Archived MSNBC Article

For Democrats, reaching male voters became a political necessity after last fall’s election, when young men swung significantly toward President Donald Trump.

At least this article is open and honest that this insincere outreach attempt is just a political necessity, and nothing more. Progress?

But for some — like Maryland Gov. Wes Moore — it’s also a personal goal.

Would this personal goal have existed if Trump had lost? If not, then how laudable should we consider it to be? If such empathy is only "allowed" in this "politically necessary" situation, then it's still not personal, it's just political.

In her State of the State address, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer shared plans to help boost young men’s enrollment in higher education and skills training.

Knowing that polling demographic data shows more support for left-wing parties by men who have attended secondary education, this particular effort to enroll men in higher education is clearly just vulgar self-interest.

Researchers have argued that the widening gender gap reflects a crisis that, if not addressed, could push men toward extremism. And Democratic pollsters fret that if liberal politicians, in particular, do not address these issues, the party is at risk of losing more men to the GOP.

The not-so-subtle suggestion here is that simply being moderately right-of-center politically speaking is equivalent to "extremism". As someone who is left-of-center myself, this is an absurd metric to have, especially when extremism is found more commonly on the left at the current time, compared to fewer instances of violence and illegal conduct on the right.

In the past, Democrats might have been wary of targeting programs toward boys and men for fear of excluding girls.

Perhaps that is because their programs used to deliberately exclude boys and men? And unfortunately, most went even further, by blaming all boys and men for the need for such programs in the first place. So now that the pendulum has swung back in the other direction, many among the "fairer sex" are worried that they will get treated poorly in the same manner.

For Della Volpe, from the Harvard Kennedy School, the governors’ announcements are encouraging. “The truth is, young men are speaking,” he said. “They’ve been telling us they want respect, opportunity, and strength. If Democrats don’t listen — and act — they’ll keep losing ground. But this moment offers hope.”

This moment offers hope...that the Democrats have only lost a single generation of young men because of their lazy reliance on divisive identity politics to get elected. That's the "hope" they are talking about here. Not hope for young men to find fulfilling careers, deal with mental health issues, avoid legal and financial troubles, or anything that is actually compassionate and supportive towards men as a group.

Damn, I feel like I need to take a shower after reading that last line. And the person who actually said that needs to go through level 5 biohazard decontamination. Because that's the most slimy political jargon I've heard in a long while. MSNBC is certainly living up to their insulting "MSDNC" label.

Notice though what is completely missing from this article: any admission about the vitriol and rhetoric that the left has hurled against men going on nigh three decades now. The slurs of "privileged", "oppressor", and worse, that were blasted in a constant stream against males, and are unfortunately still the common verbal fare of left-wing politicians in the US and elsewhere, are the true albatross around the political left's neck.

The adage: "I'll believe it when I see it." comes to mind when reading about these kind of surface-level attempts to support men and boys. And that thought is followed by the even more important saying: "Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.". Because it will honestly take multiple sightings of practical steps to help men and boys, before I trust this supposed new "priority" from the left.