How Hollywood Screwed White Millennial Men

Diversity, equity, and inclusion have become the north star of every major industry, especially those with any artistic or cultural capital. If anything, hiring white guys is overtly discouraged so that companies can hit diversity quotas and enjoy the achievement of a diverse workplace.

When such companies and industries do not boast incredibly diverse bona fides, the culture becomes hostile toward them, routinely creating pressure campaigns designed to rearrange the demographics in favor of their preferred makeup or preaching that we need to “do better,” with no end in sight.

The Lost Generation

In 2016, Jacob Savage was on the precipice of “making it” in show business. Shopping around pilot scripts he had written with his friend, one thing led to another, and they struck gold with a showrunner showing promising interest in them. They were being seriously considered to be brought into a writers’ room that would change their lives. Only, it never happened.

You know those “got the last chopper out of ’Nam” jokes? Savage writes from the regrettable, somber tone of those who missed the chopper. He recalls realizing, in a somber tone, how “the doors seemed to close everywhere, and all at once.” The years-long hustle of the struggling artist about to make his big break was about to fizzle into a melancholy sunset that never even rose. By 2016, it was too late. The DEI train was full steam ahead, and excessive white passengers were, to put it bluntly, tossed onto the tracks.

The show executive admitted as much when he apologetically informed Savage he initially hoped he could bring on Savage and his colleague, but it was not possible for one specific reason: the writers’ room was small and already staffed by too many white men, especially at the higher levels. They needed to make room for more diversity. He added, rather optimistically, “Maybe, if they got another season,” things could change, but the silence persisted.

Savage was not the exception, but the rule. In a widely circulated article for Compact Magazine, he details the experiences of millennial-aged white men who missed out on the same opportunities their elder white male colleagues had been gatekeeping from them. Gen X white men had the fortune of being in the right place at the right time. By doing the bidding of the diversity, equity, and inclusion brigade while continuing to enjoy their positions of success, Savage asserts they both enabled and obfuscated the problem of racialized hiring quotas and industry norms tilting away from meritocracy and toward representation.

Virtually every respectable mainstream and niche alternative publication abandoned white male hires in favor of increasingly diverse staff, women of color in particular.

Many of these Gen X and older white men were grandfathered into the institutions that have since degraded over the past twelve years, but closed the door behind them. Thanks to top-down decisions that have systematically excluded young white men from entry-level positions at virtually every level of society, the young white man has grown up in an uncharacteristically hostile environment that has far exceeded racial and gender parity, yet continues to perpetuate hostile attitudes toward them.

Savage details the shameless scapegoating of white men that befell up-and-coming millennials, effectively robbing them of their future by refusing them a foot in the door. Savage identifies 2014 as the year DEI became “institutionalized across American life.” But 2014 was just the warm-up. Every year since, virtually every industry has expanded its diversity hiring efforts at the expense of young white men. The stats are sobering.

Per Savage’s reporting, the year he moved to Los Angeles in 2011, white men accounted for 48% of lower-level TV writers, but by 2024, they made up just shy of 12%. The Atlantic’s editorial staff went from 53% male and 89% white in 2013 to 36% male and 66% white in 2024. Virtually every respectable mainstream and niche alternative publication abandoned white male hires in favor of increasingly diverse staff, women of color in particular.

The same went for writing programs, hiring practices, fellowships, internships, and grants in Hollywood, universities, and newsrooms around the country. The clear turning point came in 2020, following the controversial death of George Floyd at the hands of white police officer Derek Chauvin. Black Lives Matter, a movement that had been gaining ground in the United States since the death of Trayvon Martin in 2012, hit its cultural stride during the pandemic lockdown. Yet again, sweeping change was promised, but it was not just soundbites. The reforms were swift but forceful.

The Hollywood Great ‘Awokening’

In January of 2015, the Academy received backlash when it announced that year’s acting nominees. All twenty were white actors. While watching the announcement ceremony, journalist April Reign joked, “#OscarsSoWhite they asked to touch my hair,” and unwittingly started the worldwide trending hashtag #OscarsSoWhite. A number of notable celebrities spoke out or even boycotted the show. The following year, it happened again. None of the nominated actors in the four major acting categories were actors of color, so #OscarsSoWhite trended yet again.

Hollywood has developed a reputation over the years for disgruntled artists announcing the nominees in a category with a jaded attitude intended to communicate their dissatisfaction with an award show category’s lack of diversity. Chris Rock, while hosting the 2016 Academy Awards, joked that the show is otherwise known as the White People’s Choice Awards. At the 2018 Golden Globes, Natalie Portman announced the category for Best Director by proclaiming, “and here are the all-male nominees.” Issa Rae, while announcing the 2020 Oscar nominees for Best Director, delivered a snarky quip: “Congratulations to those men.” Sometimes, artists insist the only reason they did not get nominated was because of racism, such as when Nicki Minaj insisted “Anaconda” was not nominated for 2015 Video of the Year at the VMAs.

Discourse abounded about the lack of representation in the Academy, which was, at the time, 94% white and 77% male, with a median age of 62. Academy membership was characterized and criticized as a bunch of out-of-touch old white guys voting on films they did not understand. This, people argued, is why certain women, people of color, and films of certain persuasions were not being given their flowers.

The criticism was heeded by the Academy, which vowed to double the number of women and people of color in its membership by 2020, which it successfully achieved. Following an invitation to 534 new members this past June, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences now comprises more than 11,000 members, practically doubled since 2012, and is the most diverse it has ever been.

Of the newly invited class of members, 41% are women, 45% belong to underrepresented communities, and 55% are from 60 countries and territories outside the United States. This brings the Academy’s updated demographic totals to 33% who identify as women, 24% from underrepresented communities, and 24% who reside in countries or territories outside of the United States.

Per The Dallas Morning News in 2016, an analysis of Oscars data revealed that nine minority actors and actresses had won Oscars at the time, making up 12.5% of all Oscar nominees. The author of the article writes, “but (minorities) comprise close to 40% of the United States population,” as if Oscars need to be redistributed equally rather than remaining awards for excellence in a highly competitive field. The fact that they are held in high esteem is downstream of the fact that they are scarce and difficult to win. Some of the top talents in the industry have never even been nominated despite leading trailblazing, multi-decade careers.

The article goes on to admit that about 9% of top acting roles go to Black actors, and these actors and actresses account for 10% of Best Acting nominations and 15% of the wins, “slightly above the census’ estimate of the Black population, 13.2%.” But that is not good enough, they insist, because “the roles that these Black actors and actresses are recognized for are frequently typecast characters embroiled in negative situations such as criminal activity, violence, and abuse.”

The goalpost continued to shift. At first, it was that no people of color were nominated in certain categories in certain years. Then it was that not enough people of color were nominated. Then it was that people of color were only being recognized for roles that were stereotypical, through the lens of oppression, or otherwise about downward mobility. Then it was that the industry itself is not diverse enough.

The Academy is more diverse than ever. In 2020, the first-ever non-English foreign language film, composed entirely of South Koreans, won not only Best International Feature Film, but Best Picture. The highest-grossing actor in Hollywood is Zoe Saldana, a Black Latina woman. Where previously the only woman to ever win Best Director was Kathryn Bigelow in 2010, women took home Best Director in back-to-back years in 2020 and 2021.

Jane Campion, the 2021 winner, became the first woman to be nominated twice. In 2024, 32% of all Oscar nominees were women, the highest share in Academy history, and 20% of Oscar nominees were people of color, one in five. The record for most nominees of color was set in 2021 at 24%. Despite this, even today, mainstream media and critics continue to call race and gender representation an ongoing issue.

We are not only seeing increased diversity and representation in the Academy, but also on our screens. The Oscars have rewritten the rules for Oscar eligibility. “Starting in 2024, all films hoping to qualify for the Best Picture award, the Academy Awards’ most prestigious honor, must meet new diversity requirements that apply to positions both in front of and behind the camera.”

To meet the criteria for Best Picture consideration, there are four different overarching standards, and producers must fulfill two of the four. These include on-screen representation, themes and narratives, creative leadership and project team, industry access and opportunities, and representation in development, marketing, publicity, and distribution.

For example, the on-screen representation, themes, and narratives standard can be met in one of three ways. The lead or significant supporting actors must be from underrepresented racial or ethnic groups, or at least 30% of the general ensemble cast must be from at least two underrepresented groups, or the main storyline and subject matter must be centered on an underrepresented group. These underrepresented groups include women, racial or ethnic groups, LGBTQ+, and people with disabilities.

They must also submit a confidential form about inclusion standards, something that started back in 2022. In addition to these standards, the film must complete the Best Picture Expanded Theatrical Run criteria to qualify. Since 2020, the Academy has launched a conversation series on race and gender equity in filmmaking called Academy Dialogues: It Starts With Us. Their motto, “it starts with us,” beckons the call for industry-wide change regarding diversity and inclusion.

Does this even help “marginalized” communities by making their leg up so visible, so transgressive, so totalitarian that it loops back onto the prejudiced assumption that these groups did not earn their place, that it was merely handed to them?

Despite these sweeping industry-wide changes that give perceived marginalization, no matter how far removed from historical marginalization these groups truly are, awards shows continue to be targeted for being too white. Virtually every famous IP needs a female POC lesbian update, throwing good storytelling to the wayside in favor of giving women their female James Bond or little girls their Latina Snow White, even if that actor shows nothing but contempt for the source material.

These new eligibility standards are a pick-and-mix of film industry affirmative action, something the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in 2023 for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. I ask the same question Jacob Savage asked at a more zoomed-out, macro level of institutions: “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?”

Do we really want to live in a world where iconic cinema that trailblazed the industry itself, films like The Godfather Part I and II, Titanic, Braveheart, and Schindler’s List, are barred from eligibility for the industry’s most prestigious award? Does this even help “marginalized” communities by making their leg up so visible, so transgressive, so totalitarian that it loops back onto the prejudiced assumption that these groups did not earn their place, that it was merely handed to them?

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy that entrains learned helplessness in the people it purports to help and resentment in the people it scapegoats. Ayaan Hirsi Ali said it best: “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, three wonderful-sounding words that are in fact a scheme to do the exact opposite. It is to divide, it is to create inequality, it is to revive racism, but this time against white people.”

Tired of White Guys

A content creator under the name THE DEVOLUTION builds off of Savage’s article, sharing his own experience coming of age in the creative world during the “tired of white guys” era. He describes the damage this culture has caused him and how it forced him to “basically opt out of everything” and carve out his own path in life. “Just in terms of morale, not being demoralized, not walking on eggshells, I’ve chosen to go independent with almost everything in my life, from work to creative ventures to relationships.”

It has been made clear for a long time that young white men are not entitled to be part of a subculture or a group, whether that be actors, writers, comedians, or virtually any conventional employment. As a white-passing person, regardless of his actual racial identification, experiences, and exposures, he reports receiving a consistent message from society writ large: “you’re in the way.” This messaging has, unsurprisingly, alienated young white men who are simply trying to ascend the ladder of whatever industry they have specialized in, just like everyone else.

This young man describes his experience with anti-white hostility at the macro level through systematic discrimination, “too many white guys here, can’t hire anymore,” down to the micro level, what people of color might refer to as microaggressions: “ugh, great, another white guy.” There is an assumption that one’s achievements were not earned through merit and hard work, but were instead a result of white privilege. Never mind his father’s Native American ancestry, growing up in a predominantly Black neighborhood and school, or taking pride in the colorblind ethos of his friend group and colleagues.

Once 2014 came along, all of that was superseded by his apparent whiteness. “I can attest to what it felt like when suddenly I’d be talking about something with a white bisexual workmate about police brutality and sharing my experience with police overreach in my life, only to have a white bisexual girl say, ‘hey, maybe don’t talk about that because you’re white and that’s a Black issue,’ or when I would work my way into a position against the odds and have an older Black woman, a teacher no less, try to undermine the legitimacy of me earning my place with a dismissive ‘figures, another white guy.’”

They are being punished for a legacy of historical privilege they never saw nor benefited from, to help the descendants of the oppressed who never reaped that oppression.

All of this slowly poisoned his naive utopian liberal worldview, the idea that we need not judge people based on immutable characteristics and that we could celebrate hard work, initiative, perseverance, and meritocracy. As much as he tried not to let the “oh great, another white guy” attitude trouble him, it perplexed him. When all you have ever been told growing up is that white guys have it all and need to start paying it back or stepping aside to let more diverse identities thrive, that runs contrary to young white men’s actual lived experience. They are being punished for a legacy of historical privilege they never saw nor benefited from, to help the descendants of the oppressed who never reaped that oppression.

However, the way society talks about these issues and the antagonism it so comfortably exudes toward young white men who have been robbed of their right to equality of opportunity on the basis of skin color, you would think they are walking into rooms that are still 99% white. In reality, they are explicitly told, “We don’t need any more white guys. We’re looking for a person of color or a woman.” Meanwhile, virtually every industry is begging to replace eligible, qualified top-level candidates who happen to be young white men in favor of a more “disadvantaged” cohort.

When he says, “I’ve been on shows where I was the only white guy,” this is validated by the sobering statistics Savage details in his Compact Magazine article, “The Lost Generation,” where white men purportedly made up 60% of TV writers in 2011, but by 2025 made up just 11.9% of lower-level writers, while women of color made up 34.6%.

As THE DEVOLUTION astutely points out, you would have to go pretty far back in history to identify a time when Black men who earned their place would be excluded or unwanted on the grounds that there were “too many” of them, let alone routinely. But it is easy to find that happening to white men now, constantly, openly, and with no recourse. Worse, when this happens, you are told you cannot even call it discrimination.

You are met with gaslighting racial grievance politics, insisting that you are part of the problem. If you do not roll over and play dead while being passed over for less qualified candidates, or even express suspicion that this is happening, you are antagonized with allegations of white fragility.

Who’s to Blame?

White men face the DEI conundrum on two fronts: racial representation and gender representation, the latter of which Helen Andrews has tackled in The Great Feminization. Where white men do make the cut, other diverse identities clearly take precedence. Per Savage’s reporting, only one in ten millennials participating in Sundance’s Screenwriters Lab is a straight white man, while the rest of the white men possess some other defining characteristic, such as being disabled, gay, or partnered with a person of color.

Worse, Savage notes that a number of these men were European, white men who exist largely outside the American culture wars, and therefore treated as racially and politically neutral. In practice, this resulted in a bias toward hiring foreign white temporary visa holders over white U.S. citizens or permanent residents in tenure-track positions. The only place where white men remain visible is academia, thanks to tenured older white men who have not vacated their positions. Even there, white representation is treated as a problem to be solved.

The only place where white men remain visible is academia, thanks to tenured older white men who have not vacated their positions. Even there, white representation is treated as a problem to be solved.

Universities commissioned regression analyses to identify roundabout, discriminatory but still legal ways to produce the fewest number of white male job offers, such as narrowing applicant pools through self-selecting hiring criteria like demonstrated “commitment to addressing racial underrepresentation,” or through cluster hires in identity-centric fields that predictably select for such candidates. Latinx studies select for Latinx candidates, and so the trend goes with transgender studies and professors of Black sexualities. It is all a quiet shadowbanning of the young white male.

The most depressing realization is that even these programs, designed to create new avenues for struggling screenwriters without connections, have become another tool of exclusion. One of Savage’s interview subjects admitted he never applied because he realized at some point “the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.” What has happened to an entire generation of white men is blocked access, or what Savage calls “hitting the wall,” accompanied by aggression, gaslighting, and demoralization.

In the context of a domestic relationship, the same tactics would be referred to as DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. Maybe they have made the juice not worth the squeeze, but we need to keep squeezing, until they stop monopolizing the juice. The impulse to cower to institutions that made life this way is understandable, but it is also part of the problem.

The tragedy is that an entire generation never gets closure. They do not know whether they had what it took, or whether their moment was taken from them.

Blaze Media’s Christopher Rufo and Jonathan “Lomez” Keeperman discuss Savage’s viral article on their podcast Rufo & Lomez and debate whether it is reasonable to feel frustrated with the placating tone and endless caveats made for those who benefited from these policies. There is a docile insistence that “I’m not mad at the people who benefited from these policies or even the people who put them in place. The real problem is actually white men who are slightly older than I am.”

The most devastating consideration is what happened to the men who had potential, perhaps a destiny, but were never given their shot. Did that creative instinct manifest elsewhere, or was it crushed? Lomez believes potential does not disappear, it leaks out elsewhere. Rufo has a darker view, that like in the Soviet Union, human potential can be crushed, prevented from ever seeing daylight, and wasted away.

Doubtless, some men tell themselves they never made it because of DEI, perhaps over-indexing on cope despite lacking talent. The plausible deniability of a villain robbing you of your future is tempting. The tragedy is that an entire generation never gets closure. They do not know whether they had what it took, or whether their moment was taken from them. How different might the world be if so many souls had not been passed over in favor of equality of outcome?