TFP Article on "How Democrats Lost Men"

That may all be true.

But the videos of the people shot don't show people behaving in a way that would justify them getting shot. I guess I can't square the American line about representing freedom of speech/freedom of protest with "get up in the faces of heavily armed federal agents" and you should expect to get shot. I think that whole rhetoric "these people were used to easy going beat cops/misinterpreted their privilege as white women" and that's why they got shot is troubling. In and of itself it's an arg6that presupposes some things..none of them good.

All movements like martyrs to be fair. American extremists were quite happy to use the incident on King Street for their rabble rousing purposes. What is more, the original topic of the thread was that men were being constrained, not allowed to act like men. But the concept of the "Hero's Journey" as something men need can be used by any political side, any movement or any side in a war for that matter.

There are a few things that could take some of the heat out of this issue, but I'm not optimistic about the chances.

The first thing would be to dismantle the system of "sanctuary" cities and states. This has a couple of bad consequences. The first is that foreign criminals gravitate to those places knowing it's very unlikely they will ever be deported. The second is that, under the sanctuary policy, local law enforcement is banned from cooperating with federal immigration policy, which means that Ice can't enter Minnesota prisons to pick up criminals, which means raids in the community which stand a much higher chance of turning violent. The whole sanctuary policy is massively flawed, but I can't see the Democrat activist class allowing their politicians to compromise on it.

The second thing would be for the government to play smarter, and pay attention to polling that consistently shows Americans want criminal illegals deported, but aren't comfortable with heavy handed tactics against illegals who aren't actually a danger to the community. That would mean smarter enforcement instead of macho displays of force, and a serious effort to make sure Ice agents are properly trained and vetted. I don't know what the likelihood of that is, unless Tom Homan can sell it to Trump.

The third thing seems like a technical activist point, but it's very important. The National Lawyers Guild and ACLU have MANY flaws, but when they are training up legal observers for protests, they have qualified lawyers explaining what the law is, what your rights are, how you can stay safe. This can't be said for the "Ice Watch" groups springing up in cities like Minneapolis, who have their own lefty folklore version of the law - this is "freemen on the land" type stuff claiming that Ice isn't a legally constituted law enforcement agency (it is) and that Ice has no authority over US citizens (it does). They supply this bullshit to riled-up activists who are used to dealing with Minneapolis beat cops and then send them along to get in the faces of heavily armed federal agents. Often these are liberal white women who assume their status as liberal white women means the worst thing that could happen is that a cop will yell at them.

That last point makes me quite angry. Having been on plenty of protests in my time, at best they're being amateurish to the point of endangering their own activists, and at worst they've tacitly adopted a strategy of Palestinianism where martyrs are good for the cause.

Im not American though I have American friends. But my understanding is that it's more federal than the UK. So States have more rights and powers than say Essex does. And both Democrats and Republicans are quite hot on that. Even if the fault is on the "red States" not cooperating with Trump or people in the "red States" not falling into line, it's still extremely sinister that that's used as justification for the shooting of people who are not (at that time) any sort of a threat. Since States have rights not to fall into line, and individual protesters have rights to protest. Regardless of any of the rights and wrongs up to that point, politicians arguing that people not falling into line is the cause of the deaths is troubling. And hypocritical since it contradicts the idea that it's in men's nature to want to protect women and that that should be celebrated. Then Pretti was only doing what came naturally as a man so why demonise him?

At the end of the day, Americans make up about 4% of the global population. American males are 2%. American adult males are even less. and American adult males that voted for Trump a proportion of that. They will do what they will do and maybe it isn't healthy for us (me included) to give too much headspace.to their feelings compared to the other 8 billion on this planet.

Where I do feel troubled is firstly that sort of hyper militaristic rhetoric has implications for the rest of the world (Someone somewhere is.going to be on the receiving end of what Bari Weiss claims is American mens need to have a hero's journey/let loose their warrior nature). And also just the rhetoric is toxic and self serving and involves kicking down on other countries (including NATO and the UKs contributions) and the deaths/sacrifices made by men in those countries. Which is annoying.

I haven't seen this, but I don't think it's surprising stuff like this is interpreted through a political lens to a large degree. People's feelings about it tend to reflect what they thin about the whole situation.

I don't think there is really any doubt that the Democrats are failing to appeal to men, more so than women, we can look at the numbers and see that.

Ah, just seen you've put illegals in quote marks. Quite telling.

I think Obama's failure was more in preventing people crossing the border rather than being unable to deport them. And that became really bad under Biden, towns near border crossings were completely overwhelmed.

I suspect that is part of the reason for the over the top tactics now - it's a bit like the Rwanda scheme in the UK, or sending boats in Australia to a detention area - it's intended to make the idea of entering the country through improper channels unappealing.

And is there the very likely possibility that many red states won't cooperate with Trump? I'm actually not the biggest fan of Trump, I'm aware much is done for visual point scoring. But I'm also pretty certain Democrat governors will do anything to oppose him. The days of any cooperation between both sides is over.
Let's see what happens now that Trump has signalled a cooling down, talking to Walz, scaling down numbers. Are we going to see fewer activists on the street. Because there were none when Obama was deporting.

Isn't the fact that Obama deported more "illegals" but that noone was shot in the street, small (American citizen) children weren't arrested and taken to detention facilities 100s of miles away, people attending planned interviews for their green card weren't unexpectedly arrested etc etc etc proof that it is actually possible to deal.woth Americas immigration problem without resorting to those methods?
I am sure there is a big Ven diagram style crossover between Americans who would prefer greater control of Americas borders and would like immigrants who commit crimes to be reported. And Americans who don't like ICEs current tactics. A big part of those groups will be the same people..I know this because if you look back through the online arguments pre election, including on here, people supporting Trump were saying he was only going to be going after the worst criminals and that people.saying otherwise we're fear mongering. Trump said it himself!
And maybe Obamas team was just more competent than Trumps team, I don't know, but the fact is he did deport more people than Trump has so far managed with less violence against civilians or non-criminal immigrants. And the fact that a democratic president was willing to deport so many people contradicts your earlier point about democrats being unwilling to deport people.

Say what you really mean, instead of couching stuff in this kind of cryptic prose.
Obama deported way more illegals, separated children from their parents, removed many people with no recourse to legal appeals, yet because he had the full cooperation from the types of Walz back in 2008-2016, and was a media wizard, and the apex of the liberal world order, he's got away with the likes of you not calling him a fascist. Also because he cuts a cultured, intellectual character, unlike Trump who is common as muck in comparison.
Re Trump bunking up at Epstein Island, Biden would surely have had the dirt on him, yet nothing ever released 2020-24.

Compared to someone who was a frequent flyer to Epstein's Island, admitted multiple sexual assaults of young "women", is obviously senile (at best), is turning America into a fascist state and so corrupt that the concept is going to sue him for defamation, they were indeed terrible.

But then a lot of his voters didn't think the leopard with the published "leopards will eat your faces" brochure would actually eat their faces. Unfortunately for them, and the world in general, buyer's remorse comes far too late.

Just like his protege over here with his unique, treasonous, achievement. But his cult is just as hoping for the miracle which only a con artist can promise: luxury for peanuts. And in fairness, Trump is sort of doing that: giving out peanuts so he can have luxury.

How Harris even got to be VP tells us a lot about the Dems.

Biden could have said about his VP that he wouldn't have a ticket of two white men. That would have kept his options open.

He promised that he'd have a woman as his running mate. Too bad for Cory Booker, but that still left him plenty of options. Word has it that he was thinking of Amy Klobuchar or Gretchen Whitmer, either of whom would have been a good match for him.

Then, later, he needed to give something to Jim Clyburn, so he promised he'd have a black woman on the ticket. Then they looked at the Democratic senators and governors, and realised only one of them was a black woman, and went... oh shit.

Joe didn't like Harris, and Jill REALLY didn't like Harris, and you can tell Biden was reluctant to accept her because, though she was the only realistic option, the campaign spent a long time interviewing little known mayors and Congresswomen in the hope one of them would be better than Harris. (Given Karen Bass's performance as Los Angeles mayor, they might even have dodged a bullet.)

Sometimes colour blind meritocracy really does have something going for it. Underlined by the Harris campaign going "Oh shit! We need a white guy from the Midwest!" and picking Tim Walz, who was also a terrible candidate on multiple levels.

The bottom line is the Dems ran a terrible campaign. For LOTS of reasons, Harris wasn't a great choice - and everybody knew that. But the did it anyway.

I'm very much of the Batya Ungar-Sargon take on the ICE killings of both tragic deaths at hands of ICE.
That Trump was voted in on a mass deportations programme
And he's following this thru.
Democrats will never accept this. Especially federal forces in states territory.
Left activists are encouraging liberal citizens to get in harms way, including older citizens and young women who are often extremely angry.
Yes, plenty of arguments about ICE training, protocols etc.
And tragedies are solely that, tragedies.
But the activist left who had no issue when Deporter-In-Chief Obama turfed out way more illegals than Trump has, with the same lack of recourse to appeals etc.
And no issue with the many American citizens and other innocents slain and raped by some of the estimated 10-15m who came across the border with Biden.
We recall the Ukrainian woman on a bus who was killed outright by an illegal?
She didn't even make the next days news.
There's a family who's loved one was killed by an illegal, the Democrats have never reached out to them.
Daniel Penny would have been held out to dry by a totally politically motivated Democrat judge, hail the jury for saving him.

Also bad. I thought he was treated unfairly and became a political football.

But at least he isn't dead? And it's interesting that HE was idolised by the right/held up as a symbol of injustice. But Pretti wasn't.
They can both be victims of injustice,.it isn't either/or. But I think it does show the American rights outrage in the first case wasn't wholly motivated by an honest concern with the rights/wellbeing of male good Samaritans.

Daniel Penny on the NY Subway is an interesting case of taking action in public, and nearly losing his liberty.
In a hugely litigiousness world where so many criminals and anti social types get away with it, those who actively intervene often come off second best.
I'm sure this is why fewer and fewer men take a stand in public, in addition to the fact that they'll be taken out without a thought.

Trigger warning: a bad word. Also a cynical attitude towards the recruiting strategies of the British army.

The army as a place for working class men without many other economic prospects has always been a thing. There's things you could say there about class exploitation. It gets dodgier though when YouTubers/online philosophers start expounding on it as a way to use up "surplus men" or negate the problems such rootless men can cause. Often with a side line about how men "need" a hero's journey so it's actually good for them. I know this is a feminist forum, but it's not a good way to think about any group of people. And strangely ironic that it comes from the right not the blue haired, man hating harpies of the left.

Actually older men "solving" the social problem of too many young men by letting them go to war is more like the story of King David and Uriah than a classic heros journey.

I think your take on it is much more nuanced than Bari Weisses to be fair.

It's interesting because there is footage going around of a young(ish) man heroically putting himself between a woman who had been pushed viplentl5 to the ground and the group of men attacking her. He is then pushed to the ground, pepper sprayed, disarmed and shot multiple times. But he ISNT being hailed as a hero by the right in America by and large. Even though he was doing quite a manly heroic thing (protecting women) and paid the ultimate price.

It's almost as if the two sexes want different things, or at least different groups within the sexes.

I make a point of being polite to the Mormon missionaries when I see them about. Their beliefs aren't mine, but they're only about 19 and in a foreign country and missing their family.

Mormonism, because of its incredibly strong emphasis on family and community, could be a great option for a lost young man who lacks structure in his life, who maybe feels lonely and isolated, and who aspires to find a partner and start a family. Or for a lost young woman who feels the same way.

It's absolutely not a good option for an angry young man who can't submit to authority. Nor will that young man be interested in highly feminised mainstream churches.

I don't know if there is a spiritual option for that young man, and careers in the army aren't what they used to be.

I'm not saying society has to be geared towards the needs of the alienated boy or young man, just that, amongst all the varied provision we have, it would be good to have some provision for them.

And the heroic impulse doesn't have to be about war. Even in terms of entertainment, The Lion King is a great heroic journey story that boys can identify with, but that was produced over 30 years ago. I struggle to think of a Disney film since that's had a character who boys can aspire to be like, rather than a villain or a bumbling sitcom dad or the girlboss heroine's comedic sidekick.

Don't get me wrong, I have zero problem with more active and empowered female characters. I know why Frozen inspires cultlike devotion from young girls. But there isn't much in it for boys, unless they're the minority of boys who want to be a princess when they grow up. I think it's possible to appeal to both; though maybe not at the same time.

Well, stereotypes and generalisations are long standing, because there's often a lot of truth in them.
Re churches, I've attended a handful recently, and my experience is that the evangelical charismatic churches offer different messaging to men and women, simultaneously it seems.
Even though in the final analysis they weren't for me (I'm hugely unclubbable, lol), they offer amazing kinship for women and men, both young and old.
Evidence suggests it's the Orthodox churches that offer a more muscular faith of particular appeal to young men.

But this was kind of the point. The heroic journey can take many forms, but it is something that young men in particular want.

You are the one saying it only means jumping on a grenade.

It reminds me of a few years ago, in an interview, Bono made the observation that mainstream types of pop music didn't have much of a place for angry young men who wanted to challenge the system. It was all kind of Ed Sheeran stuff about feelings. Quite different than was he was young where there was a ton of political pop music. He felt that the angry young men were mostly finding a voice in certain genres of rap music, which has some elements that are maybe not always so healthy.

A (female) friend of mine was like, well that is good, they are better off for those young men to just get more in touch with their feelings like women.

You see a similar divide in Christian churches as well. The very emotive ones tend to be heavily weighted towards women. The ones with the most men have a more heroes journey approach, at least as an option. The battle against the dark self, in that case, but it can often have rather militaristic imagery. Rather than the lovey my boyfriend is Jesus stuff.

The Democrats have really pushed the emotional approach, Be Kind, stuff. It resonates less with men. And some women - I hate that shit and find it massively embarrassing - but there is defiantly a sex imbalance in who is attracted.

I do find it interesting on MN that so many women quite rightly rail against gender stereotypes that are either imposed by patriarchal society or TiMs with their takes on traditional female "glamour". Yet men are put into boxes as well.
Heroic men don't only have to be ones that jump on hand grenades to save their platoon, or jump into an icy river to save a swimmer.
They can also just be guys who take a stand when it's needed, be dependable, look out for their wife/partner and family, local neighborhood.
Maybe in a time of really crazy thinking, be one of the few people that speak up for women and reality amongst other things.
There are quite a few of us about

I think you are being rather reductive. The desire for a heroes journey doesn't mean gee, men want the chance to go to war.

Though I will say, as someone who joined the military at 21, there were lots of younger men who were looking for just that kind of thing. And overall it was pretty good for them, it channelled a lot of energy in a productive direction.

Inspired lie perhaps. Because "it" was all about him and his family. That's all, and now the US is on the verge of ceasing to be a democracy.

Oh come on, bollocks.

The idea that KH was a good candidate who people didn’t vote for because they were racist or sexist is ridiculous.

Exit polls found people thought the country was getting worse. They associated this with Biden. To win, KH would have had to succeed in strongly disassociating herself from Biden and his policies. Instead, in a remarkable demonstration of lack of political instinct, she did the opposite. She said she’d do nothing differently. There’s a reason Trump’s campaign played that clip over and over.

Her campaign insulted the people she needed to vote for her in their adverts, and worse, didn’t even seem to realise they were doing so. Showing your open contempt for voters is not a winning strategy. I actually thought one of their ads was a spoof by the republicans when I first saw it. I was astonished to realise it was a genuine Democrat advert.

Not Being Trump and being pro abortion was the democrats election strategy. But most people vote on what effects then, and unwanted pregnancies is not something that the majority of voters think will affect them. It’s a die on the hill issue for committed feminists, but not most other people.

Finally KH speaks like a certain type of Oprah Winfrey, vaguely alternative, vaguely spiritual, motivational speaker. That appeals to quite a small sub set of women. And probably very few men.

This is not a story of racist, sexist Americans. It’s a story of a terrible candidate who ran a truly terrible campaign. Against a candidate who ran a very well targeted campaign that spoke to voters concerns, ‘KH is for they/them, Trump is for you’. Was is inspired slogan.

No, deep deep down you want to die in a war really. Bari Weiss' point is that Trump is going to allow American men the chance to do this and this makes him good. No Foreign Wars is sooooo 2024.