afraid that the Kenyan Muslim Socialist will take their women! Oh the horror!

and choose a man for qualities they lack.

Effective advocacy for women and minority groups do not require broad based attacks on white straight men.

"Effective advocacy for women and minority groups do not require broad based attacks on white straight men."

and apply it to all other demographics, too!

I agree it provides strong evidence that women should lead!

strikes more than 5 in 10 men.

covered by the ACA?

it was a pre-existing condition in the 2008 election as well. Lindsay Graham said he was worried there were not enough angry white men to vote for mittnocchio.

'cause facts, as you all very well know, have a liberal bias...as does math according to Andrew Schlafly of Conservapedia.com

At least we can depend on our male members to head out to vote. They will "man up" and do the right thing!

Go, Du Men! Support Obama!

...I don't know what. Romney / Ryan sucks rotten eggs. Why would anyone, male or female want to vote for those a-holes?

Most of the republicans probably voting not for Romney, but against Obama, though.

Without contraception, sex isn't going to as ready available for some. 2:00am, sorry honey but you need to get a rubber before we even start. What stores are close by, and still open at 2am? How's that "hand" been treating you?

If 47% of the electorate won't vote for you, isn't it reasonable to seriously ask why not?

DU is a microcosm of democratic politics. The idea of a men's group was too controversial for many years, and today still faces challenges from people who think that the idea of a men's group and progressive politics are mutually incompatible. We gripe about Republican wedge issues, but we do it too... except we put the wedge in the wrong place.

If the scapegoating weren't self-destructive, it might be tolerable, but it is self-destructive. It may give us a feeling of smug superiority that <cussword>white men</cussword> won't vote for us, because who needs them anyway? But it's a fool's indulgence. Democrats have hold a serious edge among single women, but not married women. When women marry, they adopt the voting habits of their husbands. We alienate them at our peril.

We need to ask what is alienating white men from the party and work to rectify it.

It's not democratic policies that are hurting their support by (white) men...it is the overt propaganda war being waged by RW hate radio and cable. And since these propaganda outlets have chosen to attack issues dear to many Women, they aren't as effective on females.

Three subtle gradations of corporate media is all there is.

Maybe because...it's the party of minorities, gays, atheists, uppity women, feminist bitches, tree huggers, men with a conscience, and people fed up with funding stupid wars.

I don't think we can do much about this. No point in trying to win these men over. Because then we would have to be more like Repuglicons, wouldn't we? No, they have to come over to the progressive side because they see advantages-- such as the fact that the Repugs haven't made any sense for decades.

Domineering, small-minded men, pathetically worried about losing their privileged position in life --BELONG in, or voting with, the Neanderthal Party. We should welcome the few who experience a personal epiphany, which does happen --but we can't worry about attracting them or mold ourselves to fit their needs. Haven't we seen the fallacy of this in how Dems have been kicked around lately?

More women vote Dem because more women see through the crap. So maybe we should try harder to attract more women.

You are representative of a vocal group of Democrats who define themselves by the exclusivity of their club.

Why are coal miners lining up to come see Mitt Romney? Seriously, fucking coal miners. If anyone should be a slam-dunk constituency for Democrats it should be coal miners, but they are alienated in some part by rhetoric like yours.

I thought they were forced and not paid for it by their boss.

Your rant could applied to any situation in which they become a problem, that's for sure.

I also love how you throw out economic populism! Rightwing economics have become common in the Democratic Party, but at least they have been driven out of Party!

"They" = men who vote with Rethugs because they don't like the makeup of the Dem party, based on stereotypes. (These can either be higher or lower socioeconomic groups, both contaminated by Fox & Co).

"Them" in this context also includes male "undecideds" who don't like the Thugs but just can't go with "Other." They like to be on the winning team but can't decide which one that is, since they've come to believe the lie that Dems are for losers. These are the ONLY R-voting types likely to have ANY change of heart. And it will be about economics if they do. Right, the Dems ideally need to embrace a more populist economics. (shhh....not talking Socialism--just y'know, real Democracy).

Look you don't have to BE a Dem, just get over your misgivings about feminists and VOTE DEM right now. Otherwise we hand it to "them" (the bad "them&quot on a silver platter.

The reality is that men (and their wives) tend not to vote for Democrats. This is a major turnaround from the political reality of my childhood.

It is critically important that we figure out what is wrong, without resorting to comforting stereotypes.

Reagan drove a wedge between "hard working folks" and "welfare queens". With Mitt Romney, we now have an opportunity to drive the wedge between "hard working folks" and "vampire capitalists". Putting the wedge between men and women is not a good practice because we'll come out on the losing end to the coalition of men and the women whose family wellbeing is dependent on them.

Consider the below graph a Rorschach test.


This is suicide rates for various demographics. If your response to the graph is any permutation of "I guess men are just violent" or "they simply can't accept their loss of privilege to gays/women/minorities " or "but whatcha gonna do?"

... then you're part of the problem.

so no response to be blamed for.

Don't know what wedge you're talkin about either. Don't think I've advocated any wedges. I just said--we can't do much about men who don't like Dems/liberals (for whatever reason). We can't change who we are to attract them. It's up to those guys to make changes, either from within a party or without.

Republicans; "We understand your problems and your pain. It's because of (insert bogus bogeyman here)"
Democrats; "You don't have problems, you have privilege. Other people have problems, and their problem is you."

There has to be a way to bring men back to the party which doesn't mean abandoning social justice.

If you don't know wedge issues, you could do worse than a peek downthread. "White men? Fuck 'em."

I think it says fuck mysogynists. I don't take that to be you so why be paranoid. Don't you agree that mysogynists are kinda sick in the head, no matter what party? Not a wedge issue the way I see it.

ALSO --one thing you might consider is --to stop aligning with the word "white."

Consider joining us in supporting a bi-racial MALE --who does not have big issues with people who are different from him.

I don't think the men in the Dem party have this either/or perspective you speak of. I think that's a problem for Undecideds and all I can say is if that's you, and you can't vote for either, then abstain and hope for better tomorrows. Or make better tomorrows. Or just say fuckittoall and live a politics-free lifestyle like so many fellow Americans.

... completely out of context of the post to which he was replying. That he didn't simply summon "misogynist" from the ether without having a preexisting stereotype to which he was reacting.

I think it wasn't. To the poster, "men" and "misogynist" are synonymous and therefore unfit to be democrats.

Thus, my point is proven. QED.

"White" is impossible to ignore in the voting sense. Democrats don't have any problem with minority men identifying with us. The electoral problem is more specific: white men. Even more specifically, working-class white men.

Which segues into a related issue. Each year, white men are less likely to be college educated.

One last thing. If you think I don't support Obama, you're an idiot.

Nice chattin with ya, jeff. When "you" and "idiot" are in the same sentence, I know it's time...

I don't know if you realize this, but you're using generic language that can be used against ANY "other". Without any factual backup, it's little more than bigotry.

Given that winning elections is of less importance to you than cultivating your stereotypes about "them" and drawing a distinction with people like you...

I am not on your side.

Filtering out the paragraphs of biased predjudice, you said this;

The only thing that might persuade them to veer our way are economic issues, the populist approach.

harbors a very vocal minority that made numerous bigoted statements towards blacks would you expect black voters to be leery of them?

What if those statements were along the lines of all black people are criminals (if you want to stop crime it's simple: black people stop being criminals!). Or that whenever blacks succeed it's because they'd had unfair advantages, whenever they fail it's proof that they are despicable as a group. Or that even having a group to discuss their issues is racist and unfair despite there being 5 groups for whites only already.

What if that vocal minority were apparently tolerated and never called out for their actions and supported people who were openly racist towards blacks and found a manifesto written by someone who went on to shoot a bunch of black guys about the need for exterminating that race to be hilarious or witty satire?

Would you think it's justified that black voters would maybe not be entirely enamored with that party?

somebody call the Waaaaaahhhhm-bulance....a white man is unhappy

Interesting that you exactly describe the Rethuglicon Party--ie. THE official repository for black/white thinking in our culture. After the way this country has become polarized BY the Rethugs --why do you think any person who buys what they're selling would EVER "defect" to the party of uppity women, minorities and (god forbid) scientists?!?

I'm not an extremist either. But that's how the other side has painted ALL Dems or Libruls. Buncha BS. But that's what you are promoting.

Whatever the Rethug party may once have been--these days, it's boiling down to the Greedy Bigoted Insane vs The Rest of Us = a clear choice when it comes to voting, no matter what your party or voter category.

Point out obvious bigotry against men that is held by some members and it's "somebody call the Waaaaaahhhhm-bulance"

Gee, I can't imagine why men (not just white men) tend to break republican over democrat.

Certainly not because they feel the democrats don't care for them much.

you made a parallel between mistreated blacks and mistreated men. All I can say to that is-- wah wah. You give me no example of this "bigotry against men" --which, sorry, I don't see around me. So if you've got a case for that, present it in concrete terms, not false hypotheticals.

Why should I care about the issues of men who feel they have only two choices--the Asshole Party (which they likely voted for as long as it was expedient) or the Arugula Party--and therefore they find no one to effing vote for? Since we cannot have multiple parties like Europe we are forced into two boxes. It's a clear choice.

What do you want--a red carpet? We should hold an orientation party for ya?

insert men in place of blacks in my post and that is the exact scenario here.

A small, but vocal minority is free to trash them relentlessly and few object. We've had several OPs imploring men to stop raping women. Not some men. Not rapists. Men in general. And then they defend that broad brush smear. And so on.

What do you want--a red carpet? We should hold an orientation party for ya?

your comparison between "offended by rhetoric" men and abused and oppressed blacks is pukable.

Sorry if you feel somebody called you personally a rapist. Maybe you do belong with the D party--since it's supposed to be the party of sensitive, thin-skinned people?

As far as the reason why men are more likely to vote R, you seem to embody a lot of undecided anguish. If you have gotten to this point in this particular election season without making a choice, may I suggest not voting? It would probably help your cognitive dissonance about it all. You can fight the gender wars without party affiliation.

OR, just VOTE on the side of sanity in the current moment...don't feel you have to have a big strong party loyalty. It's not necessary. And you don't have to tell anybody if you vote for the party that harbors those mean-talkin' libruls.

you can always change the topic and personally insult me.

and take your point that you cannot affiliate with Dems because of a man-hating vibe you detect, based on the fact that you feel you were included in broad-brush rapist-bashing in some thread at DU. That may be too big a topic to chew on for right here.

So I suggested abstaining OR voting independently of party, ie. voting for sanity above all. Not insulting. I accept that you don't seem to support Rethugs but have a problem with the make-up of the Dem party as harboring man-haters. Maybe go beyond the stereotypes and just vote your conscience?

that the democrats not be so tolerant of misandrists?

would be called out immediately and either asked to leave or at least apologize and change their mind here.

Right?


Just consider something for a moment: if democrats were losing support among women would we see posts explaining what is wrong with women? Or blacks, or hispanics, or asians, or muslims, or jews, or lefthanded people, or . . . ?

No, we'd see posts asking what happened to drive those people away.

Instead it's "men are afraid of losing their privilege, also they're too racist and sexist to want to associate with women and minorities".

Homo sapiens wiped them off the map. Homo sapiens is the brutish species.

and equating porn with rape and telling men they are the problem probably isn't doing wonders to win men over.

mentioning men are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than previously thought or that the patriarchy as an over-arching evil cabal that has ruled the world since time began is a conspiracy theory is enough to get you labeled and MRA.

So yeah, that sort of garbage will alienate a lot of men. And it's not because they hate women. Rather it's because they don't hate themselves.

/also labeling men carte-blanche as misogynists isn't really helping.

Winning elections is what this is all about. You can't actively shit on men without also hitting on the women in close proximity.

Perhaps it's not that men vote for republicans as much as it is women vote for democrats.

Here's what I mean. Over and over you see on DU statements like "how could any woman vote for republicans?" or (about a moderate or centrist dem woman) "she's not a real democrat." The idea is that women should and do support democrats on a "single" issue basis, a candidate's position on women's issues. The implication is that if, say, abortion wasn't an issue then more women would actually be republicans. They're being shoehorned into the democratic party. How much of this gender gap is actually just otherwise-republican women voting for democrats because of abortion? After all, abortion rights have nothing to do with tax rates or foreign policy or environmental policy.

On the other side, the male counterparts to the "otherwise-republican" female democrats end up as republicans. People are naturally indifferent to policy they think would have no effect on them so women's issues (when framed like that) are incapable of convincing men to vote for democrats. There's also a meme that actually encourages this indifference, "you can have a say on X when you have [sex specific biology]", though I don't know that republican voters are actually convinced to be indifferent by this sort of statement.

I know who the west coast urban Atheists are mostly voting for, testicles or no.

this election will be decided by sane people -- and the men who love them!

I know I certainly love my beautiful progressive wife!

The GOP is the party of Men (white men). To them, Dems are the arugula, latte, quiche-eating OTHER.

I think white guys will listen to someone like Ed, who definitely does not fit their idea of the dem stereotype, and who always looks like he's spoiling for a fight.

for being a pioneer in medialand. We need to speak from different perspectives, absolutely. Different styles. MSNBC was so smart to realize that to speak to the diversity of this nation, diverse voices are needed. Brilliant!

My quite senior MIL loves Ed and is doing her best to promote him where she lives in a red area near a military base. She tells people (literally)--"Stop watching Fox, that's for stupid people--you need to watch Ed!" She watches Tweety and Ed (and then falls asleep during Rachel)--I've seen her pattern. So I totally agree--Ed is attracting viewers who would otherwise have no place to go but Fux. And his time slot is perfect.

Ed is doing a great job.

Last edited Mon Oct 22, 2012, 10:55 AM - Edit history (1)

because (like "Obamacare&quot --it's back atcha appropriation...

Thanks!

Shit.

A lot of men are socialized to see compassion for the weak and suffering as unmasculine and effete.

that people feel strongly about. And certainly the media whips up those issues.

There are lots of threads that stick closely to "politics" per se around here.

only in this case poll after poll have shown women on the wrong side of the equation..being more opposed to legalization than men. If you look for it, both genders have marks against them.

Of course Prohibition was a woman's issue also.

I wonder why that is so? When I was younger I knew a lot of women who smoked.

There is an axiom in feminism that says "Well behaved women seldom make History" which comes from a book by Laurel Ulrich. This phrase really applies to any discriminated against group. None of the famous activists from any group who made a difference were considered "well behaved" in their time.

Acting in ways that are considered 'ill behaved' in the eyes of the majority is often what is required to move the ball forward. The question is, does it sometimes hurt you at the ballot box in the short term if you embrace the more 'ill-behaved' activists or measures.

Clearly, the Republican party, and blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and others have profited from portraying activists as crazy and against white men and then tying those activists to the Democratic party.

The question is what do we do about it. Clearly we don't stop being active for womens rights or LGBT rights, etc.

I guess my first suggestion would be not to use language that paints white, straight, men as evil or stupid or any of those pejoratives. I dont think effective advocacy for women or any minority group requires that. I've seen way too many people even here on DU reflexively joke or make negative remarks about "white, straight men" and I have tried to raise objections when I have seen it. It does not help our cause.

I don't have all that many men friends because so many of the ones I've met through life act like absolute jerks - either messing around on their wives or girlfriends, or playing to the whole "macho" stereotype (hobbies, film choices, etc - and the whole "I won't see a chick flick - or cry at movies&quot thing. This is a very complex topic - goes to nature/nurture aspects I suspect. We had two daughters and raised them to follow their interests, not the particular stereotyped interests of their sex.

I also think there is a relationship to just personality - ie Myers Briggs types (if you believe in such things) - as an ENFP, my "types" is ot "typically male". To further muddy the water, my dad worked 2-3 jobs, so essentially my mom raised me - did that have any impact on how my brother and I relate to and react to things?

Very interesting, very complex. But in general, I've gotten along much better with women throughout my life than most men.

women and minorities men understand that outside force can act against them. Polls show higher percentages of women/minorities believe that hard work does not guarantee success. White men are more likely not to see how outside forces shape their fate in life.

insightful comment.

Those are the questions I would like answered before I consider any discussion on polls ; ).

More importantly, are you still getting tomatoes off of your vines? I picked my last 2 last week and am now trying to find a way to grow tomatoes over the winter (inside? home-made, inexpensive small greenhouse?)

But for the month of July, having 210 pumping out tomatoes full throttle made for some chaotic seed saving/tasting/info gathering/processing!

I'm going to look you up, ha ha!