Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Democrat Party’s “Speak with American Men” Project
The brain trust of the Democrat Party still cannot understand why Kamala Harris and Tim Walz didn’t attract and sway young American males to vote for them, and who instead turned out to vote for Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. So they’re spending millions of dollars and commissioning an exhaustive research effort to actually speak with these younger grunting, primitive, knuckle-dragging, troglodytes. Of course, it speaks volumes about how ideologically entrenched and clueless Democrats are. So, permit me to help. Here are some reasons that immediately come to mind:
- Young men resented being forced as children to listen to men in dresses and make-up read stories to them about queer and transgender characters.
- They were annoyed when the Boy Scouts started pushing transgenderism, accepted boys afflicted with gender dysphoria, eliminated the word “Boy” from “Boy Scouts of America,” and accepted girls.
- Young men were tired of constantly being singled out in college as misogynists and potential rapists by professors and female students with blue or neon green or purple hair and multiple face piercings, and being endlessly lectured about the patriarchy. Many of them left college altogether rather than endure this.
- Young men became disillusioned and angry when woke messaging and gay and lesbian characters started to appear in the Marvel Universe, DC Universe, and Star Wars spin-off franchises.
- Young men were irritated when the NFL hired gay men as cheerleaders while other men on the playing field pummeled one another, and at least exhibited some athletic prowess and skill and acted like men.
- Scores of young men were desperate for courageous masculine role models and responded positively to the lectures and work of Dr. Jordan Peterson.
- Some young men were interested in serving in the military but were reluctant to take orders from men who wore dresses and women’s make-up, who were getting cross-hormone “therapy,” or who might be undertaking genital mutilation/fabrication surgeries.
- Many young men weren’t impressed with hired actors (some of whom were gay) who encouraged them to vote for the Harris/Walz ticket. The remark that one of the hired actors made that he “ate carburetors for breakfast” sounded ridiculously stupid and contrived; something that men never say.
- Millions of young men thought that Trump displayed a substantial degree of courage and defiance when he rose up with a blood-streaked face, held his fist in the air and shouted, “Fight! Fight! Fight!” after a would-be assassin attempted to blow his head off.
- Many young men detected a certain effeminate and buffoonish quality about Tim Walz as he pranced and waved jazz hands, and were tired of effeminate men pretending to be masculine role models.
- A substantial portion of young men felt that Kamala Harris was a brainless ditz, and didn’t want to be lectured to for 4+ years by a brainless ditz. They imagined what it would be like to marry such a moronic and entitled woman and vowed not to let that happen to the country. (Keep in mind that they had already experienced being lectured to for four years by a cognitively struggling, angry, deceitful old man.)
Even if most of the actors weren’t gay, it sure sounded like the writers were.
Gay or not, they were definitely goofy.
With all due respect, it reminded me of certain (not all) Christian “rock” musicians whose ideological parameters were so constraining, they couldn’t produce actual “rock.”
Oddly, both those certain Christian rockers and Dudes For Kamala have the same problem: Too much message-discipline.
Brian, you should type this up, put it in a binder and submit it to the DNC with a large bill. You’ve really nailed it.
Brian, you should hide this from the DNC at all costs. I don’t count the chances as even one in a thousand, but if they took it to heart, they might actually claw back a percentage point somewhere.
I think a big issue is that from much of the 1990s onward, the basic education system (K – 12) became very female-centric, with little to entice boys, and in many fundamental ways, oppositional to boy interests and behaviors.
“Sit in chairs. Be still and be quiet.”
“Write. Do not do.”
“Cooperate. Collaborate. Do not compete.”
“Do not do or say anything to which even the most fragile person might take offense or objection.”
“Conform your opinion to the taught orthodoxy / convention. Do not challenge or disagree.”
“Take no risks.”
Boys were functionally shut out of “the system.”
The anti-boy education system became the adult power system, especially in government.
The Democrats, as the party of government and “the system,” now have a structural problem in that they have built over three decades or more a structure that systematically excludes most of half of the country’s population. They can’t paper over that structural problem with a few memes or tailored PR statements.
And I’ll add They were inundated with the message that all Whiteys are haters and violent against “minorities.”
I think the predominance of females in primary education, which I approve of wholeheartedly, leads to certain imbalances. As a student in the mid-sixties, the self-study reading units were pretty dull and not horribly biased to one sex or another until you got to the longer stuff, the couple of works running much over ten pages were “Betsy’s Adventure” and such. I ran through the lot and, quietly, brought in adult level science biographies and such to fill the time. (I was a problem, and they would very dourly tell my mom that, and she would laugh. I miss her.)
Ah, how about they noticed that they are discriminated against and are forbidden to complain.
how about they grew tired of hearing “You go Girl!” Everyday of their life without ever hearing “You go Man!”
No offence, but “You go Man!” sounds like something the Democrats would come up with. I think most men would prefer “Well Done!” for their actions, not for their steaks.
Several years ago I heard a mother commentator (it may have been Bethany Mandel) noting that there were many newly written children’s books with strong female heroines, but she had trouble finding newly written children’s books with strong male heroes.
The take on Twitchy:
A sample:
But that hasn’t really changed, has it? My elementary education started in the late 1960s. In my grade school we had three teachers in each grade (four when we reached 6th grade). All of the teachers in grades 1-3 were female, I think there was one male teacher for 4th grade, and I had my first male teacher in 5th grade.
Just have your boys read classic Science Fiction, the Heinlein juveniles in particular…
And “Secret of the Ninth Planet” by Don Wollheim.
I also like to think that young men are angry that the left’s policies have shrunk the pool of available, attractive women . . .
Note: When I say “attractive,” I don’t simply mean good looks. I mean a reasonably nice appearance, personality, and demeanor.
Not as appetizing as concertina wire:
If we define “men” as “humans, not women”, and they can’t define women … how are they going to know they have found men to talk to?
Solid list
And all non-whites are innocent lambs, not withstanding the evidence of their own eyes that there are certain neighborhoods that must be avoided.
A man would say he could clean and reassemble a carburetor ( or a gun ) in his sleep.
I wrote a somewhat long post about Democratic messaging and Nietzsche.
Democrats need to focus on being compassion and strong.
In her confirmation hearings, I wished the followup question to defining a woman was, “Which bathroom do you use?” The next followup question would be, “How do you know that’s the correct bathroom for you to use?”
Good point.
Democrats (and their associated fellow travelers in media and academia) constantly harp on the negatives of humanity, including often that people’s very existence is a problem, and rarely highlight any of the good and positive contributions that people (especially men who go out and take risks) bring or might bring to the world and its people.
Here is an example of why the democrats are in a mess
these people are the base of their party.
The 4th of July Is Kaput? That’s Disconcerting: Libtards Say We Can’t Celebrate Independence Day – Twitchy
Well I also harp on the negatives of humanity and wish that we can genetically engineer people to have 105 IQ and be more logical while lacking sociopathic traits. I have also met 9 people that I think should have been aborted. So I relate to not being kinda… iffy about humanity. But I can also celebrate Booker T. Washington, Johan Saulk and Anthony Hopkins.
When Leftism seems more negative about humanity than me, something has gone wrong.
Only 9?
You are more cynical then me. As are at least two other Ricochetti who would have a higher number.
If men really had an abundance of privilege, the lefty ideology could make sense. But when a rich girl at an ivy league school still wants to claim entitlements via her victim status even when compared to an unemployed male machinist with a high school diploma, it is both unjust and stupid.
We have to pretend that it is realistic when 98-lb girl-boss actresses beat up linebacker sized male villains in the movies. We have to pretend that women belong in combat (otherwise that might inhibit their promotion chances). Family law courts are female preserves in which husbands and fathers can rarely overcome a presumption of male fault regardless of female behavior. The absurd often conflicting ideological demands of a debased dating environment along with the overwhelming legal risk of accusation of unwanted advance or retroactive withdrawal of consent is a minefield. The “future is female” “take your daughter to work” and constant whining about increasing the female participation in fields where they are already a majority…
Fun fact: The weird social experiment brought about the by Obergefell decision has yielded data that men who marry men have a lower divorce rate that men who marry women who in turn have a lower divorce rate than women who marry women. The stability and likely success of a relationship is inversely proportional to the number of women in it. Modern chicks are toxic. Celebrating that toxicity ought to be political suicide.
In a way, I suppose women have always been toxic. They just weren’t coddled/allowed to get away with it, in the past.
That might be a modern women thing or that might be a women thing. We aren’t sure yet. Even the most progressive reformers in Britain when they were implementing divorce laws biased the laws in favor of women because they were worried that men would run off with their secretary. It turns out women initiating divorce (often without infidelity or abuse) is a bigger deal. Who knew?
This modern world is an incredibly new thing we don’t fully understand.