Democrats need to embrace males with affection, not political strategy, NYT columnist argues
"Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan" is Democrats' $20 million project to "study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces" of male voters, the Times reported Sunday. Known as "SAM," the study will specifically examine young male voters and how the party can connect with the demographic. Additionally, the study advised rolling out pro-Democrat ads in video games.
French acknowledged the Democratic Party's fallout with young male voters, as the voting bloc was instrumental in re-electing President Donald Trump, but argued the party was "getting the challenge of reaching young men backward," because the "manosphere is not about politics."
"You can't write a history of the manosphere without acknowledging that it was a response to a genuine crisis," French added. "Slogans like 'the future is female' created the impression that the sexes were in competition, and for women to win, men had to lose."
Fetterman Hits Party's Losses Among Young Male Voters: 'Its Undeniable That Democrats Have Lost A Lot'
The headline for French's column read, "The Democrats' 20-Million-Dollar-Man Problem."
Read On The Fox News App
The term "manosphere" has been used to describe podcasters or online personalities that appeal to male listeners and viewers.
French also pointed to the American Psychological Association's study from 2019, which deemed traditional masculinity as "harmful." The study described it as being "marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression."
The NYT columnist wrote, "The message seemed clear. Men, you don't have a problem; you are the problem."
The 2024 election cycle included a push from both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump's campaigns to speak to podcasters and other non-traditional media voices.
'The View' Hosts Clash Over Whether Racism, Sexism Played Role In Trump Election Victory
The NYT reported that part of the Democrats' push to regain support from young male voters is to "shift from a moralizing tone."
"The manosphere succeeded not by refusing to condemn men and not by avoiding a moralizing tone, but by choosing to love them and by choosing to help them," French wrote.
French also argued that the "manosphere" has been planting "seeds for its own failure," and Trump's involvement with it means that many men are "doubling down on the worst versions of themselves."
Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture
French said men needed to be embraced with "sincere affection."
"The answer to the manosphere's dark turn is rooted in embracing men with sincere affection, shunning the zero-sum calculus of the gender wars and offering a vision of masculine virtue that inspires men to heroic acts of compassion rather than vicious acts of aggression," French added.
"America doesn't need a left-wing version of Joe Rogan. What it needs is our parents, pastors, teachers and coaches to fill the void in young men's hearts. Our sons should not have to turn to books or podcasts or social media to hear this simple and powerful message: I like you. I want you to live a good life. Let me show you how," the New York Times columnist concluded.
Fox News' Emma Colton contributed to this report.Original article source: Democrats need to embrace males with affection, not political strategy, NYT columnist argues
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
On gerrymandering, Democrats should fight fire with fire
If you want to understand how Congress became so polarized, look no further than Texas. Egged on by President Trump, Gov. Greg Abbot (R) and Republican leaders in the state are trying to engage in mid-decade redistricting, bucking the norm of waiting until the conclusion of the census every 10 years to redraw congressional maps to accommodate population changes. Both Democrats and Republicans have weaponized gerrymandering over the years. But only Texas Republicans have tried twice — in 2003 and now — to exercise the nuclear option of mid-decade redrawing of districts twice. I understand the motivations of these Republicans — and the desire of Democrats to take revenge. In 2012, I chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and we had a score to settle with Republicans for eliminating six Democratic seats in Texas in their 2003 mid-decade assault. We might have tried to persuade Democratic governors and legislators to strike earlier than the typical redrawing of maps after the 2010 census, but we decided not to retaliate against Republican rule-breaking with rule-breaking of our own. Instead, we waited for the regular process to take place ahead of the 2012 election. Once the decennial census concluded, we quickly realized that our best opportunity to pick up more seats was in Illinois, where the House delegation had eight Democrats and 11 Republicans. Gov. Pat Quinn and Democratic leaders in the statehouse became political Picassos, redrawing districts to create three more Democratic seats after the 2012 elections. That was not a one-off. Both parties have regularly engaged in designing their own abstract district art. Pennsylvania's old Seventh District — designed in 2011 to protect Republican incumbent Rep. Patrick Meehan — was famously called ' Goofy kicking Donald Duck ' for its bizarre resemblance to the Disney characters. In 2000, Arizona created a district that snaked oddly along the Colorado River so as to include the Hopi Reservation but not the surrounding Navajo Reservation, circumventing longstanding tensions between the two tribes. In 2022, a plan favored by Democrats in New York extended my former Third Congressional District across several bridges and the Long Island Sound, into the Bronx. But that gerrymandering plan backfired, as a state judge struck it down. The result of this map madness is that the moderate, competitive districts have shriveled, while the number of highly partisan districts has skyrocketed. When I first entered Congress in 2001, there were 29 districts with a partisan voting index within a range of four points, reliably swinging between a two-point Republican or Democratic advantage, depending on national trends. In other words, they were toss-ups, and the incumbents needed crossover voters to win reelection. Bipartisanship wasn't a fuzzy goal — it was an urgent strategic imperative. Today, the number of those districts is just 16. Most of the other districts have been drawn to be more red or blue. That means that many House members don't lay awake at night fretting about being defeated in the general election by someone in the other party. Instead, they lay awake thinking about being defeated by a fringe, extreme candidate in their next primary. The political gravity of Congress has shifted. Our system forces legislators to the ideological extremes, when most Americans fall closer to the center. That's without even accounting for the trend of partisan residential sorting, as Americans increasingly live with ideologically likeminded neighbors. We've divided ourselves into Fox News and MSNBC districts, where contradicting views are rarely found on any given block. Of course, some states have attempted redistricting reforms. California and Arizona adopted independent commissions. New York has a bipartisan redistricting commission that places guardrails on just how much Democrats can gerrymander. And that's part of the problem Democrats face: Republicans in Texas and elsewhere play to win by breaking the rules, while in Democratic controlled states, leaders often play to protect the rules, even when it costs them. Over the years, many have argued that Democrats need to fight fire with fire. Instead, Democrats have historically focused on writing a fair fire code even as arson consumes American bipartisanship. But this new Texas mid-decade redistricting push seems to have finally changed the Democratic mindset. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, Kathy Hochul of New York and JB Pritzker of Illinois are teasing mutual assured gerrymandering destruction by threatening mid-decade redistricting in their own states if Texas Republicans go through with their plan. Each of these efforts faces an uphill legal climb, however, given that voters in two of those three states outlawed such practices. Democrats have realized that patiently waiting until the next redistricting cycle is not an option. Congressional majorities aren't won on a moral high ground but on the streets. Only when Republican members of Congress from New York, California and Illinois see their seats turn blue will national GOP leaders recognize that, in gerrymandering, 'an eye for an eye' makes the whole political system blind. And so to restore bipartisanship in the long run, Democrats may need to play by Texas Republican rules.
Axios
11 minutes ago
- Axios
Mayes hints at possible legal action if Corporation Commission repeals renewable energy mandate
Attorney General Kris Mayes signaled she might take the Corporation Commission to court if it dismantles renewable energy standards she helped create nearly 20 years ago. Why it matters: The future of Arizona's renewable energy mandate is on the line. The big picture: The commission last year instructed staff to draft rules that would repeal its renewable energy standards, saying they're unnecessary and appear to drive up costs. The Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff (REST) Rules require affected utilities to get 15% of the electricity they provide from renewable sources. Staff in late July issued a formal proposal to repeal the standards. Driving the news: Mayes on Monday sent a letter to the commission warning that repealing REST "isn't just nonsensical; it's unlawful." REST isn't perfect, the AG concedes, and she would "wholeheartedly support" efforts to modernize the rules, but she opposes outright repeal. A spokesperson for Mayes declined to comment on whether she'll sue the commission if it votes to repeal the standards. Flashback: Mayes was a Republican member of the commission — she's now a Democrat — when it passed the REST rules in 2006. She was part of the 4-1 majority that voted for the standards. Zoom in: A third-party economic analysis performed for the commission found that REST repeal "could marginally reduce monthly residential electric bills" by $1-$2 and result in minor administrative cost savings for utilities. But renewable energy-related costs for some utility customers would continue due to long-term financial obligations. And repeal would have indirect costs including "reduced transparency, regulatory certainty and potentially slower renewable energy adoption," the analysis said. Between the lines: Mayes argued in her letter that REST helps keep customer rates lower for millions of Arizonans and creates jobs in the renewable energy sector. She said rate-making decisions must legally be based on "high-quality evidence, not speculation and conjecture." "In addition to being bad policy, repealing the REST Rules as proposed here is an unlawful abdication of the Commission's duty to set just and reasonable rates," she wrote. The other side: Commission chair Kevin Thompson told Axios he's not surprised Mayes is "rattling her saber, considering she played a pivotal part in implementing this gravy train that has cost ratepayers billions of dollars." He said his focus is on protecting ratepayers and not pushing "costly ideological mandates." Commission vice chair Nick Myers said he's unconcerned about a lawsuit if the commission repeals REST. "We'll let her do what she thinks she needs to do, and if she has legal grounds, bring them up," he said. Reality check: Renewable energy accounts for about 19% of the energy that Arizona Public Service, the state's largest utility, provides its electric retail customers, the company tells Axios. What's next: The commission will vote at a Thursday meeting on whether to instruct staff to begin the repeal process.
American Military News
11 minutes ago
- American Military News
Pentagon plans ‘reaction force' for ‘domestic civil disturbance: Report
A new report claims that President Donald Trump's administration is developing plans to potentially create a 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force' of 600 U.S. National Guard troops that could be quickly deployed in the event of civil unrest. According to internal Pentagon documents obtained by The Washington Post, the Trump administration's 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force' plan would involve roughly 600 National Guard troops being ready to deploy at all times. The outlet noted that the National Guard troops would be separated into two groups of 300 troops at military bases in Arizona and Alabama and would be ready to deploy in as little as one hour. The Washington Post reported that while the Pentagon documents have been marked as predecisional, the documents contain comprehensive plans and discussions regarding the potential implications of the creation of a National Guard 'reaction force.' According to The Washington Post, the plans have been compiled by the National Guard and have time stamps from late July and early August. READ MORE: Trump deploys Nat'l Guard in DC, takes federal control of DC police Fox News reported that the Trump administration's reported plans for a National Guard 'reaction force' would require the president to use Title 32, which would allow Trump to bypass normal restrictions regarding the use of the military for domestic purposes and would authorize National Guard troops to use certain law enforcement powers. The Washington Post reported that it is not yet clear whether the plans for the 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force' have been reviewed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. In a statement obtained by The Washington Post, Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokesperson, said, 'The Department of Defense is a planning organization and routinely reviews how the department would respond to a variety of contingencies across the globe. We will not discuss these plans through leaked documents, pre-decisional or otherwise.' The Pentagon's potential plans for a 'reaction force' come after Trump has deployed the National Guard multiple times in response to domestic issues. In response to June's anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) riots in Los Angeles, the president deployed thousands of National Guard members and U.S. Marines to maintain order in the city and provide protection for ICE officials and government property. According to Fox News, Trump also deployed 800 D.C. National Guard troops on Monday as part of his plan to federalize Washington, D.C., and crack down on surging crime in the nation's capital.
