Things will be a lot more bitter if Harris gets in - like food shortages. Even a CNN host said there would be bread lines if Harris implements price controls on groceries.
"The 2024 vote was set to be a referendum on the rights of women. Instead it has become a debate over the needs and desires of men."
------
How has ANY election ever been about the needs and desires of men? Especially one in which a feminist is running for president? While Walz is portrayed for having "21st century masculinity", I see that as a red herring. Has he ever spoken up about the underfunding of prostate cancer? About the four-times-greater numbers of male suicides?About the fact that there isn't a comparable office for men's health?
The Democrats have been all in with feminism, and the corresponding neglect of men, for decades. Harris is no exception. The Republicans have not exactly been pro-male, but Trump's education secretary, Betsy deVos, protected men college students from Obama's feminist kangaroo courts on campus - which may have prevented countless male suicides.
To answer your question Richard Reeves, the answer is no, not at this time. Why? Because it is time to have a discussion about what it means to be masculine and what it means to be feminine. Let's stop the polarization. Society is calling for men to be role models to their children and their sons. The number of boys growing up without father figure role models is staggering. Let's get to the core of the issue rather then skirting it through the lens of politics.
Comments here are mostly centered in politics. I get it but it just restates the problem and your beliefs- it’s not helpful. What the article is about is encouraging us to find solutions.
And let’s face it, our politicians are not really leaders these days - they follow the path that serves their goals. We need to tell these knuckleheads what we want …but we are too busy trying to prove our side is better and win. Win what?
Richard mentions one solution with more men as teachers. Role models is something we need (both for boys and girls). Right now we are short on male role models in our schools. We can fix that. I think we not only need more men but we need all kinds of men, you know? We need male teachers who are John Wayne’s , Malcom Gladwells, Charles Barkleys, Warren Buffetts and Elon Musks. I’m assuming all these people are good people at their core. They are all centrally flawed in some ways like us all. That’s fine. Kids are smart - they see the good and the bad. And the truth is kids come to school with their stuff too.
Let them see that there are lots ways to show up in the world. You don’t have to be perfect or believe all the same stuff. You have to show up and try to be a good person. That’s what life is about. Our quest should be to become a person that adds value to our community. You know, Be a good person. We do that… and we all win. Right, left…whatever.
I’ve seen some whacky behavior in the news and it seems like the world is on fire but almost every person I meet during my day is just fine. I don’t give two sh$@s about the politics - I can tell they are good people. They don’t have to be on my side politically. And hell, maybe my side is wrong anyway.
Let’s move from just naming the problems, choosing sides and pointing fingers… to rolling up our sleeves - in our communities- and fix some stuff.
What Richard is saying is, men are not going into teaching, and maybe it would help if boys could look up and see a few more men to connect the dots as they grow into the men they will be. If we have few male teachers … or just as bad … all teachers that are the same kind of men - our kids don’t see themselves or perhaps a clear path forward.
For those who have not yet read it, I suggest you get a copy of “Of Boys and Men”, by Richard Reeves. Reeves does an excellent job of digging beneath the surface of gender energy currently in our society. This short WSJ article is limited in describing the complexities that have brought us to this point. I read this article as a snapshot in time, rather than a complete contextual view. We have an opportunity to influence the educational system of the future to fully realize the contributions and role of all humans - recognizing and leveraging the unique strengths of gender.
I'm curious what you make of the role of the climate crisis in terms of gender in this election.
Woman often poll as more concerned than men about global warming. You can find a lot of men leading the denier charge (watch for dudes doing "rolling coal").
Yet climate mitigation and adaptation calls for a ton of traditionally male jobs: construction, electrical engineering. Quite a few of the leading climate sciences are dominated by men.
Is climate an issue which might have both cross-party and both-gender appeal?
Trump's education secretary, Betsy deVos, helped protect college men from Obama's feminist kangaroo courts on college campuses. Countless male suicides could have been prevented from her actions.
That’s a very sad post Tom. Is that all you see men as, people to do the hard, physical jobs? You don’t see them as leaders in society. You don’t see them as tender hearted husbands, fathers, friends and companions. You don’t understand the creative capabilities of men, writers, poets, artists, inventors. No you just see them as tough muscle. Along with your unusual view of men you also don’t know what women are capable of either. Men and women are necessary for each other and for society. It’s so sad that all you seem to see is warfare where in reality there should be mutual appreciation, help, friendship and love.
I have to admire your sense of humour. Kill all men? Why should I deprive myself of the pleasure I feel from masculine company? Come on, men are wonderful as are most women. I definitely believe that making love ( with men) is better and more enjoyable than making war.
That's what the most extreme anti-male feminist freaks say about us. I'm not trying to be self-pitying about all this. I'm just saying we’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of hate for years now, and if we're being honest, liberals haven't even tried to address the contradictions in their own ideology. Tim Walz isn't a solution to any of this. He's emblematic of just how deep the problems that Democrats have with men go.
In some ways Tom that’s a more sensible comment from you. Demonising either men or women- or both just doesn’t get anyone anywhere. The problem is really this idea of superiority instead of harmony. Men are not the same as women or vice versa but their differences should be complementary. Educationally their needs are not the same. Females mature mentally earlier than males. Same sex education puts males at a disadvantage and many young men do not recover from the disappointment and humiliation they suffer at being behind the female members of the class. This often leads to disenchantment with education that prevents young men from even trying to become better educated. That is just one example of the differences between male and female. With reference to education, how many of the leading schools in the country are single sex, particularly in the paid for examples where the element of early competition doesn’t arise. We need to be more informed and less emotional about the differing needs and abilities of male and female. FYI, all men are not rapists and all women are not man haters.
You point to some important problems with the education of boys. So why is nothing being done about it? Why is all the focus in politics on women and their issues? When was the last time you saw a political debate about an issue that is particular to men and boys, that is anywhere near as “important” as those that are particular to women, such as reproductive rights, sexual harassment and abuse, and affirmative action?
Democrats have nothing to offer men, seriously. Tim Walz is what feminists think men should want, but he appeals to the coalition of the cat ladies for the same reason he doesn't appeal to men.
He's a feminized loser whose sole job is to “get out of the way” for women to take their proper, ostensibly, rightful place at the top of society. Please pay no attention to all the redistributing of wealth and opportunity that the state does for them. In reality, he's an entirely cucked loser who abandoned his unit to pretend he was a hero to people who don't appreciate any of the things that men do for them while simultaneously talking about how useless/backward/weird men are.
I'd love to see feminists take over the military/police/firefighters/every dangerous job in society. I'm sure they would do a better job than all those loser men. It's funny how feminists are never interested in solving that kind of equality. I guess the inequality in which men fight and die for women is the good kind.
Correct. The Democrats are the party of feminism. In the 90s, they wrote and passed two femicentric bills: the Women's Health Act and the Violence Against Women Act. The subtext of both bills is the unwritten the-men-can-go-to-hell act.
Stop all the politicians and media talking heads trying to normalize the restitution of slavery. That's an actual meaningful yet gendered issue, not these purely aesthetic concerns.
Great e-mail. I’m an older white male and to me, it’s very disappointing to hear that younger men are moving to the right. I think that part of the reason is that men have been marginalized over the last several decades like you’ve written about in the past. I see how my grandsons have it so difficult in school because they're male. I don't dispute the need for STEM efforts for the girls but the boys have just been ignored and left behind for years. No wonder they're not going to college, not getting married, and have difficulty getting decent jobs. We need to focus on BOTH genders, not just one at the expense of the other!
Hello Richard. I saw your piece in the WSJ this morning and stopped reading at the first line. However, since you asked people to read the entire essay and to provide feedback, I did and I am.
Overall, I suggest avoiding politics. I stopped reading because I already get the NYT and The Atlantic. Both are killing me with idiotic and repetitive political articles. They are also breathlessly creating cartoonish caricatures of the latest politicians that are only suitable for the gullible. I cannot wait for the elections to be over. As far as the political parties go, I feel completely disenfranchised.
That said, we are probably 80% aligned in our concerns. I do have a different perspective on sex and politics, keeping in mind that I did not watch the Republican convention and have no interest in Hulk Hogan or men hitting each other in the head for entertainment.
Pew released a poll April 9, showing that overall, registered voters are almost equally divided between men and women, 49% to 48% respectively. The big divide is over commitment to marriage. 59% of married men and 50% of married women lean Republican. 60% of men living with a partner vote Democratic and 64% of women living with a partner. Only 33% of unmarried women living with a partner are Republicans. For never-married women it is just 24%.
The implications for men and women are enormous. The jails are filled with men who did not have a mom and dad living together. So too are the graveyards. Since our society no longer has a clear role for boys, there is a tragic shortage of suitable husbands. Melissa Carney’s book The Two-Parent Privilege does a good job of putting data behind this human catastrophe.
Your crack about “what families should look like” doesn’t help. You are mixing two different issues together. One is a civil-rights issue and the other is a question of what is important for society overall as a matter of public policy.
Wealthy and educated people teach their children the importance of marriage through example, even if their political views do not match their lifestyles. There is a simple formula for success. Get married and stay married. Have children after marriage. Save more than you spend. Love each other. You will be rich in every way.
I was materially poor as a child but I was culturally rich, with two loving parents who set a good example. Eventually, my parents brought us into the middle class. Through their love and example I have gone beyond that for my family.
How do we provide for our children the types of families that rich people have? I have eschewed politics in favor of supporting a local organization that provides safe classrooms after school for disadvantaged children. There, kids can get some of of the safety and love that I had. They can learn computers, math, science, and history. They have a From Boys to Men program that will help them become good fathers and husbands.
These are state and local issues after all, so avoid the politics if you want to hit a large audience with an important message.
I absolutely agree w you on the importance & value of 2 loving, caring, committed parents. The inherent problem with the "simple" "get married & stay married" formula for success is that it takes 2 people committed to that vision; if either of them lose or can't continue w that, it falls apart & it doesn't do our kids, parents, our culture much good to ignore that reality. That's why I really appreciate Richard's thoughts on parents & parenthood as well: Support parent involvement, at every step of the way, regardless of parental marital status. (For context: I started out w the simply formula for success. Get married. Have children after marriage. Planned to stay married. That didn't happen for reasons beyond my control. My former spouse & I both remained very involved parents & our now young adult children are thriving, despite the fact that their parents are not married to each other)
Don't cast this as a women vs. men election. It is a contest between democracy as we know it and fascism led by an execrable madman. Be grateful for a candidate who can beat the rapacious person who plans to become a dictator. Kamala is the thin blue line. Most thinking people understand this.
Try again. Harris allowed millions of illegal aliens to enter the country as vice president. She is also a feminist that has never expressed concern for men and male issues. On the other hand, Trump's education secretary, Betsy deVos, protected college men from Obama's feminist kangaroo courts on college campuses.
I liked your comment until "Kamala is the thin blue line." To me, this just accentuates the male vs. female images. If only you had said "Kamala and Tim are the thin blue line.
You are right. Kamala and Tim together are the thin blue line. We are fortunate in both fine candidates, excellent in their own right. I look forward to their administration. They're also what stands between us and the alternative, which is not conservatism, but authoritarianism. I also applaud the male Joe Biden who similarly saved us four years ago and has, in my opinion, performed well as president. I feel sorry disease and accelerated aging caught up with him, am glad he did the right thing, and am thrilled Kamala so ably stepped into the breach, demonstrating good judgment in her first major decision, choosing a running mate. Joe, likewise, demonstrated good judgment in his first major decision as a candidate, choosing Kamala as Vice President.
Nope. Harris is a feminist, and feminists don't care about men. Walz is running with the "21st century masculinity", which is the standard diversion for speaking up for male issues. Has Walz ever mentioned the underfunding of prostate cancer relative to breast cancer, or the fact that there are no government programs set up to address the male suicide rate? If so, I sure haven't seen it.
And, let's keep in mind that Biden gave $100,000,000 to some White House women's program in February, and zero dollars to any program for men.
So you'll vote for Trump, who cares about no one except himself? Feminists of my acquaintance care about men and women. What is the evidence Kamala doesn't care about men?
The Democratic party has only expressed concern for women since the 90s. They passed the Women's Health Act and the Violence Against Women Act, despite the facts that women outlive men by 6 years on average, men are violent crime victims 2 times more often the women, and women batter men as often as the converse. And, let's not forget about Jill Biden's donation (of taxpayer funds) to their women's health program, while doing nothing for men and male health. Harris is only concerned about women having abortion rights, and, like every other feminist, ignores the fact that men never had the right to refuse paternity.
Why Democrats and not Republicans? Democrats have demonising men for decades. "The Future is Female", "Kill All Men", "Toxic Masculinity"... all that came from the left. We will NOT trust the one that hated us. And you are just supporting them.
Thanks mate. We are indeed heading to a matriarchy. This election is about the consolidation of that trend or reversing it. Masculinity is not in crisis: men are. And they are in crisis because elites have decides to make the war on men. Democrats lining up with that war just for a bunch of votes.
"Punching them in the face" will let them know that they CANNOT win without men. Hopefully, this will make their narrative to change.
You know: weak men create hard times. And hard times create strong men. Hopefully, we are starting this second part.
Agreed. The Democrats showing Walz' "21st century masculinity" is a dodge for them addressing men's issues. At least Trump said, "It's a scary time to be a young man in America, and his Education Secretary, Betsy deVos likely prevented several college men from suicide due to Obama's feminist kangaroo courts on campus. While Trump will hopefully do more to help men, the Democrats make it painfully obvious that they don't give a damn about men.
OK, Frank, no point conversing with a Trump acolyte. Enjoy your bitterness. Say goodbye to the Department of Education.
Things will be a lot more bitter if Harris gets in - like food shortages. Even a CNN host said there would be bread lines if Harris implements price controls on groceries.
Richard: I have to question you on this point:
----
"The 2024 vote was set to be a referendum on the rights of women. Instead it has become a debate over the needs and desires of men."
------
How has ANY election ever been about the needs and desires of men? Especially one in which a feminist is running for president? While Walz is portrayed for having "21st century masculinity", I see that as a red herring. Has he ever spoken up about the underfunding of prostate cancer? About the four-times-greater numbers of male suicides?About the fact that there isn't a comparable office for men's health?
The Democrats have been all in with feminism, and the corresponding neglect of men, for decades. Harris is no exception. The Republicans have not exactly been pro-male, but Trump's education secretary, Betsy deVos, protected men college students from Obama's feminist kangaroo courts on campus - which may have prevented countless male suicides.
"creating more jobs to fix the country’s infrastructure"
- Trump ran on that in 2015 but he never did anything.
To answer your question Richard Reeves, the answer is no, not at this time. Why? Because it is time to have a discussion about what it means to be masculine and what it means to be feminine. Let's stop the polarization. Society is calling for men to be role models to their children and their sons. The number of boys growing up without father figure role models is staggering. Let's get to the core of the issue rather then skirting it through the lens of politics.
Comments here are mostly centered in politics. I get it but it just restates the problem and your beliefs- it’s not helpful. What the article is about is encouraging us to find solutions.
And let’s face it, our politicians are not really leaders these days - they follow the path that serves their goals. We need to tell these knuckleheads what we want …but we are too busy trying to prove our side is better and win. Win what?
Richard mentions one solution with more men as teachers. Role models is something we need (both for boys and girls). Right now we are short on male role models in our schools. We can fix that. I think we not only need more men but we need all kinds of men, you know? We need male teachers who are John Wayne’s , Malcom Gladwells, Charles Barkleys, Warren Buffetts and Elon Musks. I’m assuming all these people are good people at their core. They are all centrally flawed in some ways like us all. That’s fine. Kids are smart - they see the good and the bad. And the truth is kids come to school with their stuff too.
Let them see that there are lots ways to show up in the world. You don’t have to be perfect or believe all the same stuff. You have to show up and try to be a good person. That’s what life is about. Our quest should be to become a person that adds value to our community. You know, Be a good person. We do that… and we all win. Right, left…whatever.
I’ve seen some whacky behavior in the news and it seems like the world is on fire but almost every person I meet during my day is just fine. I don’t give two sh$@s about the politics - I can tell they are good people. They don’t have to be on my side politically. And hell, maybe my side is wrong anyway.
Let’s move from just naming the problems, choosing sides and pointing fingers… to rolling up our sleeves - in our communities- and fix some stuff.
What Richard is saying is, men are not going into teaching, and maybe it would help if boys could look up and see a few more men to connect the dots as they grow into the men they will be. If we have few male teachers … or just as bad … all teachers that are the same kind of men - our kids don’t see themselves or perhaps a clear path forward.
For those who have not yet read it, I suggest you get a copy of “Of Boys and Men”, by Richard Reeves. Reeves does an excellent job of digging beneath the surface of gender energy currently in our society. This short WSJ article is limited in describing the complexities that have brought us to this point. I read this article as a snapshot in time, rather than a complete contextual view. We have an opportunity to influence the educational system of the future to fully realize the contributions and role of all humans - recognizing and leveraging the unique strengths of gender.
I'm curious what you make of the role of the climate crisis in terms of gender in this election.
Woman often poll as more concerned than men about global warming. You can find a lot of men leading the denier charge (watch for dudes doing "rolling coal").
Yet climate mitigation and adaptation calls for a ton of traditionally male jobs: construction, electrical engineering. Quite a few of the leading climate sciences are dominated by men.
Is climate an issue which might have both cross-party and both-gender appeal?
I appreciate your call for both parties to offer more support to boys and men in the education system.
Trump's education secretary, Betsy deVos, helped protect college men from Obama's feminist kangaroo courts on college campuses. Countless male suicides could have been prevented from her actions.
That’s a very sad post Tom. Is that all you see men as, people to do the hard, physical jobs? You don’t see them as leaders in society. You don’t see them as tender hearted husbands, fathers, friends and companions. You don’t understand the creative capabilities of men, writers, poets, artists, inventors. No you just see them as tough muscle. Along with your unusual view of men you also don’t know what women are capable of either. Men and women are necessary for each other and for society. It’s so sad that all you seem to see is warfare where in reality there should be mutual appreciation, help, friendship and love.
Sorry, I can't hear you over the screams of toxic masculinity, kill all men, believe all women, rape culture and patriarchy killing our society.
I have to admire your sense of humour. Kill all men? Why should I deprive myself of the pleasure I feel from masculine company? Come on, men are wonderful as are most women. I definitely believe that making love ( with men) is better and more enjoyable than making war.
That's what the most extreme anti-male feminist freaks say about us. I'm not trying to be self-pitying about all this. I'm just saying we’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of hate for years now, and if we're being honest, liberals haven't even tried to address the contradictions in their own ideology. Tim Walz isn't a solution to any of this. He's emblematic of just how deep the problems that Democrats have with men go.
In some ways Tom that’s a more sensible comment from you. Demonising either men or women- or both just doesn’t get anyone anywhere. The problem is really this idea of superiority instead of harmony. Men are not the same as women or vice versa but their differences should be complementary. Educationally their needs are not the same. Females mature mentally earlier than males. Same sex education puts males at a disadvantage and many young men do not recover from the disappointment and humiliation they suffer at being behind the female members of the class. This often leads to disenchantment with education that prevents young men from even trying to become better educated. That is just one example of the differences between male and female. With reference to education, how many of the leading schools in the country are single sex, particularly in the paid for examples where the element of early competition doesn’t arise. We need to be more informed and less emotional about the differing needs and abilities of male and female. FYI, all men are not rapists and all women are not man haters.
You point to some important problems with the education of boys. So why is nothing being done about it? Why is all the focus in politics on women and their issues? When was the last time you saw a political debate about an issue that is particular to men and boys, that is anywhere near as “important” as those that are particular to women, such as reproductive rights, sexual harassment and abuse, and affirmative action?
Democrats have nothing to offer men, seriously. Tim Walz is what feminists think men should want, but he appeals to the coalition of the cat ladies for the same reason he doesn't appeal to men.
He's a feminized loser whose sole job is to “get out of the way” for women to take their proper, ostensibly, rightful place at the top of society. Please pay no attention to all the redistributing of wealth and opportunity that the state does for them. In reality, he's an entirely cucked loser who abandoned his unit to pretend he was a hero to people who don't appreciate any of the things that men do for them while simultaneously talking about how useless/backward/weird men are.
I'd love to see feminists take over the military/police/firefighters/every dangerous job in society. I'm sure they would do a better job than all those loser men. It's funny how feminists are never interested in solving that kind of equality. I guess the inequality in which men fight and die for women is the good kind.
Correct. The Democrats are the party of feminism. In the 90s, they wrote and passed two femicentric bills: the Women's Health Act and the Violence Against Women Act. The subtext of both bills is the unwritten the-men-can-go-to-hell act.
cntrl+f "conscription"
no results found
Stop all the politicians and media talking heads trying to normalize the restitution of slavery. That's an actual meaningful yet gendered issue, not these purely aesthetic concerns.
Great e-mail. I’m an older white male and to me, it’s very disappointing to hear that younger men are moving to the right. I think that part of the reason is that men have been marginalized over the last several decades like you’ve written about in the past. I see how my grandsons have it so difficult in school because they're male. I don't dispute the need for STEM efforts for the girls but the boys have just been ignored and left behind for years. No wonder they're not going to college, not getting married, and have difficulty getting decent jobs. We need to focus on BOTH genders, not just one at the expense of the other!
The men are moving to the right, because the Democrats have focused on women, and ignored men, for decades.
Hello Richard. I saw your piece in the WSJ this morning and stopped reading at the first line. However, since you asked people to read the entire essay and to provide feedback, I did and I am.
Overall, I suggest avoiding politics. I stopped reading because I already get the NYT and The Atlantic. Both are killing me with idiotic and repetitive political articles. They are also breathlessly creating cartoonish caricatures of the latest politicians that are only suitable for the gullible. I cannot wait for the elections to be over. As far as the political parties go, I feel completely disenfranchised.
That said, we are probably 80% aligned in our concerns. I do have a different perspective on sex and politics, keeping in mind that I did not watch the Republican convention and have no interest in Hulk Hogan or men hitting each other in the head for entertainment.
Pew released a poll April 9, showing that overall, registered voters are almost equally divided between men and women, 49% to 48% respectively. The big divide is over commitment to marriage. 59% of married men and 50% of married women lean Republican. 60% of men living with a partner vote Democratic and 64% of women living with a partner. Only 33% of unmarried women living with a partner are Republicans. For never-married women it is just 24%.
The implications for men and women are enormous. The jails are filled with men who did not have a mom and dad living together. So too are the graveyards. Since our society no longer has a clear role for boys, there is a tragic shortage of suitable husbands. Melissa Carney’s book The Two-Parent Privilege does a good job of putting data behind this human catastrophe.
Your crack about “what families should look like” doesn’t help. You are mixing two different issues together. One is a civil-rights issue and the other is a question of what is important for society overall as a matter of public policy.
Wealthy and educated people teach their children the importance of marriage through example, even if their political views do not match their lifestyles. There is a simple formula for success. Get married and stay married. Have children after marriage. Save more than you spend. Love each other. You will be rich in every way.
I was materially poor as a child but I was culturally rich, with two loving parents who set a good example. Eventually, my parents brought us into the middle class. Through their love and example I have gone beyond that for my family.
How do we provide for our children the types of families that rich people have? I have eschewed politics in favor of supporting a local organization that provides safe classrooms after school for disadvantaged children. There, kids can get some of of the safety and love that I had. They can learn computers, math, science, and history. They have a From Boys to Men program that will help them become good fathers and husbands.
These are state and local issues after all, so avoid the politics if you want to hit a large audience with an important message.
I absolutely agree w you on the importance & value of 2 loving, caring, committed parents. The inherent problem with the "simple" "get married & stay married" formula for success is that it takes 2 people committed to that vision; if either of them lose or can't continue w that, it falls apart & it doesn't do our kids, parents, our culture much good to ignore that reality. That's why I really appreciate Richard's thoughts on parents & parenthood as well: Support parent involvement, at every step of the way, regardless of parental marital status. (For context: I started out w the simply formula for success. Get married. Have children after marriage. Planned to stay married. That didn't happen for reasons beyond my control. My former spouse & I both remained very involved parents & our now young adult children are thriving, despite the fact that their parents are not married to each other)
Don't cast this as a women vs. men election. It is a contest between democracy as we know it and fascism led by an execrable madman. Be grateful for a candidate who can beat the rapacious person who plans to become a dictator. Kamala is the thin blue line. Most thinking people understand this.
Try again. Harris allowed millions of illegal aliens to enter the country as vice president. She is also a feminist that has never expressed concern for men and male issues. On the other hand, Trump's education secretary, Betsy deVos, protected college men from Obama's feminist kangaroo courts on college campuses.
I liked your comment until "Kamala is the thin blue line." To me, this just accentuates the male vs. female images. If only you had said "Kamala and Tim are the thin blue line.
You are right. Kamala and Tim together are the thin blue line. We are fortunate in both fine candidates, excellent in their own right. I look forward to their administration. They're also what stands between us and the alternative, which is not conservatism, but authoritarianism. I also applaud the male Joe Biden who similarly saved us four years ago and has, in my opinion, performed well as president. I feel sorry disease and accelerated aging caught up with him, am glad he did the right thing, and am thrilled Kamala so ably stepped into the breach, demonstrating good judgment in her first major decision, choosing a running mate. Joe, likewise, demonstrated good judgment in his first major decision as a candidate, choosing Kamala as Vice President.
Nope. Harris is a feminist, and feminists don't care about men. Walz is running with the "21st century masculinity", which is the standard diversion for speaking up for male issues. Has Walz ever mentioned the underfunding of prostate cancer relative to breast cancer, or the fact that there are no government programs set up to address the male suicide rate? If so, I sure haven't seen it.
And, let's keep in mind that Biden gave $100,000,000 to some White House women's program in February, and zero dollars to any program for men.
So you'll vote for Trump, who cares about no one except himself? Feminists of my acquaintance care about men and women. What is the evidence Kamala doesn't care about men?
If you want to see Harris in action, watch the first few minutes of this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa7VTWmRt3o
The Democratic party has only expressed concern for women since the 90s. They passed the Women's Health Act and the Violence Against Women Act, despite the facts that women outlive men by 6 years on average, men are violent crime victims 2 times more often the women, and women batter men as often as the converse. And, let's not forget about Jill Biden's donation (of taxpayer funds) to their women's health program, while doing nothing for men and male health. Harris is only concerned about women having abortion rights, and, like every other feminist, ignores the fact that men never had the right to refuse paternity.
Why Democrats and not Republicans? Democrats have demonising men for decades. "The Future is Female", "Kill All Men", "Toxic Masculinity"... all that came from the left. We will NOT trust the one that hated us. And you are just supporting them.
Thanks. You are entirely correct.
Thanks mate. We are indeed heading to a matriarchy. This election is about the consolidation of that trend or reversing it. Masculinity is not in crisis: men are. And they are in crisis because elites have decides to make the war on men. Democrats lining up with that war just for a bunch of votes.
"Punching them in the face" will let them know that they CANNOT win without men. Hopefully, this will make their narrative to change.
You know: weak men create hard times. And hard times create strong men. Hopefully, we are starting this second part.
Greetings.
Agreed. The Democrats showing Walz' "21st century masculinity" is a dodge for them addressing men's issues. At least Trump said, "It's a scary time to be a young man in America, and his Education Secretary, Betsy deVos likely prevented several college men from suicide due to Obama's feminist kangaroo courts on campus. While Trump will hopefully do more to help men, the Democrats make it painfully obvious that they don't give a damn about men.