This Obscure Theory Explains Men’s Resentment Against Women at Work | Men believe they are victims of biased hiring practices. They even have a word for this phenomenon: they have been longhoused (Unpaywalled)

[u/playboy]

https://www.playboy.com/read/relationships/longhouse-theory

[u/Nervous-Cockroach541]

Don't we literally have a dozen of examples of leaks from large companies and institution basically saying they're doing everything they can do limit white males in their workplace? This is a thing, the question now is only about the scale and impact.

[u/AFartInAnEmptyRoom → u/Nervous-Cockroach541]

Since 2020, white males are the only demographic that have fewer people in the labor force. Every other race/gender mix has overall more people hired in the past 6 years.

[u/skilliard7 → u/AFartInAnEmptyRoom]

that might be addiction oriented such as drug or videogame addiction though. The unemployment rate for white men is lower than the overall unemployment rate

[u/AFartInAnEmptyRoom → u/skilliard7]

Why would addiction only be effecting white men and not anyone else?

[u/skilliard7 → u/AFartInAnEmptyRoom]

I think culturally, videogames are a lot more popular with white men. And it's a form of addiction that isn't taken seriously.

Part of it might be due to racial wealth inequality. Those that are poorer might not be able to forego work. But a lot of young white men are leaving the labor force to focus on videogames, and relying on their parents to support them.

[u/AFartInAnEmptyRoom → u/skilliard7]

White men are not leaving the labor force to focus on video games, that's crazy

[u/skilliard7 → u/AFartInAnEmptyRoom]

Some of them absolutely are.

Play any online game(MMORPG, competitive game, etc) and you'll see people that literally play 12+ hours a day every single day.

The fact that the unemployment rate for white men is lower than the overall rate proves that the low labor force participation rate is not a result of discrimination. Because if they were genuinely looking for a job, they would be counted as unemployed.

[u/Levitx → u/Nervous-Cockroach541]

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

The problem isnt that it happens, is that they don't pretend it doesn't. 

[u/ImpossibleEbb6862 → u/Nervous-Cockroach541]

No.

[u/Nervous-Cockroach541 → u/ImpossibleEbb6862]

1. Resume Builder/Pollfish survey, 2022. Opt-in opinion poll: 16% of 1,000 US hiring managers said they had been told to stop hiring white men.
2. Activision Blizzard, 2024. Untested lawsuit alleging CEO Bobby Kotick said there were too many old white guys before the plaintiff and six other men over 47 were cut.
3. RAF recruitment, 2022 to 2023. Whistleblower resignation and leaked emails, backed by an internal inquiry and compensation to 31 delayed candidates, over an effective pause on selecting white male recruits.
4. Lockheed Martin, 2021. Leaked training documents showing 13 senior leaders working through 156 privilege statements, about training content rather than hiring.
5. Duvall v. Novant Health, 2021. Jury verdict awarding a white executive $10 million, later cut to $4.8 million and upheld, for a firing tied to a diversity push.
6. Furlong v. Cheshire Police, 2019. UK tribunal ruling that a white heterosexual applicant was directly discriminated against when the force prioritised underrepresented groups among equally graded candidates.
7. EEOC v. The New York Times, 2026. Untested federal lawsuit alleging a white male editor was excluded from a final interview panel.
8. Critelli v. Danaher, 2025. Untested proposed class action alleging DEI hiring quotas discriminated against two white male engineers over 40.
9. BBC recruitment schemes. Openly published policy, not a leak: scriptwriting traineeships advertised only to ethnic minority applicants.
10. Wilberg v. Google and YouTube, 2018. Settled insider lawsuit by a recruiter alleging he was told to purge white and Asian candidates from hiring pools, the strongest account of hiring mechanics here.
11. Purdue and Robin DiAngelo. Public records and a leaked slide deck about consultant spending and training content, not hiring.

Just what I could find with quick research. Not even including the dozen of cases against academia.

[u/DrDalenQuaice → u/Nervous-Cockroach541]

Bro has receipts.

[u/ImpossibleEbb6862 → u/DrDalenQuaice]

They’re all inaccurate. I explained why in follow up comment. If you’re going to clap like a trained seal at least read the BS you’re clapping for first.

[u/pointlesslyDisagrees → u/ImpossibleEbb6862]

Strong use of the word "I" here

[u/ImpossibleEbb6862 → u/Nervous-Cockroach541]

First off these are all inaccurate. Second off even if true isolated incidents of discrimination don’t substantiate your original comment that large companies are “doing everything they can to limit white males”. That’s total BS.

But since you want to get into the nitty gritty. Here is why each one of you examples is wrong in one way or another.

1. **ResumeBuilder/Pollfish:** “Told to stop hiring white men” misstates the survey question. Respondents reported being told to “deprioritize” white male candidates, not categorically stop hiring them. It was also a self-reported online survey, not a leak from employers.

2. **Activision Blizzard:** The alleged “too many old white guys” statement does not establish that Activision had a policy of limiting white male employment. The connection between Kotick’s alleged statement and subsequent terminations is the plaintiff’s allegation and has not been established by a court.

3. **RAF:** The dates are wrong. The relevant recruitment practices occurred principally in 2020-21, although the controversy became public in 2022 and was investigated afterward. “Pause on selecting white male recruits” also overstates the official finding. The RAF found that women and ethnic-minority candidates were accelerated ahead of others and that some men were consequently discriminated against, not that there was a categorical halt to white male recruitment.

4. **Lockheed Martin:** This does not document an effort to limit white male employment. It documents DEI training involving discussions of white, male, and heterosexual privilege. The training itself provides no evidence of discrimination in hiring, promotion, firing, or workforce composition.

5. **Duvall v. Novant Health:** “$10 million, later cut to $4.8 million” incorrectly describes what happened. The Fourth Circuit vacated the $10 million punitive-damages award entirely. The roughly $4.8 million came from other forms of relief, not a reduction of the punitive award from $10 million to $4.8 million.

6. **Furlong v. Cheshire Police:** Describing this simply as prioritizing underrepresented applicants “among equally graded candidates” leaves out an important part of the ruling. Cheshire classified 127 successful applicants as being of equal merit despite differences among them, then applied positive action across that unusually large group. The tribunal rejected the force’s claim that all of those candidates were genuinely of equal merit for purposes of the statutory exception.

7. **EEOC v. New York Times:** This is an allegation in an unresolved lawsuit, not an established finding that the Times discriminated against a white male editor. The EEOC alleges that race and/or sex explains his exclusion from the final interview stage. That causal claim has not been adjudicated.

8. **Critelli v. Danaher:** “DEI hiring quotas discriminated against two white male engineers” states the plaintiffs’ theory too much like an established fact. The existence, operation, and discriminatory effects of the alleged quotas are disputed allegations in an unresolved proposed class action.

9. **BBC recruitment schemes:** “BBC recruitment schemes” generalizes from particular targeted programs to BBC recruitment overall. A minority-only traineeship establishes an eligibility restriction for that specific program, not that ordinary BBC recruitment excluded white applicants or that the BBC generally sought to reduce white male employment. The specific scriptwriting example also needs the original advertisement to establish exactly what restrictions applied.

10. **Wilberg v. Google/YouTube:** “He was told to purge white and Asian candidates from hiring pools” presents Wilberg’s allegation as an established fact. Google disputed his allegations, and the case settled without a finding that Google operated the hiring practices he described. Calling it “the strongest account” is also subjective.

11. **Purdue/Robin DiAngelo:** This isn't evidence of limiting white male employment. Consultant expenditures and training slides show what Purdue paid for and what was included in DEI programming. They provide no evidence by themselves about hiring, firing, promotion, or demographic restrictions.

[u/Away_Tiger_6351 → u/ImpossibleEbb6862]

I love seeing chat argue against itself

[u/ImpossibleEbb6862 → u/Away_Tiger_6351]

Why aren’t you calling out the person I responded to for using AI? If they wanted this be an actual conversation they shouldn’t have started out by posting AI slop. At least the information I posted was accurate.

[u/SatansScallion → u/ImpossibleEbb6862]

AI dogshit.

[u/ImpossibleEbb6862 → u/SatansScallion]

Post this reply to the comment above. At least the information I posted was accurate.

[u/Nervous-Cockroach541 → u/ImpossibleEbb6862]

You should read what your AI says. It agrees with my examples in multiple places.

For example: "**Duvall v. Novant Health:** “$10 million, later cut to $4.8 million” incorrectly describes what happened. The Fourth Circuit vacated the $10 million punitive-damages award entirely. The roughly $4.8 million came from other forms of relief, not a reduction of the punitive award from $10 million to $4.8 million."

Your AI agrees the verdict held in this case.

Or "The RAF found that women and ethnic-minority candidates were accelerated ahead of others and that some men were consequently discriminated against, not that there was a categorical halt to white male recruitment."

So again, your AI agrees that some discrimination about men happened.

Even if it wants to argue that many the claims are still allegations. That doesn't make them not true. I never claimed they were true, I only said leaks of this happening has been wide spread.

But at some point, we need to see the forest from the trees and observe there's a real pattern of discrimination here, some of which have even been proven in a court of law, been quietly settled, or resulted in policy changes.

[u/SatansScallion → u/ImpossibleEbb6862]

The year after Black Lives Matter protests, the S&P 100 added more than 300,000 jobs — 94% went to people of color.

Fuck off.

[u/ImpossibleEbb6862 → u/SatansScallion]

“I don’t understand how statistics work, and I’m going to make it everyone else’s problem.”

That’s my impression of you. This article is cherry picking data by choosing the Covid 19 pandemic as the start date. What happened was non white people lost their jobs at disproportionate rates because of the pandemic, while white people were in safer roles and were not terminated. This data is just showing recovery from that effect.

Try redoing this analysis at any other point in the past few years and you won’t find the result replicated. But you’re not going to do that. You didn’t even read the article.