Liberals like Reeves are NOT concerned for males and boys, but for males voting for Trump. They just want our votes.
And none of the proposal changes the structural reasons behing men frustration. I do not see "stop supporttint women", stop misandry, put affirmative action for males at Universities... Because that would entail the recognition that we are in a matriarchy and not in a patriarhy. Period
I think your Politico article had one serious frame work flaw. Your notion that addressing the various issues is not Zero Sum is wrong. First and foremost the ability to have one’s issues addressed is a direct representation of influence and power of one ideology or governmental framework. Feminism has and always be about empowering women, to fail to do that concedes ground and power that it could apply to that very goal. The assumption that a fight for equality is the goal is false. The fight is for power and the ability to set the normative conditions of society. That is a Zero Sum game. Second even if you could establish a coalition that could advocate intellectually for a more balanced conceptual social contract. Resources are limited. Time, attention and money are all finite. This inevitably means a spending priority of some kind needs to be made. With a limit in resources something needs to be sacrificed. So even in and ideal world, focusing on any issue means drawing resources from another. Even if that investment will have long term benefits, the short term costs still exist. For example if you have a 125 people needing DV help and 100 are women and 25 are men. If you only have true resources to provide a 100 units of help 25 people are being left out. You add in scale, if you help the 25 men you have to build a separate facility and that accrues additional cost reducing you overall help capacity to 75. So if by not helping men you can help 25 more people is that worth it? This is the trolly problem we face. Now frankly I think that, this calculation has been against men far to often and that goes back to the first point. If by denying the service to that group you increase you ability, influence and power and reduce that of the other sides. It not only makes it easier in the future to continue to accrue power, it also makes it harder for the other side as well. These two reinforce and enhance each other. While the solution is not binary, the rules are zero sum, it just depends on what the sum is for the various sides. If we continue down a bi-polar solution set we end up at and ugly point regardless. The real issue is we need to break the binary solution and power dynamic .
Correct. Democrts have failed to recognise that woemen re actually the privileged class. And they have helped to crete this matriarchy. Until they recognise so, no way to vote them
Cale, thank you for articulating what I see as a theoretical flaw in my original comment—the assumption that addressing gender disparities doesn't operate as a zero-sum game. Your argument about influence and resource allocation resonated with me, particularly in terms of how power is distributed.
Take, for instance, my own experience in a website design course which I wrote about in my earlier comment. Among the six teachers, only one is male, and coincidentally, he's the only one with coding expertise. He's also my tutor for an extra two hours per week because, frankly, none of the other teachers have the technical depth required. This disparity seems partly driven by affirmative action aimed at increasing women's representation in the tech industry, which is traditionally male-dominated. However, this effort to support women isn't mirrored by similar initiatives to encourage men into female-dominated fields—such as teaching. The gender imbalance in this profession persists and is becoming ever wider without substantial policies to change it.
Affirmative action in tech, while beneficial to women, also illustrates the zero-sum aspect Cale brought up: resources, teaching roles, and even specialized knowledge are being allocated with a focus on balancing gender representation. Yet, there's an inherent cost—in this case, fewer qualified male instructors, and perhaps an underrepresentation of men overall. The absence of equivalent affirmative action for men in female-dominated industries only underscores the zero-sum nature of these decisions. Efforts to shift the balance in one direction inevitably draw from the other—allocating resources toward a cause means those same resources are unavailable elsewhere.
The broader challenge, as Cale rightly points out, is to break this binary zero-sum game and move toward a framework where advocacy isn't about accruing power at the expense of the other side. But as it stands, many of these initiatives have unacknowledged costs, often borne by the very demographic that feels ignored—in this case, men seeking fair representation in a system with limited resources. Until we recognize these costs, genuine equality will remain elusive.
The article is quite good. Any arguments that I might have with it are merely quibbles. I think that we need to start by actually caring about men and boys. I have brought the subject up with a number of women and the coldness of the responses has been shocking to me. Essentially, male suicides are men’s fault. Prevailing attitudes, in my experience, are at least 50 years out of date.
I am a nerd who takes lots of classes. Most of my experiences have been good, but there is a strong anti-male bias at universities. Every overtly hostile experience for me has been from a female professor with a degree from an Ivy. Those who brag in their résumés about their embrace of critical theory are the most clueless. I don’t know how I would have dealt with this when I was young. Probably drop out.
One last observation. The vacuum that has created Donald Trump is a class problem on the part of the Democratic Party. Piketty’s Brahmin left has a contempt for laborers that correlates with the declines described so well in the article. Policies that pander to males and the working class without true concern will only harden opposition against those policies. This is how we get Huey Long.
Guy, I appreciate your insights, particularly about the anti-male bias that seems pervasive in academia. Your mention of critical theory aligns with something I've often observed but know is taboo to openly discuss: the ideological roots of this bias trace back to the Jewish intellectual tradition of Western Marxism, particularly the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, which has profoundly influenced today's academic orthodoxy. The scholars of the Frankfurt School, all of whom were Jewish, established a framework that transitioned Marxism into what we now understand as social constructionism, reshaping how identity, power, and social norms are analyzed.
Judith Butler is a key figure in this ideological shift. Building on social constructionist thought, Butler's work redefined gender as a fluid social construct, a perspective that has been absorbed into much of higher education. This approach emphasizes the performative nature of gender and dismisses biological determinants as irrelevant to identity, a view that men—like myself and most-likely most others—see as theoretically flawed. The critical theory-based orthodoxy in academia, especially those embracing Butler's perspective, has created an environment that marginalizes empirical, non-ideological perspectives. It positions men as inherently privileged and, therefore, less deserving of empathy or institutional support.
To appreciate the influence of Judith Butler, it is important to highlight that a Thomson Reuters ranking in 2009 of the 37 most-cited social theorists found Judith Butler to be the only social theorist born after 1950, and she was ranked #9 overall.
The broader challenge, as Cale rightly points out, is to break this binary zero-sum game and move toward a framework where advocacy isn't about accruing power at the expense of the other side. But as it stands, many of these initiatives have unacknowledged costs, often borne by the very demographic that feels ignored—in this case, men seeking fair representation in a system with limited resources. Until we recognize these costs, genuine equality will remain elusive.
As I anticipated, discussing the influence of the Jewish intellectual tradition is often seen as taboo. The fact that Judith Butler, in effect, has taken on the role of being a new Karl Marx for this intellectual tradition is a point that some may find uncomfortable. To support my case, aside from the links I have already provided, I'd like to mention that I read the New York Times—where I write comments every day—and it was through that medium that I came upon this discussion. The NY Times is a predominantly Jewish newspaper, and reflects the deep connection between Jewish intellectual culture and contemporary discourse. The Jewish people are often referred to as the "people of the book," a testament to their enduring legacy of scholarship and intellectual contribution. We live in a Judeo-Christian tradition, where these contributions have profoundly shaped our understanding of culture, philosophy, and social theory. And yet, it is taboo to mention their influence.
I am struck by how corrosive silent disregard can be over time - even just acknowledging these issues would go a long way let alone a comprehensive policy agenda. It reminds me of how the current strike at Boeing is really about respect and parity more than compensation (executive compensation is up over 1000% since 1978). There is a herd of elephants in the living room.
Thanks so much for speaking up for boys and men. The issues are complex and I am sure both sides could do much if they actually wish to solve problems. I do hope that both sides will implement meaningful change as opposed to "bribing" one side. Today's announcement of additional student loan forgiveness comes with a breakdown by state of who will be benefiting, but not by gender.
I am flummoxed by the amount and number of loans forgiven in my state, Pennsylvania. I had never thought of our state having so many working in the public sector with so many qualifying for PSFL (Public Service Loan Forgiveness) which requires 10 years full time employment. Maybe, you can use your political clout to find out what portion of the 44,150 people having 3,154,100,000 forgiven in student loans in PA are male and we can train more people for these very lucrative jobs-forgiveness of an average of over 71K per person.....Wow.
Agreed. Wiping out student loans is building resentment faster than the interest accrues. I get there are issues with spiraling student loans (been to a college campus lately and wondered who pays for the heated Olympic swimming pools and gourmet cafeteria food?) but if I was designing a program to increase political polarization I don't know what could beat it.
These amounts and large numbers in swing states strike me as suspicious. Many of the rules governing PSLF have been changed to disburse funds. If a person is deployed or in active duty, they do not have to make payments on their loans-which is fair. Under these new rules, even though they have made no payments, this time counts towards their 10 years for forgiveness. This PSLF needs to be examined CLOSELY. PSLF was supposed to require 10 years of on time payments while working full time in the public sector. Great, as salaries in the public sector have to be reported to the public by law, all we need to see is 10 years of full time salaries for each person getting forgiveness. PSLF was not designed to reward people doing part-time work but instead to offset a smaller salary in the public sector. If you want to know what people do with the student loan money read Tressie Cottom's Lower Ed-they buy cars, start businesses, pay mortgages and now the government doesn't think they should pay that back. They build wealth and we pay for it.
Most students attend community college. They get grants, scholarships, and loans far in excess of the tuition. Funny thing is........after teaching there for more than a decade.......so many stop attending classes and completing coursework once the census date (date they must attend until for the school and student to keep the aid) passes. We are trying to solve the wrong problem-we assume they are unable to complete their degree. Real problem, we give money to people that never wanted to get a degree.
The issue with student loan forgiveness is that no attempt has been made to address the root cause or hold universities responsible for failing to invest in increasing availability. Most major universities sit on billions in endowments and fail to use that money for the benefit of society. Much like many churches, the tax exempt status of these institutions needs to be seriously looked at. I’d much rather make the universities pay for the forgiveness over distributions that cost burden to the taxpayer.
Most students in the US attend community college. Most students that attend college in the US cannot do at least one of these-read, write or do math at a tenth grade level. Before we forgive any loans, let's see how many were used exclusively for tuition and fees not covered by grants or scholarships at wealthy schools.
Agreed Cale. Or invest in cost reduction and efficiencies. At many schools adjuncts make in the $20/hr. range and admin makes a half million while cutting ribbons at world class athletic centers. These costs get pushed onto students. The political issue with loan forgiveness is my electrician neighbor who wants to know why he doesn't get loan forgiveness for all the debt he took on to get to journeyman.
Oh I agree. My wife has loans and I don’t think tax payers are responsible for paying them back. More over I think that a failure to push and expand trades has been a detriment to society. I get debt is crushing many who were sold a bill of goods by the school to university system. I could support forgiveness if say it was part of a larger package of reforms which held the university system responsible and either fully or mainly responsible for paying back the cost of the forgiven debt.
Nop. Just liberal bullshit to try to capture our votes, not to improve men situtstion. Nones of the proposals entails the recognition that we re now in a matriarchy and female privileged shall be dismanteled.
Fertile ground for a pro male agenda? If that is correct why has the white house spent nearly four years with their Gender Policy Council that focuses EXCLUSIVELY on women and girls. This administration has a history of blaming boys and men and catering to women and girls. Way, way, way, too late.
Richard, thank you for your insightful analysis of the Democrats' struggle to engage male voters. However, reading between the lines, it seems less like a policy paradox and more like a lack of genuine engagement. While you mention that the Democrats have tangible, pro-male initiatives, it is telling that, as you point out, "There is a new Gender Policy Council in the White House, but it has not addressed a single issue facing boys or men."
The proposed policies you've outlined are an excellent starting point, particularly increasing male representation in teaching and expanding career and technical education. In my own experience with a website design course, there are six teachers, only one of whom is male. He is also the only one who knows how to code, and it is for that reason he is also my tutor for an additional two hours per week. I suspect the gender imbalance among my teachers is partly due to affirmative action aimed at encouraging women into the tech industry.
Democrats need to do more than just repackage existing policies—they need to truly prioritize the concerns of men and boys, ensuring they feel seen and valued. Expanding initiatives to foster male participation in key professions and directly addressing men’s health and family challenges would go a long way toward bridging the gap. It's time to end the zero-sum mentality and build a comprehensive policy agenda that supports everyone—men, women, and the families they create. Your call for this balanced approach should resonate with policymakers before it's too late.
That would entail recogniseing that they were wrong, that feminism was wrong and start demolishing female privileged in education for instance. But they will NOT do that: they are not concern for males, but for males voting Trump. They dont actually want males, but their votes.
We need to punish liberals for what they have done for decades. Voting Trump IS the only real option.
White males in particular feel alienated due to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies. Affirmative action is intended to alleviate under-representation and promote the opportunities of minority groups, providing them with equal access compared to the majority population. However, this focus on DEI is at the expense of white males, who see themselves increasingly marginalized in educational and employment opportunities.
In 2021, Joe Biden signed several executive orders concerning DEI, including Executive Orders 13985 and 14035. Following the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, New York magazine noted that "the business became astronomically larger than ever." The Economist also stated that the number of people hired for jobs with "diversity" or "inclusion" in their title more than quadrupled since 2010, highlighting the rapid growth of DEI initiatives. This clear increase under the Biden administration explains at least in part why women now make up nearly 60 percent of enrollment in universities and colleges in the United States. Yet, this is rarely acknowledged, and instead, males are often blamed for simply not being as capable as females or for being hindered by so-called "toxic masculinity".
Such rationalizations would be deemed unacceptable for any other social group. For instance, it would be politically incorrect to suggest that the lower percentage of African Americans at university than their proportion of the population is because they are inherently less capable or due to a "toxic" black culture. Yet, that is essentially the argument being made about white males. This disparity, coupled with DEI policies, has led many men to feel sidelined, fostering the very alienation you describe.
It's a good thing comments aren't allowed on the Political article. It's audience is very susceptible to moralistic group think. Without the reflexively misandrist chattering class there to screech you down some might be able to actually consider what you have to say.
Kemala dont even mention men in her programme, while she mentions women 10 times.
The problem with Democrats IS that they need to be punished hard to stop hating men.
Liberals like Reeves are NOT concerned for males and boys, but for males voting for Trump. They just want our votes.
And none of the proposal changes the structural reasons behing men frustration. I do not see "stop supporttint women", stop misandry, put affirmative action for males at Universities... Because that would entail the recognition that we are in a matriarchy and not in a patriarhy. Period
There is a simplier agenda. If you are male, vote for Trump. Punish Democrats for their misandry.
Note: all the agenda you propose us puneuts. Until you recognise we live in a gynocentric and matriarcal society that hates men.
WE MUST VOTE AS MALES. VOTE FOR TRUMP. PERIOD.
I think your Politico article had one serious frame work flaw. Your notion that addressing the various issues is not Zero Sum is wrong. First and foremost the ability to have one’s issues addressed is a direct representation of influence and power of one ideology or governmental framework. Feminism has and always be about empowering women, to fail to do that concedes ground and power that it could apply to that very goal. The assumption that a fight for equality is the goal is false. The fight is for power and the ability to set the normative conditions of society. That is a Zero Sum game. Second even if you could establish a coalition that could advocate intellectually for a more balanced conceptual social contract. Resources are limited. Time, attention and money are all finite. This inevitably means a spending priority of some kind needs to be made. With a limit in resources something needs to be sacrificed. So even in and ideal world, focusing on any issue means drawing resources from another. Even if that investment will have long term benefits, the short term costs still exist. For example if you have a 125 people needing DV help and 100 are women and 25 are men. If you only have true resources to provide a 100 units of help 25 people are being left out. You add in scale, if you help the 25 men you have to build a separate facility and that accrues additional cost reducing you overall help capacity to 75. So if by not helping men you can help 25 more people is that worth it? This is the trolly problem we face. Now frankly I think that, this calculation has been against men far to often and that goes back to the first point. If by denying the service to that group you increase you ability, influence and power and reduce that of the other sides. It not only makes it easier in the future to continue to accrue power, it also makes it harder for the other side as well. These two reinforce and enhance each other. While the solution is not binary, the rules are zero sum, it just depends on what the sum is for the various sides. If we continue down a bi-polar solution set we end up at and ugly point regardless. The real issue is we need to break the binary solution and power dynamic .
Correct. Democrts have failed to recognise that woemen re actually the privileged class. And they have helped to crete this matriarchy. Until they recognise so, no way to vote them
Cale, thank you for articulating what I see as a theoretical flaw in my original comment—the assumption that addressing gender disparities doesn't operate as a zero-sum game. Your argument about influence and resource allocation resonated with me, particularly in terms of how power is distributed.
Take, for instance, my own experience in a website design course which I wrote about in my earlier comment. Among the six teachers, only one is male, and coincidentally, he's the only one with coding expertise. He's also my tutor for an extra two hours per week because, frankly, none of the other teachers have the technical depth required. This disparity seems partly driven by affirmative action aimed at increasing women's representation in the tech industry, which is traditionally male-dominated. However, this effort to support women isn't mirrored by similar initiatives to encourage men into female-dominated fields—such as teaching. The gender imbalance in this profession persists and is becoming ever wider without substantial policies to change it.
Affirmative action in tech, while beneficial to women, also illustrates the zero-sum aspect Cale brought up: resources, teaching roles, and even specialized knowledge are being allocated with a focus on balancing gender representation. Yet, there's an inherent cost—in this case, fewer qualified male instructors, and perhaps an underrepresentation of men overall. The absence of equivalent affirmative action for men in female-dominated industries only underscores the zero-sum nature of these decisions. Efforts to shift the balance in one direction inevitably draw from the other—allocating resources toward a cause means those same resources are unavailable elsewhere.
The broader challenge, as Cale rightly points out, is to break this binary zero-sum game and move toward a framework where advocacy isn't about accruing power at the expense of the other side. But as it stands, many of these initiatives have unacknowledged costs, often borne by the very demographic that feels ignored—in this case, men seeking fair representation in a system with limited resources. Until we recognize these costs, genuine equality will remain elusive.
Correct. Vote for Trump. Period.
The article is quite good. Any arguments that I might have with it are merely quibbles. I think that we need to start by actually caring about men and boys. I have brought the subject up with a number of women and the coldness of the responses has been shocking to me. Essentially, male suicides are men’s fault. Prevailing attitudes, in my experience, are at least 50 years out of date.
I am a nerd who takes lots of classes. Most of my experiences have been good, but there is a strong anti-male bias at universities. Every overtly hostile experience for me has been from a female professor with a degree from an Ivy. Those who brag in their résumés about their embrace of critical theory are the most clueless. I don’t know how I would have dealt with this when I was young. Probably drop out.
One last observation. The vacuum that has created Donald Trump is a class problem on the part of the Democratic Party. Piketty’s Brahmin left has a contempt for laborers that correlates with the declines described so well in the article. Policies that pander to males and the working class without true concern will only harden opposition against those policies. This is how we get Huey Long.
Guy, I appreciate your insights, particularly about the anti-male bias that seems pervasive in academia. Your mention of critical theory aligns with something I've often observed but know is taboo to openly discuss: the ideological roots of this bias trace back to the Jewish intellectual tradition of Western Marxism, particularly the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, which has profoundly influenced today's academic orthodoxy. The scholars of the Frankfurt School, all of whom were Jewish, established a framework that transitioned Marxism into what we now understand as social constructionism, reshaping how identity, power, and social norms are analyzed.
Judith Butler is a key figure in this ideological shift. Building on social constructionist thought, Butler's work redefined gender as a fluid social construct, a perspective that has been absorbed into much of higher education. This approach emphasizes the performative nature of gender and dismisses biological determinants as irrelevant to identity, a view that men—like myself and most-likely most others—see as theoretically flawed. The critical theory-based orthodoxy in academia, especially those embracing Butler's perspective, has created an environment that marginalizes empirical, non-ideological perspectives. It positions men as inherently privileged and, therefore, less deserving of empathy or institutional support.
To appreciate the influence of Judith Butler, it is important to highlight that a Thomson Reuters ranking in 2009 of the 37 most-cited social theorists found Judith Butler to be the only social theorist born after 1950, and she was ranked #9 overall.
https://www.eoht.info/page/Humanities%20citation%20ranking
For further context on the Frankfurt School and Judith Butler:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_gender
The broader challenge, as Cale rightly points out, is to break this binary zero-sum game and move toward a framework where advocacy isn't about accruing power at the expense of the other side. But as it stands, many of these initiatives have unacknowledged costs, often borne by the very demographic that feels ignored—in this case, men seeking fair representation in a system with limited resources. Until we recognize these costs, genuine equality will remain elusive.
I don’t see how being Jewish is relevant.
As I anticipated, discussing the influence of the Jewish intellectual tradition is often seen as taboo. The fact that Judith Butler, in effect, has taken on the role of being a new Karl Marx for this intellectual tradition is a point that some may find uncomfortable. To support my case, aside from the links I have already provided, I'd like to mention that I read the New York Times—where I write comments every day—and it was through that medium that I came upon this discussion. The NY Times is a predominantly Jewish newspaper, and reflects the deep connection between Jewish intellectual culture and contemporary discourse. The Jewish people are often referred to as the "people of the book," a testament to their enduring legacy of scholarship and intellectual contribution. We live in a Judeo-Christian tradition, where these contributions have profoundly shaped our understanding of culture, philosophy, and social theory. And yet, it is taboo to mention their influence.
I am struck by how corrosive silent disregard can be over time - even just acknowledging these issues would go a long way let alone a comprehensive policy agenda. It reminds me of how the current strike at Boeing is really about respect and parity more than compensation (executive compensation is up over 1000% since 1978). There is a herd of elephants in the living room.
Dr Reeves just cover the standards from his book without adding very much.
Because he cannot. He is actually a liberal not concerned for men and boys, but fof men and boys voting for Trump.
Thanks so much for speaking up for boys and men. The issues are complex and I am sure both sides could do much if they actually wish to solve problems. I do hope that both sides will implement meaningful change as opposed to "bribing" one side. Today's announcement of additional student loan forgiveness comes with a breakdown by state of who will be benefiting, but not by gender.
https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/biden-harris-administration-approves-additional-45-billion-student-debt
I am flummoxed by the amount and number of loans forgiven in my state, Pennsylvania. I had never thought of our state having so many working in the public sector with so many qualifying for PSFL (Public Service Loan Forgiveness) which requires 10 years full time employment. Maybe, you can use your political clout to find out what portion of the 44,150 people having 3,154,100,000 forgiven in student loans in PA are male and we can train more people for these very lucrative jobs-forgiveness of an average of over 71K per person.....Wow.
They are not concerned for men and boys, but just want our votes. Period.
Agreed. Wiping out student loans is building resentment faster than the interest accrues. I get there are issues with spiraling student loans (been to a college campus lately and wondered who pays for the heated Olympic swimming pools and gourmet cafeteria food?) but if I was designing a program to increase political polarization I don't know what could beat it.
These amounts and large numbers in swing states strike me as suspicious. Many of the rules governing PSLF have been changed to disburse funds. If a person is deployed or in active duty, they do not have to make payments on their loans-which is fair. Under these new rules, even though they have made no payments, this time counts towards their 10 years for forgiveness. This PSLF needs to be examined CLOSELY. PSLF was supposed to require 10 years of on time payments while working full time in the public sector. Great, as salaries in the public sector have to be reported to the public by law, all we need to see is 10 years of full time salaries for each person getting forgiveness. PSLF was not designed to reward people doing part-time work but instead to offset a smaller salary in the public sector. If you want to know what people do with the student loan money read Tressie Cottom's Lower Ed-they buy cars, start businesses, pay mortgages and now the government doesn't think they should pay that back. They build wealth and we pay for it.
Less than 20% of college students live on campus.
Most students attend community college. They get grants, scholarships, and loans far in excess of the tuition. Funny thing is........after teaching there for more than a decade.......so many stop attending classes and completing coursework once the census date (date they must attend until for the school and student to keep the aid) passes. We are trying to solve the wrong problem-we assume they are unable to complete their degree. Real problem, we give money to people that never wanted to get a degree.
The issue with student loan forgiveness is that no attempt has been made to address the root cause or hold universities responsible for failing to invest in increasing availability. Most major universities sit on billions in endowments and fail to use that money for the benefit of society. Much like many churches, the tax exempt status of these institutions needs to be seriously looked at. I’d much rather make the universities pay for the forgiveness over distributions that cost burden to the taxpayer.
Most students in the US attend community college. Most students that attend college in the US cannot do at least one of these-read, write or do math at a tenth grade level. Before we forgive any loans, let's see how many were used exclusively for tuition and fees not covered by grants or scholarships at wealthy schools.
Agreed Cale. Or invest in cost reduction and efficiencies. At many schools adjuncts make in the $20/hr. range and admin makes a half million while cutting ribbons at world class athletic centers. These costs get pushed onto students. The political issue with loan forgiveness is my electrician neighbor who wants to know why he doesn't get loan forgiveness for all the debt he took on to get to journeyman.
Oh I agree. My wife has loans and I don’t think tax payers are responsible for paying them back. More over I think that a failure to push and expand trades has been a detriment to society. I get debt is crushing many who were sold a bill of goods by the school to university system. I could support forgiveness if say it was part of a larger package of reforms which held the university system responsible and either fully or mainly responsible for paying back the cost of the forgiven debt.
excellent as always!
Nop. Just liberal bullshit to try to capture our votes, not to improve men situtstion. Nones of the proposals entails the recognition that we re now in a matriarchy and female privileged shall be dismanteled.
Fertile ground for a pro male agenda? If that is correct why has the white house spent nearly four years with their Gender Policy Council that focuses EXCLUSIVELY on women and girls. This administration has a history of blaming boys and men and catering to women and girls. Way, way, way, too late.
They re not concerned about males, but about males voting for Trump. They dont want us, but our votes.
Richard, thank you for your insightful analysis of the Democrats' struggle to engage male voters. However, reading between the lines, it seems less like a policy paradox and more like a lack of genuine engagement. While you mention that the Democrats have tangible, pro-male initiatives, it is telling that, as you point out, "There is a new Gender Policy Council in the White House, but it has not addressed a single issue facing boys or men."
The proposed policies you've outlined are an excellent starting point, particularly increasing male representation in teaching and expanding career and technical education. In my own experience with a website design course, there are six teachers, only one of whom is male. He is also the only one who knows how to code, and it is for that reason he is also my tutor for an additional two hours per week. I suspect the gender imbalance among my teachers is partly due to affirmative action aimed at encouraging women into the tech industry.
Democrats need to do more than just repackage existing policies—they need to truly prioritize the concerns of men and boys, ensuring they feel seen and valued. Expanding initiatives to foster male participation in key professions and directly addressing men’s health and family challenges would go a long way toward bridging the gap. It's time to end the zero-sum mentality and build a comprehensive policy agenda that supports everyone—men, women, and the families they create. Your call for this balanced approach should resonate with policymakers before it's too late.
That would entail recogniseing that they were wrong, that feminism was wrong and start demolishing female privileged in education for instance. But they will NOT do that: they are not concern for males, but for males voting Trump. They dont actually want males, but their votes.
We need to punish liberals for what they have done for decades. Voting Trump IS the only real option.
White males in particular feel alienated due to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies. Affirmative action is intended to alleviate under-representation and promote the opportunities of minority groups, providing them with equal access compared to the majority population. However, this focus on DEI is at the expense of white males, who see themselves increasingly marginalized in educational and employment opportunities.
In 2021, Joe Biden signed several executive orders concerning DEI, including Executive Orders 13985 and 14035. Following the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, New York magazine noted that "the business became astronomically larger than ever." The Economist also stated that the number of people hired for jobs with "diversity" or "inclusion" in their title more than quadrupled since 2010, highlighting the rapid growth of DEI initiatives. This clear increase under the Biden administration explains at least in part why women now make up nearly 60 percent of enrollment in universities and colleges in the United States. Yet, this is rarely acknowledged, and instead, males are often blamed for simply not being as capable as females or for being hindered by so-called "toxic masculinity".
Such rationalizations would be deemed unacceptable for any other social group. For instance, it would be politically incorrect to suggest that the lower percentage of African Americans at university than their proportion of the population is because they are inherently less capable or due to a "toxic" black culture. Yet, that is essentially the argument being made about white males. This disparity, coupled with DEI policies, has led many men to feel sidelined, fostering the very alienation you describe.
To save democracy, we must save boys and men
We have the tools to inspect,
the wisdom to reflect on,
and the capacity to address the issues
What is now required of us
is the will to see solutions through ,
and the skill to find allies to help us build them
Its the other way around: we need to punish Democrats to save men and boys. Voting for Trump IS the only way.
Your article in Politico is fantastic and lists such a comprehensive list of good ideas.
It IS not. Just bullshit liberals.
It's a good thing comments aren't allowed on the Political article. It's audience is very susceptible to moralistic group think. Without the reflexively misandrist chattering class there to screech you down some might be able to actually consider what you have to say.