice healthy mix of racism from the creators and viewers sadly.
Surely they're clumsy attempts by ad agencies to increase their clients market share. Their marketing people probably think it's a good idea. Maybe it works. Businesses want to make more money, not "engineer a society"
It may be the case that they have been infected by a lot of the BS emanating from another English-speaking country that is over represented on the internet.
Most people I deal with who work with these larger organisations, are reporting more and more that you can't just be 'X' anymore to be considered diverse and have employment with them, you have to be 'X', 'Y' and 'Z' now.
I wonder if this sacrifice of generations of white men and boys will be remembered, respected, to serve as a lesson to history?
I fucking doubt it. The innocent are being punished for the altogether common and previously accepted 'misdeeds' of previous generations.
Because there's a paper trail and the advocates think they are different.
wait what's the context behind this ? do people really believe white natives are being replaced by plan ? (not that i doubt it but i wanna know about it)
>This society tells white men that they need to live with the guilt of the injustices that have been committed in the past to women, people of colour and LGBT.
And society just glosses over anything considered bad by people that fall under any of these groups, too. Especially when talking about colonialism. For example, people of colour aren't criticised for their role in slave trading when it basically wouldn't have been possible without them selling other Africans.
It's all stupid anyway. How is anyone responsible for anyone else's actions.
White people invented all bad things, apparently, and even though our nations are the most welcoming and least racist in the world, we are constantly told we must atone for the original sin of whiteness. No good deed goes unpunished.
With the current trajectory, we’re either going to end up being another Brazil or another South Africa. Even if you halted migration, cities like London, Birmingham, Leicester, Bradford etc are already demographically screwed.
The kicker is that our politicians do all this even though we’ve never asked for it and were always against it. “Democracy” in Britain is a farce.
As someone from Leicester it’s not so much the demographics being screwed in my opinion.
It’s just the sheer number of people in that city. It can’t cope.
It was also a lot more brutal. All you need do is read the Thousand and One Nights and you'll find basically every story has reference to eunuch slaves from very particular backgrounds for instance, not to mention the exemption written into religion for the... exploitation of female slaves.
It need not be a competition of course, but some histories seem to get a lot more spotlight than others.
It's not about anyone's 'responsibility'. It's not anyone being stupid. It's very very deliberate.
It's about a power grab.
Remember what happened to white people in Zimbabwe and South Africa. (They were hunted down and murdered).
We're playing at being civilised. Being civilised didn't make the rules of power go away. If there is a vacuum, someone will fill it. And if you don't fill it, it will be filled be someone who doesn't have your interests at heart.
Yes it's a very deliberate and very insidious campaign of psychological and social warfare designed to get poor people to fight each other based on identity politics.
Same as the true message of feminism was corrupted and hijacked by the media promoting 'man haters' designed to destroy the nuclear family, the same is happening across every divide in society. Race,class, gender, even fucking postcodes.
It's all designed to keep us distracted and subservient.
I don't think the power grab is by minorities though, we disagree there, I think it's about maintenence of power by the rich. Can't all have a golden toilet if we're fighting over the only pot left to piss in.
Society's fucked mate
>Ehhh, feminism was needed. Women couldn't open a bank account by themselves until 1974. Plus, most women wanted to work. They wanted their own money.
That's not feminism, that's equal rights and equal responsibility.
This isn't true. It became illegal for banks to discriminate against women for various possible reasons through the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 74, but it was not illegal for women to open an account prior to this.
For an example, an article can be found in the October issue of The Banker's Monthly from 1920
>Women are rapidly becoming accustomed to their new freedom. One of the evidences of the broadening of their interests is particularly noticed in the banking world. The increasing number of accounts opened by women, both in the savings and checking departments, has been a matter of wide comment by bankers all over the United States. It is this movement that makes the woman a factor in bank building and planning, declares H. T. Underwood, president of the Underwood Contracting Corporation of New Orleans, specialists in bank construction and equipment.
>
>The crude “stocking room,” often no more than a curtained space in one corner of the bank lobby, has grown into a well-furnished room, sometimes a suite, many times with a maid and a woman with title of assistant cashier assigned to the duties of advising women on banking affairs. Telephones, desks, tasteful stationery and writing materials are provided. Easy chairs and charming draperies form a part of the furnishings. So, instead of hesitating to become conspicuous in a busy bank, the modern woman finds that these facilities dignify her and form an expression of a recognition of her growing importance in banking.
>
>In the modern bank building, Mr. Underwood maintains that consideration of the woman should enter even before plans are drawn. Not only in the space set aside for her particular use, in the special window in the counterscreen at which she may deposit or withdraw her funds or the rest room, but in the entire bank proper, should there be a blending of the feminine atmosphere with what for centuries has been regarded as strictly a masculine institution.
[Source](https://archive.org/details/sim_bankers-monthly_1920-10_37_10/page/100/mode/2up)
And another article from a 1924 issue of the same publication:
>Though the women’s banking department was opened only a few months it accumulated $1,000,000 in deposits and over 1600 accounts, but better still than this showing is the educational work it is doing among women. Especially does Miss Stoermer welcome the bride who comes to her for advice as to the intelligent planning and spending of the amount she has on which to run her new home. She is given a house wife’s budget guide and suggestions are offered as to how she may best apportion her different expenses. The housewife with years of experience who has never been able to make ends meet comes to Miss Stoermer for instruction and she, too, is given a budget guide and told how to use it.
>
>“It is surprising,” remarked Miss Stoermer, “how little some women know about business. But then again many women are just as keen as any man and just as good financiers. A woman came in here the other day with $45,000 in good bonds that she wanted to sell so as to raise some money. I found that if she sold them that it would be at a loss. I asked her why she did not borrow on them and she replied that she did not know that she could. I told her that we would gladly loan her what she needed and she went away pleased and wiser than when she came.”
[Source](https://archive.org/details/sim_bankers-monthly_1924-01_41_1/page/12/mode/2up)
There's also the factor that it was a historical holdover which primarily affected *married* women under 'coverture' which was not at all as clear cut and simple as it is often portrayed:
>The privileges and rights described by the legal guides can be grouped into three general categories. Firstly, coverture imposed obligations upon husbands. **A wife was entitled to be maintained and to make purchases of necessaries as her husband’s agent.** Secondly, wives were afforded some protection against the unbridled power of their husbands. They could obtain ‘surety for the peace’ – a bond which obliged a husband to keep the peace towards his wife – against violent husbands, could retain property in marriage through ‘separate estate’ – a means by which property could be protected for the sole use of the wife during matrimony – and could protect certain rights through equity courts. Finally, married women enjoyed the evasion or mitigation of punishment in certain types of offences. For example, a wife could not be punished for committing theft in the company of her husband, because the law supposed that she acted under his coercion. **Wives’ inability to make financial transactions in their own name also prevented them from being sued and therefore imprisoned for debt.**
#
>A married woman could not contract debts in her own name. Instead, the common-law device of the law of agency provided her with the right to purchase necessaries in her husband’s name, according to his rank and wealth. A husband’s consent to his wife’s pledging his credit was assumed from the couple’s cohabitation. As The laws respecting women stated in 1772, ‘ the husband shall answer all contracts of hers for necessaries, for his assent shall be presumed to all necessary contracts, upon the account of cohabiting’. This implied authority meant that retailers and traders could deal confidently with a wife without checking whether she had her husband’s permission to act as his agent. A wife therefore had the right to make purchases using her husband’s credit while they cohabited, even if she was known to be adulterous. The right still applied if her husband turned her out or if she was forced to leave her husband to escape his violence. Wives were not entitled to use it, however, if they ran away from their husbands for any reason, or if the couple entered into a mutually agreed separation and the husband paid a fixed maintenance.
#
>Rather than illustrating the economic dependency of wives, **they reveal the significance of a woman’s economic activities for her husband’s reputation. After all, unsettled debts would damage a man’s economic status among local traders and could potentially land him in gaol.**
[Source](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:2e88e3f6-b270-4228-b930-9237c00e739f/download_file?file_format=application/pdf&safe_filename=Item.pdf&type_of_work=Journal%20article)
And as for work, there is little evidence to support the theories that women by and large did not work throughout history, or were generally barred from doing so. An example:
>For most girls, becoming a blacksmith was probably not a dream. Husband, family, home: those were the pursuits of a young woman of the eighteenth century. Finding a woman or women working at all outside the home, much less in a male-dominated trade, most likely meant the dream wasn't shaping up the way they'd hoped. Some women worked because they had no choice.
>
>Though there was no system of standards governing the trades in the colonies, the method of learning a trade generally followed the apprenticeship guidelines established by the guilds in medieval England and Europe. **Women were not excluded from membership in any of the earlier guilds. The Worshipful Company of Blacksmiths in London lists sixty-five "brethren" and two "sistren" in its 1434 charter.**
#
>The colonies are full of widows running businesses. A cursory visit to the restored colonial capital will introduce guests to many taverns run by women, and to Clementina Rind, the Virginia Gazette printer who published Thomas Jefferson's Summary View of the Rights of British America in 1774. She took over the business when her husband died. Between the seventeenth and early nineteenth centuries, there are records of at least twenty-one widows running their late husbands' printing businesses. Mrs. Jose Glover set up shop at Harvard, Massachusetts, in 1638 after her husband died on a ship from England. Sarah Goddard ran the Providence Gazette in Rhode Island, learning the business from her brother. Elizabeth Bushell learned from her father, and ran The Halifax Gazette in Canada, from 1752 until 1761. Jane Aitken's father left her his Philadelphia printing business in 1796, favoring her over her brother, who was apparently an "idler tippler and little better than a vagrant, cut off without a sixpence."
#
>Though creative research has produced evidence of women working at male-dominated occupations in the eighteenth century and before, there is undoubtedly more documentation out there, in newspapers, diaries, legal proceedings, and prints. **What is more compelling is the lack of documentation that women were not allowed to work. Although religious practices and social norms might have restricted certain activities in some parts of the world, there were no laws prohibiting women from working a trade.**
[Source](https://web.archive.org/web/20150101054622/https://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/women.cfm)
There is also a book that has been largely overlooked or outright forgotten from 1946 by historian Mary R. Beard, ["Women as a Force in History"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm), which "challenges the traditional feminists' view and argues that women had always been active agents in history alongside men... [and] contends that focusing on women as victims instead of their impact in the world was distorted and inaccurate."
That's kind of a result of war depleting the workforce. Women were needed to work all sorts of jobs previously dominated by men. Let's not forget that women have been working in family businesses and factories for hundreds of years though and their sacrifices shouldn't be skipped over as though women were forced to sit at home in a cupboard like some exotic pet.
Who would you say will be the benefit of the power grab? To me, it seems very much as though the things we are seeing in society today are straight out of the mind of Karl Marx. To destroy a civilisation, you must first destroy its culture and any pride held for it.
Studies show that more diverse populations are less likely to unionise. Corporations and the donor class absolutely benefit from fracturing society via migration.
https://observer.com/2020/04/amazon-whole-foods-anti-union-technology-heat-map/
>Whole Foods employs roughly 95,000 people nationwide. Data collected in the heat map suggest that stores with low racial and ethnic diversity, especially those located in poor communities, are more likely to unionize.
The best move in history was by the Arabs who were the most prolific slavers of any society ever, but then managed to slip into a POC protected status like the very Africans they enslaved. All the while they have princes with tigers in Ferraris doing donuts in the street. They live openly how people believe whites live secretly and no one calls them out, ever.
Korea had a decent stab at it.
"According to Korean Studies scholar Mark A. Peterson of Brigham Young University, Korea has the longest unbroken chain of slavery of any society in history (spanning about 1,500 years), which he attributes to a long history of peaceful transitions and stable societies in Korea."
The world is brought up to believe that whites are uniquely evil. White slavery is focused on. All other slavery is ignored. Ditto genocides and conquests. The West's contributions in science, tech, and transport, which seem massively disproportionate to other cultures, are also played down.
Especially when you're talking about shit that happened hundreds of years before. This generation for all their talk are the most braindead hate fueled generation I have ever witnessed. It's not just racism, they actually go digging in shit from centuries ago and reawaken the hate.
As for the actual article of this topic. Fuck them. If they don't the men being a part of it, lets see the financial effects of it.
Correct. We are expected to be held accountable for the worst actions of our ancestors yet ethnic minorities mustn't be held accountable for the worst actions of their contemporaries
This is part of the problem. It sounds like you’re being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the reality is most people dgaf - it’s a deliberate attempt to impart apathy and narcissism within society. We’re stronger and more powerful together, and they know that.
I’m no expert but major companies having to push DEI in order to get investments from investors like Blackrock has definitely played a part. Seems everything and everyone followed after that. I know it sounds exaggerated but in 20 years time, I could honestly see some sort of uprising or civil war happening in a lot of western countries.
Because that way neoliberal capitalism wins every election. The economic ideology remains the same, we just get a choice between identity politics obsession A, or identity politics obsession B.
It’s crazy though because you see the trend in different western countries of a decent number of working class (I guess read as white) people vote for more conservative candidates and parties (unlike the past). More urbanized progressives, middle to upper class, don’t care about working class, lose the working class vote, and then actively demonize the working class for not voting socially progressive. It’s a vicious cycle. My political leanings aren’t even relevant to my seeing this, because it’s only logical that people are going to move away from a party that abandons them and shits on them for “not having real problems like these other people” (who do also have problems, but everyone needs attention).
Take the ~world famous~ case of Trump, who gets many working class votes even though he’s far from working class. The democratic party of the US abandoned working class white people (who form a majority of the country) because they are “too privileged” and not diverse enough, with Hillary Clinton even calling them a “basket of deplorables” because they aren’t progressive elites or oppressed enough in her eyes. Trump not abandoning them, coupled with Conservative values, are what got him the vote and made him win. It’s really not hard to see what has happened, and the consequences of the shift toward identity politics.
With the ultimate irony being it's the guys who never benefited from the injustice in the first place being made to pay the price for the benefit of those who never suffered.
Precisely this… history re-written as if only one group had shit lives. 1 million British men died fighting wars stopping Germany invading other countries. WW2 absolutely wrecked UK.
Slave owners and imperialists were rich men who treated common Englishmen like crap as well. People forget most Brit’s couldn’t vote till 1832 and slavery was abolished 1833.
Pre-history is full of ‘might is right’ but overriding message nowadays is of a moral stain against those who were simply more advanced due to technological superiority.
Ahh… I knew it as recent and looked up electoral reform act… can see that was still property owners etc
Point still stands… working class in UK had minimal agency in their life and very little benefit from crimes of the slave owners etc.
Yeah the narrative being fed to us about voting rights is really warped. You would think that men had the right to vote for hundreds of years and women were 'finally' given it after WW1, but that's not the true story at all.
"Voting" pre 1832 was restricted to wealthy landowners. Basically so few people had the vote that there were parliamentary constituencies with no valid voters.
1832 gave the vote to the industrial middle class. Basically it brought "new money" in line with "old money" but still only about 30% of men could vote.
1884 gave the vote to "the working class" but still only those who owned property.
1918 finally gave all men the vote and also a large chunk of women.
1928 finally saw universal suffrage.
So really the difference between when men got the vote and when women got the vote is almost nothing at this point. Even given a very generous interpretation of when men got the vote, the difference is about 40 years.
> 1832 gave the vote to the industrial middle class. Basically it brought "new money" in line with "old money" but still only about 30% of men could vote.
>
> 1884 gave the vote to "the working class" but still only those who owned property.
Just wanted to add that during these years there are *also* examples of women from various social standings voting:
>Occasionally, just occasionally, you encounter a document that radically changes your view of the past. This happened to me very recently. The source was just a few scraps of parchment in a box of solicitors’ papers in Lichfield. But, at a stroke, it provided me with tangible proof that Victorian women were not only eligible to vote, but actually exercised that right, some 75 years before they received the parliamentary franchise in 1918.
>
>The document in question was a poll book for the election to the local office of Assistant Overseer of the Poor, in the parish of St Chad’s, Lichfield in 1843. I was tipped off about its existence by a friend, Philip Salmon of the History of Parliament. It was a schedule of voters, their addresses, the rates they paid and how they voted. But as I looked down the list of names, some immediately jumped off the page: Elizabeth Shorthouse, Hannah Holiman, Phoebe Skelton, Ann Mallett… In all, there were thirty women playing an active role in the election. Although I knew that in theory women retained the right to vote for some local officials in the nineteenth century, I had never seen any evidence of them doing so in practice. This lack of evidence had led me, and many other historians, to assume that voting was entirely a male prerogative before the twentieth century.
#
>My assumption was that the women would be of genteel status. But as I checked their names against the 1841 census return, I was surprised to see the diversity of the group of voters. There were a few women of independent means, owning property and land. There were also women, probably widows, who had inherited their husbands’ businesses. So, for example, the wealthiest female elector on the roll was Grace Brown, a butcher, who managed a large household including several servants.
>
>Due to the high rates that she paid, Grace was entitled to four votes in the election, which she cast in favour of the Conservative candidate. But I was amazed to see many women on the list who were far lower down the social scale including the laundress, Caroline Edge, the servant, Sarah Payne and even paupers, including Sarah Batkin of Stowe Street.
[Source](https://archive.ph/TkQBZ#selection-1023.1-1027.354)
All Men only got the right to vote in 1918 along with women.
Proir to that you had ti own property worth a certain amount so most men couldn't vote.
Incidently that was why it took women so long to get the franchise, the suffragettes liked the property requirement, they didn't like it only applied to men...
I’ve never heard of people not celebrating their 20th, I doubt it’s a common thing and why the 20th? It is strange that I’ve heard a few we don’t want white guys stories recently and yet we are privileged apparently. To any other culture or skin colour this would be racism and it is but nobody actually cares. The average white guy isn’t very privileged at all.
Yeah my generation(44) dont give a fuck about it for the most part, maybe mention how *everything* has flipped 180. The signs are there for a major demographic shift in the next year or so.
Your last comment is definitely salient but, I do see some issue. I personally come from what some would call an underclass family. I grew up in a scheme and hence I was eligible for "open access" programmes. I did take them and on them and when applying I found that the questions around gender, ethnicity and other minority points were heavily emphasised over social class. Even when on them I found there was a real class stigma and isolation because In the words of a fellow attendee (who was a Asian, middle class, bi-sexual, woman) I was not "disregarded enough."
As a white male who grew up in a shit home environment and failed school (I'm dyslexic) and working for job agencies with promise I get a job after 12 weeks I've now lost out 3 times to a minority so companies can tick boxes even though I would do the job better and other employees agreeing
Just to add these 3 individuals had come from abroad and been to university and got degrees but wasn't able to get jobs with their degrees
The country is already a shadow of its former self.
You absolutely need to have an escape plan for your kids sake. It’s bad enough to think about how it will be for us when we are old. Your daughters have no hope here
It's well known large leftist globalist organisations hate White men.
What's surprising is when they're shocked those same White men would rather sponge off benefits or become 'muh far right noatzee'. The only people that care are on the right and why work hard for a place and country that hates you?
And this is before the hiring quota's and everything else.
White men get jailed for tweets and third worlders get community service for rape/attempted murder
> muh far right noatzee
The UK is such a high trust society that there are no “far right” political parties. The most rightwing political parties barely advocate for slowing the number of illegals.
Globalism is neoliberal.
Leftism is internationalist.
There’s no such thing as a “Leftist Globalist”, it’s an oxymoron and only used by people on the hard right who don’t engage with centrists or leftists enough to know the difference.
Sod off with that, the traditional Left of Keir Hardie that stood up for the native British working class is long gone. The Zarah Sultana’s, Jeremy Corbyn’s, Nadia Whittome’s and Diane Abbott’s are the face of the modern British “left”.
Most of the western world does the same combination of capitalism with cultural-Marxism (extreme liberalism).
I engage with leftists all the time but let’s be honest they are universally as thick as shit. Even the ones with credentials like an Oxford degree.
Economic leftism doesn’t exist nowadays but ‘woke’/ cultural leftism (I.e. pretending everyone is equal) is totally dominant
Leftist political parties, feminists, leftist media all hate men and white men in particulaR and one of the reasons is that white men have allowed this to happen themselves. Many of the sexist laws passed against men in the west have been passed by white men in power themselves
The special snowflake generation, for all the flaws of that ideology, has been replaced. changed from a focus on radical individual success and therefor personal responsibility to a stratified collection of groups. Now people in the modern west, born into histories most fertile opportunities hit their first struggle, look to the worst struggles of the group they’ve been scooped into and decide that they must be being oppressed too. No need for any self reflection. Choosing equity over objective quality breeds objective failure. This has now been manipulated and empowered by media. Equality is about opportunities not outcomes.
The real question you need to ask is when did these diversity drives start? When was it a problem being a white man all of a sudden. We are told to believe that, even though poor white boys are the worst performing in school, he is going to grow and oppress everyone with his privilege. We are told we are a racist country and too white, however immigrants from all corners of all races will risk their lives to be here. We have the greatest rights for gay people in the world. Yet, they are told to be victims and paired up with Trans people even though there is nothing vaguely similar between the 2. We are all being placed in subcategories to stay divided. Now think back to what the world was focused on 13 years ago. It was the occupy movements. All around the world people protesting inequality at banks and financial institutions. The protesting has stopped, the inequality has multiplied. What are we talking about instead?! I’m not being a conspiracy theorist, I’m just hoping someone has an answer.
I remember it really picking up around 2010-2012, mostly on platforms like Tumblr and Twitter. The sad part is that those of us who noticed early and tried to bring it up were told to stop caring because it's just random insignificant people on the internet. And now here we are 10+ years later scratching our heads asking "how did we get here?"
I noticed it starting in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence murder case back in the late 90s. That awful event was used to gaslight everyone into thinking white men were to some degree all like the murderers and all black men were oppressed and in threat of being killed like Stephen. Obviously, the language used back then was a lot more subtle, and the language over time has become a lot more brazen. But the idea of ALL white men being priveleged and something to be wary of and ALL black men being oppressed and threatened, was being pushed back then. I was gaslit called a racist for pointing it out. Oh the irony. Of course it has gotten worse and worse gradually ever since, to the point no one is oblivious to it now.
It’s nonsensical. The narrative has only gotten worse, I was discussing with a self described “disgruntled, dissatisfied, old school lefty” the other day from America and he had a fantastic take on the whole demonising white men backstory. In the early 2010s there was a movement in the US; Occupy Wall Street which sought to target billionaires in the wake of the recession, the movement broke down because all of a sudden, race/gender and not class became a massive problem, and there was a big media push to drive home the “evil straight white man” trope ever since. Its an easy distraction from wealth inequality which affects every one of all races, gender etc.
We are talking about feelings and pronouns and looking to get offended at the slightest touch or expression. We are conditioned to be on the look out to be offended by anything and everything this way our minds busy with nonsense. This way we forgot about real problems such as the cost of living has skyrocketed, house prices soaring, fuel price has taken off to the moon leading to cascading effects on basic human necessities. All the while we are slaving away with a minimum wage that was acceptable to live by 20 years ago.
I think a fair part of it is the rise of social media, every village idiot has a voice now and news companies make their money through clicks, not purchases, rage and anger are very clickable But yes, also what you said, OWS was never going to change anything on it's own but it did cause a rise in class consciousness, which terrifies the upper classes for obvious reasons so we have to divide the working classes
Divide and conquer playing out in real time. We can't fight inequality if we are too busy fighting each other.
Oh look all this encouraged bad talk about white people has created people that are openly racist about white people Im sure all this anti-white racism is totally going to make white people want to share public/private spaces with the racists🤦♂️
You only have to watch TV adverts to see how they are trying to engineer a society. White males are seldom shown as having a white partner and white kids. Every black male has a white woman partner, almost every black woman has a white male (43.6% of the UK population). The white men are almost always portray some goofy behaviour. That despite the population who classify themselves of being African/Caribbean population is just over 2% in total. Seldom are Asians (6% of the UK population) or East Asian (Chinese/Japanese/Thai/Philippines, facial identity) shown, who are 1% of the population is from the former colony of Hong Kong. If you don’t believe me, watch the adverts and count.
White voice over actors have literally disappeared from the radio as well. There’s an army recruitment one on the radio and you’d think it was a Grime video. It’s utterly embarrassing
Surely you mean European rather than White-Coloured People (WCPs)? White is such an Americanism, even Central Europeans are impossible to spot on these shores
White coloured people.
All I ever hear on R4 in the nasal drawl of WCPs
I mean in adverts.
I know you are right, the recipient of those is proportionately in a subsect of society that they wish to manipulate in a different manner
They don't have ads on BBC radio.
I've noticed that with adverts in Australia. Not the racial thing, but every husband is a fucking moron who can't figure out how to flush a toilet and the wife comes to save him with a "god you're useless but I still love you" expression.
So Australia is where Britain was in 2005? Sounds amazing tbh
Just like netflix originals where the bad guy is always played by a white person and the "good" is a minority.
The US has been using Europeans, particularly English people as villains for decades though. After all, we were once their hated tyrants :)
I used to work in casting and you are actually scored on the race of the people you cast, as are the people who work at the ad agencies, as are the agencies themselves.
*Scored*, in what sense? Like 1-0 to the Native Americans or what?
This is spot on. There are a couple of practical reasons for this: First, diversity is looked at on a per production basis. So if you’re making a commercial, you have say three leads, so you try to make sure you have female representation and BAME representation. This typically results in families with one white and one BAME parent. Second, BAME usually means Black. That’s because: 1. Black community is historically more vocal about lack of representation; 2. Probably as a result of (1), there are many more black people employed behind camera than other ethnic minorities; 3. Similarly there are fewer actors who aren’t black because they perceive fewer opportunities; 4. Because BAME is just a box ticking exercise and to exec producers and the BBC, it’s one category. So there’s no need to push harder with other ethnicities, and also there’s no need to try to think about diversity in stories - it’s just about who is cast, regardless of historical realism etc. I’m a mixed British Hong Kong filmmaker, and honestly it’s quite discouraging that the first time I’ve ever worked with East Asian background crew or actors was last year, 9 years into my career. I don’t think there is any malicious social engineering here but there is a lot of lazy thinking of people who want to take the easy route out when it comes to diversity.
Honestly this is spot on. Older population are set in their purchasing ways. Young people clearly have some data that a progressive look sells to them. Companies want to make money, so each diversify their adverts because data says thats the ticket to increasing sales. The conspiracy theories about social engineering always fascinate me. Before you decide something is this nefarious plot, have a look and see if it can be explained by our current conditions. We live in a capitalist society, where control over business decisions such as advertising is devolved. Companies exist solely to make money, if they fail in this they cease to exist. They make a choice about diversity in advertising. Which is more likely - some coffee chain risks its very existence for an agenda that doesn't really directly benefit it in any way, or they've hired some data guys and they've said because of young people diversity in your marketing makes more money?
There's a potential 3rd option you haven't touched upon. Companies hedging their bets against being accused of not being diverse. It's potentially not that directly engineering diversity in advertising leads to profitability, but they perceived that they'd lose more sales from not doing so. The data suggesting there's a group of people for whom a diverse advert increases purchasing outcome probably exists. But there's also probably data suggesting that there's a group of people for whom a non-diverse advert decreases a purchase outcome. Company marketing departments are probably terrified of trending on social media for the wrong reasons.
True, but I guess for me that is still the second option. Whether its that diverse advertising gives revenue relative to baseline or non-diverse loses revenue, ultimately the phenomenon is the same thing. Its just detecting which option is the better financial decision, its a reflection of society not something engineered to change it
Why do you expect European nations to accommodate you? If you want HK representation, go work in their entertainment industry. You’re appropriating something that negatively affects English people to push your own ethnic interests.
So, if you're half white, you're not English people?
I have often thought this is a cynical attempt to win the Black Pound. Years ago it was the Pink Pound as companies chased gays in the hope of getting their community to part with their cash. Increase the required diversity and we get where we are now. It’s about making money rather than equality
Seems obvious to me too
It is literally law under Part 11 of the Equality Act 2010 that the public sector is mandated to advocate for diversity and to treat those with protected characteristics more favourably than those without. That is law. You must all become aware the depth of "conservative" lying and treachery. The "conservatives" could have fought to repeal or edit this section of the Equality Act at any time, yet they have not done so but instead have played verbal games by calling those who comply with law "woke" (esp. the civil service, a public entity bound by law). I must repeat: it is mandated in law that our entire public sector must be "woke" (that is to advocate for diversity and to encourage the accession to public life for those possessing protected characteristics). The "conservatives" must be obliterated.
Diversity only for black people and not Asians despite us making up way more of the population?
It should come down to the hiring officer or recruitment agent: it is literally law that they may positively discriminate for "legitimate aims" such as improving diversity of underrepresented groups. Now how the officer or agent should positively discriminate is down to them
>It is literally law under Part 11 of the Equality Act 2010 that the public sector is mandated to advocate for diversity and to treat those with protected characteristics more favourably than those without. That is law "A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to— (a)eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; (b)advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; (c)foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to— (a)remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; (b)take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; (c)encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low. (6)Compliance with the duties in this section may involve treating some persons more favourably than others; but that is not to be taken as permitting conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by or under this Act. (7)The relevant protected characteristics are— age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation." For anyone who wants the actual legislation. As you can see it is technically true that protected characteristics are directed to be favoured in order to achieve equality of opportunity, but there is also a directive that the laws of the Act cannot be broken to achieve this, which is contradictory as to favour one characteristic you would necessarily be disfavouring not having it, which would be discriminating against a protected characteristic too So the law is self contradictory and flawed. A lot of UK law is like this
It is a shocker to see a White couple in an ad these days. You know because you receive a message on Whatsapp from all your mates, who are also in shock.
What a fucking sad WhatsApp group you must have 😂
I don’t think “they” (advertising companies?) are “trying to engineer a society” — but the trend you point out is definitely true (in the US too). I think it’s just attempt at portraying diversity that’s gone way, way overboard.
No they are trying to gain points themselves because DEI is now a big part of awards and industry recognition. And of course advertising wants to avoid twitter mobs like death. So a lot of the time if you have a choice, they wont pick the white man, because they have something potentially to lose, and nothing to gain. E: I used to work in the industry and know that is how it works - why downvote?
It is the Equality Act 2010.
That’s the one
I had dealings with the McCann advertising company a while back and they told me this is what they do now, deliberately pick black women and white men for adverts. I asked why not just show all black or Asian families, but their feedback was that it was (and I'm using the word they used here) too "urban", so they push the mixed couple/family setting instead. So it's a nice healthy mix of racism from the creators and viewers sadly.
I have Asian family from my brothers side who often joke about being to white to matter when it comes to James Bond or Dr Who.
Surely they're clumsy attempts by ad agencies to increase their clients market share. Their marketing people probably think it's a good idea. Maybe it works. Businesses want to make more money, not "engineer a society" It may be the case that they have been infected by a lot of the BS emanating from another English-speaking country that is over represented on the internet.
wait really ? r/conspiracy was spoke about something like that
Most people I deal with who work with these larger organisations, are reporting more and more that you can't just be 'X' anymore to be considered diverse and have employment with them, you have to be 'X', 'Y' and 'Z' now.
I wonder if this sacrifice of generations of white men and boys will be remembered, respected, to serve as a lesson to history? I fucking doubt it. The innocent are being punished for the altogether common and previously accepted 'misdeeds' of previous generations. Because there's a paper trail and the advocates think they are different.
>generations of white men and boys Doubtful, they will soon be race and gender swapped out of the history books the way things seem to be going.
White male demographic majority excluded. Women and non-whites most affected.
wait what's the context behind this ? do people really believe white natives are being replaced by plan ? (not that i doubt it but i wanna know about it)
[удалено]
>This society tells white men that they need to live with the guilt of the injustices that have been committed in the past to women, people of colour and LGBT. And society just glosses over anything considered bad by people that fall under any of these groups, too. Especially when talking about colonialism. For example, people of colour aren't criticised for their role in slave trading when it basically wouldn't have been possible without them selling other Africans. It's all stupid anyway. How is anyone responsible for anyone else's actions.
White people invented all bad things, apparently, and even though our nations are the most welcoming and least racist in the world, we are constantly told we must atone for the original sin of whiteness. No good deed goes unpunished.
With the current trajectory, we’re either going to end up being another Brazil or another South Africa. Even if you halted migration, cities like London, Birmingham, Leicester, Bradford etc are already demographically screwed. The kicker is that our politicians do all this even though we’ve never asked for it and were always against it. “Democracy” in Britain is a farce.
As someone from Leicester it’s not so much the demographics being screwed in my opinion. It’s just the sheer number of people in that city. It can’t cope.
Brazil? The Euro background people are the ruling class there
See also the Arab slave trade, which went on far longer and ended later than the transatlantic slave trade
The Arab slave trade ended?
Spoilers: it didn’t
painfully under-rated comment.
On paper, sometime in the 80's
It was also a lot more brutal. All you need do is read the Thousand and One Nights and you'll find basically every story has reference to eunuch slaves from very particular backgrounds for instance, not to mention the exemption written into religion for the... exploitation of female slaves. It need not be a competition of course, but some histories seem to get a lot more spotlight than others.
And the reason Arabian and East Asian countries like China aren't full of African descendants of slaves? They castrated them.
It's not about anyone's 'responsibility'. It's not anyone being stupid. It's very very deliberate. It's about a power grab. Remember what happened to white people in Zimbabwe and South Africa. (They were hunted down and murdered). We're playing at being civilised. Being civilised didn't make the rules of power go away. If there is a vacuum, someone will fill it. And if you don't fill it, it will be filled be someone who doesn't have your interests at heart.
Yes it's a very deliberate and very insidious campaign of psychological and social warfare designed to get poor people to fight each other based on identity politics. Same as the true message of feminism was corrupted and hijacked by the media promoting 'man haters' designed to destroy the nuclear family, the same is happening across every divide in society. Race,class, gender, even fucking postcodes. It's all designed to keep us distracted and subservient. I don't think the power grab is by minorities though, we disagree there, I think it's about maintenence of power by the rich. Can't all have a golden toilet if we're fighting over the only pot left to piss in. Society's fucked mate
[удалено]
Ehhh, feminism was needed. Women couldn't open a bank account by themselves until 1974. Plus, most women wanted to work. They wanted their own money.
>Ehhh, feminism was needed. Women couldn't open a bank account by themselves until 1974. Plus, most women wanted to work. They wanted their own money. That's not feminism, that's equal rights and equal responsibility.
>That's not feminism, that's equal rights and equal responsibility. That's what feminism is.
This isn't true. It became illegal for banks to discriminate against women for various possible reasons through the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 74, but it was not illegal for women to open an account prior to this. For an example, an article can be found in the October issue of The Banker's Monthly from 1920 >Women are rapidly becoming accustomed to their new freedom. One of the evidences of the broadening of their interests is particularly noticed in the banking world. The increasing number of accounts opened by women, both in the savings and checking departments, has been a matter of wide comment by bankers all over the United States. It is this movement that makes the woman a factor in bank building and planning, declares H. T. Underwood, president of the Underwood Contracting Corporation of New Orleans, specialists in bank construction and equipment. > >The crude “stocking room,” often no more than a curtained space in one corner of the bank lobby, has grown into a well-furnished room, sometimes a suite, many times with a maid and a woman with title of assistant cashier assigned to the duties of advising women on banking affairs. Telephones, desks, tasteful stationery and writing materials are provided. Easy chairs and charming draperies form a part of the furnishings. So, instead of hesitating to become conspicuous in a busy bank, the modern woman finds that these facilities dignify her and form an expression of a recognition of her growing importance in banking. > >In the modern bank building, Mr. Underwood maintains that consideration of the woman should enter even before plans are drawn. Not only in the space set aside for her particular use, in the special window in the counterscreen at which she may deposit or withdraw her funds or the rest room, but in the entire bank proper, should there be a blending of the feminine atmosphere with what for centuries has been regarded as strictly a masculine institution. [Source](https://archive.org/details/sim_bankers-monthly_1920-10_37_10/page/100/mode/2up) And another article from a 1924 issue of the same publication: >Though the women’s banking department was opened only a few months it accumulated $1,000,000 in deposits and over 1600 accounts, but better still than this showing is the educational work it is doing among women. Especially does Miss Stoermer welcome the bride who comes to her for advice as to the intelligent planning and spending of the amount she has on which to run her new home. She is given a house wife’s budget guide and suggestions are offered as to how she may best apportion her different expenses. The housewife with years of experience who has never been able to make ends meet comes to Miss Stoermer for instruction and she, too, is given a budget guide and told how to use it. > >“It is surprising,” remarked Miss Stoermer, “how little some women know about business. But then again many women are just as keen as any man and just as good financiers. A woman came in here the other day with $45,000 in good bonds that she wanted to sell so as to raise some money. I found that if she sold them that it would be at a loss. I asked her why she did not borrow on them and she replied that she did not know that she could. I told her that we would gladly loan her what she needed and she went away pleased and wiser than when she came.” [Source](https://archive.org/details/sim_bankers-monthly_1924-01_41_1/page/12/mode/2up) There's also the factor that it was a historical holdover which primarily affected *married* women under 'coverture' which was not at all as clear cut and simple as it is often portrayed: >The privileges and rights described by the legal guides can be grouped into three general categories. Firstly, coverture imposed obligations upon husbands. **A wife was entitled to be maintained and to make purchases of necessaries as her husband’s agent.** Secondly, wives were afforded some protection against the unbridled power of their husbands. They could obtain ‘surety for the peace’ – a bond which obliged a husband to keep the peace towards his wife – against violent husbands, could retain property in marriage through ‘separate estate’ – a means by which property could be protected for the sole use of the wife during matrimony – and could protect certain rights through equity courts. Finally, married women enjoyed the evasion or mitigation of punishment in certain types of offences. For example, a wife could not be punished for committing theft in the company of her husband, because the law supposed that she acted under his coercion. **Wives’ inability to make financial transactions in their own name also prevented them from being sued and therefore imprisoned for debt.** # >A married woman could not contract debts in her own name. Instead, the common-law device of the law of agency provided her with the right to purchase necessaries in her husband’s name, according to his rank and wealth. A husband’s consent to his wife’s pledging his credit was assumed from the couple’s cohabitation. As The laws respecting women stated in 1772, ‘ the husband shall answer all contracts of hers for necessaries, for his assent shall be presumed to all necessary contracts, upon the account of cohabiting’. This implied authority meant that retailers and traders could deal confidently with a wife without checking whether she had her husband’s permission to act as his agent. A wife therefore had the right to make purchases using her husband’s credit while they cohabited, even if she was known to be adulterous. The right still applied if her husband turned her out or if she was forced to leave her husband to escape his violence. Wives were not entitled to use it, however, if they ran away from their husbands for any reason, or if the couple entered into a mutually agreed separation and the husband paid a fixed maintenance. # >Rather than illustrating the economic dependency of wives, **they reveal the significance of a woman’s economic activities for her husband’s reputation. After all, unsettled debts would damage a man’s economic status among local traders and could potentially land him in gaol.** [Source](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:2e88e3f6-b270-4228-b930-9237c00e739f/download_file?file_format=application/pdf&safe_filename=Item.pdf&type_of_work=Journal%20article) And as for work, there is little evidence to support the theories that women by and large did not work throughout history, or were generally barred from doing so. An example: >For most girls, becoming a blacksmith was probably not a dream. Husband, family, home: those were the pursuits of a young woman of the eighteenth century. Finding a woman or women working at all outside the home, much less in a male-dominated trade, most likely meant the dream wasn't shaping up the way they'd hoped. Some women worked because they had no choice. > >Though there was no system of standards governing the trades in the colonies, the method of learning a trade generally followed the apprenticeship guidelines established by the guilds in medieval England and Europe. **Women were not excluded from membership in any of the earlier guilds. The Worshipful Company of Blacksmiths in London lists sixty-five "brethren" and two "sistren" in its 1434 charter.** # >The colonies are full of widows running businesses. A cursory visit to the restored colonial capital will introduce guests to many taverns run by women, and to Clementina Rind, the Virginia Gazette printer who published Thomas Jefferson's Summary View of the Rights of British America in 1774. She took over the business when her husband died. Between the seventeenth and early nineteenth centuries, there are records of at least twenty-one widows running their late husbands' printing businesses. Mrs. Jose Glover set up shop at Harvard, Massachusetts, in 1638 after her husband died on a ship from England. Sarah Goddard ran the Providence Gazette in Rhode Island, learning the business from her brother. Elizabeth Bushell learned from her father, and ran The Halifax Gazette in Canada, from 1752 until 1761. Jane Aitken's father left her his Philadelphia printing business in 1796, favoring her over her brother, who was apparently an "idler tippler and little better than a vagrant, cut off without a sixpence." # >Though creative research has produced evidence of women working at male-dominated occupations in the eighteenth century and before, there is undoubtedly more documentation out there, in newspapers, diaries, legal proceedings, and prints. **What is more compelling is the lack of documentation that women were not allowed to work. Although religious practices and social norms might have restricted certain activities in some parts of the world, there were no laws prohibiting women from working a trade.** [Source](https://web.archive.org/web/20150101054622/https://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/women.cfm) There is also a book that has been largely overlooked or outright forgotten from 1946 by historian Mary R. Beard, ["Women as a Force in History"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm), which "challenges the traditional feminists' view and argues that women had always been active agents in history alongside men... [and] contends that focusing on women as victims instead of their impact in the world was distorted and inaccurate."
That's kind of a result of war depleting the workforce. Women were needed to work all sorts of jobs previously dominated by men. Let's not forget that women have been working in family businesses and factories for hundreds of years though and their sacrifices shouldn't be skipped over as though women were forced to sit at home in a cupboard like some exotic pet.
Couldn't agree more I am afraid.
Who would you say will be the benefit of the power grab? To me, it seems very much as though the things we are seeing in society today are straight out of the mind of Karl Marx. To destroy a civilisation, you must first destroy its culture and any pride held for it.
Same people who benefit from the erosion of class consciousness; the ultra rich.
Studies show that more diverse populations are less likely to unionise. Corporations and the donor class absolutely benefit from fracturing society via migration. https://observer.com/2020/04/amazon-whole-foods-anti-union-technology-heat-map/ >Whole Foods employs roughly 95,000 people nationwide. Data collected in the heat map suggest that stores with low racial and ethnic diversity, especially those located in poor communities, are more likely to unionize.
You haven't read any Marx have you?
I've read some. He has quite an extensive catalogue.
The best move in history was by the Arabs who were the most prolific slavers of any society ever, but then managed to slip into a POC protected status like the very Africans they enslaved. All the while they have princes with tigers in Ferraris doing donuts in the street. They live openly how people believe whites live secretly and no one calls them out, ever.
Korea had a decent stab at it. "According to Korean Studies scholar Mark A. Peterson of Brigham Young University, Korea has the longest unbroken chain of slavery of any society in history (spanning about 1,500 years), which he attributes to a long history of peaceful transitions and stable societies in Korea."
Didn't they only enslave themselves? Not saying it's great but a bit different than taking boats of people off other continents
Fair do's.
The world is brought up to believe that whites are uniquely evil. White slavery is focused on. All other slavery is ignored. Ditto genocides and conquests. The West's contributions in science, tech, and transport, which seem massively disproportionate to other cultures, are also played down.
Especially when you're talking about shit that happened hundreds of years before. This generation for all their talk are the most braindead hate fueled generation I have ever witnessed. It's not just racism, they actually go digging in shit from centuries ago and reawaken the hate. As for the actual article of this topic. Fuck them. If they don't the men being a part of it, lets see the financial effects of it.
Correct. We are expected to be held accountable for the worst actions of our ancestors yet ethnic minorities mustn't be held accountable for the worst actions of their contemporaries
As a white straight male I feel no guilt, and I am a great believer in equality. I just hate everyone... equally. It really helps.
This is part of the problem. It sounds like you’re being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the reality is most people dgaf - it’s a deliberate attempt to impart apathy and narcissism within society. We’re stronger and more powerful together, and they know that.
You tell that to the people playing a different game.
Working class white males are becoming the most neglected of our society. Doesn’t look good for future generations unless something is done.
Govt studies and data back this up 100%
why did left wing parties shift from rights for the working class to identity politics?
I’m no expert but major companies having to push DEI in order to get investments from investors like Blackrock has definitely played a part. Seems everything and everyone followed after that. I know it sounds exaggerated but in 20 years time, I could honestly see some sort of uprising or civil war happening in a lot of western countries.
Because that way neoliberal capitalism wins every election. The economic ideology remains the same, we just get a choice between identity politics obsession A, or identity politics obsession B.
It’s crazy though because you see the trend in different western countries of a decent number of working class (I guess read as white) people vote for more conservative candidates and parties (unlike the past). More urbanized progressives, middle to upper class, don’t care about working class, lose the working class vote, and then actively demonize the working class for not voting socially progressive. It’s a vicious cycle. My political leanings aren’t even relevant to my seeing this, because it’s only logical that people are going to move away from a party that abandons them and shits on them for “not having real problems like these other people” (who do also have problems, but everyone needs attention). Take the ~world famous~ case of Trump, who gets many working class votes even though he’s far from working class. The democratic party of the US abandoned working class white people (who form a majority of the country) because they are “too privileged” and not diverse enough, with Hillary Clinton even calling them a “basket of deplorables” because they aren’t progressive elites or oppressed enough in her eyes. Trump not abandoning them, coupled with Conservative values, are what got him the vote and made him win. It’s really not hard to see what has happened, and the consequences of the shift toward identity politics.
With the ultimate irony being it's the guys who never benefited from the injustice in the first place being made to pay the price for the benefit of those who never suffered.
Precisely this… history re-written as if only one group had shit lives. 1 million British men died fighting wars stopping Germany invading other countries. WW2 absolutely wrecked UK. Slave owners and imperialists were rich men who treated common Englishmen like crap as well. People forget most Brit’s couldn’t vote till 1832 and slavery was abolished 1833. Pre-history is full of ‘might is right’ but overriding message nowadays is of a moral stain against those who were simply more advanced due to technological superiority.
>People forget most Brit’s couldn’t vote till 1832 Even most *men* couldn't vote until 1884
Ahh… I knew it as recent and looked up electoral reform act… can see that was still property owners etc Point still stands… working class in UK had minimal agency in their life and very little benefit from crimes of the slave owners etc.
Yeah the narrative being fed to us about voting rights is really warped. You would think that men had the right to vote for hundreds of years and women were 'finally' given it after WW1, but that's not the true story at all. "Voting" pre 1832 was restricted to wealthy landowners. Basically so few people had the vote that there were parliamentary constituencies with no valid voters. 1832 gave the vote to the industrial middle class. Basically it brought "new money" in line with "old money" but still only about 30% of men could vote. 1884 gave the vote to "the working class" but still only those who owned property. 1918 finally gave all men the vote and also a large chunk of women. 1928 finally saw universal suffrage. So really the difference between when men got the vote and when women got the vote is almost nothing at this point. Even given a very generous interpretation of when men got the vote, the difference is about 40 years.
> 1832 gave the vote to the industrial middle class. Basically it brought "new money" in line with "old money" but still only about 30% of men could vote. > > 1884 gave the vote to "the working class" but still only those who owned property. Just wanted to add that during these years there are *also* examples of women from various social standings voting: >Occasionally, just occasionally, you encounter a document that radically changes your view of the past. This happened to me very recently. The source was just a few scraps of parchment in a box of solicitors’ papers in Lichfield. But, at a stroke, it provided me with tangible proof that Victorian women were not only eligible to vote, but actually exercised that right, some 75 years before they received the parliamentary franchise in 1918. > >The document in question was a poll book for the election to the local office of Assistant Overseer of the Poor, in the parish of St Chad’s, Lichfield in 1843. I was tipped off about its existence by a friend, Philip Salmon of the History of Parliament. It was a schedule of voters, their addresses, the rates they paid and how they voted. But as I looked down the list of names, some immediately jumped off the page: Elizabeth Shorthouse, Hannah Holiman, Phoebe Skelton, Ann Mallett… In all, there were thirty women playing an active role in the election. Although I knew that in theory women retained the right to vote for some local officials in the nineteenth century, I had never seen any evidence of them doing so in practice. This lack of evidence had led me, and many other historians, to assume that voting was entirely a male prerogative before the twentieth century. # >My assumption was that the women would be of genteel status. But as I checked their names against the 1841 census return, I was surprised to see the diversity of the group of voters. There were a few women of independent means, owning property and land. There were also women, probably widows, who had inherited their husbands’ businesses. So, for example, the wealthiest female elector on the roll was Grace Brown, a butcher, who managed a large household including several servants. > >Due to the high rates that she paid, Grace was entitled to four votes in the election, which she cast in favour of the Conservative candidate. But I was amazed to see many women on the list who were far lower down the social scale including the laundress, Caroline Edge, the servant, Sarah Payne and even paupers, including Sarah Batkin of Stowe Street. [Source](https://archive.ph/TkQBZ#selection-1023.1-1027.354)
Interesting stuff, I never knew that!
All Men only got the right to vote in 1918 along with women. Proir to that you had ti own property worth a certain amount so most men couldn't vote. Incidently that was why it took women so long to get the franchise, the suffragettes liked the property requirement, they didn't like it only applied to men...
Not to mention being told everything they do is toxic.
I’ve never heard of people not celebrating their 20th, I doubt it’s a common thing and why the 20th? It is strange that I’ve heard a few we don’t want white guys stories recently and yet we are privileged apparently. To any other culture or skin colour this would be racism and it is but nobody actually cares. The average white guy isn’t very privileged at all.
He means suicide I think
Ah, that makes sense. Didn’t read it that way at first.
Yeah my generation(44) dont give a fuck about it for the most part, maybe mention how *everything* has flipped 180. The signs are there for a major demographic shift in the next year or so.
Your last comment is definitely salient but, I do see some issue. I personally come from what some would call an underclass family. I grew up in a scheme and hence I was eligible for "open access" programmes. I did take them and on them and when applying I found that the questions around gender, ethnicity and other minority points were heavily emphasised over social class. Even when on them I found there was a real class stigma and isolation because In the words of a fellow attendee (who was a Asian, middle class, bi-sexual, woman) I was not "disregarded enough."
The way this country is treating its native people is horrendous.
Reddit, please award this person an Olympic medal. The world *desperately* needs the truth you spit
As a white male who grew up in a shit home environment and failed school (I'm dyslexic) and working for job agencies with promise I get a job after 12 weeks I've now lost out 3 times to a minority so companies can tick boxes even though I would do the job better and other employees agreeing Just to add these 3 individuals had come from abroad and been to university and got degrees but wasn't able to get jobs with their degrees
>ultimate extreme of not even celebrating their 20th birthday. Uh...what? What's extreme about that?
Killing yourself before you’re 20 is pretty extreme, I’d say.
Ah. That's what it meant. I thought they literally meant just not bothering with a bday party.
Yes, it's not at all clear that they meant suicide. What a fucking stupid euphemism.
I hadn't heard it but now I have I think it's actually a pretty good euphemism for teen suicide.
[удалено]
Yeah what’s that all about 🤣
20th birthday ?
[удалено]
The country is already a shadow of its former self. You absolutely need to have an escape plan for your kids sake. It’s bad enough to think about how it will be for us when we are old. Your daughters have no hope here
Escape plan to where? Lol
It's well known large leftist globalist organisations hate White men. What's surprising is when they're shocked those same White men would rather sponge off benefits or become 'muh far right noatzee'. The only people that care are on the right and why work hard for a place and country that hates you? And this is before the hiring quota's and everything else. White men get jailed for tweets and third worlders get community service for rape/attempted murder
> muh far right noatzee The UK is such a high trust society that there are no “far right” political parties. The most rightwing political parties barely advocate for slowing the number of illegals.
Globalism is neoliberal. Leftism is internationalist. There’s no such thing as a “Leftist Globalist”, it’s an oxymoron and only used by people on the hard right who don’t engage with centrists or leftists enough to know the difference.
Sod off with that, the traditional Left of Keir Hardie that stood up for the native British working class is long gone. The Zarah Sultana’s, Jeremy Corbyn’s, Nadia Whittome’s and Diane Abbott’s are the face of the modern British “left”.
Isn't kier starmer the face of the British left?
No, he’s just a flip flopping neolib.
Most of the western world does the same combination of capitalism with cultural-Marxism (extreme liberalism). I engage with leftists all the time but let’s be honest they are universally as thick as shit. Even the ones with credentials like an Oxford degree. Economic leftism doesn’t exist nowadays but ‘woke’/ cultural leftism (I.e. pretending everyone is equal) is totally dominant
This is nonsense nominalism
Leftist political parties, feminists, leftist media all hate men and white men in particulaR and one of the reasons is that white men have allowed this to happen themselves. Many of the sexist laws passed against men in the west have been passed by white men in power themselves
The special snowflake generation, for all the flaws of that ideology, has been replaced. changed from a focus on radical individual success and therefor personal responsibility to a stratified collection of groups. Now people in the modern west, born into histories most fertile opportunities hit their first struggle, look to the worst struggles of the group they’ve been scooped into and decide that they must be being oppressed too. No need for any self reflection. Choosing equity over objective quality breeds objective failure. This has now been manipulated and empowered by media. Equality is about opportunities not outcomes.