I read a Reddit (through RDX mind you) post the other day that included the Who we serve page from the democrats’ website. The user noted that men were not on that list and pointed it out as on of the reasons Kamala Harris had lost. Meaning the Democratic Party should pander to the white young men demographic as well. A link to the post (through RDX)

I keep seeing this sentiment over and over again on social media. And I can’t help but make the analogy to the “All lives matter.” as opposed to “Black Lives matter.” Am I wrong to think this? I am not from the United States. Please don’t bite my head off as this is no stupid questions.

  • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
    11·
    1 个月前
    • Young white men are included under “Young People and Students.”
    • Old white men are included under “Seniors and Retirees.”
    • Many white men have disabilities and are covered under “Americans with Disabilities.”
    • Many white men are covered under “LGBTQ+” - trans men, gay and queer men. Heck, some even include allies under the umbrella.
    • Many white men who are neither young nor old (or members of their family) are members of unions, or would like to be, and thus covered under “Union Members and Families.”
    • Likewise, many white men are covered under:
      • Faith Community
      • Rural Americans
      • Small Business Community
      • Veterans and Military Families

    Economically, Democratic policies favor poor and middle class people, which statistically makes up the majority of all white men. And there aren’t any policies that oppress white people or men the way that Republican policies oppress women or reduce support for all of the groups that Democratic policies help support.

    In other words, unless you get off on the oppression of those groups, almost all white men are served by the Democratic party, even if they can’t find themselves on the list you shared.

    “Black Lives Matter” was a response to black men and women being murdered by police at higher rates, of the news stories of those deaths being under-reported by comparison, and of the victims being blamed more than people of other races, particularly white people.

    “All Lives Matter” as a response to “Black Lives Matter” missed the point. It’s “Black Lives Matter, too.” If all lives mattered, people wouldn’t have needed to protest the killings of black people in the first place.

    Imagine if you were at a restaurant and everyone around you got their order but you, so you said “Hey, I need my order.” If the server responded with “Yes, everyone needs their order” and walked off, that would be about the equivalent to saying “All Lives Matter.”

    So, is there a parallel between thinking that white men should be pandered to and saying “White Lives Matter?” Absolutely.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      2·
      1 个月前

      Young white men are included under “Young People and Students.”

      Old white men are included under “Seniors and Retirees

      White straight able bodied men age 25-64 who are no longer students but have yet to retire, and a union doesn’t exist in their industry (as far as they know)? Fuck 'em lol. Wait are they religious, rural, a business owner, or a veteran? No? Ok yeah fuck 'em!

      • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
        1·
        1 个月前

        White straight able bodied men age 25-64

        25-36 is still “young” by their definition.

        and a union doesn’t exist in their industry (as far as they know)

        It doesn’t matter what industry you’re working in if you’re interested in that industry having a union. Making unions more commonplace was part of the point. The second sentence in the Union Members and Families section reads “Democrats will make it easier for workers, public and private, to exercise their right to organize and join unions.”

        But sure, if you don’t believe unions have value, this wouldn’t include you.

        Fuck 'em lol. Wait are they religious, rural, a business owner, or a veteran? No? Ok yeah fuck 'em!

        You and I must have different definitions of “fuck ‘em,” because I clearly said:

        Economically, Democratic policies favor poor and middle class people, which statistically makes up the majority of all white men. And there aren’t any policies that oppress white people or men the way that Republican policies oppress women or reduce support for all of the groups that Democratic policies help support.

        So sure, if you’re a white man with wealth that puts you in the top 1%, the Republican’s economic policies will be better for you. For the other 99% of white men - no. And for the specific issues called out in the original post linked (on Reddit):

        1. Men account for 75% of suicides in the US
        2. 70% of opioid overdose deaths are men
        3. Men are 8 times more likely to be incarcerated than women
        4. Young men are struggling in schools and are increasingly the minority at universities, opting out of higher education
        • 1 is addressed under “Investing in Mental Health” in the Party Platform as well as indirectly by gun safety policies (since 50% of suicides are by gun, 60% of gun deaths are suicides, and 87% of gun suicides are committed by men)
        • 2 is explicitly addressed under “Faith Community (“respond to the opioid crisis”) and under “Beating the Opioid Epidemic” in the Party Platform.
        • 3 is addressed under “Criminal Justice” in the Party Platform
        • 4 is addressed in multiple ways, under “Good Jobs” (“you shouldn’t have to go to a four-year college to live a good, middle-class life.”) and under “Education” (investing in K-12 education, providing free, universal preschool, investing in other forms of secondary education - e.g., trade schools, community college, registered apprenticeships)

        Democrats need to work on their messaging, obviously (and the comments on the Reddit post touch on that), but the problem isn’t that their policies don’t help white men, because they obviously do.