The Democrats have turned their backs on men for the last 30 years. They funded women's health, but ignored men's health. Has it occurred to you and the Democrats to do something to actually HELP men?
Tim Walz talked about "21st century masculinity". But he never mentioned the underfunding of prostate cancer, or the fact that men account for 80% of suicides,
Trump has began deporting illegal aliens. American men are now walking into workplaces where the illegals were deported, and getting hired on the spot. THAT is helping American men.
The Democrats continue to state on their website that they serve women, but not men. No self-respecting man will vote for Democrats.
Turned their backs on women's health?! Are you aware that almost exclusively all research studies have been done on MEN, not women, and doctors have been forced to treat women as men because there is very little data based only on women. You don't know what you are talking about in that area. And please tell me where all these men have been employed because immigrants have been deported.
Ah, the inevitable hysterical feminist who’s going to tell us evil men what’s what.
The National Football League dedicates an entire month to breast cancer research. The funding for female exclusive healthcare initiatives dwarfs the funding for male exclusive health care initiatives by default because MALE EXCLUSIVE HEALTHCARE INITIATIVES ARE NOT A THING EXISTS IN OUR SOCIETY.
We’re in this damnable feedback loop which leads directly and intentionally to male degradation until the public learns to start treating feminists such as yourself as the common ass bigots you so very much are.
The research is on men, because the men were human lab rats. They created 10 offices for women’s health, and zero offices for men’s health. That is turning their backs on men, for the last 30 years. If a man you know gets prostate cancer, you will learn that feminist Democrats in Congress made sure there is 3 times more funds for breast cancer than prostate cancer.
If you justify 10 offices for women's health, but zero offices for men's health, you lack a conscience.
Try to grow a few brain cells. The studies were done on men, because men were human lab rats. You, like every other man-hating feminist, bends the truth to serve their agenda. Men vote Republican because man-hating feminists like you run the Democratic Party.
Why we always see something from Reeves shows that he is more concerned about bringing the left into power, rather than men themselves. All is : "we need to take action si men vote us again" instead of "we need to take action because men DESERVE that action".
The objectivation and reduction of males to just "I just want your vote, because you voted Trump, but I actually give a shit about you" in this post is so rampant and disgusting. They are NOT concerned about males, they are not angry on how Democrats have treated males, but only about collecting male votes.
This post is not about males, its about Democrats. Males are not the subject of Reeves: they are just the object that Reeves play with. The real subject is the Democrats.
If any of you aggrieved young men could spell, maybe we would take your incessant posting about how unfair life is and how much wokeness (whatever that is?) hurts you, we would take you more seriously
As I assume this is answer to my post, I will answer to yours. As I have explained several times, English is not my mother tonge, so allow some indulgence.
What is wokeness? Is considered that your life experience (for the good and for the bad) is determined by your identity features rather than your actual situation. This makes a privileged person a poor men and a dissdvantaged person a reach woman. absurd.
I am not hurt by wokism on a personal level. But Democracy is.
Nobody takes manginas like you seriously. If you are falsely accused of rape or paternity, you will run crying to a men's rights group. They laugh at manginas like you.
When "men" like you get prostate cancer, you learn that your feminist buddies in Congress made sure that three times more taxpayer funds are spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer.
The reaction I’ve seen from Democrats is either what you described or a complete refusal to accept that men feel legitimately alienated by years worth of messaging that unambiguously dehumanizes us. It’s always just feeble excuses because that is all that the male half of the human race is actually worth to them.
My view: most of the problems we are facing have been fabricared by the olygarchy, to which the left belongs. Starting with co ed in the dacades of 1970.
I do not want a "Mens comission" as I dont want a "Womens comission". I dont want reverse wokism.
Because this will lead to "the solution to mens problems is giving them some possitions as teachers" (as they are suggesting in Norwat or the UK). But we still discriminate men in STEM, boards (in Europe there are even gender quotas in boards of companies), management possitions (again: in Europe, gender quotas here), University (affirmative action for women)...
I dont want men o be teachers if they dont want to.
What I want is 1. Allowing men to organise themselves. We have to have the same money that feminist association have. 2. Single sex education as a rule. 3. Ending discrimination against men. Trump has already stoped that.
The people that have created this situation for men HAVE NO moral authority to solve mens issues. Because they will NEVER really figth for men... They Will only figth... Provided that women are not prejudiced.
No! I want a male champion that really figth for us. Trump has made for men the first month more than liberals have made in DECADES. Its NOT their turn. Its ours.
The question is, what exactly is being done? I wrote to his communications director, David Turner, and suggested that they start a Men’s Commission. They have had a women’s commission for decades. Turner thanked me for the idea, and said he would present the idea to relevant staff.
I encourage you to write to him, to see how things are moving in that direction. David.Turner@maryland.gov
As a conservative, I am really torn on a commission. I don't like having another government, but I also believe in gender equality, and if there is a commission for women's issues, there should be one for men's issues.
Read Of Boys and Men. It covers the issues facing young men really well. It also gives solutions, good ones.
There are Democrats who view this through your lens (a correct lens IMO). Sanders and his group. The problem for the Dems (and the GOP) is his solutions involve taxing the rich to build programs to help young men and frankly, all of the middle class.
Woke is embraced by the media and both parties, because they'd rather have us debating woke than asking, why do the rich have so much when the rest of us have so little?
Boys and Men fails to acknowlede the fact that most male problems have been caused by feninists or females.
Including boys lagging behind: there are several studies that shows that females teachers give lower grades to males students.
Reeves is more concerned about bringing Young males back to Dem that critizing the scheme that have lead to most male problems. He fails in the narrative because he has been funded by Melinda Gates and he cannot critize Gates narrative.
Furthermore, most of the solutions entails NO cost to women at all. All he proposes is designed to have no cost for women, when some parts are a zero sum. E.g. if you want more males at the Uni, you will have less women.
In addirion, all the proposals Reeves made give men little. I dont want more males teachers if msles dont want to be teachers, but I dont want more women at boards if they fail to meet the standard.
Finally, Reeves and the left fails that the gaps between men and women are caused mostly by personal decisions. So Reeves bring us to a point where the society and the outcome of the several social groups is decided by the Government, instead of the Government being decided by society.
Not sure that's true. To get there you have to assume that women somehow dominated all men to take advantage. It seems more likely that we invested in helping women and left men behind. Now, an investment in men is necessary.
Women control education, so, yes, they "control" men. The only or main ares where men failed is education, the only one that women control. Curiosly.
There are already studies on discrimination against men in ed. And curiosly, this has getted worst in the 5th wave of feminism: if a female tescher sees a man failing, she doesnt care too much or lacks the ability to connect. Instead, they push all the time girls.
But yes, the reason you have is also true. Women account 60% of students at the Uni BUT there are still programmes to encoure them in STEM (more women). And affirmative action and DEI
In any case, I dont think we have to put money in a social group. Neither men nor women.
We need each social group to regulate by themself. Freedom! But of course, you cannot do that if the Government is expending 1000 of millions in women + you cannot create any male groups because you are a misoginist if you do.
-- this is another are that women control: public narrative that prevents any action in favour of males.
Finally, I dont think male "failled behind". We made them failed on purpose. To suppress their ego and destroy masculinity as a source of confidence and supeiority.
Of course, now the war is close, we turn to males. Like in Ukraine.
That's an interesting take. I'm not willing to credit all women with not caring about all male students.
Girls and boys learn differently. The system as it exists, and has existed for several hundred years, favors how girls learn, period. It wasn't women who built that system. It was men. You can build a system that supports men, we just haven't. We haven't because it would cost money and the billianaires of the world don't wanna pay for it. Those billionaires are mostly men.
The system was not as It IS now. Actually, It was quite different. It was feminists that pushed for the system as it now.
Take law for instance. Law was learnt by aprentiships, but now It is an University carrer.
Education was segregated by sex in most countries (e.g. Spain) till the late 70 and 80. Guess what? Male outperform women.
At that moment, males were teachers (40%) because It was associted with the Curch.
The left destroyed that system.
Furthemore, the raise of the welfare state is basically a transfer of money from men to women. Universities are subsidiazed in all countries. As male pay more taxes they subsidiaze a system they dont use.
Finally, we have told women that they need to push for higher status work. Thats has imoacted a lot female teachers. They push girls but not boys. I see that a lot with my kids (girl and boy).
Keep in mind that there are plenty of female billionaires and millionaires. They have the female-feminist hive-mind that only women are important, and men can go to hell.
It's not just rich vs everyone else. The Democrats have focused on women for the last 30 years, and turned their backs on men - a fact that Young Men Research Initiative apparently doesn't want to look at.
What can be done? Create an office of men's health. Create men's commissions in each state. NOBODY has done that so far. Make marriage and divorce safe for men. Fund trade schools with government funds.
Betsy deVos restored Due Process rights to college men forced to stand trial in campus feminist kangaroo courts that Obama encouraged. When Obama was in office, college men were flooding crisis lines.
I could have told you this. But the problem is the next step: who do they turn to? The Republicans are—for better or worse—the only show in town. Your choices are the Republicans who don’t disrespect men, or Democrats who go out of their way *just* to insult and deride young men. So where do you go?
Betsy deVos, the Education Secretary during Trump's first term, reformed Obama's Title IX rules to give college men Due Process rights in Obama's campus feminist kangaroo courts. Before these changes were made, college men were flooding suicide prevention lines.
Dont trust too much this stats. If you see the stats attached, It shows that men support Trump much more than women. And most are supporting his decissions
People in steel and car industry does. And these industries lead to innovation and higher wages. This is a long runeasure to correct the strong imbalance that corrently exist with China and stop the Usa and other western countries stop falling behind in terms of share of global GDP.
I am not fully againist bringing some industries back for security purposes, mainly semiconductors. As a conservative though, I support free trade and I have my doubts those jobs will come back.
What the hell happened right before the election that drove UP the sudden, and apparently transient, approval for Trump among male voters. Seen in nearly every age group. What was it? Was it the they/them? Was it the bad answer on The View? What the actual fuck happened?
You wish. Btw, your view on young males is psthetic. Young males are extremely aware of polítics. And, of course, if Democrats reject feminism they will have a bit of gainst, but they will NOT. I Will be just a pause until the 5th wave. And what we have seen in europe, with gender quotas all over is a clear demonstration that males have been second class for the left.
Nowz its the turn of UK.
Btw, Trump will win in the long run. This is not about 3 months, but a long run change.
And Europe will succumb to Trump shortly than lately, at the risk of becoming a Chinese colony otherwise.
The Democrats have turned their backs on men for the last 30 years. They funded women's health, but ignored men's health. Has it occurred to you and the Democrats to do something to actually HELP men?
Tim Walz talked about "21st century masculinity". But he never mentioned the underfunding of prostate cancer, or the fact that men account for 80% of suicides,
Trump has began deporting illegal aliens. American men are now walking into workplaces where the illegals were deported, and getting hired on the spot. THAT is helping American men.
The Democrats continue to state on their website that they serve women, but not men. No self-respecting man will vote for Democrats.
Turned their backs on women's health?! Are you aware that almost exclusively all research studies have been done on MEN, not women, and doctors have been forced to treat women as men because there is very little data based only on women. You don't know what you are talking about in that area. And please tell me where all these men have been employed because immigrants have been deported.
Ah, the inevitable hysterical feminist who’s going to tell us evil men what’s what.
The National Football League dedicates an entire month to breast cancer research. The funding for female exclusive healthcare initiatives dwarfs the funding for male exclusive health care initiatives by default because MALE EXCLUSIVE HEALTHCARE INITIATIVES ARE NOT A THING EXISTS IN OUR SOCIETY.
We’re in this damnable feedback loop which leads directly and intentionally to male degradation until the public learns to start treating feminists such as yourself as the common ass bigots you so very much are.
Thank you. Very well stated.
The research is on men, because the men were human lab rats. They created 10 offices for women’s health, and zero offices for men’s health. That is turning their backs on men, for the last 30 years. If a man you know gets prostate cancer, you will learn that feminist Democrats in Congress made sure there is 3 times more funds for breast cancer than prostate cancer.
If you justify 10 offices for women's health, but zero offices for men's health, you lack a conscience.
Try to grow a few brain cells. The studies were done on men, because men were human lab rats. You, like every other man-hating feminist, bends the truth to serve their agenda. Men vote Republican because man-hating feminists like you run the Democratic Party.
Which website is this that says Democrats don't support men? You know, I don't believe that. I would like to see it, Frank.
democrats.org/who-we-are/who-we-serve . They state the groups that they serve. Men and White people are not mentioned.
Rich woman* sorry the mispelling
Why we always see something from Reeves shows that he is more concerned about bringing the left into power, rather than men themselves. All is : "we need to take action si men vote us again" instead of "we need to take action because men DESERVE that action".
The objectivation and reduction of males to just "I just want your vote, because you voted Trump, but I actually give a shit about you" in this post is so rampant and disgusting. They are NOT concerned about males, they are not angry on how Democrats have treated males, but only about collecting male votes.
This post is not about males, its about Democrats. Males are not the subject of Reeves: they are just the object that Reeves play with. The real subject is the Democrats.
Patetic.
If any of you aggrieved young men could spell, maybe we would take your incessant posting about how unfair life is and how much wokeness (whatever that is?) hurts you, we would take you more seriously
As I assume this is answer to my post, I will answer to yours. As I have explained several times, English is not my mother tonge, so allow some indulgence.
What is wokeness? Is considered that your life experience (for the good and for the bad) is determined by your identity features rather than your actual situation. This makes a privileged person a poor men and a dissdvantaged person a reach woman. absurd.
I am not hurt by wokism on a personal level. But Democracy is.
Nobody takes manginas like you seriously. If you are falsely accused of rape or paternity, you will run crying to a men's rights group. They laugh at manginas like you.
When "men" like you get prostate cancer, you learn that your feminist buddies in Congress made sure that three times more taxpayer funds are spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer.
Standing ovation!
The reaction I’ve seen from Democrats is either what you described or a complete refusal to accept that men feel legitimately alienated by years worth of messaging that unambiguously dehumanizes us. It’s always just feeble excuses because that is all that the male half of the human race is actually worth to them.
You are right. The Democrats message to men: "You suck! Now, why won't you vote for us?"
Agreed. The Democratic message to men is, "You suck. Now why won't you vote for us?"
Curious, what are your thoughts on what is Wes Moore doing.
My view: most of the problems we are facing have been fabricared by the olygarchy, to which the left belongs. Starting with co ed in the dacades of 1970.
I do not want a "Mens comission" as I dont want a "Womens comission". I dont want reverse wokism.
Because this will lead to "the solution to mens problems is giving them some possitions as teachers" (as they are suggesting in Norwat or the UK). But we still discriminate men in STEM, boards (in Europe there are even gender quotas in boards of companies), management possitions (again: in Europe, gender quotas here), University (affirmative action for women)...
I dont want men o be teachers if they dont want to.
What I want is 1. Allowing men to organise themselves. We have to have the same money that feminist association have. 2. Single sex education as a rule. 3. Ending discrimination against men. Trump has already stoped that.
The people that have created this situation for men HAVE NO moral authority to solve mens issues. Because they will NEVER really figth for men... They Will only figth... Provided that women are not prejudiced.
No! I want a male champion that really figth for us. Trump has made for men the first month more than liberals have made in DECADES. Its NOT their turn. Its ours.
The question is, what exactly is being done? I wrote to his communications director, David Turner, and suggested that they start a Men’s Commission. They have had a women’s commission for decades. Turner thanked me for the idea, and said he would present the idea to relevant staff.
I encourage you to write to him, to see how things are moving in that direction. David.Turner@maryland.gov
As a conservative, I am really torn on a commission. I don't like having another government, but I also believe in gender equality, and if there is a commission for women's issues, there should be one for men's issues.
Read Of Boys and Men. It covers the issues facing young men really well. It also gives solutions, good ones.
There are Democrats who view this through your lens (a correct lens IMO). Sanders and his group. The problem for the Dems (and the GOP) is his solutions involve taxing the rich to build programs to help young men and frankly, all of the middle class.
Woke is embraced by the media and both parties, because they'd rather have us debating woke than asking, why do the rich have so much when the rest of us have so little?
Boys and Men fails to acknowlede the fact that most male problems have been caused by feninists or females.
Including boys lagging behind: there are several studies that shows that females teachers give lower grades to males students.
Reeves is more concerned about bringing Young males back to Dem that critizing the scheme that have lead to most male problems. He fails in the narrative because he has been funded by Melinda Gates and he cannot critize Gates narrative.
Furthermore, most of the solutions entails NO cost to women at all. All he proposes is designed to have no cost for women, when some parts are a zero sum. E.g. if you want more males at the Uni, you will have less women.
In addirion, all the proposals Reeves made give men little. I dont want more males teachers if msles dont want to be teachers, but I dont want more women at boards if they fail to meet the standard.
Finally, Reeves and the left fails that the gaps between men and women are caused mostly by personal decisions. So Reeves bring us to a point where the society and the outcome of the several social groups is decided by the Government, instead of the Government being decided by society.
Not sure that's true. To get there you have to assume that women somehow dominated all men to take advantage. It seems more likely that we invested in helping women and left men behind. Now, an investment in men is necessary.
Women control education, so, yes, they "control" men. The only or main ares where men failed is education, the only one that women control. Curiosly.
There are already studies on discrimination against men in ed. And curiosly, this has getted worst in the 5th wave of feminism: if a female tescher sees a man failing, she doesnt care too much or lacks the ability to connect. Instead, they push all the time girls.
But yes, the reason you have is also true. Women account 60% of students at the Uni BUT there are still programmes to encoure them in STEM (more women). And affirmative action and DEI
In any case, I dont think we have to put money in a social group. Neither men nor women.
We need each social group to regulate by themself. Freedom! But of course, you cannot do that if the Government is expending 1000 of millions in women + you cannot create any male groups because you are a misoginist if you do.
-- this is another are that women control: public narrative that prevents any action in favour of males.
Finally, I dont think male "failled behind". We made them failed on purpose. To suppress their ego and destroy masculinity as a source of confidence and supeiority.
Of course, now the war is close, we turn to males. Like in Ukraine.
That's an interesting take. I'm not willing to credit all women with not caring about all male students.
Girls and boys learn differently. The system as it exists, and has existed for several hundred years, favors how girls learn, period. It wasn't women who built that system. It was men. You can build a system that supports men, we just haven't. We haven't because it would cost money and the billianaires of the world don't wanna pay for it. Those billionaires are mostly men.
The system was not as It IS now. Actually, It was quite different. It was feminists that pushed for the system as it now.
Take law for instance. Law was learnt by aprentiships, but now It is an University carrer.
Education was segregated by sex in most countries (e.g. Spain) till the late 70 and 80. Guess what? Male outperform women.
At that moment, males were teachers (40%) because It was associted with the Curch.
The left destroyed that system.
Furthemore, the raise of the welfare state is basically a transfer of money from men to women. Universities are subsidiazed in all countries. As male pay more taxes they subsidiaze a system they dont use.
Finally, we have told women that they need to push for higher status work. Thats has imoacted a lot female teachers. They push girls but not boys. I see that a lot with my kids (girl and boy).
Keep in mind that there are plenty of female billionaires and millionaires. They have the female-feminist hive-mind that only women are important, and men can go to hell.
It's not just rich vs everyone else. The Democrats have focused on women for the last 30 years, and turned their backs on men - a fact that Young Men Research Initiative apparently doesn't want to look at.
What can be done? Create an office of men's health. Create men's commissions in each state. NOBODY has done that so far. Make marriage and divorce safe for men. Fund trade schools with government funds.
Betsy deVos restored Due Process rights to college men forced to stand trial in campus feminist kangaroo courts that Obama encouraged. When Obama was in office, college men were flooding crisis lines.
I could have told you this. But the problem is the next step: who do they turn to? The Republicans are—for better or worse—the only show in town. Your choices are the Republicans who don’t disrespect men, or Democrats who go out of their way *just* to insult and deride young men. So where do you go?
Betsy deVos, the Education Secretary during Trump's first term, reformed Obama's Title IX rules to give college men Due Process rights in Obama's campus feminist kangaroo courts. Before these changes were made, college men were flooding suicide prevention lines.
Devos is a hero and as a autist if I seen her in person I will buy her a coke.
I agree. Go on Youtube and search for her name. She gave an interview on Fox News two months ago
Besides the long-running dismissal of men by the Democratic Party, there is also anti-White racism, as evidenced here:
https://www.infowars.com/posts/video-learn-why-the-left-supports-brutal-violence-against-white-children
My concern about this is that this is due to you gov house effects, but this is interesting regardless
Dont trust too much this stats. If you see the stats attached, It shows that men support Trump much more than women. And most are supporting his decissions
I doubt most approve of the tariffs
People in steel and car industry does. And these industries lead to innovation and higher wages. This is a long runeasure to correct the strong imbalance that corrently exist with China and stop the Usa and other western countries stop falling behind in terms of share of global GDP.
I am not fully againist bringing some industries back for security purposes, mainly semiconductors. As a conservative though, I support free trade and I have my doubts those jobs will come back.
Just trust. This is a 4 year run. Not a 3 months! We re changing the course of the past 40 years nd thats not easy!!
https://substack.com/@rightflank/note/c-108673643?r=30kets
See?
This isn’t data of the general population though.
The author left out one important reason for the shift: a lot of those young men hope someday to attract one of the young women.
What the hell happened right before the election that drove UP the sudden, and apparently transient, approval for Trump among male voters. Seen in nearly every age group. What was it? Was it the they/them? Was it the bad answer on The View? What the actual fuck happened?
You wish. Btw, your view on young males is psthetic. Young males are extremely aware of polítics. And, of course, if Democrats reject feminism they will have a bit of gainst, but they will NOT. I Will be just a pause until the 5th wave. And what we have seen in europe, with gender quotas all over is a clear demonstration that males have been second class for the left.
Nowz its the turn of UK.
Btw, Trump will win in the long run. This is not about 3 months, but a long run change.
And Europe will succumb to Trump shortly than lately, at the risk of becoming a Chinese colony otherwise.