Hey guys...

[boston bean]

If you think that the Democratic Party isn't representing men.... I'm reading a lot about that... (not all of you guys, but enough to be noticeable).

There is another party, and it seems many (of course none here) have availed themselves of voting for that other party.

The problem isn't with the Dem Party, it lies somewhere between cultural sexism and misogyny, imho.

What is it that the Dem Party is doing to screw you over? Supporting women?? Supporting women is screwing over men?

hmmmm... where have I heard that before?? Sounds a lot like the false argument that feminists hate men. But we move to a new made up canard where now it is the Dem Party who hates men.

What policies exactly are Democratic politicians who support womens issues doing to hurt men???

I don't see much discussion around that, and would be curious to know what is it that the Dem party is doing to males that cause them to not vote for them and flee to vote for republicans?

[JustAnotherGen]

1. This is an excellent question . . .

What policies exactly are Democratic politicians who support womens issues doing to hurt men???

I hope this sparks a good discussion. I'm interested in knowing what the issues are specifically and the impact of these policies are on the daily lives of men.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. Kick - because two women

Don't have the answers to a question only men can answer.

[ReRe]

12. And don't ask them the question...

... because they won't give you a straight answer if you are a woman. Hopefully a man will step forward and give us the low-down on this thread.

[JustAnotherGen]

20. I saw a post mortem thread yesterday

And within it - a poster linked to a NY Times article (post maybe? daily news?) stating that the Democratic Party was OVERdependent on Single women.

So there's that - yeah.

[ReRe]

30. Couldn't have been the Daily News...

... must have been the POST. WTF does that even mean? "Over-dependent on single women."
There's an insinuation in it.

[JustAnotherGen]

36. Nooo I found an article in the NY Times

And I agree - that's one hell of an insinuation for a News paper to make.

[Andrew776655]

38. Check #31 below

That's as straight and honest as there is.

[ReRe]

39. Thanks!

[kentauros]

3. Well, I'm a Democratic man,

and the only answer coming to mind is that many of the men that flock to the republicans have a high deficiency in compassion for their fellow humans, and all the variations on that theme.

Of course, that doesn't explain how there can be women in the tea party, so I'll let the more psychologically minded chime in on that

[redruddyred]

6. it's a weird kind of self-hatred that takes a real d'oh moment to get thru

(grew up amongst reactionary evangelical christians)

[kentauros]

7. Actually, the mention of evangelical Christians makes sense.

They do manage to twist their morals easily, especially with regards to the death penalty.

[marions ghost]

27. trying an answer

about why women join the Tea Party but men are less attracted to the Dem party. I take it you are suggesting that this fact helps to neutralize the argument.

The way I see it --Women more often go along with their husbands political preferences. (Studies have shown...) Men feel free to choose their party no matter what their wife thinks about it. Women who are in relationships where they accept the dominance of men will be more likely to follow their hubby's conservative politics.

OTOH your other theory seems true. ie. the image of the Repug party as the party of "strong" men --strong in the macho, lacking in compassion sense, not the true sense of inner strength.

[kentauros]

33. No, not intending to neutralize the argument.

Just wondering why that's the case at all. You give a good example of what's likely going on

[marions ghost]

35. OK

[dogcatdog]

4. Fear mongering

Black men vote for democrats every elections. Maybe they are not afraid of an insurrection of descendent's of slaves.

[boston bean]

5. wha??? nt

[seveneyes]

8. Paradox

[LeftinOH]

9. What does it mean to 'represent men'?

What issues 'hurt' men? The very concept seems rather misogynist (oddly enough).

[Jackpine Radical]

10. All I can say is that, for whatever reason, a lot of males in this culture,

particularly white males, are socialized into a set of really crazy norms, beliefs, attitudes, & behavioral expectations.

In particular, they're taught to block sensitivity to their own pain (Suck it up! Only girly-boys cry), and are taught that introspective self-awareness is bad (which is one reason they can't communicate about their feelings). When they learn to dissociate from their own inner states, they are also learning to block their capacity to feel compassion for others.

The only sorts of things that penetrate this sensory shell are shocking things, things that induce feelings of rage or fear. You can scare them (Terrorists!!) or trigger their rage (Welfare queens!!), but you can't elicit much empathy or compassion because that would require allowing the Forbidden Emotions into consciousness, which would in turn threaten them with an awareness of the connection between themselves and their fellow beings.

The mass media have grown increasingly violent; the Other--the foreigner, the minority person--is so often portrayed as sinister and threatening; the emphasis on violent sports such as football is pervasive. The stories we tell ourselves in the movies and on the tube seek to churn our guts with grotesque, mindless viciousness rather than activate our capacities as sensitive, caring and subtle human beings.

I think one of the major problems with this culture and its politics is that those politics must play out against the background of our twisted cultural values. If we can somehow teach people to keep open the channels of compassion and caring, then much of our political madness might evaporate.

[libodem]

13. I always appreciate your thoughts

This was very cogent. Thanks Jackpine. Good food for thought.

[Jackpine Radical]

15. Kind words. Thanks.

[CrispyQ]

14. A great response, JR.

I think pro sports has had a negative affect on our culture. We pick teams, red or blue, and we vilify the other team to the point we won't even talk to them. (In real sports, people beat up other people just because they support an opposing team. Crazy!) We also have a winner takes all attitude & a win at any cost. Sportsmanship is no longer part of the game. I saw a basketball game where one of the players got mad at a spectator & went into the stands & punched him!

We've taken this acrimony and infused it into the public space and into our politics.

[marions ghost]

37. Absolutely!

A large part of the problem is the promotion of this 'us vs them' thinking-- that we see excessively in big money sports.

And of course that promotes a winner-take all attitude. Feeds right into the Repugs wish to have it all and their god-given right to take it.

[LawDeeDah]

23. Well done.

A+

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. Shocking things? Like "the War on women"?

It probably came as something of a surprise to many guys to find that they'd been drafted.

[Jackpine Radical]

46. I wuz gonna defect to Canada, but…

[Dawgs]

11. I'm completely confused by this whole thread.

Something happen I'm not aware of?

[Jackpine Radical]

17. Yeah. There was some kinda election somewhere on Tuesday I think.

[Dawgs]

21. Thanks for making even it more nonsensical.

[HereSince1628]

16. This question would be better asked on Conservative Cave

That's where you'll find the men you are talking about.

The men on DU mostly don't know the answer to that, because they mostly don't think that way.

[Jackpine Radical]

19. I didn't take the OP are referring specifically to DU (although there's enough of it here),

but more as a commentary on the fact that the only solid demographic in the camp of the Republicans is Old White Males, with damn near ⅔ of them voting for hateful Republican lunatics year after year.

[ReRe]

18. It's an "association" thing.

Back during the time of slavery in this country, the slaves would escape and take the "Underground Railroad" to flee the South. Vigilantes kept their eyes on everyone in the neighborhood. If whites associated with the black folk in any way, they were threatened and sometimes their houses burned to the ground so they would leave. If whites associated with the black families, they were ostracized.

It's a twisted "if-then" thing, e.g., If Democrats are for women's rights, then they don't support men. Let's put it this way... they didn't do well on the SAT test, if they made it far enough in school to be eligible to take it.

Yeah, and misogyny is probably mixed up in the thinking too.

[beerandjesus]

22. I think you're approaching this question from the wrong angle.

"Not representing men" is not the same thing as "screwing men over", and as soon as you frame the question in terms of "cultural sexism and misogyny", you put on the blinders.

In fact, let me just be honest about something right up front: The framing of this question made me angry, because it smacks of the sort of pat-ourselves-on-the-back "liberalism" that loses us election after election, but since I believe the question to be sincere, I'm going to take a run at it. If I come off as unduly harsh, *please* do not take it as a personal attack. I do not intend it as such.

The Democratic Party no longer represents the working class, which used to be the Democratic base. The Republicans appeal to the fears of said working class, but the Democrats, for the most part, ignore that demographic entirely. Now, by ignoring the working class, the Democrats also do working class women a great disservice, but the Democrats do make overtures in other ways, like championing abortion rights, and since the Republicans are SO god-awful on women's issues, it's generally enough to make the difference.

I am a 42-year-old white guy. I believe very strongly in abortion rights. I believe very strongly in gay rights. I believe very strongly in equal opportunity regardless of race, color, creed, gender, etc.

But you know what sorts of issues consume a good chunk of my life, day to day? A pound of chuck is up to $5.99 a pound. A green pepper costs about $1. My health insurance premiums just went up, and I'm probably looking at upwards of $300 per pay period. I haven't gotten a raise without changing jobs in about 10 years, and I've *never* gotten a promotion at a job without moving to a new company. I sure as hell don't have a pension, and the 401k savings I had a while back was decimated, not by the economic downturn, but by a long period of unemployment *before* the economic downturn. The idea of buying a house seems like a pipe dream. I have no idea how my (obviously brilliant) kids are going to afford college. I don't have a lot of confidence that Social Security and/or Medicare will be around by the time retire--or, I should say, get old, because the idea of retirement seems equally like a pipe dream. All of this, and compared to many, if not most, of the people in my county, I actually make quite a bit of money!

Come election season, what do the Democrats say about all this? They say "abortion rights!" They say, "the next SCOTUS appointment will be EVEN worse!" Well, you'll have to excuse me if that sounds pretty fucking hollow. And remember, this is coming from someone who *believes* in abortion rights; if you're trying to appeal to a guy who makes half what I do, and is uncomfortable with the idea of abortion in the first place... well, what exactly are you selling?

The Republicans are great at stoking fear. The Democrats try, but they're nowhere near as good as the Republicans. Neither party is actually working to reign in the excesses of commodities speculators, far-too-low tax rates on billionaires (which results in a disincentive for them to re-invest in the corporations they control, which would lead to things like raises, promotions, and pensions for people like me), the boomer Democrats seem far to eager to bargain away Social Security and Medicare in the name of some ephemeral "grand bargain", we're pretending that Obamacare doesn't even exist, thus discounting what good it actually *has* done (even though it's not enough), and I don't think anyone but Elizabeth Warren even talks about higher education any more.

Men around the country feel the same way I do--and most are less liberal. Men are proud--that's no secret--and don't like to admit fear. I'm not going to deny there's such a thing as cultural sexism; that would be denying the obvious. But since the Reagan Revolution, the Democrats, when they have not actively worked to disempower middle- and working-class men (see the Clinton years, and to a lesser degree, the Obama years), they have been complicit in the process.

So men, who feel completely powerless, are presented with two choices. The one party comes in and says "abortion rights!" The other party comes in and says "guns!" Is it really any surprise to see which way they go?

[Jackpine Radical]

29. This is an excellent and eloquent statement

of where the Democratic Party has gone wrong with the advent of the Third Way/DLC/New Democrats, who decided to emulate the Republicans and kiss up to the Overlords in order to get in on the Big Money gravy train. They betrayed working-class women at least as badly as they did the men, though.

[RobertEarl]

49. Why do so many women vote republican?

I think blaming the men is off base. Certainly the Dems are much more women-centered than the pubs, so why the heck can't the women make the smart choice and overwhelmingly vote for Dems?

As a man, one reason I vote Dems because we at least try to treat women as equals. Do women see that differently?

[Jackpine Radical]

50. Women are neither a monolithic bloc nor universally attached to "women's issues."

Many are evangelical or Catholic and oppose Dems for the same reasons so many men do, e.g. abortion. Some simply don't identify with the "lower classes," etc.

[RobertEarl]

51. Good points

So blaming men for republican wins is kinda dumb?

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. .

[Nye Bevan]

52. Whoa there. I think we need to talk about your white privilege first.

Then your male privilege. Then your cisgender privilege. And maybe then we can get into that other stuff. This is DU, after all.

[beerandjesus]

53. Ha! Gotta admit, I stay away from those threads.

[el_bryanto]

24. I think it's not so much that males are being hurt

They have certain privileges in society and they see those privileges being chipped away at. I personally feel that this will create a more healthy and happy society for everybody, but many males just see them losing their privileges and don't look past that.

It should be noted that they don't necessarily see themselves as having power - this is the source of a lot of the Gamergate resentment - the people running it don't actually realize or believe that they have too much power within that community.

It's a similar issue with economic disparity; our society is out of whack - the wealthy are too wealthy and the poor are too poor - but there's no way to correct that without the wealthy losing a bit of what they have right now in exchange for a more just and sustainable society in the long run.

Bryant

[librechik]

25. Dems are the effeminate party and RepuKKKes are the macho party.Everybody knows that!

because the RepuKKKes blast it loud as they can every day just as if it were true.And after 40 years of the blast, who doesn't?

It's part of their long game strategy, invented by Atwater or Gingrich.

[Orsino]

32. One party prefers guns to women in barely-concealed homoerotic rituals...

...and with the backing of Big Money are so successful that prominent members of the other party have begun to ape them.

[librechik]

34. yep.

[Shankapotomus]

26. I am a white man

(Apparently who can't have any problems or legitimate complaints about his treatment unconnected to the undermining treatment of other groups)

But I voted straight Democratic the other day. I did my part. Do not lump me in with the enemy.

[mercuryblues]

28. only half

tongue in cheek. The Democratic party believes in equality for gender, race and sexual orientation.

When these issues make even small advancements, *some* men no longer feel the privilege they have grown accustomed to. Therefor they are being discriminated against. The other somehow doesn't deserve the same luxury of earning the same amount of money for the same job because [insert stereotype here] [insert bigotry here].

[Andrew776655]

31. Well, it could be

That in a world of finite resources, anything that specifically benefits one groups will not benefit another. By promoting women without ever mentioning how it also promotes men, one gut-reaction conclusion is that it won't. And if it does nothing for men, and something for women, then whatever funds that are used (which can be considered a common resource pool until allocated) will be taken from something that could also benefit men to achieve.

tl;dr version: Something that only benefits women will necessarily hurt men, and that's how men see women's rights: something that only benefits women.

It says it all in the name, ffs. "Women's Rights." Call it "Human Rights" from now on and watch men flock to the cause.

Another example, this time applied to another resource, jobs, instead of money, is affirmative action. Jobs are a finite resource that are especially scarce today. When a woman is granted a higher likelihood than a man of receiving a job simply because of her gender, or a man is given a lower likelihood of receiving one because of his (however you want to look at it) you have actually harmed that man. As you are reading this, you are probably thinking "WTF Privileged white male, he'll find another, get over it." Not in this economy, lol, and we've seen the results. Yes, I know, Affirmative Action isn't much of a factor, BUT IT'S A DAMN GOOD TARGET. And if a woman lost out on a job because of her gender, I doubt you would react with "WTF, get over it."

Gender-based hiring practices are not illegal if certain conditions are met. For example, in the Federal Government, in fields that are typically male-dominated (specifically the U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division), there will be periods where only female applicants are interviewed in order to bring up their male-skewed numbers. This is NOT a bad thing, but it does happen.

tl;dr version: Affirmative Action can, theoretically, hurt men.

[Atman]

47. So how do you feel about Boehner's mention of Veterans getting job preference, Andrew?

Do you feel this is "taking" from someone, also? I mean, if I need a job, but there is a government program to give the job to a vet first, is this not exactly the same preferential treatment? Just curious. It is an interesting topic.

[dawg]

40. Gender roles and expectations screw with us all.

I think many American men feel like they need to be perceived as strong, powerful providers in order to be considered worthwhile. But the modern world, and this economy in particular, makes us feel weak, helpless, and ineffectual.

So we respond by talking tough, and asserting dominance over those who are beneath even us on the pecking order. We buy guns, and we fantasize that we could actually defend ourselves with them.

We attach ourselves to leaders we perceive as strong and dominant, and we express disdain and disgust at those who appear soft and weak.

[GeorgeGist]

41. Men are natural born killers.

[Capt. Obvious]

42. I think you meant to post this to some other site

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. This is part and parcel of the "winning" strategy for which we are now reading headlines.

The agenda is to encourage people to vote for the GOP because it makes your club more pure.

Seldom have I seen it articulated more explicitly.

The "War on Women" rhetorical framing was politically stupid. It explicitly creates an opposing army, composed entirely of men, on the other side.

[BainsBane]

48. This election has become a Rorschach test

For people completely uninterested in the actual reasons that Republicans gained ground but prefer to use it for their own agenda. No one has any data. They simply invoke arguments to promote their pre-existing views. For those who resent women, naturally women are at fault since everything is our fault. Single women in particular are the culprits because we actually vote for Democrats. For those who care only about the constituency the GOP serves, they want the Democratic Party to become more like the GOP, if not move to the right of the GOP.

Others have decided the election favored the Republicans because the Democrats are not leftist, "progressive," or "populist' enough, though they seldom say what they mean by those terms. Rather than policy, they appear more concerned with labels and rhetoric, an approach I think of as "sound and fury signifying nothing." Those people have made their contempt for the Democratic Party clear for some time now, have argued that people shouldn't vote, as though that would teach Democrats a lesson. The lesson, according to Salon (which may or may not be accurate) is that such voters can't be counted on, aren't a reliable base, and that the Democratic Party will now become more conservative. Some of those people truly believe they are leftist, while a few take on that argument for cynical reasons in order to suppress Democratic votes and increase the electoral fortunes of Republicans. I thought fsogol's thread on the rat fuck spelled that out quite well. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025750820

In my opinion, people who do not vote for Democrats are not part of the party and therefore relinquish their ability to have a say in its direction. They are instead part of swing/ non-committed electorate who vote how--or whether--the mood strikes them. Politicians indeed do cater to those people, since they determine elections. What they are not, however, are party loyalists or active members who play a role in the direction of the party. I am not really interested in their efforts to make the Democratic Party more elitist in terms of it's appeal, to make it more like the GOP in terms of the interests it serves or that the party focus on providing the cable TV entertainment that some pay more attention to than policy. They have made their resentment toward the Democratic Party clear for some time now. So the electorate favored the GOP. The result was entirely predictable.

The fact is people can come up with all kinds of reasons for the loss, but I buy none of it. Absent some actual data, it's pretty clear to me they are using this as they use every other event--to drive their own agendas. I find it tedious, and the fact is it shows how little they actually care about why the electorate votes as it does.

[Capt. Obvious]

54. "....but prefer to use it for their own agenda."

Go on