White Male Workers Respond Poorly


This sounds like non-white male workers respond better. Which. . . yeah.

White male workers are disgusting Every day they take off their pants and dump loads of nasty-smelling stuff out of their bodies. That’s just so icky. Brrr.

7 thoughts on “White Male Workers Respond Poorly”

    1. And have you noticed that the stinky stuff they excrete is brown? They are trying to say with that that all brown people are shit. This is the only explanation that makes sense!


  1. They couldn’t even be bothered to report on their own story correctly. The clickbait-y headline says ‘white male workers’. The article says top executives. This is just one of the ways in which these motherfuckers eliminate class solidarity of any kind.

    Top executives in corporate america are the most bratty, entitled, coddled people on the planet. Of course they’d feel resentment when someone who doesn’t look like them assumes any sort of power.

    Whereas I’d bet a white male worker who slogs in an Amazon warehouse in 120 degree heat couldn’t give a shit about the color or sex of his oppressive manager. As far as he’s concerned, they’re ALL pieces of shit.

    Newsweek knows this. They also know that most people read only headlines of articles.


    1. This also relates to the 2016 election where we’ve been constantly told by shithead conservatives that it’s the economic anxiety of white people in Appalachia who fueled the success of trump. But if you look at the numbers, poor whites still went for Clinton. It’s the cardealership owning deplorable class in the suburbs — who’ve never seen any economic anxiety in their lives — who voted for Trump.


    2. Exactly!! This is class struggle at its worst, and we are not winning.

      The funny part: I first found the article when it was linked by a colleague who does Marxist theory yet linked this piece without any insight at all.


  2. Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds
    A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences questions that explanation, the latest to suggest that Trump voters weren’t driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.

    “It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,’’ said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”

    Clinton won overwhelmingly among poor and working voters of color, or that post-election autopsies have found that cultural displacement and resentment were driving factors in support for Trump — the theme of economic dislocation took on a life of its own….
    Debunking the 2016 election ‘economic anxiety’ myth
    That loss was felt at both a domestic and foreign policy level. “White Americans’ declining numerical dominance in the United States, together with the rising status of African-Americans and American insecurity about whether the United States is still the dominant global economic superpower,” writes Mutz, “combined to prompt a classic defensive reaction among members of dominant groups.”

    According to Mutz, white Americans felt “under siege by these engines of change.”

    Mutz found little to no evidence that a decline in income, loss of a job, or concerns over a worsening “personal financial situation” drove voter preference. Rising unemployment or a drop in manufacturing jobs in the area where someone lived wasn’t much of a factor either. In fact, “living in an area with a high median income” was a far more important predictor of a vote for Trump. This is precisely the opposite of what one might expect for an election allegedly decided by “economic anxiety.”


    1. Fear of losing status and economic anxiety are synonymous. It’s not possible to have status without money. At least, not in this country.

      And group dominance is the guarantee of economic status and vice versa. What kind of group dominance is it if it isn’t accompanied by financial power?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.