What went wrong? When did men in the West lose hope for the future and why...

Replace "men" with "blacks" or "gays" in your post and you might realize how bigoted you are acting right now.

Of course

>When did politicians stop caring about this demographic?

You have to remember that politics is all about "public relations". The amount of money and support a troubled demographic gets, strongly correlates how sympathetic the public feels about them. Women have a strong bias towards other women solely based on gender, much more so than men have towards other men. Men who have a strong connection to their mother also display biases towards women.

This means that if you want to get elected you need to over focus on the demographic that the public is most sympathetic towards to, which for the last few centuries has been women.

This is also apparent on media and this gender bias has been used by con artists for years. If you want to make a character that the public is supposed to sympathize with, you make a her.

I remember a case where a conartist in my country created a fake story about a girl who killed herself because of bullying to sell a book. He/She had purposefully created the most sympathetic character for the public, a young girl. Despite the fact that the majority of people who kill themselves are men, not women.

>Gender roles are collapsing now because capitalists needed cheap labour
Don't fool yourself.Women started work to pay people less.It was something totally artificial,that was done using massive propaganda.

everyone in Veeky Forums is a little japanese girl

>which for the last few centuries has been women.

decades*

Really?

h-hi

>implying I care

The wage gap is shrinking. The collapse of gender roles is not inherently due to the desire of employers to employ cheaper woman than expensive men. Gender roles are collapsing because it's retarded to keep women at home in this day and age.

is a perfect example of what i mean

Gender roles are changing not collapsing. Most women's organizations that are interested in destroying traditional gender roles are just changing the role to something different.

There is no society that doesn't expect something of its people.

>due to the desire of employers to employ cheaper woman than expensive men
Never said this.When you double the workforce by 2,wages go down.This is simple.
>Gender roles are collapsing because it's retarded to keep women at home in this day and age.
>Raising children and having stable families,that gave better educated and stable kids
>retarded

I realized my statement about genderbiases is a bit radical and goes against the publicly accepted "boy's club" narrative so I'll ad sources

apa.org/monitor/dec04/women.aspx
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

Gender roles are defined by the difference of roles for each gender. If the expectations of both genders is relatively the same than gender roles have collapsed.

>Never said this.When you double the workforce by 2,wages go down.This is simple.
You are implying that is bad. There is an increase in the management as well. The entire economy expands.

>having a dozen children is a good thing
It's not.

>If the expectations of both genders is relatively the same than gender roles have collapsed.

But we aren't moving towards that.

also

>It's not.

Stopping breeding isn't the way to fix overpopulation.

>You are implying that is bad
When the family unit is destroyed it is.Lots of young people are forced to share a flat with 5 people because of this.
>The entire economy expands
In nothing productive
>It's not
Having at least more than 2 kids is good,but it is not only that.woman incorporation in the workforce has lead to the increase of single mothers,which produce bottom of the barrel offsprings.The quality of the youth has gone down,since the family unit has been slowly erradicated

>stopping breeding
Are you seirously refering to having zero children? Because you and I both know that is an idiotic strawman or maybe even a slippery slope. Two or three children can be raised well without a stay at home mother or father.

>Two or three children can be raised well without a stay at home mother or father.
Stats say otherwise.

>having 2 or 3 children is not a family
Yes it is.

And what the fuck do you mean "nothing productive"? The people can be put into any field. We can build twice as many Martian colony ships if we wanted to.

This is overly simplistic and unfair. I have a solid job in my field and have had a few girlfriends, but I know a number of guys from college, especially in fields like computer stuff, who are really struggling and have basically given up. There's a big cultural push right now to bring women or minority groups (black and latino) into STEM or computer stuff because those fields are dominated by men, who are white or Asian/Indian, so unless you *really* stood out, you probably won't get hired as the good jobs with career potential are few and far between. Not everyone can really stand out, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a decent job in the field they studied. It's unfair to say, well that sucks you should go back to school and study something else; school, in the US at least, is really expensive. Most women won't date a man who doesn't have a solid job because there are still some dating expectations, plus, how can you think about a family with a guy whose work situation is so uncertain or lacks advancementioned potential? This is a general problem with the current economy: tons of men (and women, too; there's less of them, but they're there) who aren't getting decent jobs despite having the education or training to do so.

Post them.

Sorry, I'm just jumpy because i've had to argue with so many people who think not having kids will solve overpopulation.

I assumed you meant that, even though you didn't write it. Yes, 2-3 children is the most optimal and no it doesn't require a stay at home mom or dad after the age of ~4 or so.

>>having 2 or 3 children is not a family
You just misquoted.
>Having at least more than 2 kids is good
Which is not happening currently
>And what the fuck do you mean "nothing productive"?
Woman just flooded most white ollar jobs,mainly pushing papers,just increasing goverment bureocracy and flooding HR,which is causing one of the biggest debt bubbles in the history of America.

Take into account that the small spike in the later years is due the beaner baby boom.Americans overall have below 2.1 natality rates,and without hispanics the number would be ridicously small

> caring about this demographic
Are you somehow implying that they cared at the first fucking place about common men? Because it is clear that they doesn't.

>For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago. Historical discussions should be focused on past events, and not their contemporary consequences. Discussion of modern politics, current events, popular culture, or other non-historical topics should be posted elsewhere. General discussions about international culture should go on /int/.

Women lean in, men drop out since they are no longer needed by woman.

This thread is asking about shifts in Western culture 40-25 years ago, it isn't about 2016.

>You are implying that is bad. There is an increase in the management as well. The entire economy expands.

Management isn't expanding, though, at least at career-track level; a lot of it is low-level management that isn't too much better wage wise than the non-management positions. Also, economic expansion means nothing when people aren't sharing in it. Not saying keep women at home to increase wages, but if you're going to have a lot more jobs, those jobs should be decent.

Great thread, guys. You're all doing your foreFATHERs proud.

>Needing to know scripture to debate religion
That isn't how it works

Post industrial work is passive, uncreative and also less lucrative due to women entering the workforce.

Accumulating resources has never meant so little in the competition for women because women can now with the help of society as a whole provide for themselves (while society also provides safety). The upper layer of men gets it all while the rest gets the crumbs, with the privilege to watch their rotting nations implode in the name of "progression" and globalism while replacement levels of immigrants (70% males) swarm their homes creating all sorts of issues.

The western intelligentsia and media elite has systematically attacked the male directly and indirectly for many decades now and it shows.

Stop posting these shitty threads on Veeky Forums

>Accumulating resources has never meant so little in the competition for women because women can now with the help of society as a whole provide for themselves (while society also provides safety).

Never thought about it like this but it makes total sense.

>the service economy is a lie
kek

Try to keep up, user. No one was doubting that the birth rate was hovering above two. You claimd that two or three children can't be raised well without a stay at home mother or father.

More people in the economy means more people necessary to manage them. The optimum number of managers to workers didn't magically change.

Politicians never cared about "men", including men themselves (who are the majority of businessmen and politicians). The first hunters hunted so that their families, their wives and daughters, would be healthy. Permanent settlements were created so that they could have a place to develop.

In modern times, the family sphere, which is run by mothers, has always been the target of government policy. If families (mothers and children) are healthy and prosperous, then men doubly so.

The recent fascination with gender wars is a meme, one wrought as a majority of women go without children. But, ultimately, those people (and their racebait politics) will die out over time as they don't procreate.

Post-industrial work is more creative than industrial work. Compare making shitty webcomics vs pressing a button on a steel stamping machine.

Also, the "male" is not the basis of nation-states. The family unit is, and this is what has been under attack by large companies since people individually consume more than if they were bundled together into groups (example: 4 people can own their own cars, or a family can carpool). As the family unit has declined due to industrialization, so has concepts of the nation state.

But it's not a self-replicating process, because families are still ultimately the ones who reproduce. If their number isn't constantly growing then the current economic system doesn't work. Immigration isn't a solution (as long term immigrants either gentrify and stop having kids, or don't pay taxes).

Also: the ratio of men continues to be equivalent with that of women. Supply meets demand. If there's ever a shortage of men, suddenly their problems and plight become more important to women as they have to compete for a limited number of available mates. Those that don't want to mate die off and are ultimately not important.

Can you cite something for this proposition that optimal number of managers doesn't change with advances in technology? I've never heard of a golden ratio of managers to employees; it usually is whatever is cheapest. As far as I know, computers and automation have made it easier for less people to manage more people. That also doesn't address my point that many of these management positions remain low level and offer little advancement potential themselves.

Hear that burn sizzle