|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:42 PM May 26th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I have written a reponse to the article, which addresses the gender aspect rather than the race aspect. I feel that it is important to separate the two in this case.
Rick Lyman Makes Common Misunderstanding of “Testosterone Crowd”
by Mark Sutton
In his May 23, 2004 New York Times Week in Review article “Kerry’s Gender Gap: Yes, Democrats Can Win (Some) White Male Voters,” Lyman makes simplified and erroneous assumptions about the white male voting demographic, or what he calls the “testosterone crowd.”
“To win the presidency, Mr. Kerry won't need a majority of white male votes. No Democratic presidential candidate has managed to do that since Jimmy Carter in 1976, because of the party's perceived weak-kneed stance on military matters.” As a progressive white male who is disenchanted with the Democratic Party’s dealings with men’s issues, I have an alternative theory: white men are tired of a party the tows the feminist party line at all costs. The Democratic Party essentially adopts any view that NOW and other radical feminist groups espouse. After a while, this makes men of any race weary of the Democratic Party. Which of these issues do you think the democrats would support in a million years:
Changing WIC, aid for women with infants and children, to PIC, aid for parents with infants and children. It makes no sense to give aid to women only, and only if they are single. It is sexist, and it does not promote marriage. PIC would be available to single mothers and fathers, as well as low income married couples. The money could also be used to help non-custodial parents keep up support payments in times of illness, injury, or unemployment. And contrary to what many feminists believe, children grow up much better with two parents. Sorry, NOW.
Change the Violence Against Women Act to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. This is another piece of sexist legislation that no democrat would dare change, despite the fact that repeated studies (including the VAWA studies) show that women are just as or nearly as likely to initiate domestic violence with a man as vice versa. Additionally, women are far more likely to severely injure or kill a small child, and their victim will be more often a boy than a girl. As long as the assumption of male guilt is part of the democratic agenda, why wouldn’t they have trouble getting male voters?
Insist on equal funding for health care for men and women. Currently, far more money goes to female causes, such as breast cancer research, than male causes, such as prostate cancer research.
Make women register for selective service at the same time men do. Equal rights should mean equal responsibilities.
Fix the justice system to prevent so many men from going to jail. Whether it’s well-intentioned yet not wealthy “deadbeat dads” going into unconstitutional debtor prison, a divorcing husband being falsely accused of abuse, a man’s life being ruined by a false rape accusation being thrown in the media while the woman remains anonymous, the fact that men routinely get more prison time for the same crime, or simply that over 92% of our enormous prison population is men, who live in cages and are often not protected from rape and other forms of assault, the justice system of America is overwhelmingly biased against us. Men need help from the system in prevention and justice, and feminist cries of victim-hood, again echoed by the democratic elite, do not sound like a sweet melody to men who have been on the short side of any of these scenarios.
Help boys and men finish school. Boys are failing to graduate from high school at a much higher rate than girls: 57% of high school graduates are girls, and the rate of first-year college students is about the same. Boys need help in school, starting with a change in the way schools are structured and classes are being taught.
In short, appeal to the needs of men, and don’t rely on fluffy publicity stunts like riding on a motorcycle to the Jay Leno show. I have listed only a few of the reasons that men are turned off from the Democratic Party. However, what should make the most sense to any politician is to appeal to what the needs of men really are rather than kissing up to feminist special interest groups like NOW should bring more men into the party.
As a progressive men’s rights activist, I am not at all excited about the possibility of more Republican/Christian Right/Big Oil leadership in Washington. Instead, I am hoping for a democrat victory in November. If John Kerry and the Democrats hope to gain more male votes, I hope they actually begin to appeal to the interests of men.
Robert Lyman’s article can be found online at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/weekinreview/23l yma.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with the NY Times article is that they paint men as unthinking, easily manipulated, and not caring about the issues. All a candidate has to do is act sufficiently manly and they have our vote. They don't even recognise that we have issues.
Personally I think Kerry is better than Bush for the country but I will not vote for Kerry because he's all cuddled up with the feminists and does not recognize any male issues. My protest vote is for Bush, not Nader.
Shouldn't we be systematically rating politicians on men's issues? What would it take to send a survey to each politician running for office asking them to rate their stance on our issues? Combine this with a little research on their voting records and we could possibly inform the public who is male-friendly and who isn't.
What the NY Times article doesn't say outright is that we can swing the presidential election if we flexed our political muscle. If we were unified, we could just as easily give the election to Kerry as we are denying it to him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""The only thing he hasn't done is sit down with a six-pack and chew tobacco with them," said Donna Brazile, a veteran Democratic strategist and Mr. Gore's campaign manager in 2000."
This bothered me quite a bit. Donna is black if I remember correctly. What if a white male strategist was commenting on a candidate trying to woo the black vote and said "The only thing he hasn't done is sit down with a bucket of fried chicken and listen to gangster rap music with them". That would be a national story, but she is only talking about white men, so what does it matter!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the football reference (I'm from Mass. and love the Pats!)
But anyways, that was a good call.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A great response, "Anonymous"; sums up the issues very well. But please get yourself a MANN ID, and sign your work, so we can know who we're talking with! "Anonymous" is for trolls.
And note the difference between "democrat" (generic term for anyone anywhere promoting "democracy," whose definition varies widely) and "Democrat" (member of or associated with the Democratic Party in U.S. politics). Your frequent use of "democrat" for "Democrat" confused your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philalethes,
email me at zenpriest@menforjustice.com - there is something I want to discuss with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I said basically the same thing, in fact I quoted you from this response, and here is what I got back from the board moderator -
"One or more of your posts have been removed from the message board. These posts were found to be derisive in nature and do not comply with the Town Meeting Rules: "Broadly stated, the goals of this forum are to further civil discussion of the issues we face as a Nation and John Kerry's positions on these issues. If your intention is to disrupt this discussion, or to deride or defame John Kerry, his staff, volunteers or the forum members you should not participate in this discussion site. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not post any material that is in violation of the forum rules."
Your posts will now need approval by a moderator before appearing on the message boards.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact a member of the Moderating Team.
Thank you,
The Moderating Team
--------------------
Let's reclaim our democracy! -- John Kerry 9/5/03
Strange idea of "democracy" and "free speech". Surreal, in fact. Kind makes his defense of the Patriot Act and saying it is basically fine and just needs "tweaking" make a lot more sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:25 PM May 26th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
>"cUt iT oUt yOu fEm!"
...'the Hell...?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Democrats cater to the female vote for the same reason that politicians wanted females to vote in the first place: it's a lot easier to appeal to emotional responses than to reason, and gives much more instant, reliable results.
And, of course, reason #2: unlike men ("real" men, not what passes for men these days), women instinctively expect to be taken care of, which is why the size and power of government has ballooned many times over since women began voting: as Warren Farrell pointed out, government is now the universal husband (and parent).
Republicans have been playing catch-up for 70 years, and by now have pretty well managed to out-democrat the Democrats on many issues, while retaining the unthinking macho vote (witness Men's News Daily, which makes me embarrassed to admit that I'm a man concerned with male issues) -- along with the penis-envy female crowd (again, see MND).
As Aristotle noted over 2000 years ago, a Republic will inevitably decline to Democracy, and from there swiftly collapse into Despotism.
It's amusing, if tiresome, how the feminists keep complaining about not having any political power, when current statistics show than not only is the general population over 50% female, but the number of women voters outnumbers the men. If significantly more women than men are voting, then by the definition of democracy what we now have must be exactly what women want!
On a related note, I recently heard a radio interview with Eve Ensler's verbose vagina on the New Dimensions program. Nauseating, but informative: worthwhile to hear exactly what the vaginas are thinking these days. You can check it out online at the ND site (link good until May 30).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Nauseating, but informative: worthwhile to hear
>exactly what the vaginas are thinking these days.
For some reason, the above statement made me ROTFL :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... as Dems = girls, Reps = boys, though that is how the press would have you believe, IMJ.
Truth is, neither party does much for men and both work actively against us as a class. I for one don't see why men would support the war in Iraq for example (OK, I know I am going to get all sorts of replies to this one!). If you look at the faces of the casualties, the vast majority of them are men, and for those who care about race, they also happen predominantly to be white. Supporting an effort that seems to get members of your class killed off, esp. when it isn't entirely clear for what they are dying (I for one don't buy the al-Queda connection theory; if anything Saddam was hated by al-Queda for NOT being a fellow-traveller of theirs), doesn't make much sense to me. The Bush administration, like the Clinton, like the first Bush, like the Reagan, like the Carter, etc., etc., does not care squat about the well-being of men but only cares about how they can be used "most effectively" by the state. Have they championed divorce and child custody reform? Not that I know of. Have they supported the right of men and citizens in general to be presumed innocent in ALL cases? Not that I can see. Have they demanded reform of the indefensible standards by which men are made to pay for children that are not theirs? Not at all. And on and on and on...
The Dems. and Reps. remain pretty much the same when it comes to men; they differ only on their notions of the best way to use men for their purposes. In this way they are no dufferent from their good buddies, the feminists. So-called gender fems and so-called equity fems are the same wolves in different clothing is all they are. They differ in their opiniosn of how best to use men. They don't for a moment view us as beings independent of their purposes.
That's why I don't like either version of them and the same reason I don't like either of our major political parties, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:51 PM May 27th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Mcc99.
You just made me realize something.
We men, We are TOOLS!
Okay, I know that was one for the "Duh" files.
Sometimes I'm a bit slow to catch on to things like that, But I DO get there eventually.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:04 PM May 27th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"So what's a candidate to do?"
"Still, campaign strategists from both parties agreed that there are other, better ways of appealing to white men, without turning off everyone else."
"Divide and conquer."
"Yet if Mr. Kerry tries to woo the testosterone crowd, he risks losing support from the party's base, including women and minorities,"
I will not criticize or praise either candidate here as I am dissatisfied with both candidates concerning men's issues, but I will say that (IMO) this is a hatefully racist article. What are minority men according to this author, eunuchs? Minority men face the same prejudices in family court, domestic violence law, paternity fraud, etc., that white men do, if not worse. This author is truly ignorant of men's issues and tries to compartmentalize men by race.
You don't see the woman's vote being talked about in the same divisive, racist way. This article points out how the racist, gender feminist news media works to divide men into groups and thereby conquer. My dad (a white guy) had a 7th grade education and worked manual labor his whole life. I might be one step ahead of him. The "privileged patriarchy" is a gender feminist lie sold by con artists in the media to keep men from having the togetherness they need to address their common issues. Men really need to keep on joining hands to fight the oppression that affects all of them across all racial lines.
Vote Men's rights, all men.
Ray
(click) Men and Boys Deserve Better
(click) Vote Men's Rights
(click) How Is Government Looking Out For Men's Rights
(click) Human Rights Atrocities
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
