HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » Top five ways to bring me...

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 10:59 AM

 

Top five ways to bring men back to the party

54% of men voted for Romney. This is a problem to be solved, not a validation of Democratic tactics.

1) Create a White House Office of Men's health. Men die younger of every preventable cause in part because 30% less is spent on their care. Men deserve equal consideration in this regard, like the WH office of Women's Health provides.

2) A fathers advocacy office in the department of Civil Rights to evaluate and enforce the civil rights of fathers in family courts.

3) Enforcement of immigration law. H1B visas are limited by law at 65,000, yet 820,000 were issued in 2012. In a country that only employs 1.5 million engineers, this is ridiculous. The purpose of promoting foreign workers and tolerating illegal ones is to lower wages, and it hits men and their families hardest. The below graphic illustrates what has happened to men's wages in the last four decades.


4) Create a White House council for Men and Boys. The first task of this group would be to understand why boys are disproportionately disciplined, given poor grades despite better test scores, drop out of High School and fail to graduate from college. In short, to understand why education is failing them and fix it.

5) Eliminate Draft registration. If men don't register for the draft, they are ineligible to apply for student aid to attend college. It's a barrier that is both discriminatory and pointless. The kind of conflict which would require an immediate draft would be over in four days.

Bonus: Adopt a constitutional amendment which says; Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

43 replies, 4020 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply Top five ways to bring men back to the party (Original post)
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 OP
Inkfreak Apr 2014 #1
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #2
Inkfreak Apr 2014 #3
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #7
CreekDog Apr 2014 #12
rrneck Apr 2014 #16
rrneck Apr 2014 #5
Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #39
rrneck Apr 2014 #4
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #6
Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #40
westerebus Apr 2014 #8
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #9
westerebus Apr 2014 #10
CreekDog Apr 2014 #11
Major Nikon Apr 2014 #13
CreekDog Apr 2014 #14
Major Nikon Apr 2014 #15
CreekDog Apr 2014 #17
Major Nikon Apr 2014 #18
CreekDog Apr 2014 #19
Major Nikon Apr 2014 #23
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #24
CreekDog Apr 2014 #26
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #27
Boom Sound 416 Apr 2014 #20
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #21
CreekDog Apr 2014 #22
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #28
CreekDog Apr 2014 #30
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #32
Boom Sound 416 Apr 2014 #25
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #29
Boom Sound 416 Apr 2014 #31
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #33
Major Nikon Apr 2014 #34
CreekDog Apr 2014 #35
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #36
CreekDog Apr 2014 #37
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #38
bettyellen May 2014 #41
Darkhawk32 May 2014 #42
lumberjack_jeff May 2014 #43

Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 11:31 AM

1. It's a weird thing

that this OP is met with scorn and derision by some here. Surely these are not outlandish MRA ideas. I personally love #4. Males from ages 17-25ish seem to be rudderless a great deal. It's that odd time in our lives when we don't have everything figured out. Lots of us have no direction and in many cases, no one to reel us in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Inkfreak (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 11:33 AM

2. Given the alternatives, I prefer dealing with the consequences of telling the truth. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 11:41 AM

3. I enjoy your posts. Always read em.

And your viewpoints always give me pause to think. Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Inkfreak (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 07:06 PM

7. Thanks

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 11:51 AM

12. i don't think your post was good at all

there's only one group of men that vote majority against the party

white men.

screwing over every other group in the country to get these guys back is not my idea of a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 12:41 PM

16. You don't have to screw over every other goup in the country to court the white male vote. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 11:59 AM

5. Hear hear. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 25, 2014, 08:54 PM

39. Agreed. And one issue to lose: Gun control.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 11:58 AM

4. I can get behind some of these more than others.

One of the more important political problems we face in this country is the confusion of culture war advocacy and economic parity. I think it divides us unnecessarily and opens the electorate to ideological profiteering. So, in the case of an Office of Men's Health a well designed health care system that properly serves everyone regardless of who they are would serve as a much more worthy and unifying objective than the creation of a federal agency designed to advocate for any particular group.

The same would hold true for any initiative that seeks to protect the rights of workers whether they are male or female. If too many H1B visas are being issued, properly regulating that process would benefit both male and female engineers, even though most engineers are probably male.

If there is a disparity that is directly associated with gender, as in the case of civil court and educational issues, then we can direct resources for the solution of those problems. Of course the solutions to those problems may conflict with current ideologies regarding gender that may have become entrenched and significantly less effective since their inception.

When it comes to draft registration I would like to see it expanded to everyone rather than eliminated. And I wouldn't mind a bit if some sort of national service were instituted. I think it would be a fine idea if a college education were offered free of charge in exchange for two years of national service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 01:54 PM

6. This is primarily a political manifesto, not a policy one.

 

I think that this represents a subset of policy goals that would improve the lives of men, but are in no way complete.

Most imported cheap labor is directed toward predominately male occupations. That's why it's a bigger political issue for men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 25, 2014, 09:00 PM

40. Not sure of the institutional response, but you are right

 

about the de facto importation of "cheap labor:" It kicks the slats out of mens' wages and job opportunities. Settle the immigration questions equitably, and men will look more favorably at the Democratic Party, or see a point in voting at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 08:20 PM

8. I'm not so sure.

I think it's more to do with people simply becoming distrustful of the current political organizations. Either party has 20-25% of the vote depending on location. It's the unaffiliated, the independents that swing elections.

I just do not see many of the men I know joining or rejoining the Democratic Party. Those who were in have moved to the independent side of the rooster. Some remain and will vote the party line or stay home if they do not like the state of affairs.

The republican men I know are mostly anti-tax pro gun and for the most part don't care about social issues. Then there's the true crazy that are the edge that gets the most attention and are the faux news believers. They will never come over.

So what's left are the independents. What's their concern? JOBS. Jobs that pay decent wages. Jobs that a man can do that takes care of his family. That may sound sexist to some people, but, it is what it is.

There is nothing equitable in a capitalistic economic system. Men have born the brunt of job losses and job displacement for the last half a century.

The party that puts up the person who's willing to go all in to turn this economy into the powerhouse it can be will get the votes of men.

The question to ask is did men vote for R-money because of his social values? Or just because he was a rich white guy? I'd bet rich white guy is the answer.

While the 46% of us who did vote Obama may have thought we are not going to make the mistake that was made when Jimmy Carter was dumped for a slickster named Raygun. I'm sure there are many other reasons to have voted Obama to a second term, his economic policy is not one of them IMO.

All that said, I do think starting with ending the draft for males in this country is a stepping stone in the right direction. Gender equality is a major major plus.

The rest is proof positive that lifting up both genders in terms of health, economics and general welfare ensures benefits for all which remains the goal of progressive thinkers.

It is and will never be a zero sum game when addressing gender issues which require we share equally in the responsibility and benefits that would make life that much better for everyone.

thanks for listening..


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to westerebus (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 02:39 PM

9. The unspoken presumption here is that men are not motivated by self interest.

 

I think that view is overstated, but to the extent that it is true, it is a problem. We should advocate for ourselves.

Men who fail do do anything about the interests of men for fear of being labeled crybabies are sentencing their sons to live on the same trendline that they have.

Re; Rmoney; I think that a lot of men were convinced of the idea that people with the werewithal to make themselves filthy rich somehow have the skills and inclination to make the [strike]working[/strike] err "middle" class prosper.

I think that the "welfare queen"/"society of takers"/"socialism" argument gets traction because, with the exception of unemployment and workmens' compensation/disability insurance (both of which are under assault by budget cutters) men in general don't get much help. During the depression, a great deal of the policy action that "the party of the working man" took was explicitly to get men back on their feet. This, combined with the repeal of prohibition, brought men to the party in huge numbers.

Which suggest a #7 on my list "of five". Repeal the federal prohibition on pot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 07:02 PM

10. It is strange.

How one group of adherents to their gender's cause are so adamantly disagreeable about the other gender's insistence that their issues have a place at the table too.

Considering they are supported both on specific issues and in general by both genders of progressive thinking individuals, who have repeatedly and publicly stated their support in favor of equality for both genders.

How does one come away with less if both are equal?

Ah! Some are more equal than others!

Number 7 for the win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 11:49 AM

11. black men haven't left the Democratic party at all, what are you talking about?

neither have hispanic men.

sounds like white men have left the party. and that was because the party supported broad civil rights legislation to protect women and minorities.

if you want to roll back those protections, then maybe you'll get the white men back.

as a white male myself, i refuse to condone discrimination (that the party sacrificed its majorities to end) in order to win an election.

but that's me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 12:35 PM

13. Actually the disparity is greater for those groups

56% of white women voted for Romney vs 62% of white men = 6%
3% of black women voted for Romney vs 11% of black men = 8%
23% of Latino women voted for Romney vs 33% of Latino men = 10%

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 12:37 PM

14. so what



you're going to change the party because 11% of black men voted for the other party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 12:41 PM

15. You seem to think it's a zero sum game

Attracting male voters doesn't mean you have to alienate female voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 12:44 PM

17. you're changing the subject, if you're not going to stick with the point you made

what's the point of continuing the discussion with you?

in a thread about changing the party to attract male voters, i pointed out that minority male voters are already in support, strongly in fact.

then you pointed out, but not as strongly as women, ok that's true, but they are still in such strong support that it doesn't suggest changing anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 12:54 PM

18. Turning a thread about male voters into a thread about minority voters isn't changing the subject?

Pot meet kettle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:10 PM

19. you'd rather just talk about white voters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:41 PM

23. I'd rather talk about male voters

Since this is the men's group. If you want to make it about something else, then start your own thread somewhere else. I was generous enough to entertain your obvious derailment of this conversation, and even showed how the party is losing male voters at an even higher rate in the very groups you mentioned. The Democratic party platform changes every single election, and why is this? Because the party is trying to attract various demographics. So it's not even an issue of whether the Democratic party has to change. It can and will change just as it has every single presidential election since Democrats have been Democrats. Regardless of what you think, 33% of the male Hispanic vote is no small potatoes, especially when you consider the reason Texas and other majority minority states in the Southwest are so largely due to that demographic. So sure, minority votes most certainly do matter, but alleging that the Democratic party can't go after both minority and male votes simultaneously is just silly. Furthermore the Democratic party already does cater to the white vote far more than to the minority vote, it's just they are still head and shoulders above the alternative.

This is not GD. We maintain a civil atmosphere here. If you want to make your nonsensical veiled accusations of racism, then I'm going to invite you to do so somewhere else. This is getting old very quick. Gender issues =/ minority issues. Two different subjects. As you say, there's little point in continuing the conversation if you're so intent on changing it, especially when you appear to be intent on doing so just to be disruptive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:42 PM

24. Consciously conceding the votes of the majority of voters is bad strategy.

 

Particularly when they could be attracted with legitimately progressive policy solutions (or at least they'd be considered progressive if applied to any other group).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:46 PM

26. then why are you doing it?

when you cede female voters and minority voters, you're ceding a vast majority of voters in favor of appealing to white men.

even when you cede just female voters, you're ceding the majority of voters in favor of appealing to just white men.

you already have female voters overall, and both male and female minority voters.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #26)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:47 PM

27. I'm doing no such thing. Period. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:26 PM

20. What do you think happens to the created White House offices

 

When a republican occupies the WH?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boom Sound 416 (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:38 PM

21. All the more reason that Republicans should not win. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:40 PM

22. so you'd support creation of an office of women and girls?

why not just parents and children?

one office, mothers, fathers, daughters and sons are included.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #22)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:49 PM

28. I don't have to support it, it's already there.

 

But I do support the party that created it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:52 PM

30. so you don't support it, but you want one for men and boys created anyway

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #30)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 02:03 PM

32. I wouldn't fully support either without the other.

 

I dislike asymmetric policy.

The Major has been fairly clear about this. Let me add; If you want to discuss the topic, feel free. If you want to attack us personally, take it elsewhere.

The OP is about how to attract male voters. If your opinion in that regard is that, as a matter of principle we shouldn't, then you really don't have anything to add to the topic, or in fact the group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:42 PM

25. Granted.

 

But you see where I'm going with that. Maybe it's more of a party initiative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boom Sound 416 (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:51 PM

29. The next Republican president won't eliminate the office of women and girls.

 

Nor will they eliminate the office of Women's Health.

Would they eliminate the analagous men's agencies? Maybe, maybe not, but I find it a ridiculous and defeatist argument to avoid doing anything good because some republican is just going to come along next year and screw it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 02:03 PM

31. That's fair

 

My point is not so much an elimination, but a re-direct of purpose.

I guess all agencies/offices are subject to that possibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boom Sound 416 (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 05:52 PM

33. And I'd like to add that if a Republican does come along next year and screw it up...

 

... it serves the political purpose just fine. Alienating men from the Republican party is just as good as attracting men to this one.

The worst case scenario from the perspective of men and election success is that Republicans do this and Democrats undo it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 08:44 PM

34. There may never be another Republican president

The GOP is very quickly becoming a regional party.

As I pointed out upthread, 33% of Latino men vote with the GOP. These are numbers the Democrats should have in the bag, but don't. The next Democratic party nominee will also probably not be black, which means there's a pretty good chance a higher percentage of black men will migrate to the GOP as well. Democrats ignore the male demographic at their own peril.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Tue Apr 22, 2014, 02:19 PM

35. the majority of voters are women

maybe you haven't thought this out as well as you think you have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #35)

Tue Apr 22, 2014, 03:16 PM

36. Married women vote like their husbands.

 

I occasionally receive suggestions to think things through more carefully. Sometimes the advice is good, sometimes bad.

... but never from a more improbable source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #36)

Tue Apr 22, 2014, 03:46 PM

37. you're saying that when your wife chooses a candidate you don't just go along with that?

interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 22, 2014, 05:44 PM

38. 51% of married women voted for Romney. 61% of single women voted for Obama.

 

Married men backed Romney by 54-39 percent over Obama. Unmarried men backed Obama by 54-35 percent.
Women who have never been married, live with a partner or are divorced, separated or widowed backed the Democrat by 61-30 percent, and married women favored Romney by 51-41 percent over Obama, according to the data.


In other words, roughly one-third of democratic women change to republican when they marry.

Outreach to young men will pay dividends in that they are half as likely to abandon the party and may potentially erode that marriage gap among women.

The marriage gap is nearly 3 times as big as the gender gap in voting and part of the reason is our failure to connect with men.

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon1116kh.html
http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2012/10/24/married-v-unmarried-could-be-the-new-election-gender-gap/

And yes, if she has some particular insight into a candidate, I value her opinion. I know that the reverse is also true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Fri May 9, 2014, 11:02 AM

41. Jobs, jobs, jobs, reforming immigration laws and jobs.

 

I have never heard from men that they are not getting enough health care. I don't see it as a vote getter. Compartively, the availabilty of womens reproductive health care is scandalous.
Not sure why you would ignore the economic side, jobs are #1 and that is with all voters. More bang for the buck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 06:22 PM

42. Number two is just so spot-on. No place is more discriminatory than the typical family court. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darkhawk32 (Reply #42)

Wed May 28, 2014, 06:37 PM

43. Thanks. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread