Current Events > Young people are now overwhelmingly Republican. Is there any hope left for us?

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I just accepted the fact that people in general are stupid, poorly educated, have political apathy, and need someone to lead them by the nose. As for CE, they love to be as pessimistic as possible (while claiming to be realists), so take what they post with a grain of salt.

You know how easy it would be to flip things? Republicans flat out let you read their playbook but Democrats can't read or something. What's stopping Democrats from pretending they are super right wing so they can win seats in super red areas then just voting with Democrats?

People pay so little attention to what politicians actually do that all they gonna care about is that red R by their name. To the average voter elections are nothing more than a sports rivalry.

NO2_Fiend posted...

What's stopping Democrats from pretending they are super right wing so they can win seats in super red areas then just voting with Democrats?

The incumbent Republicans.

NO2_Fiend posted...

You know how easy it would be to flip things? Republicans flat out let you read their playbook but Democrats can't read or something. What's stopping Democrats from pretending they are super right wing so they can win seats in super red areas then just voting with Democrats?

People pay so little attention to what politicians actually do that all they gonna care about is that red R by their name. To the average voter elections are nothing more than a sports rivalry.

Many Democrats are just Republican lite.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This isnt true, and this goes into what I was saying on blowing off toxic women circles to shift blame all on men. Even when the conversation attempts to address some toxic women existing, often the conversation attempts to pivot away from that to get back to focusing on blaming men.

There's most definitely plenty of women circles ranging from social media, to articles to even local news segments that has some pretty toxic levels of things on what some women want.

Blowing those toxic ones off as non existent is part of the reason we are losing people.

A conversation that blows off actual complaints those men verbalize, pivoting conversations into acting like the very thought of a woman being toxic is a non issue, while jumping to blaming men or pivoting to blaming men, is a reason we are losing some.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Gotcha

Gladius_ posted...

Oh and.. the manosphere, as much as it is a problem, isn't as huge as everyone thinks it is. Most men are not evil, manosphere, women hating individuals.

Most male voters voted Trump, post-Roe overturn at that, so they at the least don't care very much about women.

I think the outlook is bleaker than acknowledged. I don't think manosphere kids are the worst. As said they mostly end up there by circunstance rather than by nature. Said circumstances could potentially be resolved at some point.

Other misogynists, however, may simply be that on a more fundamental level, and it's harder to identify what to change to fix that.

Honestly? It's a grave error to focus on the men lashing out over their massive lackings in life, at the bottom of the social totem pole with minimal actual power, as somehow being the prime example of societal misogyny, rather than instead reserving that for the many men with actual influence who are already treated quite well by women yet still seek to harm them seemingly as a matter of raw obligation.

Punching down is never really the answer. Oppression comes from the top.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/4/417ea19f.jpg
These numbers mathematically just don't make sense. How can the generic ballot for under-30s be somewhere between +10 and +25, but 18-21 be -11.7 and 22-29 be 6.4?

Millenials swinging right on that chart, too

Toonstrack posted...

Yea and thats the thing the lip service wasn't actually all wrong. But turns out, More emotionally vulnerable men might not get laughed out of the room but they certainly don't get respected, or approached romantically.

But even traditional aspects of sexuality expressed by men got vilified for a while. Im reminded of that infamous Gillette commercial where a dude is treated like he's doing something wrong just for trying to approach a girl walking by. The sentiment wasn't in the wrong place necesarly. But what message was trying to be sent here? What was a guy supposed to extract from that?

So essentially goes in both ways: Overmasculine men was already hated but emotionally senstive man is at very least not respected.

Its a long established trend of overcorrection that ends up biting the left in the rear in the end. It's happened a few times with other movements.

And for the average man this sudden shift right before the election tells them how they are only relevant for the party when votes starts being affected.

https://apnews.com/article/michigan-governor-gretchen-whitmer-young-men-e237387d0762e900f2dc7e38a1c49f7b

Well, now that the shift happened, they are talking about the issue.

Toonstrack posted...

Not to mention it's reliant on statistics that are heavily screwed by other sociological phenomenon, like fenale attacks on men going unreported, not beign reported as rapes, etc. Its just kinda a non starter all around, and if that's the sentiment that many on the left has then were not going to get anywhere.

You think that murders being done by 99% of men in every country we have data from is skewed by "sociological phenomenon"? Like all the women secretly killing men are just not discovered?

This is actually an example of what I was talking about with the we need to use kid gloves. You are unwilling to acknowledge a basic fact and instead want excuses. That's why we need grift to beat grift. No one is interested in facts, just whatever they believe will help them (which the left isn't remotely marketing effectively at the moment).

Honestly I am not worried this is still the "edgy" phase for most people before they are actually affected by the world. A lot of them will grow out of it and become more liberal for a while. And then will become more conservative again when they are much much older.

I hope.

Except for the last part.

Really when I that age I was a registered republican. Voted for Bush jr twice.

ssjevot posted...

You think that murders being done by 99% of men in every country we have data from is skewed by "sociological phenomenon"?

Yes. And that phenomenon isn't just women either.

This is actually an example of what I was talking about with the we need to use kid gloves. You are unwilling to acknowledge a basic fact and instead want excuses. That's why we need grift to beat grift. No one is interested in facts

Youre not interested in facts. 'Women are morally superior to men in general' is certainly not a fact. You're using very general stats to push a belief system that isn't based on... anything.

Toonstrack posted...

'Women are morally superior to men in general' is certainly not a fact.

Is that a claim they made?

SecretBase posted...

Most male voters voted Trump, post-Roe overturn at that, so they at the least don't care very much about women.

No? Combine the amount of dem voters and non voters and no, most did not vote Trump.

Toonstrack posted...

No? Combine the amount of dem voters and non voters and no, most did not vote Trump.

He said voters. Most male voters did vote for Trump. Exit polls suggest margins like 55-45

Antifar posted...

He said voters. Most male voters did vote for Trump. Exit polls suggest margins like 55-45

Toon would like to talk about non-voters in this conversation that was explicitly about voters, though.

Because that's the distraction du jour.

asdf8562 posted...

This isnt true, and this goes into what I was saying on blowing off toxic women circles to shift blame all on men. Even when the conversation attempts to address some toxic women existing, often the conversation attempts to pivot away from that to get back to focusing on blaming men.

There's most definitely plenty of women circles ranging from social media, to articles to even local news segments that has some pretty toxic levels of things on what some women want.

Blowing those toxic ones off as non existent is part of the reason we are losing people.

A conversation that blows off actual complaints those men verbalize, pivoting conversations into acting like the very thought of a woman being toxic is a non issue, while jumping to blaming men or pivoting to blaming men, is a reason we are losing some.

True. The way the left had to talk about men problem was almost with begrudging acceptance that they need help, or at very least their votes.

Which is why I don't buy focus into "its all grifters fault" argument that much. They contributed but it also a convenient excuse to dismiss what gave them power in the first place. They didn't force those men to watch their content strapped in chairs orange clockwork style, they took a spot the left didn't want to fill (talking about men) and capitalized on that. And when the left tries to talk with men, it sounds incredibly inauthentic.

I genuinely believe that these men doesn't like the right specifically, but just REALLY hate the left at this point. They felt that they were the acceptable punching bag of the media and the left culture and they bounced off.

Toonstrack posted...

Yes. And that phenomenon isn't just women either.

Youre not interested in facts. 'Women are morally superior to men in general' is certainly not a fact. You're using very general stats to push a belief system that isn't based on... anything.

I am saying when we play games pretending men suffer just as much from violence or sexual assault I have to use kid gloves because people like you will dismiss the actual facts. As you are doing right now. And pretend there is some vast anti-male conspiracy ("sociological phenomenon") that causes over 95% of all murder and rapes in every society on Earth (including hunter gather tribes studied by anthropologists, and the overall average is 98% of murders and 99% of rapes) to be committed by men.

You get personally offended and feel you must defend men by claiming actually women are just as bad. Which is again why we have to use kid gloves. So I am saying because of people like you we need to not talk about facts and coddle men so we can hopefully convince them not to vote for fascists (which again, is overwhelmingly men doing, gender divide for far right movements is always massively skewed toward men).

ssjevot posted...

(which again, is overwhelmingly men doing, gender divide for far right movements is always massively skewed toward men).

I disagree with this. The gender divide or whatever we want to call it spans from both men and women pushing some very toxic and archaic shit.

asdf8562 posted...

I disagree with this. The gender divide or whatever we want to call it spans from both men and women pushing some very toxic and archaic shit.

Find me a single far right part in history or in the modern world that was voted in by women (not even a majority, just 50% will be fine). I'll wait.

ssjevot posted...

Find me a single far right part in history or in the modern world that was voted in by women (not even a majority, just 50% will be fine). I'll wait.

This has absolutely nothing to what I specifically said I disagree to.

Pivoting to that at all is another part of the problem why we are losing people. All it's doing it's painting yet again this message that, "men bad" then wondering why we are losing them.

You claimed this divide, for the lack of a better word, is mostly on men, and used that to claim that's why they are shifting right. Im saying I disagree with the premise this divide as you say, is mostly or only because of men.

There is plenty of toxic content ranging from articles, to news segments, to social media with women pushing misandry, and sexist things at men as well. Some not even realizing it's sexist. Some with content blaming men for things they didnt even do, because some other guy did something bad. Or the added cherry on top of belittling men who dare to express how they feel in the messaging.

One of the easiest low hanging fruit that has plenty of examples is the dating scene. I think you and I agree men have their toxicity in the dating market. However when it comes to toxic women in the market, that conversation across many platforms takes a backseat even on national television which often shifts to acting like only some men are pushing toxic things. Even the conversation itself does a terrible job at not generalizing all men, just because you cant point at an actual bad man.

All in all, that type of stuff is also driving men into the arms of the right.

I already said I agree with that. I am literally saying we need to coddle men and treat them with kid gloves because taking about facts hurts their feelings and makes them support far right movements. That's what I have been saying the whole time.

Yeah I have been noticing in a lot of these discussions people are basically forced to start every sentence with a disclaimer on how they dont hate men to even approach the topic.

Even on reddit I see some criticisms being met by this is why the left is losing men like do they need to be handled like fragile things? Give people more credit.

ssjevot posted...

I already said I agree with that. I am literally saying we need to coddle men and treat them with kid gloves because taking about facts hurts their feelings and makes them support far right movements. That's what I have been saying the whole time.

Im saying just even saying stuff like coddle or kid gloves is part of the problem as well.

Would it be ok for a man to say a woman needs to be coddled or treated like a child if he did something misogynist or sexist to her? Ofc not. So ok the flipside if a woman does something misandrist or sexist to a man, the response shouldn't be "a man needs to be coddled."

My favorite goto is the dating scene since there plenty of examples to pull from on toxic content in both camps..... hence the dating scene for both men and women. I'd argue much of the divide as we are calling it, can be found there.

My point being is that we are losing men for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is yes, it's not just men doing toxic things or victims to toxic sexist things. When they attempt to voice those struggles of being a victim of double standards or misandry.... jumping to "he needs to be coddled" or "he must secretly hate women" is not the way to win them over.

asdf8562 posted...

There is plenty of toxic content ranging from articles, to news segments, to social media with women pushing misandry, and sexist things at men as well. Some not even realizing it's sexist. Some with content blaming men for things they didnt even do, because some other guy did something bad. Or the added cherry on top of belittling men who dare to express how they feel in the messaging.

What is the solution you have in mind for articles and social media posters you disagree with online?

Like, there's a step missing for me in a lot of this discussion where Men are voting against Kamala Harris because Jezebel published something they didn't like. That's not a political problem Democrats can solve.

asdf8562 posted...

Im saying just even saying stuff like coddle or kid gloves is part of the problem as well.

If a woman does something misandrist or sexist to a man, the response shouldn't be "a man needs to be coddled." We it be ok for a man to say a woman needs to be coddled or treated like a child if he did something misogynist or sexist to her?

My point being is that we are losing men for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is yes, it's not just men doing toxic things or victims to toxic sexist things. When they attempt to voice those struggles of being a victim of double standards or misandry.... jumping to "he needs to be coddled" or "he must secretly hate women" is not the way to win them over.

I am not saying addressing legitimate concerns requires coddling or kid gloves, but the truth is that's not the issue. They don't want to hear about the reality of violence against women. They want to suggest actually it's just as bad for men, there's just a societal conspiracy against them. We got a great example of it right in this topic. It's not that we can't address men's problems, it's that we also have to downplay the reality of the situation for women.

To borrow an article from another topic for a moment:
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/andrew-tate-phenomena-surges-in-schools-with-boys-refusing-to-talk-to-female-teacher-13351203

Andrew Tate was referenced by a number of teachers who took part in the survey, who said he had negative influence on male pupils.
One teacher said she'd had 10-year-old boys "refuse to speak to [her]...because [she is] a woman".
Another teacher said "the Andrew Tate phenomena had a huge impact on how [pupils at an all-boys school] interacted with females and males they did not see as 'masculine'".
While another respondent to the survey said their school had experienced some incidents of "derogatory language towards female staff...as a direct result of Andrew Tate videos".

Granting that this is fairly anecdotal evidence from another country, but it leaves me skeptical that like, dating app disparities are really at the root of the problem here.

Antifar posted...

What is the solution you have in mind for articles and social media posters you disagree with online?

Like, there's a step missing for me in a lot of this discussion where Men are voting against Kamala Harris because Jezebel published something they didn't like. That's not a political problem Democrats can solve.

I actually agree with Gradius on educating everyone more.

There is no fast and easy solution if that's what you are asking me though.

ssjevot posted...

I am not saying addressing legitimate concerns requires coddling or kid gloves, but the truth is that's not the issue. They don't want to hear about the reality of violence against women. They want to suggest actually it's just as bad for men, there's just a societal conspiracy against them. We got a great example of it right in this topic. It's not that we can't address men's problems, it's that we also have to downplay the reality of the situation for women.

No, you are displaying exactly what Im talking about in this endeavor to generalize all because of one. For starters this is not just about violence against women. Nevermind not all of them actually want violence against women. That generalization that they all do isnt doing us favors to pull them away from the right. The fact that any time this topic is brought up, the goto is Andrew Tate, is exactly part of the problem. As it is incorrect to assume all of them follow or like Tate. Its like the goto distraction to pivot away from any struggle a man brings up ij these types of topics.

Second, your answer to a man voicing a struggle should not be to jump to "women struggle too" essentially blowing off he went through a struggle. You speak of this gender war, and dont quite understand it's that type of response is also causing it. If a man gets raped, going to the man to say, "well women get raped too" is a shitty response that doesnt address he just got taped. All it does it did was blew him off. Blowing someone's struggles off with responses like that just rushes that person off into the arms of someone who is perceived to do a better job at actually acknowledging that person's struggle.

Antifar posted...

To borrow an article from another topic for a moment:
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/andrew-tate-phenomena-surges-in-schools-with-boys-refusing-to-talk-to-female-teacher-13351203

Granting that this is fairly anecdotal evidence from another country, but it leaves me skeptical that like, dating app disparities are really at the root of the problem here.

There's only one way to address this. The Democratic Party needs to fund a Romanian sex pest Youtuber who believes in liberalism.

asdf8562 posted...

I actually agree with Gradius on educating everyone more.

There is no fast and easy solution if that's what you are asking me though.

No, you are displaying exactly what Im talking about in this endeavor to generalize all because of one. For starters this is not just about violence against women. Nevermind not all of them actually want violence against women. That generalization that they all do isnt doing is favors to pull them away from the right. The fact that anyone time this topic is brought up, the goto is Andrew Tate, is exactly part of the problem. As it is incorrect to assume all of them follow or like Tate.

Second, your answer to a man voicing a struggle should not be to jump to "women struggle too" essentially blowing off he went through a struggle. You speak of this gender war, and dont quite understand it's that type of response is also causing it. If a man gets raped, going to the man to say, "well women get raped too" is a shitty response that doesnt address he just got taped. All it does it did was blew him off. Blowing someone's struggles off with responses like that just rushes that person off into the arms of someone who is perceived to do a better job at actually acknowledging that person's struggle.

I am agreeing with you. What are you not understanding? I am saying we cannot talk about women's problems to men and need to bite our tongues about the reality of women's struggles because most people will only be convinced by self-interest, not moral arguments. The entire problem with the messaging is it's based on the idea men just don't know violence against women is bad or the reality of how much it occurs. The truth is most just don't care and want to know what we will do for them specifically.

ssjevot posted...

I am agreeing with you. What are you not understanding? I am saying we cannot talk about women's problems to men and need to bite our tongues about the reality of women's struggles because most people will only be convinced by self-interest, not moral arguments. The entire problem with the messaging is it's based on the idea men just don't know violence against women is bad or the reality of how much it occurs. The truth is most just don't care and want to know what we will do for them specifically.

To be frank, I agree with Gradius position on just educating people, and being tactful on that education. Circling back to your post...., where we disagree is calling it coddling. I also dont necessarily agree with the idea that we shouldn't talk about women struggles to men.

We should educate both men and women struggles. I think much of these struggles of men and women especially in the dating world is this oxymoron duality of cherry picked modernity and cherry picked traditionalism. I like to often focus on the dating market just because I think that's where a lot of these "gender wars" come from with both genders having issues in the dating world or relationships.

Regardless, a response to a struggle shouldnt be to bring up the opposite gender as a rebuttal, or say one needs coddling, or assume some nefarious thing because X bad person exists "so you kust be the same." Like, acting like some women arent pushing misandry and sexist demands on men... and if a man dares to voice that struggle he must hate women, or be a Tate fan, or think women dont matter.

We are not going to win these people back with that type of response and generalization to all men who dare to voice their struggle.

asdf8562 posted...

To be frank, I agree with Gradius position on just educating people, and being tactful on that education. Circling back to your post...., where we disagree is calling it coddling. I also dont necessarily agree with the idea that we shouldn't talk about women struggles to men.

We should educate both men and women struggles. I think much of these struggles of men and women especially in the dating world is this oxymoron duality of cherry picked modernity and cherry picked traditionalism. I like to often focus on the dating market just because I think that's where a lot of these "gender wars" come from with both genders having issues in the dating world or relationships.

Regardless, a response to a struggle shouldnt be to bring up the opposite gender as a rebuttal, or say one needs coddling, or assume some nefarious thing because X bad person exists "so you kust be the same." Like, acting like some women arent pushing misandry and sexist demands on men... and if a man dares to voice that struggle he must hate women, or be a Tate fan, or think women dont matter.

We are not going to win these people back with that type of response and generalization to all men who dare to voice their struggle.

Let me try and explain using another example. Remember Black Lives Matter? Remember the All Lives Matter response? Black Lives Matter definitely caused racial resentment and white people to vote for Trump, because it wasn't actually about All Lives Mattering, they just don't care about Black Lives. And these stats show black people are being disproportionately killed by police, but it doesn't matter. If you tell white people that many of them just get mad and want to vote right to get back at them (go to any right wing space, they hate BLM and the protests even now, can't stop whining about them). The Men Struggle Too shit is like All Lives Matter but way worse, because white people getting killed by police is actually a pretty decent percentage of police killings, unlike rapes and murders committed by women.

So that's why I call it kid gloves and coddling. It's the same shit here. They don't want to hear about others struggles, only what you can do for them and that fucking sucks because I don't want to pretend these groups are remotely facing the same struggles, but we are being forced to.

ssjevot posted...

Let me try and explain using another example. Remember Black Lives Matter? Remember the All Lives Matter response? Black Lives Matter definitely caused racial resentment and white people to vote for Trump, because it wasn't actually about All Lives Mattering, they just don't care about Black Lives. And these stats show black people are being disproportionately killed by police, but it doesn't matter. If you tell white people that many of them just get mad and want to vote right to get back at them (go to any right wing space, they hate BLM and the protests even now, can't stop whining about them). The Men Struggle Too shit is like All Lives Matter but way worse, because white people getting killed by police is actually a pretty decent percentage of police killings, unlike rapes and murders committed by women.

So that's why I call it kid gloves and coddling. It's the same shit here. They don't want to hear about others struggles, only what you can do for them and that fucking sucks because I don't want to pretend these groups are remotely facing the same struggles, but we are being forced to.

No.... it's not. Like at all....

Men talking about specifically men struggles, sexism against men, and misandry against men are actual real issues that many men face every day. Misandry, that based off your type of responses, it's being dismissed or downplayed as not really happening all that much. I keep going back to the dating/relationship scene in particular since it has so many examples to go off of. With misandry and misogny content for days about men and women. On men in specific, theres plenty of misandry and sexist ideals towards men that many dont even realize they are doing it because they just expect those things as the norm in society. Yes, many of that from women, not just men.

The fact that you are comparing it to All Lives Matters and pivoting it to that as if men are bringing up men issues as if it's a non issue or trivial issue that men hardly face is exactly the kind of stuff Im talking about ushering these people away.

These people are looking for an outlet that actually aims to understand or at the very least acknowledge men do actually go through real misandry, sexism and double standards without the kind of rhetoric you are giving that dismiss them.

You want to talk about women issues, Im not saying dont talk about that. However, that shouldn't be your goto response if a man has the audacity to voice misandry and double standards against men. Just like rightfully it be crazy for a man to rebuttal a women voicing something she's specifically going through in a specific discussion with, "Oh you need coddling. Men go through things."

DrizztLink posted...

Toon would like to talk about non-voters in this conversation that was explicitly about voters, though.

Because that's the distraction du jour.

Distraction from what lol? I dont need a distraction from a point im trying to draw attention to.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I don't think 10 year olds should be using using cellphones without any supervision, let alone going rightwing, manosphere channels.

I don't understand why you using this as an example about men feeling left out using an news about kids falling into grift.

asdf8562 posted...

You want to talk about women issues, Im not saying dont talk about that. However, that shouldn't be your goto response if a man has the audacity to voice misandry and double standards against men. Just like rightfully it be crazy for a man to rebuttal a women voicing something she's specifically going through ij a specific discussion with, "Oh you need coddling. Men go through things."

I'm not doing that though. I'm saying take their issues seriously and don't talk about women's issues, but I am under no illusion that they actually give a shit about women's issues, because they wouldn't be voting for and listening to literal rapists who promote violence against women and taking their rights away. Like give me a break. It absolutely is coddling and kids gloves, because these people are a joke. I agree we need to market ourselves better to them, but I disagree that they're just good people left astray by mean leftists talking about reality. They literally do not care about women's issues. They don't.

These people are losers, and voting for right wingers isn't going to make them any less of a loser. In fact, it'll make them bigger losers, because right wingers love to bully their kind.

ssjevot posted...

I am saying when we play games pretending men suffer just as much from violence or sexual assault I have to use kid gloves because people like you will dismiss the actual facts. As you are doing right now. And pretend there is some vast anti-male conspiracy ("sociological phenomenon") that causes over 95% of all murder and rapes in every society on Earth (including hunter gather tribes studied by anthropologists, and the overall average is 98% of murders and 99% of rapes) to be committed by men.

Saying "I believe women are superior morally in general" is kid gloves? Its not a competition on who has it worse, you're missing the point.

The point is that this goes back to the crime stats comparison. It leads nowhere. Yes, more men do the bad stuff statistically. And? What solution am I supposed to extrapolate from that exactly? Men are here, they are people, they exist. Are you suggesting we disregard them entirely in the progressive space? Cuz it reaaaaally sounds like that would be your preference if it were possible.

You get personally offended and feel you must defend men by claiming actually women are just as bad. Which is again why we have to use kid gloves.

Lets be realistic, the kid gloves are not for me. The kid gloves are so your viewpoint on this looks less asinine than it actually is. I never said anything about it beign just as bad for women. What I said was this statistic is pointless unless your aim is to disqualify an entire swath of people from the table.

ssjevot posted...

I'm not doing that though. I'm saying take their issues seriously and don't talk about women's issues, but I am under no illusion that they actually give a shit about women's issues, because they wouldn't be voting for and listening to literal rapists who promote violence against women and taking their rights away. Like give me a break. It absolutely is coddling and kids gloves, because these people are a joke. I agree we need to market ourselves better to them, but I disagree that they're just good people left astray by mean leftists talking about reality. They literally do not care about women's issues. They don't.

And Im saying take men issues seriously, take women issues seriously. Don't address or rebuttal either sides issues by dismissing the other or bringing up the other. (You mentioned gender wars, but dont see how bringing up the opposite gender as a rebuttal to someone's struggles as fanning that flame?)

Unfortunately the right is doing a better job at apealing to those men and their struggle. The rhetoric in your post alone is ushering them away as it's not one of taking men issues seriously. It screams dismissal and belittling they even have issues given you compared it to All Lives Matter. You say reality, but ignore the reality of misandry, double standards and sexism they face that, and wanting an outlet to actually acknowledging that. Theres expectations on men that some dont even realize its sexist. With the rebuttal to men pointing those things out from some being complete dismissal, antagonistic, nefarious assumptions of hating women, or putting all blame on men.

One issue voters arent a new concept. We have one issue voters who thought he was going to fix the economy too. If you actually want to win those people back, we need to unfortunately tap into that.

You wonder why we are losing these people. That is why. The right is currently doing a better job at acknowledging (in messaging) men issues that many in reality do face everyday, that many dont even acknowledge is even a struggle/sexism/misandry. Or rhetoric that tends to be centered on, "men bad, women good" or it's all on men to fix.

You will say that's not what you are trying to say, but the things you are saying comes off as exactly that. And when it's voiced it's coming off that way, it's dismissed, which again is part of the problem. The assumption that all of them hate women, or love Tate for having the audacity to voice their struggle, not felt heard, so they run to a party (misguided as it is) where they feel heard.

012yArthur0 posted...

I don't think 10 year olds should be using using cellphones without any supervision, let alone going rightwing, manosphere channels.

I don't understand why you using this as an example about men feeling left out using an news about kids falling into grift.

Its subtly painting the entire male gender as beign susceptible to this influence, inherently.

Getting told what ten year olds do as an example of how men behave in social political circles ... its kinda wild. And Its baffling to me that no one typing this stuff is perceiving the implications of what they are saying.

asdf8562 posted...

And Im saying take men issues seriously, take women issues seriously. Don't address or rebuttal either sides issues by dismissing the other.

Unfortunately the right is doing a better job at that for men. The rhetoric in your post alone is ushering them away as it's not one of taking men issues seriously. It screams dismissal and belittling they even have issues given you compared it to All Lives Matter. You say reality, but ignore the reality of misandry, double standards and sexism they face that, and wanting an outlet to actually acknowledging that. Your rhetoric, like some others here does not do that.

One issue voters arent a new concept. We have one issue voters who thought he was going to fix the economy too.

You wonder why we are losing these people. That is why. The right is currently doing a better job at acknowledging men issues that many in reality do face everyday, that many dont even acknowledge is even a struggle/sexism/misandry. Or rhetoric that tends to be centered on, "men bad, women good."

You will say that's not what you are trying to say, but the things you are saying comes off as exactly that. And when it's voiced it's coming off that way, it's dismissed, which again is part of the problem. The assumption that all of them hate women, or love Tate for having the audacity to voice their struggle, not felt heard, so they run to a party (misguided as it is) where they feel heard.

Youre spelling it out so clearly, a child could understand it.

"They all dont care about women" lmao.

The user is *clearly* a misandrist themselves, not even hiding it at this point, and literal 10 year old boys are being used as evidence of this. Like I truly don't know how else I'm supposed to read these comments as anything other than misandry.

Toonstrack posted...

Distraction from what lol? I dont need a distraction from a point im trying to draw attention to.

Swing and a miss on the reading comprehension, as per the usual.