DNC's "Run for Office" Webpage excludes men wile Democrats struggle with getting young male support

MedBayMan2 · 2025-02-25T11:54:57+00:00

Didn’t you know? White women are the most oppressed minority!

Jealous-Factor7345 · 2025-02-25T14:43:36+00:00

I realized this when I looked at the DMC positions page. They are so scared of appearing to care about men as a group they won't even mildly pander to them on a few topics.

We're so fucked.

Langland88 · 2025-02-25T16:18:44+00:00

Im not surprised. I mentioned it in a different discussion that there are Democrats butting heads with other Democrats over the validity of Men's Issues. Right now, it seems like the Democrats definitely do not have their shit together. They're still licking their wounds and complaining about the stuff that Trump is doing that they aren't even trying to overhaul their own platform, that practically hasn't change in 15 years and isn't working anymore, but I disgress.

parahacker · 2025-02-25T13:08:12+00:00

4 of those 8 resources are funds exclusive to women such as Ignite and Emily's List.

That's appalling, and new information. Thank you for pointing this out.

There are also no funds to address the underrepresentation of certain racial and ethnic minority groups such as Latinos, Native Americans, and African Americans such as the Latino Victory Fun[d].

Okay... you're starting to lose me here. I mean, the Latino victory fund exists... do you mean it wasn't linked? That could simply be an oversight. No reason to assume malignant intent.

And to be clear, there were no funds specifically for whites either. The absence of funds for specific special interests doesn't mean those people are being treated unfairly. Unless...

Your average privileged White woman will get more resources to run for office

Unless you ignore some of the context.

Right, so those same funds you mentioned for "white women" also apply to minority women. As does the Latino victory fund and programs like it. Meaning that if such a woman looks beyond the links available on that web page, a minority woman can double- or even triple-dip on various identity-based funds, depending on the situation. Which makes this an awkward claim.

And "average privileged White" is a problematic phrase. If she's getting more resources to run for office? She's not average. She is not on the same playing field as a white woman who's working double shifts at a nursing home, or a white woman who can't find a job and is about to default on her school loans.

Contrarywise, that privileged white woman is on the same playing field as a trust fund baby who happens to be a Latino woman, or a Native American woman whose parents own tens of thousands of acres of land; etcetera.

Wealth and social class are the determiners of privilege. Insisting on "privileged white women" creates blind spots. Which is one of the many issues I have with 'intersectional' feminism.

We all know that women are underrepresented in politics

Are they, though? I'm not convinced. In absolute terms, sure; but in terms of access and participation rates? Hypothetically, if only 10% of women overall want an elected position, and 15% have an elected position, that's still women being over-represented for their interests even if the base population ratio is far higher. When you factor in incentives like those campaign funds? Yeah. 'underrepresented' is perhaps not the correct word. Not sure what to replace it with, though, so I suppose it's moot for now.

Those numbers were only for demonstration, not based on anything real. But you get my point.

Addressing historical unfairness towards women doesn't justify unfairness towards men in the present day.

No it doesn't. I completely agree with you on that.

Though I must add, 'Historical unfairness towards women' has been rather overblown and mischaracterized. So I wouldn't lean on this argument too much, even though it's true within certain bounds; because it reinforces the notion that women are the victims of history. By and large, they were not especially so in contrast to historical men.

It's no wonder most young men are not voting for Democrats when the Democrats exclude men from everything.

Very true, contexts like that abound within Democrat initiatives. And even when men are specifically being reached out to, it's with overtones of shaming and accusations of 'male privilege' that few men actually benefit from.

Too2crazy · 2025-02-25T14:13:56+00:00

Just curious,

What do you think of the Forward Party as an alternative to the current duopoly? Most people dislike both parties and the Forward Party seems pragmatic (to me anyway) and might be able to unite enough people to push a few solutions through and get us unstuck. Perhaps they could be a home for disenfranchised young men among others. What do you all think?

Mediocre-Basil8335 · 2025-02-26T09:23:56+00:00

We are fucked

nal014 · 2025-03-03T21:00:39+00:00

Maybe you should toss out the whole left wing philosophy. Things will make more sense

AdagioHonest7330 · 2025-06-04T00:23:47+00:00

Did the vasectomy tents at the DNC events not excite the young male base?

Howenator · 2025-02-25T23:30:54+00:00

bro i don’t give a fuck about “equal representation” in a party responsible for the single most horrific genocide this decade

Title	DNC's "Run for Office" Webpage excludes men wile Democrats struggle with getting young male support
Author	MozartFan2000
Upvotes	232
Comments	30
Date	February 25, 2025 6:05 AM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1ixo81z/dncs_run_for_office_webpage_excludes_men_wile/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/dncs-run-for-office-webpage-excludes-men-wile.1544905 https://theredarchive.com/post/1544905

Comments