Why the Left has Anti-Male Rhetoric and Policies

63daddy · 2025-03-04T21:37:19+00:00

Men have historically voted more on issues like the economy and international relations whereas women have been more influenced to vote on things like identity politics. So to a point, Democrats could have pro-female, anti-male policies and not lose too many male voters as a result. However, they’ve pushed it too far and are now losing male voters. They’re trying to backpedal, but that’s going to be problematic.

Stock-Scientist6685 · 2025-03-05T07:50:51+00:00

Because, when a left-wing party don't do that. Woke left call them "red fascist" or "nazbol".

walterwallcarpet · 2025-03-05T04:55:56+00:00

"Now, of course, not all women are resentful.."

No, but they are filled with ressentiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment#:~:text=The%20concept%20was%20of%20particular,of%20blame%20for%20one's%20frustration

Why..? Because they see themselves as lumbered with menstruation, gestation, childbirth and weaning, while men (apparently) go around as free as a bird, stronger, smarter and getting huge enjoyment from spraying their gametes all around.

Nature isn't men's fault, sister! And, of course, they cannot see the downsides of male existence.

Angryasfk · 2025-03-05T07:28:07+00:00

Why? Well first and foremost it’s the feminist takeover of the basic institutions and organisation of the left of politics. And it also suits the upper middle class group amongst “the left” (whom Orwell derided in the ‘30’s as the sandal wearers). They can favour members of their own class (feminist women) and not have to do things like raising wages for working men which will negatively impact on their own standard of living, and then pretend they’re “fighting the good fight”. Look at how working class white guys suddenly went from a priority to “racist rednecks” in the tales of “the left”. I dare say white gay guys will soon follow, as will black and Hispanic men as soon as they become a “problem” for “the left”.

Now I cannot speak for the US as I’m not familiar enough with the lower levels of the political system there. But in Australia the point of no return was when the Labor Party introduced the “quota” - initially 1/3 of candidates for winnable seats in Parliament, soon increased to 40%. What was less publicised was that this extended to all office holders in the party apparatus itself. A friend of mine who was a branch President told me he was reduced to trying to get any woman who joined to immediately take an official position - many of them were unwilling to do so.

So virtually overnight the party ranks and offices were filled with women, and virtually all university feminists to some degree. And 40% of the Party room is an enormous block. Anyone with aspirations to lead Labor has to at least pay lip service to feminist goals, and avoid anyone who doesn’t play the game. And the quota stays. Plus the feminists ensure that other feminists are selected for candidates (it works the same in University administration).

So we’re stuck. The “alternative” on “the left” (in Australia) are the Greens. And they’re almost completely filled with feminist/identity politics types hiding behind environmentalism. Labor will have to remove the quota to even start clearing house. But the real problem is the prevalence of feminists in key positions who’ll ensure that their fellow travellers get selected and maintain their hold. Ultimately I suspect some sort of party split is what will be required.

Curvy_Bunny_ · 2025-03-05T01:50:00+00:00

The democrats aren’t just losing men, they’re losing people, period. Not because of the pandering they do but because they make constant empty promises and do not support the working class.

parahacker · 2025-03-04T20:34:55+00:00

Nah, you're putting the cart before the horse.

First of all, addressing the strategy of 'courting aggrieved' voters: those votes are, for better or worse, locked in. Were I a Dem candidate, as long as I didn't go out of my way to work against that bloc? I could simply point to Rep acts in the past decade or so, and say, "I won't be doing that," and probably get their votes.

Meanwhile a strategy that focuses on populism, wealth inequality and so on - such as Bernie's - and class divides that affect everyone would still hit those 'aggrieved minorities' in much of their grief, AND include white male voters. Because most white guys aren't winning the money wars either.

So I said the cart's before the horse here, and this is why: academia has been the gateway to most of these sentiments and policies. This is why 'soft sciences' like sociology, philosophy and history are still important, folks: if you ignore and dismiss them, you get puffed up "statistics" and "research" that are thinly veiled propaganda, all while the core principles of liberal philosophy get overruled and forgotten in the churn.

What I'm saying is that for many Democrat elected officials... they believe patriarchy is the problem. That identity politics and "social justice" is actually justice. instead of grouping people into ill-fitting "privileged" and "not privileged" categories. This is how many of them think. Courting the 'aggrieved' is often secondary to that.

Not to mention that, if Democrats were to zero in on real issues of wealth and class inequality? Well. Someone pithy said recently, "It's hard to teach someone the truth when their paycheck depends on being wrong."

Still, there's a few signs that the party is moving away from idpol and towards more sane populist progressivism. We'll see if they can manage to pivot fast enough for the next election cycle. Until then, best thing anybody who cares about all this can do is yell at everyone. Repubs for being anti-Constitutional spineless followers, and Dems for huffing so much of the air inside gender studies classrooms that they forgot men are worth respect and consideration.

EatM3L053R · 2025-03-06T02:23:45+00:00

I saw this first-hand as a former resident of California, and pissed off millennial. I saw how the black community turned against one another -- again, and then perpetuated stereotypes to the shameful dismay of others. I saw how Democratic rhetoric could easily poison, free thinking minds, and enslave the weak minded through intimidation, or coercion.

It became clear to me that the Democratic party, once the champion of the working man, found itself a resurrected villain from the Reconstruction era. Men who challenged the "Sex Positive," narrative were met with ridicule, and shame. Black men who chose to date women of another race, look past false imagery (I.E. Bad Bitch), or refused to promote their victimhood were smeared for thinking against "The Community."

The DP lost men of all varieties when they catered to identity politics, and made it known through the MSM, and infused their hate-mongering into everyday life. You can't demonize men in your talking points, and then wonder why they won't support your issues? Who wants to sign up for a party that actively seeks to make you a useful idiot?

Not me.

Golden-Grate-242 · 2025-03-05T12:06:18+00:00

I'm for men's rights. I resent the idea that I have to be a Republican or a conservative to support equality. I can't stand Trump.

CatacombsRave · 2025-03-06T01:24:47+00:00

I think the left are aware of men’s issues, but they’re hesitant to talk about them because it would be career suicide or otherwise politically incorrect.

Lolocraft1 · 2025-03-04T23:45:23+00:00

This is the thing the left does pooree than the rights. The right also hate some class of people, but at least (and at worse for everyone else), they are aware of the consequences, being they won’t get the vote of those demographic groups. But here’s the thing: They don’t care about those votes, because they don’t care about those voters

The left hate men and white people, and afterward complain that men and white people aren’t voting for them. They are hypocrites, and until they realize it, there will be another Trump that will fuck us all over

RealStarkey · 2025-03-05T12:08:19+00:00

Because feminism ate the left decades ago. The two are interchangeable. Hence a lunatic like Trump having the success he has now with men.

Mr_Joguvaga · 2025-03-05T13:33:28+00:00

The problem is that both side does the "devide and conquer" strategy, the diferences are the victims.

They always use the loudest minority against the silent majority, they use terms like "those animals" or "those aliens" or "id rather have insert animal here than those people"

Its always the silent minority that are heard while the silent minority that are never listened to

SexyBrownMale · 2025-03-04T20:41:58+00:00

While I agree with some of your points, I would like to add that it is not that they can't risk losing womens votes more so they have no way of winning votes from others, doing so would imply to recognize the economic hardship of the population and to present a plan to address wealth and income inequality for all gender and races. Using gender and racial talking points, abuse the current narrative of identity politics is their only method for the continued ignorance of the Economics issue, not how we are better than the other party but look how much worse the other party is.

2025-03-04T22:59:30+00:00

I don't think there is any unsalvageable problem here. We don't want patriarchy either. It's just that we were left behind when the feminists were fighting against it in the last century. I dot think it is very hard to simply add us into the conversation. Sure, some misandrists will be very triggered, but I really don't believe the size of the group is big enough to cause a difference

g1455ofwater · 2025-03-04T22:35:07+00:00

I agree with your general point that the Left's entire philosophy/strategy is to demonized white men so you can't simply flip a switch to get men because it would make them something completely different to what they are now.

The left do exist on a mountain of lies though so could they lie about now supporting men and fool people into believing it?! My first thought is no way, but I've seen too many people be fooled by obvious propaganda in the last few years to completely dismiss it.

HerrMitzerschmidt · 2025-03-04T20:34:26+00:00

I don’t agree. When it comes to gender politics, I think what’s happened is social media has created pockets of grievance that play off each other. The worst issues get magnified and the loudest (and most aggrieved) voices get heard. So each side hears shit that justifies their grievances even more.

The Democratic Party does respond a little on behalf of women, but overturning Roe vs Wade was a big deal. It’s not like they’re trying to force men to do anything. The anti-male rhetoric you hear isn’t from the Democratic Party, it’s from individuals, and it’s not reflected in their policy.

On the other hand, grievance is a YUUGE part of the Republican agenda and appeal. Many of their representatives are all in passing legislation that forces their narrow minded perspectives onto others.

CostRains · 2025-03-06T07:20:32+00:00

Total nonsense. The left has done far more for men than the right ever will.

What has Trump done since he was elected? He has cut funding for Medicaid, which will screw over millions of men. He has attacked the universities that provide men a chance at a better job and a better life. He has threatened to start a trade war that will put tens of thousands of men out of work.

Meanwhile, men voted for him because Kamala Harris said something that hurt their feelings.

Pathetic.

AdhesivenessEven7287 · 2025-03-04T23:35:11+00:00

Why the left has anti-male rhetoric- immediately cuts in with a strawman about Socialists. If I had a dime 😂 .

Title	Why the Left has Anti-Male Rhetoric and Policies
Author	Vegetable_Ad1732
Upvotes	149
Comments	68
Date	March 4, 2025 8:04 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1j3k3cp/why_the_left_has_antimale_rhetoric_and_policies/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-the-left-has-anti-male-rhetoric-and-policies.1545630 https://theredarchive.com/post/1545630

Comments