Dana Bashs (sp?) comment at the Democrat convention comes to mind. She said Men who vote Democrat are low testosterone. To use a popular cultural term "soy boy". Basically a man who can easily be controlled by a woman. There was no outcry against this sexist statement. Most likely because of its accuracy. If you want to know what the Democrat party thinks of heterosexual white men (& boys), read Bidens Whitehouse policy paper on Gender. They are not even an afterthought.
I agree with your points -- I wrote about Dana Bash's comment last week (it's offensive), and I wrote about Biden's White House Gender Policy Council document both in an earlier post and in my book (Chapter 2). The Democrats could do a lot better in their support for men.
The Democratic Party has shown its true colors for years: pro-feminist and anti-male. Imagine seeing men flock to the Right and doing absolutely no self-reflection, but instead blaming men for being dumb.
Democrats have a HUGE amount of work to do to ever win back my vote.
But, no, at least I’m not voting for that idiot the R’s nominated, either.
Thanks for the comment Matthew, and I understand how you feel. I've been frustrated with the Democrats as well, and in fact the original title for the book (and the title to the intro) is "A Man Without a Party."
Doesn't class make a difference here? When I look at the unhappiest cohort in American politics it's working class men. Mostly white but here and there blacks and hispanics feel that democrats have left them. I think this is because masculinity differs from class to class and with the parties sorting themselves out along class lines it's been difficult for dems to reach men who are alienated by elites that fail to recognize this.
Absolutely, class makes a difference. Many Democrats don't truly understand the plight of the modern working man, including those displaced from the long-term loss of manufacturing and mining jobs, particularly in the Rust Belt. I think the Republicans have attempted to capitalize on this, and have been successful.
Reading Robert Putnam’s book, “Our Kids,” you get a sense of the damage caused by the big sort. The classes don’t intermingle. They have no stake in each other’s lives. It becomes easier to demonize the other in these circumstances.
In the official platform of Democrats, in the section "who we serve", everyone you could think of is listed: black, Asian, disable people, democrats living abroad, latinos, women, lgbt, veterans, etc. Guess who is missing? Men. Men doing better in blue states is a byproduct, not a goal, nor in their interest. In fact, any try to include them, would make some feminists and gynocentric leftists angry, for having to share the spotlight even for a second. https://democrats.org/who-we-are/who-we-serve/
Dear Jose, thanks so much for your comment, and in fact I make that exact same point in my book! See Chapter 2, page 20. So I agree 100%! Not only that, you see the same thing on the California Party Democratic website, and on most representative web sites. How can the Democrats expect men to vote for them when they pay them very little attention?
I follow Kamala Harris’ Facebook page and whenever it is relevant I tell her to try and win men and I link your book. (What’s irritating is that whenever I react I immediately get a Message on my Messenger, asking me to donate. Even if it’s thrice an hour or more often. Not a very clever way to handle potential voters imho.)
As a gay man watching males over seven decades, I think four things have happened. Low-skilled male-traditional high-intensity work which stair-stepped into middle class wages (“honest work”) became highly professionalized : truck driver, farmer, plumber, roughnecks, and so on. Liberal regions wrapped many trades with high barriers while conservative regions didn’t - it’s easier to find an affordable plumber in Houston than Boston. Immigrants find it much easier to work in these areas (low trade-certification to entry) therefore these conservative areas see immigrants as competition for these jobs (cheap plumber in Houston vs Boston). This forms a gravitational pull inexorably of entry-level highly physical “male” work to conservative regions where the politics support them.
It’s no surprise that you would see such behavior now making fun of men. Anything which creates a differential and rewards men for aligning with conservative regions through financial (complex professional requirements for trades) social incentive (making fun of) will create men in trades more interested in conservatives than republicans.
I don’t think it’s remotely as easy as democrats “validating men and male jobs”. This has been underway for quite a long time. It requires a deep re-orientation towards labor and trades. It’s purely an accident (to me) of the distribution of effects for labor and trades.
Great points. And I agree that it's not a simple fix -- simply sharing a photo of Tim Walz with a hunting rifle is not enough to make up the years of failing to properly focus on men.
The Slate article not only calls young men "stupid' - it also doubles down on the stereotype of young men as stupid & useless by describing them as "Americans who are about as likely to help him—even if they like his style—as they are to 'help' with the laundry at their parents’ house." We REALLY need to move beyond these tired stereotypes & collectively agree that stereotyping boys & men is as unacceptable as stereotyping any other group of people.
Amen, Jennifer! The type of language used in the Slate article is not helpful. I was very annoyed when I came across it! I couldn't imagine them publishing a piece with the genders reversed.
Dana Bashs (sp?) comment at the Democrat convention comes to mind. She said Men who vote Democrat are low testosterone. To use a popular cultural term "soy boy". Basically a man who can easily be controlled by a woman. There was no outcry against this sexist statement. Most likely because of its accuracy. If you want to know what the Democrat party thinks of heterosexual white men (& boys), read Bidens Whitehouse policy paper on Gender. They are not even an afterthought.
I agree with your points -- I wrote about Dana Bash's comment last week (it's offensive), and I wrote about Biden's White House Gender Policy Council document both in an earlier post and in my book (Chapter 2). The Democrats could do a lot better in their support for men.
I’ll be sure to check out your book! Thanks for shining light on the issues.
The Democratic Party has shown its true colors for years: pro-feminist and anti-male. Imagine seeing men flock to the Right and doing absolutely no self-reflection, but instead blaming men for being dumb.
Democrats have a HUGE amount of work to do to ever win back my vote.
But, no, at least I’m not voting for that idiot the R’s nominated, either.
Thanks for the comment Matthew, and I understand how you feel. I've been frustrated with the Democrats as well, and in fact the original title for the book (and the title to the intro) is "A Man Without a Party."
Mark,
Doesn't class make a difference here? When I look at the unhappiest cohort in American politics it's working class men. Mostly white but here and there blacks and hispanics feel that democrats have left them. I think this is because masculinity differs from class to class and with the parties sorting themselves out along class lines it's been difficult for dems to reach men who are alienated by elites that fail to recognize this.
Absolutely, class makes a difference. Many Democrats don't truly understand the plight of the modern working man, including those displaced from the long-term loss of manufacturing and mining jobs, particularly in the Rust Belt. I think the Republicans have attempted to capitalize on this, and have been successful.
Reading Robert Putnam’s book, “Our Kids,” you get a sense of the damage caused by the big sort. The classes don’t intermingle. They have no stake in each other’s lives. It becomes easier to demonize the other in these circumstances.
In the official platform of Democrats, in the section "who we serve", everyone you could think of is listed: black, Asian, disable people, democrats living abroad, latinos, women, lgbt, veterans, etc. Guess who is missing? Men. Men doing better in blue states is a byproduct, not a goal, nor in their interest. In fact, any try to include them, would make some feminists and gynocentric leftists angry, for having to share the spotlight even for a second. https://democrats.org/who-we-are/who-we-serve/
Dear Jose, thanks so much for your comment, and in fact I make that exact same point in my book! See Chapter 2, page 20. So I agree 100%! Not only that, you see the same thing on the California Party Democratic website, and on most representative web sites. How can the Democrats expect men to vote for them when they pay them very little attention?
I follow Kamala Harris’ Facebook page and whenever it is relevant I tell her to try and win men and I link your book. (What’s irritating is that whenever I react I immediately get a Message on my Messenger, asking me to donate. Even if it’s thrice an hour or more often. Not a very clever way to handle potential voters imho.)
Thank you Eisso, I appreciate it! And I understand about the messages -- there are so many texts, emails, etc. from the parties and candidates.
As a gay man watching males over seven decades, I think four things have happened. Low-skilled male-traditional high-intensity work which stair-stepped into middle class wages (“honest work”) became highly professionalized : truck driver, farmer, plumber, roughnecks, and so on. Liberal regions wrapped many trades with high barriers while conservative regions didn’t - it’s easier to find an affordable plumber in Houston than Boston. Immigrants find it much easier to work in these areas (low trade-certification to entry) therefore these conservative areas see immigrants as competition for these jobs (cheap plumber in Houston vs Boston). This forms a gravitational pull inexorably of entry-level highly physical “male” work to conservative regions where the politics support them.
It’s no surprise that you would see such behavior now making fun of men. Anything which creates a differential and rewards men for aligning with conservative regions through financial (complex professional requirements for trades) social incentive (making fun of) will create men in trades more interested in conservatives than republicans.
I don’t think it’s remotely as easy as democrats “validating men and male jobs”. This has been underway for quite a long time. It requires a deep re-orientation towards labor and trades. It’s purely an accident (to me) of the distribution of effects for labor and trades.
Great points. And I agree that it's not a simple fix -- simply sharing a photo of Tim Walz with a hunting rifle is not enough to make up the years of failing to properly focus on men.
The Slate article not only calls young men "stupid' - it also doubles down on the stereotype of young men as stupid & useless by describing them as "Americans who are about as likely to help him—even if they like his style—as they are to 'help' with the laundry at their parents’ house." We REALLY need to move beyond these tired stereotypes & collectively agree that stereotyping boys & men is as unacceptable as stereotyping any other group of people.
Amen, Jennifer! The type of language used in the Slate article is not helpful. I was very annoyed when I came across it! I couldn't imagine them publishing a piece with the genders reversed.
The last thing boys (or anyone!) want to be called is stupid.