Earlier this month, Compact Magazine published “The Lost Generation,” written by Jacob Savage, a man who spent fifteen years trying to build a career in screenwriting and finally gave up. He claims he was the victim of active discrimination as a white male, and backs it up with facts:

“In 2011, the year I moved to Los Angeles, white men were 48 percent of lower-level TV writers; by 2024, they accounted for just 11.9 percent… White men fell from 39 percent of tenure-track positions in the humanities at Harvard in 2014 to 18 percent in 2023… In 2024, The Atlantic announced that three-quarters of editorial hires in the past year had been women and 69 percent people of color… In 2018, The New York Times replaced its summer internship with a year-long fellowship. Just 10 percent of the 220 fellows have been white men… Since 2018, only 14.6 percent of tenure-track assistant professors hired at Yale have been white American men. In the humanities, that number was just six out of 76 (7.9 percent)… Today, just one in ten millennial programmers at Sundance is a straight white man…”

Savage goes on to gallop through every other profession in America, citing statistics for each of them. The story stays the same. White males need not apply.

Meanwhile, only two months earlier, in October, Compact Magazine also published “The Great Feminization,” in which the author, Helen Andrews, describes how over the past decades, and especially in just the last ten years, most professions in the United States have become majority female. She writes:

“A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023… Today, women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden… In 1974, only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female, today, the female share is 55 percent… Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023.”

The closest that Savage comes to exploring the implications of institutionalized anti-white, anti-male bias is to ask the obvious question: “Is the media more trusted now than a decade ago? Is Hollywood making better films and television? Is academia more respected? Have these institutions become stronger since they systematically excluded an entire cohort—or did abandoning meritocracy accelerate their decline?” In his article, weighing in at nearly 9,000 words, he mostly limits his focus to comprehensively quantifying how pervasive and extreme anti-white, anti-male discrimination has become in America.

Andrews goes further in her indictment of the anti-male bias that has transformed American institutions. Her opinion as to the consequences is unambiguous. She writes, “If wokeness really is the result of the Great Feminization, then the eruption of insanity in 2020 was just a small taste of what the future holds. Imagine what will happen as the remaining men age out of these society-shaping professions and the younger, more feminized generations take full control.” In case you’re still wondering what she means by that, she writes, as an example, that “the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female.”

The statistics offered in these two articles ought to convince any reasonable person that anti-white, anti-male bias is not just distorted fantasies promulgated by opportunistic right-wing demagogues. It is numerically indisputable, and it’s been going on, steadily getting worse, for a long time. It began back in the 1970s with affirmative action, which, in plain English, institutionalized discrimination in favor of less-qualified people if they belonged to “protected status groups.”

But in the 1970s, hardly anyone noticed, for obvious reasons. In 1970, America’s population of non-Hispanic whites was 89 percent, so if you shoehorned into your company or college student population 11 percent minorities to achieve proportional representation, it wasn’t going to affect very many white applicants.

Today, the impact is felt everywhere. The latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the non-Hispanic white population for people under 30 is now down to 47 percent. This means that non-Hispanic white males under 30 in America are now only around 24 percent of the population. And based on the trends cited by Savage and Andrews, their presence in American institutions is not merely whittled down to proportionate representation but disproportionate underrepresentation.

There is another dimension to this, of course, which is why it’s happening and how it’s being marketed. Because it’s gone well beyond the noble sentiment, expressed by Joe Biden in one of his more coherent moments, who said, “What’s wrong with trying to include people of diverse backgrounds?” Underneath that lofty ideal, unfortunately, is a culture that has turned venomously anti-white and anti-male.

This culture, despite some signs of a return to sanity, persists in every aspect of professional and political life. But to comment on the systematic marginalization of white males, to even identify its existence, is to risk losing credibility on whatever else it is you may wish to accomplish. It is not polite to recognize that you are being erased. It is a sign of racist, sexist, paranoid bigotry.

From the other side of this equation, there are no consequences. You may indulge in uninhibited demonization of the white male, and your professional risk is almost negligible.

This double standard cannot be accepted. These two articles, The Lost Generation and The Great Feminization, describe one of the most significant and rapid transformations of a civilization in the history of the world, and a transformation of this magnitude is not going to end well if only one perspective on its consequences is permissible in polite company or compatible with professional survival.

Nonetheless, I had no intention of commenting on these articles until I was triggered by a post on LinkedIn where a hedge fund manager with a Spanish surname attacked someone for using the term “settlers.” Their transgression had been to post a fascinating map of North America’s unmatched gift of navigable rivers, which, as they explained, made it easier for “settlers” to build a nation.

The rebuke to the use of the term “settlers” was articulate, and the moral outrage evinced by this hedge fund manager was dialed up to eleven, but when I checked his profile, staring back at me was an aging boomer with skin so white that if he went to a football game on a sunny day, his face would probably sprout freckles before the end of the first quarter.

And there in plain sight was the justification used to hide what is the transactional, economic, hypocritical, opportunistic underbelly of the great war on white men. They are to blame for everything. The land wasn’t “settled”; it was stolen. So now we’ll assign perpetually elevating legal privileges and status to “sovereign” tribal “nations” (translation: corporations with foreign investors who get to circumvent anti-gambling and anti-smoking laws). We’ll have “stolen land acknowledgements” prior to commencing any public meeting or allowing performers onstage in a theater. We’ll need to come up with reparations and reallocate vast tracts of stolen land to the “first peoples.”

This is one of the core premises of a bigger story. Along with slavery, it’s one of the “original sins” of the white male. Writ large, we bear collective guilt for conquering the world, and now, in penance, we must renounce and relinquish our culture, pride, our agency, and our participation; even our masculinity is toxic. We deserve to be erased.

Maybe this sounds like hyperbole, but the numbers don’t lie.

The way Savage ends his essay is a tribute to his character. He writes, “I could have worked harder, I could have networked better, I could have been better. The truth is, I’m not some extraordinary talent who was passed over; I’m an ordinary talent—and in ordinary times that would have been enough.”

The question we must ask, however, is where these extraordinary times are taking us.

In a speech Andrews delivered on the topic of the Great Feminization, she offered two solutions. The first was to remove artificial pressures favoring women’s employment by reforming “anti-discrimination” laws and HR mandates. That solution would also go a long way toward eliminating anti-white discrimination. Andrews also proposed we address the “two-income trap,” the cost-of-living increases that have forced millions of women into the workforce.

Why are these solutions so hard to imagine? Why not restore a meritocracy? Why not rediscover the economic model where any person earning an average income can sustain a family? As AI and social media actively melt down our brains, shouldn’t selecting our engineers and teachers, and other professionals based on their individual skill and aptitude become an even more compelling priority? Now more than ever, don’t we need the smartest and hardest-working people, selected based on merit instead of group identity?

It is difficult today to even discuss the feminization of our institutions, a quantitative reality, much less propose a new approach. But the threats of feminization alleged by Andrews are even bigger than the impact it is having on our freedom and creativity as a society. It threatens our survival as a civilization. Women empowered by careers are not typically attracted to men whose careers have been sidelined. Marriages are down. Childbirth is down. Throughout the West, birthrates are so low that entire cultures will be extinct within a few generations. The birth deficit has been accelerating for the last 40 years, but we are only just beginning to talk about it, and there is no mainstream consensus for what to do.

The only acceptable solutions so far are to import replacement populations while replacing jobs with automation, and malign anyone who objects to this as sexist and racist.

The mainstream commentariat in America is literally incapable of honestly addressing the issues that matter in a way that will matter. They deny the existence, much less the harm caused by institutionalized anti-white and anti-male discrimination, feminization of our institutions, the existential threat of extinction-level rates of reproduction, and the inevitable chaos that will result if we continue to import non-white immigrants by the tens of millions who are then taught to resent white men, resent wealth, and view the land they’ve moved to as illegitimately stolen and hence up for grabs.

An example of a mainstream approach to profound challenges that is utterly vapid would be the recent bestseller by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, Abundance. In a nutshell, instead of proposing across-the-board deregulation of the laws that have choked the life out of American productivity and innovation, driving the cost of living sky-high (and forcing two-income households), the authors propose deregulating their favored industries—renewable energy and subsidized infill housing. To put it mildly, this is a hopelessly inadequate, ideologically hamstrung cop-out.

Co-author Thompson displayed further evidence of the fear and denial that prevent honest dialogue on the biggest challenges facing Western Civilization when, earlier this month, he wrote “The 26 Most Important Ideas For 2026.” This is a terrific essay by a top-tier writer and analyst. But #11 was revealing. He presented a chart showing the number of births to everyone living on the European Continent versus births in the one African nation of Nigeria. In 1950, more than 12 million babies were born in Europe, and fewer than two million were born in Nigeria. In 2026, European mothers had barely 6 million babies, half as many as 75 years ago, while in Nigeria, 7.5 million babies were born.

And what did Thompson have to say about this? “Presented without comment” was all he wrote. One may commend him for dipping his toe into some cold and forbidden water. But given Thompson’s verbosity and useful insights on 25 other “most important ideas,” he could have done much better.

Only taking it one step further, Andrews and Savage were willing to at least identify what has undermined our country and embittered a generation. That’s as far as they were willing to go. So far, only outcasts are willing to speculate as to the causes and motivations behind the numbers we see, and even offer solutions to change the trend. Some of these outcasts are extreme; others are genuinely searching with their compassion intact. But all of them, so far, are dismissed as dangerous extremists.

This must change. Time is running out for Western civilization.