No. of Recommendations: 1
there's a whole host of behaviors, positions on issues, and language you have to observe in order for the progressive base of the party to deem you to not be racist. And I think a lot of young men - and especially non-college young men - don't have that.
U probably don't have it either then. I remember well, when i was told at work that the use of the word 'oriental" was out. That it had a pejorative aspect that was deemed unsuitable. Rankled me, but I adjusted. Then later I lived on a part of an island known as Negros Oriental. A twofer! Nut it was an old name, and in the interior part of the island lived an isolated tribe of Negritos, one of the few remaining tribes of Negritos and the island had been named after them. I still do use the term migger as part of quotes, but I heard it from kids while growing up. So I'm sympathetic with them to a degree. You may not be racist, but some of the requirements to not be considered racist sure look arbitrary.
And looking at racism almost completely misses the point. Democrats aren't losing young men because of race. They're losing them because of gender. Democrats have adopted a set of policy priorities (not positions - priorities) around taking care of women. "The future is female."
"The future is female" I've never heard until just now. We should take care of women, but they have choices we don't get. There is no opt out of the competition and become a Mom for men. And today, most Moms have to work to have a good life. In Southern CA,I'd meet women who would tell me that what they wanted to do was stay at home and be a Mom. So if you wanted them, you had to be willing to be both incomes, and siome guys could do it for a while, then bust and divorce, and she moves on to another income generator. I'm only beginning to get involved in the Dem party around here, but locally, it's mostly female. There are so many Republican men here I just completely stay away from politics, but they've asked me and I say "slightly left of center" and... silence.
That's not going to appeal to a lot of younger men. Either to their self interest, or their sense of fairness.
It doesn't appeal to me. But women were the better students where I was. There were just limited opportunities - teaching, nursing, now you can set sights on being an exec in a company, but not back then.
Older men (like me, sigh) and me live in a world where women definitely still exhibit signs of worse economic outcomes.
They did for me too. But that's because of the limited avenues and slots that were available. My older sister got a Doctorate in Costume Design and spent most of her life editing papers at low income. She got cancer early, two of her vertebra acted up and she gradually went from cane to walker to wheelchair to bedridden and death. She had lots of disappointments.
But young men live in a different immediate environment. Girls are kicking boys' butts in school. Girls do better in school all throughout primary education. There's a massive gender gap in academic performance. The overwhelming majority of high school valedictorians (~70%) are female. 60% of college students are female - and more of the female college students will graduate than the male ones.
I understand that. There is no 'choose the softer life of being a Mom', where you get a 9 to 5 as a receptionist. You have to take on the rough jobs or settle for mediocre money - lots of slings and arrows. I could see some guys resenting that. Some women thrive on that, but they should have a choice. I'm reminded of the woman that passed as a man in the Union Forces during the Civil War - not everyone can pull that off, nor would they want to.
One of my brother's daughters is an exec in well-known company and her husband is the stay at home Mom. Works out for them.
