If we talk to young men with empathy, and honesty and allow them to use their energy to fight the power in the way that THEY know how? This is where Leftists and Democrats specifically can easily make waves.
…
Young men know when they are being patronized, and they know all too well when they are being looked down upon. This is how you lose them. You have to see them face to face.
Young men know when they are being patronized,
Clearly they do not, as they voted in droves for the most patronizing, lying asshole I’ve ever seen. Trump talked to them like they’re fucking morons and they ate it up and begged for more.
Why Democrats won’t build their own Joe Rogan
This is… a interesting statement
The Democrats had a Joe Rogan, his name was JOE ROGAN… Joe Rogan ENDORSED Bernie Sanders for president.
Not doing the show was clearly a mistake at this point. Branding him as extreme right doesn’t seem to be working either.
“Doesn’t seem to be qorking?”
It’s a statement of fact. Rogan’s politics are clearly far right. This isn’t even debatable unless you’ve fallen for the lie that his views somehow represent the “middle” because he at times gives token criticism of some Republicans, too.
Joe is a good example that even simple people are complex and don’t really fit into simple left right schema.
Only because Bernie was pushed on useful idiots as a useful vote-splitter that benefitted Trump
And then, (like the author in this article continued to do), they vilified all men, and specifically white men.
And they wonder why they can’t attract men?
Bernie is a Socialist Democrat, not a DNC Democrat.
Left isn’t going to win young men until they give up or modernize their identity politics. It’s not the 70s anymore. Young men have been falling behind for over a decade at this point, and it’s been completely ignored.
What do think “identity politics” is?
You seem to be asking a leading question where you assume they’re against identity politics when they actually said they need to modernize their identity politics.
give up or modernize their identity politics
This implies it’s something bad, either entirely or in it’s current form. But i’ve never heard two people use the term in the same way, I’ve never heard anyone define it, and I’ve never seen anyone defend its use.
This implies it’s something bad
No it doesn’t. It implies only what it says, that their specific use of identity politics is out of date.
Sociological reductionism. Intersectionality was invented to overcome it but, so far, hasn’t actually done so.
I think the point of the article is that ostracizing/disenfranchising young men hasn’t worked so far. Doubling down on that may not change future voting behavior
Pushing people away will never work, but it’s going to take a lot more than just stopping to ostracize them.
There must be some mistake . The Left never did this
Socialists never did it. Marxists never did it. Communists never did . Anarchists never did. They are doctrinal ideologues and the doctrine forbids it.
Who did this ? Liberals and Centrists. The Nice Guy brand.
They broke off little bits of cultural equality, for women : “lets a those men’s u s !”
for black people : “why yes, you are worthy of a seat on the bus”
for gay people “yes, you may indeed marry the person you love”
……And all the time they stole your money and kept the boot firmly on the neck of working people for the enrichment of the oligarchy. And everybody clapped, because it was the ruse of the century.
it’s seems the morons of substack are still trying to argue about “the forgotten young white men” but know this :
Socialism has no interest in your gender, colour, or sexuality. “From each according to his ability, to each according to their need” as Marx wrote.
So if you want to peg the politics of identity, pin it on the neo liberals and maybe give yourself a slap on the wrist for buying it .
You’re absolutely right. The problem as I see it is rather that the modern Democratic base have largely failed to integrate feminist and worker-oriented messaging targeting men into their campaigning. Maybe more importantly, they have failed to integrate it into their day-to-day conception of liberation.
I came to this thread expected a lot of crying.
Instead I see push back and facts. The rejection of the dumbed down arguments usually provided is a pleasant change.
But, this. This is a perfect response.
Yes, doing so doesn’t work. Just makes them more alienated and having no healthy direction they tend to go in harmful ones.
Everyone coming up with reasons to blame the left for failing when the right, the rich and Russia teamed up in a country with unlimited anonymous election spending and no left wing parties.
It grinds my gears too. These people love to complain about identity politics but then indulge in moral superiority to liberals. I don’t know why they don’t see it as hypocrisy.
This is a failing of the left that is talked in the article though. Men were abandoned by the left, and the far right filled the void.
Now indeed the liberals tend to blame all the problems in the world on the left, but this is not the matter in this article, although it does talk about elections.
It would be strange to blame the right for the failure of the left to succeed - it’s kind of their goal.
I wanted to make a post with the same message on !offmychest , but this dude is saying what I wanted to. I’ll add this: if the left wants to win, among other things, they shouldn’t alienate 50% of their voters. It’s that simple.
This focus on “taking down the patriarchy”, making fun of “masculine energy”, calling everybody they disagree with a “nazi incel”, or constantly using the terms “mansplaining” or “toxic masculinity”, are not going to win you any points with
youngmen. I’m quite left, but everytime I see a headline with those misandrist words, it’s a no-go. It simply won’t be read or if it is, it’ll get an eye-roll from me. From some, it has already driven them to the right. Me, it makes me vote for parties that have as little misandrist stuff as possible, because I know that parties with that rhetoric and identity-politics will get bogged down in useless, ideological squabbles with other parties.Yes, equality is a major concern for me, but that goes for everybody, not just women. Considering original Mens Rights Activists as the enemy was one of the critical mistakes of the feminists and leftists. They were raising awareness about how unjust and unfair some parts of society were for men, and instead of connecting and saying “yeah, we feel you, you are also human and have issues”, the response was instead “you know nothing about suffering”, “you’re still privileged”, “nothing you ever experience can compare to what women experience”, “the movement is anti-women because it’s pro-man”, etc. For feminists and leftists talking about melting pots, compassion, and empathy, very little of that was felt back then, and it’s no surprise that many men who tried to voice their concerns and got shouted down by feminists and leftists instead sought “refuge” in a place where their concerns could be heard.
This is a battle between the haves and the have-nots. We shouldn’t be attacking other have-nots that want to be on the same side when they also voice concerns.
The gender wage gap? Buddy, we’re all fucking struggling out here. Tax the fucking rich. Tax their wealth, tax their financial transactions, tax the shit out of their inheritance, tax their exit to tax havens, tax their private jets, yachts, houses, everything, introduce staggered percentage fines, invest in education (schools, universities, after-work education), introduce a 4 day work week and 6 weeks of vacation days, house the homeless, introduce universal basic income, and so much more. The better everyone is educated, the more basics people don’t have to worry about, the happier and more advanced our civilisations will become. That won’t happen if we fight each other because another worker has more “privilege” than you.
This is a typical, lazy straw man.
“The left” are first of all not some kind of monolith. Obviously. Second of all, the notion that this supposed monolith are all “shouting down men” is nonsense, too.
Now, there IS absolutely validity to small pieces of these arguments that the “left” have not offered young men the kind of guidance they need, while the right have done a great job providing them with tantalizing bogeymen. But the argument sin this post are more of the same tired perpetuation of a false Left/Right culture war argument that is generally levied by people like Rogan, Peterson, Crowder, Carlson, etc. They tell these lost young men it’s some nefarious leftist plot to take away their manhood or whatever. The left’s failure is to not have a could counter to that. But creating “their own joe rogan” is nonsense because that’s just saying “they need their own version manipulating lies”.
What the “Left” needs to do is be able to able to not blame young men for falling for that nonsense, but to recognize there it is filling a wanted gap among that demographic to have certain archetypes.
But to be honest - the left is redefining what it means to be a man. It’s just that they fail to make a good pitch to a lot of young folks to pitch their sale.
ah, the incels have discovered Lemmy.
welcome! and goodbye :)
