Michigan Democratic Gov. Whitmer makes direct appeal to young men after sharp shift in election

[u/LavenderBloomings]

https://apnews.com/article/michigan-governor-gretchen-whitmer-young-men-e237387d0762e900f2dc7e38a1c49f7b

[u/Sin_of_the_Dark]

I can understand why people are reacting negatively to this messaging, but I can't help but think she's on to something here. As a young male, there's a lot of perception out there in the last decade or so that 'men don't matter, women are superior'.

I'm not saying that I agree with that perception, or that it's anywhere near true, but it's a valid feeling that a lot of independent and conservative young men I know tend to espouse. Most of it is the result of disinformation mixed with general disenfranchisement, but it still exists all the same. We've spent the better part of a decade or two (rightfully) focused on the underprivileged. We shouldn't let up the gas at all, but we can do this while being inclusive of young men.

What we need is (loathe as I am to agree with the GOP speaker) more than just lip-service though. I'm not a politician, so I can't even pretend to suggest what actions should be done. But if we don't do something to at least make these individuals feel heard, we'll continue to bleed any potential voters on a national level to the GOP or libertarian parties. Maybe we can start with education to help combat the disinformation that's led them to this spot, I don't know.

[u/Billy_the_Burglar → u/Sin_of_the_Dark]

As a 38(m) who was once in the age group/demographic Governor Whitmer is working to appeal to, and as a former* fiscal conservative: you're spot on. On all of that

Education is absolutely key, in particular.

However, what that means (that the powers at be haven't appeared, at least to young men/boys, to engage with in a meaningful context) is the downward trend of boys testing scores and college admissions. Boys have struggled for a while now, and bringing it up has often been met with "girls are just equalizing the playing field" or "but women have struggled for all of recorded history to have these opportunities". The latter of which is absolutely true, but does not mean that the struggles of boys should be ignored or are in any way just.

Those in power would have to take very public steps to fix this, make it clear that's what they're doing at the same time as maintaining equality for all.

What does that mean? It means research on what approaches work well for testing and understanding why they're falling behind. I imagine teachers across the country know a good deal about the reasons for this which I'm unaware of, and they should be tapped as resources.

Perhaps most importantly:

Girls/women have an emotional support network boys/men utterly lack. It's not just up to us to build that though, as the people who are the hardest on us are often the women in our lives. So, successful and repeated attempts to emotionally connect with boys must be made (as they often don't have emotional support from anyone around them except for unhealthy sources which often conditionally require "traditional masculinity" from them).

[u/hemlockhero → u/Billy_the_Burglar]

Can you explain what you mean by women have support networks and men do not?

[u/UnwroteNote → u/hemlockhero]

I’m not addressing the OP’s post/suggestions as a whole, and without knowing your gender, I’ll say it isn't unusual for many men to coast through life without any friends. Or if they do have friends, they’re more like acquaintances or not overly supportive from an emotional standpoint.

Women are often more social, and friendships appear to form more easily. They also seem more emotionally supportive of each other.

Fixing that issue, however, is a collective issue for men to address in their interactions with each other and in how we raise our children. Rampant transphobia, homophobia, “emotions are beta,” and other general toxic rhetoric from Andrew Tate types don’t help the situation. It's a shame because, as a guy, I’ve come across dudes who seem cool to hang out with and then cart that Andrew Tate shit out or hit you with misogyny as a bonding exercise. Certainly not the type you’re going to want to open up to if you're having a shitty day.

[u/Beavesampsonite → u/hemlockhero]

Try to have a group that only allows white males and see how far that goes. There has always been a society of women engineers in my professional career. All of the officers in my student chapter of ASCE (American society of civil engineers) even though they were only 8% of enrollment because “promote women” and the facility chose the officers.

DEI is is expressly targeted at helping every group except young white males so by default it is set up to discriminate against them. Gee I wonder why they are struggling?!!

[u/hemlockhero → u/Beavesampsonite]

No one said anything about white men only, we’re just talking about men in general, so yeah if you have that mindset you might already be racist.

It’s not necessarily about who you do stuff with, it’s about how you do it. Is the group of white men doing good deeds? Are they volunteering? Are they doing healthy hobbies? Because what does it matter if it’s a group of white men if you’re doing something for your community.

edit: To your point on the civil engineering society, the first woman admitted into the society was in 1927. It literally was a club of men before that. Women then formed their own society later when they had the chance to do so. Women built their own club and somehow you’re mad about that.

[u/Choperello → u/hemlockhero]

No. What the poster is trying to say is that today is perfectly acceptable to create an organization/club targeted at any intersection of identity UNLESS that intersection is simply “men” or “white men”. Society of Women Engineers? No problem. Society of Male Engineers? You sexist pig. Uni club for African American students? No problem. Uni club for white students? You racist ass hole.

And while there are historical valid reasons for this, it’s also plain unrealistic to tell young generations today “you are paying for the sins of your predecessors, shut up and take a back seat”. Historically just, but individually infuriating to a lot.

[u/ussrowe → u/Billy_the_Burglar]

Education is absolutely key, in particular.

Plus college educated voters in each racial group favored Harris: https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-racial-analysis-of-2024-election-results/

So better access to education (for everyone) helps the Democrats. But the state needs money to expand access to colleges and universities. And then to treat students who fall behind, and the schools of have them, as something in need of help rather than punished.

[u/escapism2323 → u/[deleted]]

As a man, I’ve never felt/witnessed favoritism for girls in school. I’m curious what you’re referring to.

[u/LoLFlore → u/escapism2323]

I dunno what theyre refering to, as its deleted, but theres loads of studies on it dating back to the 90s. Boys just, systemically, dont do well in our current school systems.

Theres a load of potential factors no one has figured out yet. It basically starts in, last I knew, like 1st grade and just gets worse from there.

Some people point at girls socialization (girls are taught to be neat, this is reinforced as positive at school, they positively associate w/ school) Some point at phisiological factors (reduction of activity, more sitting, boys are "slower to develop" - think this is horseshit) Some point at boys socialization.

It seems to be a global problem though. Western Europe also is experiencing growing gaps in male educational success, japans is growing as well, albiet slower, and yet when you google such things, whats highlighted is that women arent filling enough high level positions. "Women graduation rate at college is nearing 30% more, and also more are attending it than men" and the part of that considered most important is "women arent achieving parity in teaching at colleges"

Its like...yeah. but young men didnt do that?

Thats young mens problem with the whole thing. When the age 15-35 males are OBJECTIVELY underperforming their female peers, and they try to learn why, theyre told that women arent doing well enough yet. Women are making more, graduating more, and having more relationships (romantic and friendship) But these young men have literally no agency over that. So the old guys who went to higher education and started companies when it was deeply sexist are in charge? Thats how senority works.

Youths are being told their concerns arent concerning because the people with power over them are the same gender, while also being told people who are, relative to them, better off, need to succeed more.

Then the youths get upset? Shocker.

Im not anti woman in any way, I recognize systemic issues arent interpersonal problems, but there is alot of young dumb men who arent well enough off financially or mentally to make such distinctions. Theyre upset that one expectation is constantly reinforced that "due to immutable characteristics, your success is assumed" and then their reality never meets that.

[u/Michigan-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed. See rule #10 in the r/Michigan subreddit rules.

[u/HiggsFieldgoal → u/Billy_the_Burglar]

The latter isn’t “absolutely true”.

Up until 1790, 90% of people in the United States were farmers.

Then we had the Industrial Revolution.

1880 was the first time in our history when less than 50% of the population were farmers.

1960 was when the first oral birth control became available.

So, you actually have a tiny window, from a historical perspective, where men were thriving in all sorts of fancy non-farming careers, and women weren’t included (because they were reliably up to their elbows in babies).

So… before 1800, everybody is a farmer, and the average woman has 7-8 kids. And formula hadn’t been invented yet.

That’s not the “patriarchy” limiting women’s career choices. Nobody has any career choices. Everyone is a serf. Everybody works on a farm.

There was only a very short period where men were participating in educated careers, and women weren’t, and that also coincides with the availability of birth control.

It’s just the modern mythology of misandry to imagine that “women have been oppressed for all of history”.

No… everyone has been oppressed through all of history.