Irvine: Angry white men to blame for Trump, Hanson

From Jessica Irvine:

It is the basic yardstick of progress that every generation should live better than the last.

For women, there has clearly never been a better time to be alive. We vote, we work, we have control of our bodies and fertility. While there’s much progress still to be had, the progression of women in society has generally been an upward trajectory.

…But the same cannot be said for men.

True, the proportion of men working in the highest fifth of skilled jobs rose in every decade, but to a lesser extent than the gains for women.

But crucially, the share of men working in the lowest skilled jobs also rose in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, although not in the 2000s.

When it comes to the workforce, it is far from clear that men today fare better than their fathers.

While the female workforce has experienced a general increase in skills, the male workforce has become more polarised – with more men working at the top and bottom of the skills ladder.

…This loss of secure, full-time, traditional male jobs is fuelling an undercurrent of dissatisfaction among working class men that is being increasingly exploited by charismatic politicians.

Make no mistake, the rise of the political parties led by Donald Trump and Pauline Hanson are part of a backlash against the advancement of women and minorities into the workforce and the overturning of traditional male breadwinner models.

Thank you, Jessica for so beautifully illustrating where the anger driving the rise of Donald Trump and others is really coming from. It’s certainly is not from “the advancement of women and minorities into the workforce” but it sure is from the assumption by an elite class of post-structural globalists that anyone resisting the hollowing out of the middle classes is a racist and sexist bigot.

Donald Trump may be a chauvinist but that is not what got him elected. That happened because of this:

wtyryhe aegra
dfaga
aerg

The middle and working classes in the US are 50% women, Jessica, and their lot did not improve under Barack Obama, who promised “Hope and Change” but failed to deliver (while bailing-out the banksters). You’ve mistaken identity politics for class war and until you figure that out you’ll keep on oppressing your sisters who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)

Comments

    • It’s amazing those that are still clinging onto the notion of stereotyping and isolating Trump supporters. Inequality was the name of the game and Hilary only had a woman card to play. Had it have been Sanders, no contest.

      • Yeah right, the US was really up to voting in as president a 75 year old jewish socialist from Vermont. Gees there’s some 20 20 hindsight and some heroic extrapolations on display about Mr Trump’s victory. Trump got the vote of 19% of eligible voters. Why are we not discussing how most Americans couldn’t give a shit about how their country is travelling?

      • triage….

        Do take the time to inform yourself wrt the term Socialist, Sanders would be right of say Eisenhower, the Overton window thingy…

      • skippy

        I have no idea of what form of political view Bernie Sanders promotes. I’m not American and pay more attention to the footy than to US domestic politics (or Australian party politics). All I know is that when Mr Sanders was still a possibility lots of pundits were describing him as a socialist. If he had won the Democrat nomination then that line of attack would surely only have grown as it appears that for many Americans the word “socialist” carries a similar stigma as the word “pedophile” (sic).

      • The key difference between socialism and democratic socialism is that democratic socialists don’t want the government to own the means of production and socialists do. They believe that certain general social goods like health care should be run by the government, but otherwise support capitalism.

        Again… you should be careful of shooting from the hip without getting stuff straight, otherwise you might find yourself furthering a meme or inaccurate truism.

        Disheveled Marsupial…. It should also be noted that Sanders had the numbers to beat el’trumpo had it not been for the actions of the DNC et al. So your insinuation about American preferences is also wanting.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      Well Obama did say that Inequality was the defining challange of our age,…then carried on with business as usual with his Ivy league mate.

      Ive posted this a few times, and think it the best little youtube clip ive viewed out of a hundred or so clips ive watched on why Trump won, and how its largely the fault of a “left”,taken over by a “Professional class” that had abandonded the working and middle class’s decades ago.

      This Thomas Frank guy should run for President.

      I have sent this link to over a dozen people.

      https://youtu.be/38JNg210L24

  1. Trump did quite well with educated white women too.

    I guess that doesn’t fit the sexist narrative, but thank god it does fit a racist narrative.

    Can’t wait for that penny swirl around in her little funnel-head, drop, and then to read how it was all racism.

    • The selectiveness is quite funny especially from lefty white men who try to exclude themselves by narrowing it down to “middle aged” or “christian”.

    • Would have thought it was actually black and latino men in America doing worst economically out of globalization since they tend to occupy the lower income brackets. But perhaps having a black president has been enough to assuage them, and the immigration issue for latinos. Trump’s campaign was in fact very sophisticated and data-driven with well targeted messaging to specific audiences – to the point he often contradicted himself depending who he was talking to.

      But the racial issues are quite different to Australia with East Asians immigrants being largely well educated and/or wealthy.

      • I think it’s mostly a matter of expectations. Latinos and blacks have always had it bad. White men have generally done quite well and now things are changing for the worse and they don’t know why. So they are angry, but they not sure who to blame.

        Full disclosure: am an slightly peeved white man

      • Thats incorrect, its the same her as States when you take into account all the jobs – skilled, 457 or students. Real skilled ones are still within the manageable number who work within the category they migrated and hence the debate should be about keeping total migration number to trend which is what MB’s stance is – 70K I think. Why not decide & limit the total number who can have an employment visa(Irrespective of which type) and then let the market forces decide if they should import high skilled ones or fill them all in McDonalds & exhaust the annual limit.

      • The main message that resounded was “America first” just as with it Brexit was “Britain first”. Generally citizens want their governments to put their own interests ahead of transnational ones, or those of prospective immigrants. Perhaps this resonates better with those who are used to a degree of privilege than the already downtrodden. But the most privileged of all, and those disproportionately reaping the spoils, are also white men.

    • What’s really hilarious is that they’ve just voted in a cabal of the sort of people who took their jobs and pensions, while making billions.

      So, no, it’s not racism or sexism. More like Stockholm Syndrome.

      • “What’s really hilarious is that they’ve just voted in a cabal of the sort of people who took their jobs and pensions, while making billions.”

        I think if the Democrats won, this statement would also have applied.

        What is really sad about this US Election, is that the US Elites gave the US people a choice between their candidate who was at the heaf of pretty ugly but still viable political party and a candidate at the head of a political party that was sprouting madness. And the voters chose (just, if you look at the results it was actually a very, very close election) madness.

        The challenge for the US is now that madness has been chosen, can sanity somehow prevail?

      • As soon as it was apparent that Trump was going to win, the media elite and various pundits (the same ones that failed to predict a Trump victory) came out en masse asserting it was all about “inequality” blah blah blah. Once again the progressive elite controls the agenda, framing Trump’s win on their terms – poverty, inequality, demise of the working class – blithely ignoring the fact that, as you say, Trump voters were mid to high income earners and employed!

        They way they bang on you’d think Sanders had won…

      • Considering Hillary only won 500 counties, pretty much any big city, I find it hard to marry that with a 70K average income for trump voters. Be more interesting to see the income distribution as many poor rust belt counties overwhelmingly voted for trump.

        Irvine and her ilk are having the last double down on identity politics, throwing minority after minority under the bus as they become more and more disassociated with reality.

        My brain is now trained to turn off the moment I hear people of colour….

        How does Irvine explain that trump increase the vote from women, blacks, latinos, asians over romney in 2012?

        Gay white men are now considered pretty much part of the dominant cis patriarchy.

        The full retards leftists forget that trump stood up just after the orlando massacre and had the homophobic red necks cheering when he said he’d protect ALL Americans, or the racist president elect who hates blacks has a plan on helping the black community – he can’t do much worse for them than the Democracts have over the last 40 years (looking at you Chicago with over 4000 people shot).

        The left need to start dealing with reality, because they’re leaving the right and increasingly the far right as the only ones making even partial sense.

      • “How does Irvine explain that trump increase the vote from women, blacks, latinos, asians over romney in 2012?”

        Well did he? Did he get more number of votes in these demographics or did those Democrats in those demographics didn’t bother to turn up to vote? The data suggests lower Democratic voter turnout across all demographics rather than Republicans getting an increased number of minority votes.

      • @xo

        Nothing in your article to suggest Republicans increased their votes in minority demographics rather than lower Democrats turnout.

      • Republicans received 47% of votes cast in 2012 and 46% in 2016 – was there ANY segment where a higher proportion voted for the Republicans this around?

    • Geez Jessica is annoying. Of course women voted for Trump. Women used to men for a start laugh at the silly press and might choose based on foreign policy and such, wars, broken down roads and other infrastructure. Plus her voter breakdown/MSM stuff is wrong as Leith points out.
      Puerile to link in Pauline, the Melbourne people I know who voted for One Nation are women with education. MSM and men have bad mouthed her terribly, the suited and aspirational twits in particular. She is a champ and has just done a good job speaking up in Parliament re 457 visas rort. Cares about Australia and is damn strong.
      Look at Mal just changing the rules re foreign buyers to allow onselling of units so as to get settlement. We desperately need some politicians who are decent. Trump ditching lobbyists and blocking them for 5 years after serving in Govt is just great. We could do with that when Pauline gets stronger.

      • Many women don’t believe women with conservative values count as actual women. I mean Pauline is herself a woman right? Jackie Lambie, Brownwyn Bishop, Theresa May, Margaret Thatcher (she was the archetype) are all women (according to Wikipedia) and yet they don’t somehow fit sweeping generalizations of what strong minded, liberated career women are supposed to stand for.

      • Dan I dont get the your response. I certainly would be stunned if Pauline waggled her body and made lewd/off colour comments in Parliament as has Theresa May,( Mrs Bones giving him one for his birthday) or functioned with helicopter poshness as has Bronny Bishop.. then cruel Thatcher.. None these have been called ignorant morons or stupid because the truth she offered (sustainable population) or racist ( indigenous industry/we are all Australians). None have been supported by a wide range of country people who work.
        Labels like conservative liberal whatever are falling out of functioning accurately IMO. The 2 party system is knackered as representative of the electorate. Just seeing ex Greens, ex lab, libnp votes going to her are indicative. This is a different.

  2. Some may think this a long bow but I think it is relevant along the lines HnH is highlighting
    The Financialisation of our economies contributes to this whole process. The jobs become more suitable for women rather than men – our big fingers, especially if a few of them are bent and broken from physical labour, are not particularly suited to keyboard skills.
    Now again the easy indicator of this process is the Current Account Deficit. It tells you stuff about the balance of your economy and the imbalances in western economies have also resulted in men losing jobs and women gaining. If we start taking CADs/ Foreign Debt seriously we might also slow down the distortion of our society and the damage that does.

    • Fl hole in your story, Women are just no good in business.
      From your perspective, you wouldnt send a Scottish terrier out to do a blue heeler cattle dogs job.
      EOS

      • Man you go looking for trouble even more than I do!!!!!

        You do have to get the right person for the right job. Generally there looks to me to be a broad over-lapping spectrum. The problem around here is the women sort of call things as they are. Diplomacy is not their strong point!

      • Dennis bai….

        wait til he gives you a lecture about boards needing more diverse representation… because they need more diverse representation.

      • Guys, If you wish to see a female earning her place in business, check out Senator Wong, ripping shreds from the LNP and that very mediocre Senator Brain-dis.
        Good on her.

      • Fair enough Flawse diplomacy not the strong suit. Seems you know a few strong women maybe pigheaded like my mother. Good with mattock though or sitting down in a paddock and making a gate at 80.

    • “The jobs become more suitable for women rather than men – our big fingers, especially if a few of them are bent and broken from physical labour, are not particularly suited to keyboard skills.”

      If true, is that so bad (from an equality perspective) after decades (centuries?) of (relatively) well-paid laboring jobs largely been taken by men simply because they have the natural advantage of greater physical strength? (Hence men always being seen as the natural breadwinners, while for most women the best economic play continues to be to attach herself to a well-paid man, with all the insecurity that goes along with that.)

      Edit: Why is it so difficult for men to comprehend that women also seek/prefer economic and financial independence? I’m sorry if that means that some men might have to try a little harder. But look around, it’s no coincidence that divorce rates have gone up as women have become more financially independent = if women aren’t financially dependent they are less likely to put up with shit from their men, which I guess is another reason men are pissed off at losing their privileges in the jobs market.

      How about guys stop whinging for a change and just man the fuck up?

      • If the only thing men can bring to the table is physical strength, then they are going to be easily be replaced by machines. And that is exactly how things are playing out in real life, men who can adapt with brains or skills are thriving.

      • Men in general, or these men?

        Men as a whole have much more developed cerebral brain activity, the parts of the brains that are used when acting as a (S)cientist, (T)ech worker, (E)ngineers or (M)athetician.

      • Strewth!!!! Talk about value judgements!!!!!
        First So I’m supposed to have some bloody great guilt trip? I deal every week with men, including myself, who are trying to live their lives better in a modern society. I can tell you straight that this guilt trip we men are all supposed to now go on according to the PC theorists does nothing for anybody…ZIp! Nil! None! You take a damaged man and want to fill him up with more guilt over something that has absolutely nothing to do with him. ?Frankly from a psychological viewpoint it is damned dangerous!
        Kevin and First can we quit with the moral judgements here (although that seems to be more and more the MB commentary them) – just once and deal with an economic reality. This whole financialisation/CAD/Debt doesn’t matter would seem to have impacted male employment more than women. Oh we can think we are clever and sophisticated because we have been to university and got some damned degree that then allows us to tell the stupid ignorant masses how they should live their lives. But how about the notion that we actually make it a fair go for everyone and actual;ly have an economy which might give some different people a fair go?
        BTW there are still jobs that require physical strength and endurance which tend to be male dominated areas. Now i know in a PC world such jobs are not supposed to exist. In the real world they do exist and the women in our lives are damned grateful we do them.

      • @flawse
        Completely different issues…
        First, have we as a society failed to create jobs for the uneducated and unskilled? I would definitely say yes, however, it is going to be very difficult in this day and age to actually create those jobs.

        But the main point is the uneducated (ie. No university degree or TAFE diploma). There is no rule set in stone that says the current uneducated are not able to attain further education, and many should be able to if the government supported them. The only reasons they didn’t attain higher education was due to the times rather than anything else. I mean a lot of the uneducated Aussies have higher literacy standard than the manual workers in third world countries doing the same jobs, of course it’s possible these aussies can be retrained to do jobs that provide higher value. We just need to have that policy conversation in earnest.

        I’m not making a moral judgement, I’m making an observation of the changing world where education attainment is going to be increasingly the bear minimum to get a job.

      • Flawse, you’re the one who said “jobs become more suitable for women rather than men.” All I’m trying to say (perhaps badly) is that when jobs were (and, as you rightly point out, many still are) more suitable for men, you didn’t tend to hear a lot of men getting too upset about the injustice of it all. But when it is men who find themselves at a disadvantage (probably for the first time since the beginning of the agricultural revolution), suddenly they are very upset. So excuse me if I tend to believe it is not injustice per se these types (and not necessarily including yourself) are worried about, rather “injustice when it affects me.”

        Kevin said:
        “men who can adapt with brains or skills are thriving.”

        Exactly. And so they should be in a true meritocracy.

      • Dennis, Dennis, Dennis….

        My poor, feeble minded, fact avoiding, female approval-seeking friend….

        The ONLY science conducted in this area entirely proves my case

        http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2013/12/verma/

        It is now, categorically proven that men have a propensity for brain hardwiring in the cerebral cortex, vs female having better connectivity for the limbic system.

        Not EVERY male has this wiring compared to all women, but a distribution of men vs women has these results. it is why men are represented in certain vocational areas…. not the so called fictional “patriarchy.”

        The above mentioned scientist in question, Ragini Verma, is a female…. but damn did the poor lass cop a hiding afterwards. She probably thought she lived in days of yore, an enlightened age, where facts… and especially facts pertaining to a break through would speak for themselves.

        But as a few feminists are prone to say…

        “Facts are misogynist”

        One thing the scientist at quesiton also said, prior to her thought crime of introducing facts to the world….

        “It does sort of confirm the stereotypes we have about the brains of each gender ….”

        and that means two of them Dennis.

      • @Rusty Penny
        No where in the entire article does it say one wiring of the brain have an overall advantage over the other in STEM!

      • You can’t conclude what was being said there?

        OK, MIT’s take on it.

        http://www.mit.edu/~6.s085/papers/sex-differences.pdf

        Connection-wise statistical analysis, as well as analysis of regional and global network measures, presented a comprehensive
        description of network characteristics. In all supratentorial regions, males had greater within-hemispheric connectivity, as well as enhanced modularity and transitivity, whereas between-hemispheric connectivity and cross-module participation redominated in females. However, this effect was reversed in the cerebellar connections.

        and…

        “Centered on connection-based analysis, we established that male brains are indeed structured to facilitate intrahemispheric cortical connectivity, although the opposite was observed in the cerebellum” (hind mind)

        and ….

        “Greater within hemispheric supratentorial connectivity combined with greater cross-hemispheric cerebellar connectivity would confer an efficient system for coordinated action in males. Greater interhemispheric connectivity in females would facilitate integration of the analytical and sequential reasoning modes of the left hemisphere with the spatial, intuitive processing of information of the right hemisphere. A behavioral study on the entire sample, of which this imaging study is a sub-set, demonstrated pronounced sex differences, with the females outperforming males on attention, word and face memory, and social cognition tests and males performing better on spatial processing and motor and sensorimotor speed.”

        In other words, the parts of the brain that make better STEM people are more developed in men’s brains….

        But the telling part is for me…

        “It’s quite striking how complementary the brains of women and men really are”

        It isn’t a conspiracy, it isn’t patriarchy.. it has been a long drawn out process of adaptation

    • Nah I don’t buy that, this smells like the propaganda that was the hallmark of this election. Magically all over the western press you get the fake news meme and white guys just suck so much… The same white guys that voted for and supported women’s lib. It’s all fake/mind control

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      Jesus Flawse!,… way to make a Guy feel all self-conscious and insecure about his big, bent, deformed and ugly sausage fingers.
      I feel like ive been Vilified.
      *Sniffs*
      *Sobs*

      • LMAO Yep! Missing the end of one, another two fingernails gone and four fingers bent in some off shapes! Thumbs I can hardly get to function from arthritis! None of my country mates would get a job as a hand model that’s for sure.

  3. “The middle and working classes in the US are 50% women, Jessica, and their lot got worse under Barack Obama”

    There is nothing in your charts to support that statement, and the data only covers his first term anyway. The only notable thing in the data is that the top 1% took a big hit from 2007-2011. which has everything to do with the financial crisis, and nothing to with anything else.

  4. They are determined not to listen. Oh well, on their own heads be it. Their Nirvana is erected on a pile of unpayable debt and when the debt goes away their nonsense economy which provides unproductive jobs will go with it. The welfare state that keeps low wage families in the game at the moment won’t survive the robots and the Medicare failure due to dementia care.

    • Agree nyleta

      Current US Estimated Numbers
      US Population: 325,000,000
      Number Employed: 151,925,000(October 2016)
      US Income Tax Payers:119,500,000
      Eligible Age Workers Not in Workforce: 94,609,000.This number is 425,000 more than in September 2016
      Median Income:US$30,552
      US Retirees: 50,220,000
      Food Stamp Recipients:43,182,500
      Median New Home: US$305,000
      US National Debt: $20trillion:$166,500/taxpayer
      US Federal Spending:$3.9 Trillion
      US Federal Budget Deficit:$591 Billion(15%)
      Unfunded Liabilities:$200 Trillion(Prof. Laurence Kotlikoff).

  5. posted yesterday in response to 3d1k, but fits fine here. The media can roll out Jessica to pin the blame on angry white men but they wont go near touching a generations worth of increased take by the 1% crowd and the1%ers ability to shape the game to suit themselves…..

    Entertaining banter dudes. Well done.
    I’m still on the fence as to whether the zeitgeist is anti-globalisation or anti-immigration, the key driver. I lean toward the latter. South Park is never wrong

    I actually think the Zeitgeist at its core has almost nothing to do with either anti-globalisation or anti-immigration in the first instance, though I am quite sure the mainstream body politic, and the corporate and 1% elites, as well as their class of sociopathic managercrats, wants us to think it is. At its core the issues are those which are easily portrayed to us through the narrative of immigration and globalisation and keeping the focus on the interplay between those issues serves the interests of the 1%ers. I am also quite sure they would like us to think there is something of a binary choice between immigration or globalisation. Because at the end of the day I don’t think the developed world will actually be able to do much about immigration or about globalisation, and the one percenters actually get that.

    They know that if they can craft a narrative of a binary choice, and have the commentariat (and public) buy the idea that the core issue is between immigration and globalisation, then in the long run they will have as much immigration as they like, and the world will be an ever globalised place regardless, where the publics who currently rail against immigration and globalisation will ultimately give up in the face of the sheer enormity of it. The 1%ers and their, and their elite servants will also know they will be easily able to play a medium term game of supporting globalisation and immigration where there is a ready and popular case for them, and that in many cases the world has developed a taste for globalisation and immigration, which have brought many good things to the developed world, and that the odds would be in their favour to get another chance to drive the pro globalisation and immigration impulse. Sort of like a trader playing a pullback and taking cash before going long again.

    I think at its core the impulse which has carried Brexit and which Trump has (in part) harnessed en route to the White House revolves around two sides of the one issue, which the 1%ers certainly don’t want the commentariat and public thinking about because they think they will need to pay for it. One of these is fairly obvious and does get some discussion, though without its implications being thought through. The other gets an airing every now and then but is generally smoothed over without too much attention, or smothered in dollops of bullshit in order to deflect.

    The first aspect of the issue at the core (IMO) of what has carried Brexit and Trump is the status and remuneration of jobs for those members of the developed world who have been cultivated to believe that the success or failure of their families – and of the opportunities and aspirations of their children – depends on their ability to bring home a solid enough pay packet to support the access to the material goods and services to help their families access those aspirations .

    The second aspect of the issue at the core (IMO) of what has carried Brexit and Trump is the ability of the elites to avoid taxation, and their ability to take an ever increasing (over the last generation) and historically high share of the economic pie .

    I see the two as essentially facets of the one overarching issue of economic policy and the economic model , and it is obvious that immigration and globalisation issues also feed into economic policy and the economic model . I would however posit that the distribution characteristics of the economic policy and the economic model (with the take of the 1%ers and the ability of those part of the model essentially being ‘distribution characteristics’) are more core to discussion of it than ‘volumes processed’ by the economic policy and the economic model . I would also note that the the ‘real’ core issue which the 1%ers really don’t want remotely looked at is the ability of the elites and 1%ers, and their sociopath corporate bureaucrats to determine economic policy and the economic model to suit themselves first and foremost, and everyone else second, which in the circumstances applicable to the working and middle classes of the developed world has essentially meant a deterioration of quality of life – usually masked by debt – for a generation, while observing a far greater take by the elites – who have used the tools of ‘globalisation’ and ‘immigration’ against a backdrop of their increased ability to determine and impose economic policy and economic model coupled with their ability to obfuscate discussion of economic policy and control information about economic performance . It is the latter which is at the core of the disgruntlement leading to a rejection of immigration and globalisation. In short, they feel they have been bullshitted by the elites for a very long time, and although they may be only generally aware of how they have been bullshitted, that they have been bullshitted is, to them, perfectly obvious.

    The 1%ers and elites and their sociopath corporate bureaucrats are keen to ensure that there is as little discussion of the overall economic policy and economic model as possible, and preferably no discussion at all of the distribution characteristics of that model (the take going to working and middle classes, or the take being taken by the elites and 1%ers and their sociopathic corporate bureaucrats – and most certainly no discussion of the ability of the elites to shape economic policy to suit themselves) – and if the price for that is a debate on immigration and globalisation then they will accept that. The debate needs to go to the core.

    The zeitgeist is the role of the 1%. Anything less is just talking about the tools they use to get their way

    • Pretty true Gunna. If the general public had a better understanding of the agenda of the 1% there might be push-back. 80% still vote LNP/Labor – rebellion is some way off. One glimmer of hope is that, as a more impartial quantum of information is accessed via social media, MSM propaganda will die a natural death.

      I had an image of what the 1% are doing the other day. The elite have built monuments to cunning, personal dams which collect more resources than they have need for. The idea they need install an outlet valve never happened. Meanwhile downstream, an increasing number of villagers eke out subsistence lives wondering what happened to the previous generous river of life. If the dam bursts, most of the resources are going to go to waste. The whole enterprise of damming resources for the benefit of the few is based in self-centredness and has no real value to greater life.

      On the topic of future work:
      Buckminster Fuller, inventor of the geodesic dome, had some interesting ideas in this period of tech advance and employment retreat:
      “We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”

  6. lol yeah it’s all the evil patriarchy wanting to keep the foot on your throat, keep swallowing the koolaid. Men, women, families, we’re all in this together! Choose hope!

  7. Thank you H’nH for lifting the veneer of identity politics from muddying the waters. This is the kind of thinking that will drive progress toward better outcomes for all.

  8. It’s hard to believe that someone could so accurately describe a situation, and then draw such entirely wrong conclusions about why the situation occurred. A backlash against the advancement of minorities and women in the workforce? FFS!

  9. Irvine fails to recognise that we live in family units and that we are in this together. If I am under financial pressure and lack job security then this impacts my wife as well (and visa versa).
    It has nothing to do with man vs women, ethnicity or religion. It is all about the hollowing-out of the middle-classes and how families today are far less secure, and have lower quality of life, than their parents’ generation.

    • You’re correct, but she’s obviously basing her argument on the sort of undergraduate feminism espoused by the Guardian, and that seems to reject the biological basis of anything – if we live in families, that’s a political arrangement based on exploitation and oppression. Look into gender determinism if you want to understand how bizarre this set of beliefs is.

      • Irvine and 3rd wave feminism ignores that biology and evolution pretty much trumps everything and that women who want to marry and have kids STILL expect/want a man that will earn more money than they do and all things being equal, typically find “high value” men (earners) far more attractive.

        I have no doubt that in the next 15-20 years there will be an explosion in the number of pet cats that childless single women will fuss over and treat as their children.

      • “all things being equal, typically find “high value” men (earners) far more attractive”

        Almost there, Prometheus. This is certainly the case “all things NOT being equal” (i.e., earning power of men vs women). If all things truly were equal, women might actually give more weight to other qualities – looks, personality, paternal qualities. Of course, earning power would still come into the equation for everyone to some degree, but just as its not usually a major factor for men looking for a mate, if women actually got equal pay for equal work and equal opportunity, it would no longer be a major factor for women either. In fact, you can already see this today among highly educated women who are quite happy to have a less-educated house husband stay home with the kids while they earn the big bucks.

      • in reply to First – I read this the other day, “Men look, and women listen; that’s why women wear makeup and men lie” 🙂

      • ‘…you can already see this today among highly educated women who are quite happy to have a less-educated house husband stay home with the kids while they earn the big bucks’.

        Any man who believes this deserves everything they are about to get.
        First, you know nothing about women.

        New York Magazine: Alpha Women and Beta Men – ‘Wives are increasingly outearning their husbands, but their new financial muscle is causing havoc in the home.’
        http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9495/

      • “” New York Magazine: Alpha Women and Beta Men – ‘Wives are increasingly outearning their husbands, but their new financial muscle is causing havoc in the home.’
        http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9495/ “”

        Firstly, the proportion of couples in this sort of arrangement is tiny.
        Secondly … it seldom works in the long term.

        The Biomechanics of heterosexual relationships were laid down millennia ago.

      • ‘Firstly, the proportion of couples in this sort of arrangement is tiny.
        Secondly … it seldom works in the long term.’

        Thats why I put it up!

      • I have no doubt that in the next 15-20 years there will be an explosion in the number of pet cats that childless single women will fuss over and treat as their children.

        It’ll probably go along with the explosion in sexbots for men incapable of dealing with women who aren’t dependent on them.

        Though there’s still plenty of third-world countries left to go wife shopping in, so maybe not.

      • “It’ll probably go along with the explosion in sexbots for men incapable of dealing with women who aren’t dependent on them.”

        If said robots can also be developed/programmed to cook, clean etc. then Western women will be all but obsolete. LOL
        Though, I bet you if the technology was developed, society would find some way of legislating against it.

        The problem with bringing a foreign wife to Australia is that a man still has to contend with the Family Law system should she decide that she is unhappy and wants a divorce.

        This is where smart men use prenup agreements and protecting assets via trusts etc.

      • If said robots can also be developed/programmed to cook, clean etc. then Western women will be all but obsolete.

        Well then, maybe it’ll be a race between that and an artificial womb.

        The problem with bringing a foreign wife to Australia is that a man still has to contend with the Family Law system should she decide that she is unhappy and wants a divorce.

        Well, maybe you should stay in one of those other countries without those pesky laws, and where the odd beating now and then is still acceptable.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        “highly educated women who are quite happy to have a less-educated house husband stay home with the kids while they earn the big bucks.”

        Ha, Im calling bullshit there.
        I go into the Homes of Hundreds of customers a year, all over Sydney and have worked extensively in a lot of expensive houses on the lower North shore and Eastern suburbs. (Im currently helping out with a reno @ 20 victoria st Bellevue hill, a 10 million + property)
        And I can tell you, that although I come across numerous family arragnments with the stay at home wives,…I Never see these “Stay at home dads” in these wealthy parts of Sydney,…Go out into the Western Suburbs and you see it a bit, but its a very small percentage.

        Id lov

      • “highly educated women who are quite happy to have a less-educated house husband stay home with the kids while they earn the big bucks.”

        This is just something that appears from time to time in assorted women’s magazines; in between the 80+% advertising content for various beauty, fashion and lifestyle products.

    • White voters – both sexes, all ages and education levels – mid to high income earners were Trump’s key demographic.

      Hollowing out of the working and middle classes was not the key factor. It was something else.

      Employed white voters earning mid to high incomes in flyover States went bigly to Trump. These are the voters whose taxes support any manner of affirmative action, safe spaces, identity politics palaver much of which they may disagree with. These are the voters that say HRC gloated about killing coal miners jobs as deliberate policy to appease a cause that may not believe in. These are the voters that live in communities that respect hard work. – manual, service or intellectual, and believe such should be rewarded. These are voters that believe everyone should make a contribution to society. These are voters who are comfortable about and with wealth. These are voters who like success. These are voters who don’t like being told what to think, how to how act by self appointment progressive media and East Coast West Coast elites. These are voters who would’ve voted for Reagan. These are voters tired of being despised by the intelligentsia, media and especially that soft Left oh so superior Democrat machine.

      They are not Deplorables.

      • Hollowing out of the working and middle classes was not the key factor. It was something else.

        It was the 1% (and it still is, and will remain)

        They bend the rules to suit themselves
        They take more

      • Xo,

        Good to see you are still working hard to characterise the issue as just a “social/culture war” in the hope that your precious neoliberal global corporatism does not attract any ‘heat’.

        The problem you have is that Trump was explicitly attacking the globalist agenda both economically and socially.

        For sure the global neoliberal corporatists are out and about and working hard to downplay the attack on international corporatism and focus on the social and YES at the moment the lefty chattering middle-classes are falling for the ploy hook line and sinker as they quite like international corporatism as well.

        But that doesn’t mean that everyone on the social democratic side of the political spectrum will play ball and it certainly doesn’t mean that everyone on the socially conservative side is going to support global corporatism either.

        You may find that both sides will join forces for completely unrelated reasons and press for de-globalisation.

      • Trump attacked a lot of things. That’s where his appeal to the silent majority sat. He said things others thought privately but in today’s pc world, felt unable to say publicly. He tore up the rule book. And these dudes are sick of these ‘rules’ as defined by the progressive elite.

        I don’t exclude globalisation being a factor. Many of the small cities and rural counties that went Trump rely on local manufacture, food production etc – more than happy to retain what they still have and welcome back prodigal corporates.

        But Trump voters were not the low income working class. HRC had them in the bag. He won employed mid to high income earners by a good majority and he won majority college educated white males. And he almost won majority college educated white females! He soundly won majority non college white males. There just might be a theme here… 😉 yet he secured 30% of the Hispanic vote too!!

        Irvine uses a word that I suspect captures something of the essence of it all – “traditional” – that swathe of Middle America on which ‘American Values’ once rested has seen its position decline in importance, be devalued and ridiculed by the new elite, paid lip service when it suits and ignored at every turn by the media and EastCoast West Coast conglomerate.

        Pay back.

      • Xo,

        “..But Trump voters were not the low income working class…”

        You seem to assume that the only people who might be antagonistic towards global corporatism are low income working class. The concerns of the low income working class have spread up through the pay scales as more and more workers and managers realise that their jobs are at risk of off-shoring.

        Making America Great Again is not about bringing home low income working class jobs – though it is that – it is as much about making sure that no more jobs are shipped offshore by the global corporates and their neoliberal propagadists.

        It is only a matter of time before the Democrats wake up and realise that pushing a globalist agenda is very yesterday.

        The pendulum is swinging backwards – just without Miss Cyrus riding on the back.

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        A lot of factors involved as already mentioned, but white identity politics is emerging as a force. The most powerful group in America is seeing that power slowly eroded, and while they aren’t doing badly at the moment their future prospects aren’t as good as they once were.

        Another large factor is the level of anti-Muslim sentiment. This is a huge issue that governments (particularly leftish) will struggle with; they’re worried about shifting right and voicing legitimate concerns fearing it will shift the right to more extreme positions. There’s potential for the Overton window to get really extreme when people are scared and politicians offer demagoguery.

      • No that’s your spin.
        Trump was the Republican candidate. Of course his avg. voter was medium income.
        But the swing to Trump was in the rust belt states and it was along class lines. imo. The key issue was trade – Trumps campaign centered on trade in all the rust belt states. The non-event issues were the fun! you have mentioned. The only people who care about that crap on both “sides” are the comfortable dinner party politics crowd, who have been protected from the brutal effects of the neo-liberal policies you support. There is a reflex opposition to it, mainly because people see through the artifice of a public relations effort by the liberal elite to disorient people and subdivide the country along artificial lines in order to piece together mass support which they gave up by supporting neo-liberalism. But it isn’t the core issue.

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        “Trump was the Republican candidate. Of course his avg. voter was medium income.”

        Yes, the median household income isn’t much of an argument. Republicans usually have relatively high median household incomes and Trump was offering them a tax cut. Nothing new in that.

      • It’s not an argument at all.
        Neo-liberalism only ever promised one thing.. GDP growth. Everything else was sacrificed for growth. And it screwed it up. Now people realize they were conned.

    • “If I am under financial pressure and lack job security…”

      Yes, but “leaders” such as Trump, Hanson et al have managed, rightly or wrongly, to convince people (white men) that if they weren’t competing for jobs with women, minority ethnic groups etc they wouldn’t be facing job insecurity in the first place. Like in apartheid-era South Africa, where 90% of the population (black South Africans) were prohibited BY LAW from holding/studying for any kind of white-collar/professional/middle class job such as dentist, accountant etc. Made it super easy for all the white dudes, no matter how incompetent or lazy, to get a good job. (Black dudes were only allowed to be servants, gardeners, garbage collectors etc.)

      Anglo countries like Australia, the US had a similar system in the ’50s, ’60s, except that women/minorities weren’t prevented from working by law, just by custom. Once that custom disappeared, non-elite white men found they suddenly have to actually be good at something (or at least better than a bigger group of competitors that previously).

      On a related note, demographers, economists, environmentalists etc have been telling us for decades that if China, India etc started consuming at the rate of the US we would either need six or seven new planet Earths to support it all or everyone else (in the Western world) would have to reduce their consumption. Well, consumption rates in China aren’t quite that high yet, but they’re getting there. And guess what? We haven’t discovered six more planet Earths to pillage, so I wonder how that’s going to balance out?

      Bottom line, there are global forces at work that are basically out of everyone’s control. I personally wouldn’t believe anyone who tells me they can fix it by implementing policies at the national level (of any nation).

      • “…Bottom line, there are global forces at work that are basically out of everyone’s control. …”

        Huh? Like what ?

        The idea that neoliberalism is just some system of natural scientific laws is the fundamental myth. It is purely the product of a particular set of laws.

        There is no natural law that says that capital must be given complete freedom of movement

        There is no natural law that says that creation of public money must be privatised.

        There is no natural law that says national governments cannot regulate the movement of people or goods and services.

        There are all political choices and what we are now seeing is a realisation around the globe of exactly that.

      • Jumping jack flash

        sure. I’ve no problem with people being good at something and getting jobs doing it.

        Your example of South Africa, where races were prohibited from working in professional positions no matter their potential to do those jobs well is also relevant to the US and many countries.

        But, in the case of Australia, why import thousands of professionals to fill jobs in the name of a skills shortage when they hadn’t even looked properly to see if there was really a shortage or not, and even if there was ever a shortage, one certainly hasn’t existed for the best part of 10 years?

      • JJF, why indeed. I guess that circles back to my point about China/India and what we might call “the great equalization.” That is, from the point of view of Australians and trying to do right by this country, it doesn’t make sense at all to import workers for jobs we can already fill. But from a humanistic/universal human rights viewpoint, why shouldn’t people who have done nothing wrong except for having the bad luck of being born in a poorer and more corrupt country not have the same or near the same opportunities to prove their worth as us? Why should they be ground down their entire lives? There is no easy solution because justice for them means us giving up some of the comforts/rising living standards we’ve always taken for granted. I don’t think this has sunk in for a lot of people, even people who are very much into the whole social justice thing. This is my point re the whole planetary resources thing. It is still a zero sum game as far as I can tell.

        I don’t know. Are the only choices to let them in (to Western countries as a whole) willingly and with some manner of control, or do we just sit back and do nothing and wait for the pressure to build? And then what happens? The best option really would be to try and help underprivileged countries not be so poor and corrupt in the first place so their people wouldn’t be so desperate to leave. But then people start whinging about overseas aid and giving money to the UN and how we should instead spend that money to “make America great again.”


      • JJF, why indeed. I guess that circles back to my point about China/India and what we might call “the great equalization.” That is, from the point of view of Australians and trying to do right by this country, it doesn’t make sense at all to import workers for jobs we can already fill. But from a humanistic/universal human rights viewpoint, why shouldn’t people who have done nothing wrong except for having the bad luck of being born in a poorer and more corrupt country not have the same or near the same opportunities to prove their worth as us?

        But we don’t do it for humanitarian reasons, and when we, for example, import one doctor from India or Africa, we make life worse for a thousand or so potential patients in the country we remove him from.

      • Robert, good point. Maybe I should have said:

        why shouldn’t people who have done nothing wrong except for having the bad luck of being born in a poorer and more corrupt country not WANT TO have the same or near the same opportunities

        ie, it doesn’t matter whether we have explicitly “humanitarian reasons” or not (although the result is much the same as if we did = more people moving from poor countries to rich countries). Does every kid with smarts born in the third world who manages to claw his way up to becoming a doctor then have an obligation to stay in his shithole of a corrupted cesspit country where the opportunities and outlook for of his own kids are going to be severely limited? And do we necessarily expect our own homegrown doctors to take on that same obligation? That is, to live in and serve as GPs in downtrodden low-socioecomic areas for relatively shit pay? Or do we accept that some of them are going to try to climb the pay scale right to the top, even if it means their only patients are rich 1%ers?

        Anyway, I’m not actually trying to argue whether or not we should be letting such people into Australia. All I’m saying is that it is a fact that the guy in my example, and millions like him, is inevitably going to seek an escape. Not to mention all the rich Chinese people who just want to get the fuck out of their country. I wonder how the long walls we in the West try to build around our privilege (literally, in Trump’s case) can actually withstand that pressure.

      • I guess my point is that it isn’t SJWs who are keeping the borders open – it’s neolibs, including fellow travellers such as Barnaby Joyce.

        Neolibs have just found it useful to use SJWs to distract people who are hurt by high immigration of workers – and the comments on this blog every day show how effective that strategy is.

    • Jumping jack flash

      “It has nothing to do with man vs women, ethnicity or religion. It is all about the hollowing-out of the middle-classes and how families today are far less secure, and have lower quality of life, than their parents’ generation.”

      you are correct. Plus many people have been essentially tricked into taking on a mountain of debt that they immediately hand over to someone else to enjoy, and then have to work out how they’re going to pay that all back plus interest. Plus, the amount of debt is completely unjustified. How does a house with a price of 2million offer any additional features or service than the same house 5 years ago when it was only worth 1million? If I got duped into that scam, I’d be pissed too.

      The writers of opinion pieces, or social commentary, or whatever this article is meant to be, view the subject in a lens tempered according to their immediate circumstances, frame of experience, and stage of life’s journey.

      This is no different.

      I feel quite differently about many things at this immediate point in time than I did when I was 6, 16, or 26.
      If I didn’t, then I should think that was quite odd, possibly bordering on autism.

    • Putting aside all the feminist stuff, its not hard to see how her thought process went. This very blog sells the idea that more people = smaller slice of the pie for the existing workers.

      If the existing workforce was around 50% (ie all the men) and then the glass ceiling was broken, then 50% extra workforce was very rapidly added to the existing pie. Do you believe the pie got bigger (as pro-immigration types believe) or do you think that men competing with women resulted in men having a lower take home while women take home went up?

      Your very statement that your wife losing her job would deeply impact you financially, would not have made sense in the 60s. Or not universally at least.

  10. Irvine follows the Grauniad in the same pseudo analysis and scapegoating although the data clearly shows otherwise. Post truth media is one that ignores real data from elections and demographics.

  11. Devastating last line.
    I actually like Jessica Irvine but she is badly under-educated. Probably friends with Bernard Salt on FB.

  12. Analysis like Irvine’s is exactly why the ALP and the Greens are likely to end up as electoral road kill.

    https://pfh007.com/2016/11/27/alp-greens-watch-popularist-road-kill-or-a-real-alternative/

    Irvine simply cannot comprehend that the ‘neoliberal consensus’ that she reckons is the best thing since sliced cheese might be THE PROBLEM.

    Thus the problem must be according to Jessica, Tanya, Penny, Chris, Lee, Sarah etc – choose your preference

    Deplorables
    Racists
    Misogynists
    Nationalists
    Localists
    Ignorance
    Red necks
    Bogans
    Regional voters
    Farmers
    Shooters
    Fishers
    Monster Truck enthusiasts
    etc
    etc

    The problem is simple – when the affluent middle classes who have profited from neo-liberalism took over the progressive side of politics they were always bound to eventually run into a massive conflict of interest when the inequality baked into neoliberalism started to become extreme .

    Identity politics is just their way of rationalising why they do nothing to address the real problem.

      • Did you even watch Trump’s campaign?
        Do tell me how many times he referenced safe spaces over trade?

      • The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. The Atlantic

        The trade message rallied the Make America (Made in America) Great Again zeitgeist – which was built on the US old and essentially appeals to a concept of tradition: hard work, fair reward, opportunity, self responsibility, the self-made man, the responsible household, obligation, the family unit, the individual over the government. All solidly anti-pc elitism. Old fashioned and elite despised values. And it was this subliminal message that got voters off the sofa and into the booth.

      • @Sweeper – Trump may not use the phrase ‘safe spaces’, but he did state he wanted to change the libel laws so that he could be a bigger litigious prick. Is there a bigger definition of ‘safe spaces butthurt’ than undermining a key constitutional element just so that the wealthy and powerful can punch downwards even harder?

    • Exactly. They are starting with a conclusion and then working backwards.
      Like Megalogenis’ bizarre attempt to blame immigration fatigue on the 1890’s crash and great depression and pre-emptively blame it for the next crash deus ex machina.

  13. “It is the basic yardstick of progress that every generation should live better than the last.”

    Another theme lifted from the American press.

  14. adelaide_economistMEMBER

    There’s really nothing more embarrassing than someone with the privilege of Irvine happily casting aspersions on the motivations and character of millions of people – because of their race and gender. Hardly surprising given her pathetic ‘analyses’ of trade agreements and immigration we’ve recently been treated to. She’ll fit in well with the new Fairfax.

    • but a_e don’t you get it – it’s ok for the PC/SJW’s like Irvine to do exactly that

      It’s just the rest of us who aren’t permitted to have an opinion worth giving notice to

    • TBH I think the needle has swung too far. In my male dominated occupation (68% male according to Tax Stats) we have people blindly championing 50/50 splits. Mathematically, that is quite clearly sexism against men. I’ve heard of similar things happening in engineering etc. I’m all for equality, but let’s not jump at shadows and blow things out of proportion (e.g. acting like all men think they can have sex with women without their consent…).

      • It extends much more than that.

        Higher performing in secondary education
        More university enrollments.
        Net welfare beneficiaries
        Longer life span
        Less likely to receive a custodial sentence for the same crime
        Likely to receive a lesser sentence if awarded custodial punishment.
        More likely to receive higher pay for the same job based on gender, for those under age 35
        More likely to be offered executive promotion under age 40.
        The only sanctions that exist in law that defy due process are in their favour.
        And now recently, less likely to be made redundant in economic downturns.

        They’re the most privileged broad class of people in the history of the planet.

      • Predominant employment group in taxpayer funded growth sectors, most of which attract above average weekly earnings.

        . Education
        . Health
        . Welfare

        Oh, and can have babies!! And then switch to part-time work – which if you’re say a relief teacher in WA can pull you $500/day. Not too bad. Got that market sewn up.

    • Correct, and the first time women and ethnic minorities don’t get their way in 30 years, they act like they’re oppressed.

      • Rp interesting list above, but missing one characteristic: the ability to get things done, the ability to lead.
        Those females who could, Joan de Arc, etc had monuments erected.

    • Maybe but in this world a persons privilege comes largely from their parents/guardians and in particular the wealth and influence of their parents/guardians.

      It might be worth pointing out that the graph of Income of household by the race of the head of household can mislead that nothing is changing in the US with regard to race and wealth and help supporting the arguement that white privilege is still the problem and that minority children need more affirmative action. But with this graph people naturally make the conclusion in reading this graph that the head of household will have children of the same race, which is almost always the case for black, hispanic, asian and poor white heads of households. What it is less likely to be true for is wealthy white heads of household who are more likely to adopt children of another race or be the parent/guardian of a child of another race.

      The US elites are hell bent on eliminating all racial differences in relation to wealth stastistics (and other statistics) but unfortunately instead of doing the hard yards required to raise people up they repeatedly fall into the trap of taking the easier path of pulling other people down.

  15. Oh the rhetorical 180 from the Huffington South Pacific! The ‘pay gap’ seems to have disappeared back into the Gender Studies fabric of unreality.

  16. “All them muzzies want to bring their sharias and make our food halal and make all the women here wear burkhas”

    Isn’t much different to:

    “Anyone who voted for brexit/Trump/etc is an uneducated, racist misogynist and should be considered contemptible because they’re not acting in accordance with how their ‘betters’ dictate they ought to”.

    • I see the Right is getting into equivalence now.

      Pray tell, what would you say to the intellectuals who held reservations about the rise of the nazis or the bolsheviks? Trump is not Hitler, but he doesn’t need to be because America is so deeply embedded into the global system than even small fuckups can have drastic consequences.

      He said the things he said and he knows what he said. If you wan’t to pretend that he didn’t say them, how are you any better than the Clinton supporters who couldn’t see an issue with Hillary or Bill? If you know he said them then think about being one of the people he said them about, and how those people would feel knowing that the majority of their peers voted him in. Of course there will be some freakouts. Rise above it.

      Or you know, be a sore winner.

  17. “the proportion of men working in the highest fifth of skilled jobs rose in every decade, but to a lesser extent than the gains for women.”

    Isnt this mathematically impossible for both men and women to increase their proportion?

    • It means more people — both men and women — have been getting better jobs (as the old crappier jobs are disappeared by technology?), but women have been getting better jobs at a faster rate than men. So, for example, in one decade 10% of women had these types of jobs, versus 20% of women in the next decade, whereas for men the figures when from 15% of men to 20% of men had good jobs. (Just pulling figures out of the air here to illustrate a point.)

    • You can in the case of the article… The proportion is split along income segments, not gender segments as you presume.

  18. ‘While there’s much progress still to be had…’
    Jessica needs to outline precisely what the end point of this progress would look like. Other wise that statement and the others like it remain vacuous.

    • Milo… Jessia… Clementine Ford … are all symptomatic of their respective privilege.

      Jessica Irvine, Clementine Ford can all spurt out the most toxic bullshit… and not get pulled up[ on it because daring to interupt their narrative is ‘misogynistic’, ‘sexist’, ‘mansplaining’.

      They go through life not learning, not being able to identify and recite the truth because no one ever pulls them up on being wrong.

      Milo, well he’s useful because he has a victim badge of his own to wear, and that can deflect dissent. he’s allowed to say things that others can’t.

      • You are so right RP. I’ve witnessed my sister and many others come out of Arts degrees fully-fledged man-haters. It’s a social crime imo the indoctrination which goes on. Clementine Ford is absolutely vile and nasty, but of course, because she’s a woman she’s no a misandrist but a hero. Righto.

      • +1 RP, it drives me nuts (even though it shouldn’t) but it drives me nuts that they are given a platform to spout their vitriolic horseshit.. Another horrid 1 is Laurie Penny, god someone needs to pull girl’s batteries out…

        Look I’m all for equal opportunity, my sisters are female, my partner is female and 1 day I might have kids and a little girl. But the way these idiots carry on, it’s as if all men are evil and part of some patriarchy scheme to keep women down. Nonsense…

        The whole gender pay gap thing is a farce, most women earn less due to career choice, sure there is some discrepancy between men and women but what a lot of studies have found is that women are less likely to negotiate a pay rise etc.. whcih leads to slightly lower pay in many like for like jobs.

        Watch Laurie Penny get shot down here. 😉
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9dA6E3fJw

      • Gavin ” But the way these idiots carry on, it’s as if all men are evil and part of some patriarchy scheme to keep women down. “. Thats cultural marxism for you. its all about creating division. Compromise does not support the revolutionary process – thesis / antethesis / synthesis. Free will does not exist in a Marxist world view. We are biologically determined to act in a certain way and that way is to consolidate our own power structures. Any concessions given are interpreted as an attempt to legitimise the status quo, never an exercise of altruism. Its a crude interpretation of humanity, but SJWs eat it in spades.

      • Clementine Ford is absolutely vile and nasty, but of course, because she’s a woman she’s no a misandrist but a hero. Righto.

        LOL. You guys don’t like her because she treats men like you treat women. Happy to dish it out, can’t take it.

      • Look I’m all for equal opportunity, my sisters are female, my partner is female and 1 day I might have kids and a little girl.

        Well, fortunately you’ll be able to give her the right advice up front: “Just find yourself a good hubby and start squeezing out kids, sweetie. No need to get any silly ideas in your head about being a Doctor or an Engineer – you literally don’t have the brain for it and you wouldn’t be happy anyway. Besides, that’s all biology says you’re meant for.”

      • @DrSmithy “You guys don’t like her because she treats men like you treat women. Happy to dish it out, can’t take it.”

        You should be a geographer if you aren’t already, because you have identified the precise epi-centre of all of this bullshit. We guys don’t like her because we don’t treat women like she treats men. Yet because we are men, we are collectively responsible for the bad acts of every piece of male scum that walked the earth since Cain. I couldn’t give a shit how much or how loud she wants to screech out her view of the world and everything wrong with it, but she either needs to keep me specifically the fuck out of her nasty, fraudulent, slanderous gynsplaination of the male gender, or be content to have yet another ‘misogynist’ hater out there and be told – once again – to go and fuck off. Her choice.

      • You should be a geographer if you aren’t already, because you have identified the precise epi-centre of all of this bullshit. We guys don’t like her because we don’t treat women like she treats men.

        There are dozens of posts here each week – much more so recently – with an attitude towards women that could be most generously described as “contempt”. Many of them from people who believe their attitude is perfectly justifiable as simply a representation of ‘the natural order of things’.

    • Gavin – I’m surprised your post didn’t attract a flurry of responses labelling you a sexist, chauvinist pig etc. etc.

      The truth is, it’s said that in today’s world “feminism” is being used as the untouchable argument to commit a range of economic crimes. Take for example:
      – Higher super for female ANZ employees
      – The ridiculous paid parental leave proposal that would have handed government money to “pretty little lady lawyers”
      – The superannuation inquiry recommending disproporiately higher benefits for women.
      Then there was Tanya Pilbersek’s “mansplaining” accusation.

      Usually the “feminism” argument is used to reinforce some other, actual, injustice – or further disenfranchise groups already left behind. Normally, the supposed affirmative action benefits high socioeconomic status (SES) women. Since they’re probably already part of a high SES household/family unit – it’s really just benefiting high SES individuals. The arguments are usually moot. E.g. women tend to have lower super balances. Forget that most of this can be explained by work/family choices. More importantly, these women, by law, have access to their partners’ (usually men) super balances. Why are these obvious arguments always glossed over? Why is it so taboo to have a logical argument about these issues, without risking getting personally attacked?

      I feel really sorry for low SES women. Their partners are most likely also low SES, and therefore left behind. They are much more likely to be victims of family violence.

      What a sad world.

      The rational side of me is happy because my daughters, who’ll have a good education, be brought up in a supporting and loving household – will enjoy the benefits of all of this. But it’s hard not to feel sorry for those that are truly vulnerable in this twisted society.

      • “women tend to have lower super balances. Forget that most of this can be explained by work/family choices.”

        Or is that work/family choices (i.e., who stays at home with the kids) are made (by a couple) based on which member of the couple earns the higher salary? Which almost always happens to be the woman. Except in couples where the wife actually does earn more, then you will see it is the husband who stays home (thus presumably ending up with a lower super balance at the end of his working life, all things being equal).

        But to really know, we would have to have both members of all couples having exactly the same lifetime earning power. Then we could have an honest discussion about “choices.”

      • “Except in couples where the wife actually does earn more, then you will see it is the husband who stays home (thus presumably ending up with a lower super balance at the end of his working life, all things being equal).”

        LOL!!! A man will not see his Super lower in that circumstance. He will be divorced well before that point and be therefore back working to rebuild the the Super – after the child support that is.
        Young men reading this blog need to understand the mating preferences and sex differences between men and women before they end up in a whole lot of trouble. First’s ideas will ruin your life. I’m not exaggerating. Forget the idealism – learn.

  19. its also funny how we are not allowed to further divide the “white” category. Clearly, jewish people MASSIVELY outperform in the USA and also are massively overrepresented in mainstream meda, hollywood, not to mention banking and finance (the last 3 fed heads have all been jewish). They also tend to be left wing secular humanists with a perhaps understandable dislike of the old oppressors (white christians) . George Soros was a massive backer of Hilary and all things “progressive”. I don’t want to inflame an old wound, but perhaps the exagerrated focus away from “class” and onto “white privilege” has a lot to do with this phenomenon?

  20. I call bullshit that this is a great time to be alive for women. Great time to be alive for attractive males perhaps.

    Shifting away from tradition has done nothing for women, its all short-sighted, instant gratification, individualistic gains at the cost of long term satisfaction. Instead of devoting more to the family unit, women are now instead just additional tax-units for the state.. for what benefits? And at what cost? The economy simply adjusted around that, its just a massive net-loss in many respects to families, children are paying a steep price.

    And if you understand anything regarding the err ‘sexual marketplace’ you will know there is zero equality, young women simply act as free prostitutes for a specific subset of men. Freedom and independence my ass, more like enslavement. Complete miss-understanding of value, the cost to women is high, the cost to men is low.

    Career burnout:
    https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#newwindow=1&q=women+burnout+30

    The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness
    http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

    Not enough viable men:
    https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#newwindow=1&q=no+good+men+degrees

    • Some good reading in there, I’ll have to go through it later. But I’ve heard a lot of this before.

    • Women are free to choose, and I don’t think I would class most women as “free prostitutes”. Their lifestyles have changed but this is observable even in deeply conservative countries like Japan.

      They might not be happier, but are any of us? Technology has cut off all routes of escape from work. Not only that, there is increased monitoring of ourselves by our peers. Even if you avoid social media there is still a question as to why you’re not on it. Some government forms now expect you to have a social media presence. You’re more suspicious without one. If granting women equality has made them unhappy, its because they’re now wading through the same shit as the men and getting to know its odour quite well. Just as a well educated person will find it difficult to curl up once more in the warm embrace of ignorance, so too would educated women struggle to go back to the happiness that came from being forced to only worry over mundane/trivial nonsense.

      • Free to choose? Yeah right, in what reality. They have less options now – there is only one path – better get a career. The economy has orientated around two incomes to sustain a family. This isn’t freedom, its enslavement to the state at the cost of traditional families and close-knit communities that used to function rather well despite all the claims of patriarchy and oppression.

        And if you don’t think a good majority of young woman today are participating in soft harems for a subset of men… well you are not that subset of men.

        As for mundane/trivial nonsense – honestly what are most of the middle class white collar jobs really? How satisfied is the average women with their careers? How objectively well are their children being raised? Prioritize one or fail at both is the reality for most IMO.

        Our value-systems are all out of whack if you ask me. This comes to mind:

        “The homemaker has the ultimate career. All other careers exist for one purpose only – and that is to support the ultimate career. ” ― C.S. Lewis

      • There are plenty of women out there living in “traditional” family unit setups. That is their choice. Plenty of us are married to women who would go mental in that kind of setting (oh sorry, the historical term is ‘hysterical’).

        Women working is NOT NEW. Stay at home wives are a status symbol. Only the very wealthy could afford such a ridiculous extravagance. In the same way that a really clean/tidy home is another status symbol- because the overworked poor would struggle that much harder to have a well dusted home of a size big enough to host dinner parties.

        In the early industrial revolution, a lot of families lived off the wife’s factory income. Women have always had to contribute and in many societies women did the labouring. Go re-watch the Okinawa divers video where the guy sits on the beach while the women dive down. Even the British narrator could barely contain his utter contempt. Yet that has been normal in many cultures around the world.

        That brief period of time where lots of women stayed at home is probably an abnormality that came about as a result of excellent post-war conditions. Those same women probably worked the factories throughout the war while the men were fighting.

        Returning to my point about choice- divorce has been consistently high since women were given a choice. The “traditional” family unit has been trending down. If you need to financially coerce women into something then I don’t think you get to ‘speak’ for them. I dont care how many graphs you have of women being ‘unhappy’ now, if they’re not doing what you want then its time to analyse why. For all you know, they’re unhappy because women are more communal in nature and they now live in a 24/7 news cycle where bad shit is constantly happening throughout the global community.

  21. proofreadersMEMBER

    Presumably, Jessica is the fine product of “baby boomers” but based on the “venom” that she exudes towards “baby boomers” and now more so the male cohort of same, you could be pardoned for wondering what she might think of her parents?

    Maybe Jessica could do with a reality check at some point, because some day the members of some of the “warm and fuzzy” causes she promotes may end up biting her on her behind?

    • Jessica isn’t vitriolic here, I know vitriolic lesbianic diatribe when I see it.

      She’s a victim of being ignorant and uneducated, of someone prone to repeating a narrative because her female privilege precludes here from the most important lesson of all…

      Equality

      s a woman, she will never be treated as equal, to never be expected to live up to a standard as high as men are.

      It comes as a two edged sword, the negative being the expectation of her peers she cant live up to that expectation….

      But it also means she cant learn, she cant take in feedback because its sexist, and then feedback is withheld, out of her peers walking on eggshells out of avoiding being called sexist.

      Shell continue to reach out at out dated tropes, write them up and gave everyone tell her well done.

      • It is mostly ignorance and having massive blind spots as to the reality of what is out there.
        The likes of Irvine tend to exist in solipsism and echo chambers.

  22. Given white failsons have lost interest in reproducing themselves, based on TFR in majority white countries, there won’t be enough white dudes to vote anyone in within a couple of generations.

  23. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that one of the reasons that white men traditionally have held a position of privilege is because white men are the primary builders of Western Civilization.
    Sure Western Civilization is not perfect, but things could be FAR worse.
    Western Civilization has worked because it is based around the family unit.
    Irvine and her sort could not care less if the traditional family unit is destroyed.

    • The ‘traditional’ family unit goes all the way back to..post WW2 America ideals of an atomic family. The Western world is built on the remnants from the Italian (Roman, Venecian) and Greek worlds, so our lack of melanin is not the super power you think it is.

      • Melanin levels are indeed inconsequential. It’s Guns Germs and Steel. Caucasians were simply in the right place at the right time and human nature did the rest.

  24. All those white men who voted twice for Obama are now being labelled racists. Interesting take on reality. 🙂

    • Actually there are no evidence to suggest they voted for Trump… Evidence suggest they voted third party or stayed home.

      • Indeed Trump captured a smaller proportion of the votes cast in 2016 than Romney did in 2012 (46.4% vs 47.2%)

      • RP,

        So you’re saying that in a state where the votes were 63% in favour of Hilary, the voting intentions of the people who stayed home were 65% in favour of Trump, and that in a state where voter turnout was around 75%, Democrat voters were so inspired by Clinton that 84% of them voted (and none of them stayed at home when they realised Trump had won)?

        And that Californian Republicans are generally apathetic towards Senate and House races, not to mention the various legislative measures on the ballot?

        Seems legit.

      • No, I’m saying in all states, Trump had a vote surge because people with jobs were more likely to vote for Trump. Their votes took place after work, and were the last votes to be counted.

        Trump won pretty early in the night, and probably around 4:10pm Californian time.

        Hillary’s voters had cast their vote around midday, 30 minutes after they woke up… Trump voters didn’t need to vote.

      • Sorry, can you explain how

        ‘3 million Californian Republicans didn’t vote after work because the election was won by then’

        refers to voters in all states?

        And why are Californian Republicans so uninterested in ballot measures? Are none of them smokers, do none of them own firearms or care about law and order, or good governance?

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        “Sorry, can you explain how

        ‘3 million Californian Republicans didn’t vote after work because the election was won by then’

        refers to voters in all states?”

        Hey, it’s better than blaming such a devastating popular vote loss on illegals and voter fraud.

  25. If you want to know why the mainstream media and politicians suck, Google or YouTube pizzagate. It’s the biggest non-mainstream internet story of the year.

  26. It certainly is a great time to be a woman! You can talk absolute rubbish and still get a job as a main stream economics writer. I think Jessica has solved the future employment problem – just give all the people at centerlink a job as a Brain Surgeon or Nuclear Scientist.

    Knowing what you are talking about is so Last Century White Male Chauvanism.

  27. Angry white men to blame for Hanson

    So angry white men are to blame for an angry white woman.

    At least they’re not sexist anymore.

  28. Lung Cookie…. Cough…..

    Human rights are synonymous with economic rights…. get that right and most of the other BS falls into line without the – Roar~~~~

  29. All in all, far too hard on Irvine. For mine, she has captured something – I just don’t think she’s entirely sure what. Because how do you explain in the modern world, a hankering for tradition…