MGTOW - and Lack of Homes for Children


Recommended Posts

For those who don't know... the acronym MGTOW (MIG-tau) stands for "Men Going Their Own Way."

It is the idea that men are fed up with the women of this generation.  They simply don't want to deal with them anymore.  Why bother with building a relationship with women who cheat on boyfriends and husbands?  The risks of being considered a creep (or worse) is too high.  The phenomenon that has gained a lot of steam over the past several years now includes about 65% of single men (estimates vary) who are leaving the dating scene entirely.  The double standards are crippling to men.  And many have realized that much of the weight that they are constantly feeling is due to the crazy women in their lives.  And they're done with it.

It is driving women crazy.  The cause is the feminist movement has gone so far that men simply don't want to deal with any women at all.  That's what AI girlfriends are for. (/sarcasm).

Meanwhile, women are not being hired as often because the potential for frivolous lawsuits outweighs the benefits of hiring some capable women.  The 2018 Iceland protest was a great example of why it hurts businesses to hire women and that women aren't needed nearly as much as men in the workforce.  The article I've linked to PRAISES the protest as a wonderful display.  The protest (demanding equal pay) consisted of about 25% of the nation's population.  Iceland already has equal pay for women -- often "more than equal." While some non-essential (female-driven) business closed, the great majority of businesses reported that the only thing that seemed to change was that the HR departments received no complaints the entire day (which was completely unheard of).  25% of the entire population didn't show up for work on the same day.  And nothing really changed.  Hospitals were rushing around.  But no one died or suffered due to lack of care for that day.

Only recently have some courts recognized that men have been getting the short end of the stick in divorces.  So, the rate of prenups is rising -- a lot.  While marriage rates are about the same, the divorce rate is rising. (i.e. the number of ceremonies/1000 people is about the same, but the number of people who are now in a marriage is dropping because of the divorce rate).  

We also recognize that single mothers are a LOT more likely to neglect, abuse, and/or kill their children than single fathers.  This was a shocking revelation.  Common wisdom says differently.  But the common wisdom is wrong.  80% of criminals were raised by single mothers. 90% of runaways come from single mothers.

In this past generation, courts have begun to recognize that the home environment in single father homes is more beneficial to the children than a single mother home.  More divorced fathers have custody now than ever before -- but still the minority nationwide.

And yet, there are so many women who swallowed the black pill of feminism to the point where they don't care about the sacrifices of the men in their lives.  And they don't care about the children they've had even when they are getting child-support.  And they don't see a need for a man in their lives when they are essentially selling their bodies for a nice meal.  But, oh no.  They're not prostitutes.

MGTOW is the quintessence of "bros before 304s."

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

MGTOW is the quintessence of "bros before 304s."

Maybe. But I see MGTOW as something far more insidious. Like feminism itself, MGTOW's foundational assumptions and claims are not completely specious; on the contrary, many such claims are exactly on the mark. This fact makes MGTOW, like feminism, more dangerous rather than more true.

It's easy to see the excesses and evils of feminism. Just look around. It's not as easy to see the evils of MGTOW, because our society is not yet conditioned to look for them. We may be with MGTOW today at the point that feminism was with the US population in the 1960s, with a lot of people nodding and saying, "You know, they have a point." Feminism has proven to be one of the most malignant societal cancers of our time; much of the corruption and decadence of today's United States can be laid at feminism's door. MGTOW, if left unchecked and unchallenged, will be as cancerous as feminism, and might well complete the evil that feminism began: The dissolution of the relationship between men and women, and the resulting utter destruction of the family. This is and always has been feminism's ultimate goal. Honestly, MGTOW is no different.

This is a bitter pill for me. I recognize the truths that MGTOW preaches, and some part of my mind and spirit rejoices that, finally, someone is willing to point and state openly that the emperor has no clothes. But mainstream MGTOWism is not merely a rejection of western feminism; it is a dismissal of the feminine altogether, a proclamation that women are nothing but vaginas to be used at will but never bonded to. Ironic, really. Modern feminism glorifies women as of inherent, intrinsic worth, requiring no other condition besides a vagina to be revered and protected, while MGTOW accepts the value of women as being that same vagina, and nothing more.

It's easy to say that feminism brought MGTOW on itself, but that's like saying your skin cancer brought on the bone cancer, so good riddance to both. As alluring as MGTOWism might be to many men, it is not the correct response to modern feminism. It is ultimately a furthering of the same evil that feminism represents.

We would never want our daughter or our sister or our wife or our mother to be treated as MGTOW often portrays. If we see women, even feminists, as sisters and daughters, we can perhaps see through MGTOW at what we should really be striving for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

The dissolution of the relationship between men and women, and the resulting utter destruction of the family. This is and always has been feminism's ultimate goal. Honestly, MGTOW is no different.

I disagree.  

For now, I don't have a complete rebuttal.  But I'll point out the following immediate items:

Feminism was based on the idea that all women are oppressed by malevolent men.  Solution: Force men to recognize the superiority (no, not equality -- that was a lie) of women.

MGTOW is based on the idea that women have asked us for so much, and we've given them exactly what they wanted at each step, each generation.  And they still want more.  They want all the results that men have without the sacrifice that men have done to obtain the same thing.  No, we've given up enough ground.  No more.  You want more while giving less?  We're done.

While, of course, there are good and bad players in the MGTOW movement, the basis of the movement is at least built on truth.  And the solution is done completely without force.  Men are individually choosing to do their own thing.  Meanwhile the feminist movement always demands force be applied to further their movement.

The one danger I see is that this still contributes to the disappearance of the nuclear family.  And if that's what you're talking about, then I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is still possible for a good moral women and men to find each other and marry.  It's just harder. 

Over the years, I've hung out with 3 LDS adult guys who were lookin' for love.  2 divorcees, one older widower who was ordered by his first wife to not remain alone.   They shared their head-shakingly bizarre LDS dating stories with me.  All of them went online for help, using various LDS-only dating apps.  Lots of bots and scammers.  Lots of liars, ghosters, folks obviously lacking something necessary to be in a committed relationship.  They all developed a filter process to eliminate as many false leads and red-flag-people as possible. 

All of them found real humans to date.  

- One found a lady from another state, they took turns flying during the age of cheap airline fares, fell in love and got hitched.  They were married and living in different states for like 6 months while selling houses and having leases expire and whatnot.  They moved to a random third state neither had experienced before, and seem to be happy.

- I had to do an emergency intervention with the older guy, after I saw him posting pictures of his DL online.  But after some quick "how not to get scammed 101" sessions, he was good.  He found an older lady a few wards away with a hubby who had pre-deceased, and she didn't want to be alone either.  They got hitched and seem to be happy.  She's a hoot, with a good head on her shoulders.  She privately interviewed several of us ward buddies, to get a read about what people who knew him thought about him.  I could respect that.

- My last buddy is sort of his own red flag, found a few obviously bad matches to date, and eventually dropped out of the game.  Folks in the know (including himself) seem to think that's for the best.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

It is still possible for a good moral women and men to find each other and marry.  It's just harder. 

How would you propose a worthy YSA should look for a worthy eternal companion?

Anything is possible.  But we're running out of options.  My son found a wonderful girl with a good head on her shoulders.  And they got together the right way.  They're getting married next month.

On the flip side, my other two post-mission kids and a bunch of their cousins are finding it difficult to find good matches.  Off the top of my head, that includes ten or more 20-somethings who are all looking for a match.  They're all attractive, God-fearing, intelligent, happy, talented, hard-working, compassionate, with a great sense of humor.  They all get along well with people.  And they all did the same things my son did.  But to no avail.

And people are going the way of the world.  The other day my daughter was in the YSA relief society meeting and was shocked to hear several people justifying prayers to our Heavenly Mother.  My daughter wanted to say something, but she's not that outspoken.  She looked around for anyone with an expression that would indicate disagreement.  She couldn't really see anything from anyone.  That doesn't say everyone agreed.  But she seemed to be the only one who was visibly disturbed by it.  Several class members voiced their agreement, and the instructor did as well.

One might say, "Haven't such conditions always been around?"  Absolutely.  But the prevalence and the recognition that it is a problem is something different.  The percentage of people going along with it is much higher than it was when I was a child.  And when I was a child, it was recognized that it was not within LDS practice. Today, people insist that it is perfectly appropriate.

So, yes, it is harder to find both men and women who are ready and willing to take upon themselves the duties and obligations of eternal marriage so that they may obtain the blessings of eternal marriage.

We keep praying that all our children will be able to marry a worthy eternal companion in the temple.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

On the flip side, my other two post-mission kids and a bunch of their cousins are finding it difficult to find good matches.  Off the top of my head, that includes ten or more 20-somethings who are all looking for a match.  They're all attractive, God-fearing, intelligent, happy, talented, hard-working, compassionate, with a great sense of humor.  They all get along well with people.  And they all did the same things my son did.  But to no avail.

Hasn't been all that long ago since cousin marriages were common and looked upon favorably.

Just sayin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Vort said:

Hasn't been all that long ago since cousin marriages were common and looked upon favorably.

Just sayin'.

Uhmmm..  Let me think abou...  EWEEEWWEWWW!!!

I'm going to send you a picture of my daughter and we'll see if that lights a fire under your son.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

How would you propose a worthy YSA should look for a worthy eternal companion?

 

My daughters are moving through the final chapters of "do what the parents say, or at least come up with a convincing argument" phase of their lives.  While we still have some say, wife and I are exercising our influence and doing as much urging as we can get away with.

- Get a patriarchical blessing.  
- Give singles ward a try.  You can put aside an awful lot of politics and stupid, if you are there for a goal.
- Be marriage minded.  Is it a life plan or isn't it?  Are you acting like it is or aren't you?  What would acting like it look like?  What's the next realistic goal?
- Be realistic.  100% doctrinal adherence or knowledge doesn't have to be a requirement.  You'd be amazed with what you could accomplish with a regular guy who has no kids and no debt.  

We're also not above playing matchmaker.   How old's your kid Carb?  Visiting Colorado any time soon?  Wife and I would absolutely strike up a friendship with folks to allow our kids to mingle.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

- Get a patriarchical blessing.  

Done.

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

- Give singles ward a try.  You can put aside an awful lot of politics and stupid, if you are there for a goal.

Done.

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

- Be marriage minded.  Is it a life plan or isn't it?  Are you acting like it is or aren't you?  What would acting like it look like?  What's the next realistic goal?

Done.

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

- Be realistic.  100% doctrinal adherence or knowledge doesn't have to be a requirement.  You'd be amazed with what you could accomplish with a regular guy who has no kids and no debt.  

100%, no. But I'd like somewhere around 85% to 95%.  And those areas of disagreement better not be something around core principles or temple recommend questions.

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

We're also not above playing matchmaker.   How old's your kid Carb?  Visiting Colorado any time soon?  Wife and I would absolutely strike up a friendship with folks to allow our kids to mingle.  

I'll message you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: I apologize in advance if the formatting of this post is a bit incoherent. Multiple sections of my original post somehow disappeared just as I was finishing. I have some down time, so I did my best to fix it.

~~~~~~~~~

Believe it or not, the Barbie movie actually did a great job of tackling the subject of how men and women treat each other. It challenged both sexes to reexamine the ways that they interact with each other. It's a message born from feminism that benefits both sexes. Imagine that.

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It is driving women crazy. 

Conservative women, perhaps. Feminists are generally perfectly content to fend for themselves man-free. 

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

In this past generation, courts have begun to recognize that the home environment in single father homes is more beneficial to the children than a single mother home.  More divorced fathers have custody now than ever before -- but still the minority nationwide.

What basis is there for this? Do you have a link to some studies or data? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I feel like you're maybe drawing subjective conclusions (father's home is more beneficial) from objective data (more fathers are getting favorable custody decisions).

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Feminism was based on the idea that all women are oppressed by malevolent men.  Solution: Force men to recognize the superiority (no, not equality -- that was a lie) of women.

As someone who has been active in the feminist movement for quite some time, this is some interesting revisionist history. Yes, there are overzealous feminists, just as there are overzealous Christians, environmentalists, and queer activists. Every group is going to have jerks. Modern feminism is about empowering women. Obviously, that's not always going to be a popular idea for men, even a lot of liberal ones. We're used to a system that prioritizes us as a demographic. Christian men even have biblical teachings that reinforce the patriarchy. And the neat thing is, you're still free to start a family based on biblical patriarchy, if you can find a suitable woman. More on that later.

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

MGTOW is based on the idea that women have asked us for so much, and we've given them exactly what they wanted at each step, each generation.  And they still want more.  They want all the results that men have without the sacrifice that men have done to obtain the same thing.  No, we've given up enough ground.  No more.  You want more while giving less?  We're done.

Men have had a head start of literally thousands of years. And women's rights and autonomy shouldn't be viewed as something that men "give" to women. You think men deserve to be thanked for women's right to vote? No. Women won the right to vote by working and fighting for it.

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Men are individually choosing to do their own thing. 

There's a joke among feminist women. I'll paraphrase using your wording since it definitely fits: "Men keep saying they're going to reject us and do their own thing. When do they intend to start?" Men are "done with women", but apparently can't stop talking about them, I guess.

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Meanwhile the feminist movement always demands force be applied to further their movement.

I don't think they're asking anything unreasonable of us. Mostly they just want men to see and understand their perspective. The picture you've painted of a society filled with kind, compassionate men who are good at open listening and care about women's issues doesn't reflect reality and never has. But here's the punchline, there are more men like that on the left than the right, because we take the time to hear and understand women and work on ourselves to be better friends, brothers, sons, and partners to the women in our lives. We don't feel like we're being oppressed or belittled. And yes, plenty of women are working on themselves also. If there's one benefit that came from COVID, it's that use of mental health and therapy resources has increased. I honestly believe that most, if not all people should talk to a therapist at least quarterly, because everyone (and men in particular) could use some help processing and becoming comfortable with their emotions with a neutral professional who can help us navigate our dumpster fire brains. A lot of men expect the women in their lives to do all that emotional labor (often without reciprocating). There's certainly a time and place for that, but it's not the foundation of a healthy relationship.

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

We also recognize that single mothers are a LOT more likely to neglect, abuse, and/or kill their children than single fathers.

Do spousal abuse/homicide next.

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

They're all attractive, God-fearing, intelligent, happy, talented, hard-working, compassionate, with a great sense of humor.  They all get along well with people.

Sometimes a person can check every box and still not be a great fit. Compatibility often comes down to what sports coaches call "intangibles" qualities that are difficult to quantify or explain, but can be the difference between finding a good match and finding THE match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Conservative women, perhaps. Feminists are generally perfectly content to fend for themselves man-free. 

That is the "perfect picture" that feminists and liberals want to spread about female empowerment and independence.  It's not exactly a lie.  But it is cherry picking.  Some women are perfectly sensible and capable.  That is absolutely true.  But when talking about the masses of single women today, that is absolutely not true.

It's really about money.  I've been the informal financial advisor to LOTS of people in my life (maybe a bit under 100).  A stable marriage has an amazing effect on a woman's spending.  Single women who have no plans on getting married are always scrounging for a man to pay their way.

Single men are generally more responsible with money.  While most people have a problem with finances because they don't understand math or taxes, most men will make changes to their spending if they are told what needs to be done.  Some, unfortunately, don't.  And they end up in the poor house.

Women, OTOH, are the flip side.  Some women are perfectly sensible.  Most women will not only have the lack of understading as men did, but even when I point things out to them, they are unwilling to make the financial sacrifices or exercise discipline in their spending habits.

Women need men so they don't spend as much.

12 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

You think men deserve to be thanked for women's right to vote? No. Women won the right to vote by working and fighting for it.

No they didn't.  From the founding of this country, the right to vote was considered as a right with responsibilities.  Originally, the "responsibility" was about property rights.  But they realized that it would create an aristocracy.

After much debate, the principle was based on dozens of criteria.  But the primary one was the fact that men were to be conscripted into the army in the event of a war.  As such, they needed to have the right to vote for the representatives that would agree to go to war.

This is why the voting age was lowered during the Vietnam war.  18 yo were going to war that they had no right to vote in.

Women fought for the right to vote but never wanted to be drafted.  Since the earliest days of our republic this has been the primary criterion upon which we had the right to vote.  How many women would agree to be drafted?  5%?  Maybe 10%?  I'm guessing.  But most women would be scared to death of being drafted into an ongoing war.  

The writings of the anti-suffragettes (women who did NOT want to vote) state specifically that they did NOT want to be drafted.  And they understood that the right to vote was linked to the responsibility of being drafted into the armed forces if there was a war.

But in both the World Wars, we heard stories of men who killed themselves because they COULDN'T go to war due to being medically unfit.  Do women do that?

12 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

There's a joke among feminist women. I'll paraphrase using your wording since it definitely fits: "Men keep saying they're going to reject us and do their own thing. When do they intend to start?" Men are "done with women", but apparently can't stop talking about them, I guess.

Sure, I'm talking about it because I'm a student of human interaction.  I have to be because I don't understand it.  I have to study it. 

Apart from that, what is the argument?  That because some people talk about it, then no one is actually walking away?  Is that your argument?

12 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I don't think they're asking anything unreasonable of us. Mostly they just want men to see and understand their perspective.

No, they don't.  They want us to give them all the benefits of being a man without giving the same labor, or effort, or putting up with all the same stupidity.

Quote

"He's not insulting your ability because you're a woman.  He's insulting your ability because you're incompetent."

"He's not treating you badly because you're a woman.  He's treating you badly because he's a jerk."

Men get the same treatment and they are expected to just suck it up.  And we do.  Women complain that "it's because I'm a woman!"

If you're talking about a genuine case of sexual discrimination or harassment, then I'd be hard-pressed to find any man I know of who wouldn't be jumping up to defend that woman.  But that's just it.  They need men to defend them.  Yet they claim they are strong an independent.

Well, do you need men or don't you?

All the benefits and none of the responsibilities.  And men are supposed to think that women get the short end of the stick?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2024 at 2:11 PM, Carborendum said:
On 6/13/2024 at 1:23 PM, NeuroTypical said:

It is still possible for a good moral women and men to find each other and marry.  It's just harder. 

How would you propose a worthy YSA should look for a worthy eternal companion?

This is why we need arranged marriages.

On 6/13/2024 at 4:03 PM, NeuroTypical said:

We're also not above playing matchmaker.   How old's your kid Carb?  Visiting Colorado any time soon?  Wife and I would absolutely strike up a friendship with folks to allow our kids to mingle.

Oh, I see you're getting there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think I have heard anyone more qualified to speak about these things than Jordon Peterson.  He is more informed and experienced than anyone else I have encountered.  His point is that historically the vast majority of humanity’s individuals (male and female) have been oppressed and mistreated.  Generally, I am not impressed with anyone that thinks it is necessary to change others in order to solve their problems and unhappiness. 

From my military experiences and training to deal with captured enemy combatants – anyone can be controlled (interrogated successfully for information or even brain washed) once you can convince them someone else is to blame for their predicament.  The opposite of taking personal responsibility is gaslighting someone (or something) else for your behavior.  

I am convinced that it is an excuse and the first step to becoming oppressive towards others (giving Satan control of your life) - is taken by following the path that someone or something else is to blame for whatever it is that is making you miserable, unhappy, unsuccessful or in any way inhuman.  I find it most interesting that the prime directive in the pre-existence, according to LDS theology is agency.  That intelligence is the ability to act for oneself rather than to be acted upon.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

historically the vast majority of humanity’s individuals (male and female) have been oppressed and mistreated.

You certainly don't have to be Jordan Peterson to reach this conclusion, but he might have been the first person who put it that way as a response to victim politics.   I've listened to decades of criticism of notions of race and gender based victimhood, but nobody really put it that clearly.

Closest I had was various history teachers in school making vague statements like "life was hard for everyone before the industrial revolution". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Fred Hampton would like a word.

[googles furiously for a moment]

Hm.  "the vast majority of people have been oppressed and mistreated" is a tenet of Marxism?   I only know a tiny bit about it.  I knew Marx believed that human history was always divided into oppressors and oppressed, but I didn't realize they talked about ratios, and believed most were oppressed.  I know they're mad at the 2% now, but are you saying they figured the 2% had been present throughout history?  And that both men and women were equally oppressed?  

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Fred Hampton would like a word. 😉

I am somewhat surprised that someone would use or reference the Black Panthers as the prime example in history of how those oppressed should behave and the best methods to bring an end to oppression.  I have come to appreciate Jesus (often referred to as the Christ). 

Few understand his reference to the extra mile.  In Israel under Roman domination at the time of Jesus there was a law that if a Roman citizen traveling in Israel and came upon a Jew that they could force that Jew to carry some or part of the Roman’s things for the distance of a mile.  This would require that the Jew leave at the side of the road their belongings or whatever to accommodate the Roman.  This was often used as a ploy to obtain whatever goods the Jew had or if nothing else – to harass the Jew.

Jesus understood well that being oppressed was an affront to humanity but rather than lash out at oppressors and give them condition and excuse to oppress the more his method was to forgo the inevitable loss and perform more service than the oppressor required.  This is also the concept concerning losing everything a person has to a lawsuit (with the exception of the clothing one is wearing) – but then giving also one’s coat (or shirt) from off their back.

History is replete with oppression begetting oppression (war being the prime example).  Assuming the profile of a victim and seeking revenge is the basis of all oppression that continues without end and generation of hatred. 

The specific reason that I referenced Jordan Peterson is because his prime suggestion to solving social problems is to begin with oneself.  Prove that one can make the bed they sleep in every morning, Take care of their own space in an exemplary manner without oppressing anyone else before they go out into the world to end oppression without creating additional oppression in the process.

I would be very interested in why you believe that the methods of Fred Hampton is the best you have encountered in all your efforts to deal with oppression in society.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

[googles furiously for a moment]

Hm.  "the vast majority of people have been oppressed and mistreated" is a tenet of Marxism?   I only know a tiny bit about it.  I knew Marx believed that human history was always divided into oppressors and oppressed, but I didn't realize they talked about ratios, and believed most were oppressed.  I know they're mad at the 2% now, but are you saying they figured the 2% had been present throughout history.  And that both men and women were equally oppressed?  

(Also in response to @Traveler)

That a majority of people have endured oppression is THE tenet of Marxism. The idea isn't so much that we're all equally oppressed, but more that ALL oppression can be eradicated by dismantling the bourgeois class and the capitalist system that protects it. It eliminates identity politics and replaces it with extreme class warfare.

It's been years since I read "1984", but the beginning of Part 1, Chapter VII is seared into my brain.

If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five per cent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated.

The proles have no significant interest in the quarrels between the Party and the Resistance, and the apathy of the masses makes both of those groups vulnerable. Politics and political activism have historically been middle/upper class endeavors. The working poor may take sides, but it's hard to get them committed to anything other than their basic, immediate survival. The central theme of the book is that everyone, even party loyalists, are being held under the boot of oppression. The difference is that the party loyalists usually don't see the boot until it's too late. The proles see the boot, but they choose to endure it out of perceived necessity. 

I was recently in a training Zoom with a bunch of Minnesota organizers, and the theme was strong messaging, with a focus on race. The presentation broke down the electorate into four groups: Base, Activists, Moderates, and Opposition (which has its ow base and activists. Most of the people on that call fall into the "activist" category. We sometimes fall into the trap of assuming that most voters think like us, which isn't necessarily true, even among our base voters. The trick isn't to craft a message we can believe in, but to craft a message that everyone except the opposition (and maybe even a few of them) can get behind. This usually means focusing on the fickle moderates, who make up about 40% of the overall electorate. Activists (total on both sides), represent less than 10%. So it's necessary to focus your message on what matters to the 40%, not the <10.

For example

Activist: Our law enforcement agencies are inherently racist and need to be dismantled.

Base: Law enforcement is an important and necessary tool to maintain a civilized society, but our current police force is an enabler of systemic racism and needs to be reformed and kept accountable to the public (our taxes pay their salary, after all).

Moderates: A lot of the problems that we see around law enforcement can be addressed through proper training, external oversight, a strong, non-punitive support system for people vulnerable to poverty and drug abuse, and increased funding at the city and county levels for homeless people and people experiencing mental illness.

The Left's fundamental flaw in talking about this issue (which I'm just using as an example, I'm not trying to start a debate about police reform) is that it's anti-cop. I don't care for the "defund the police" line because it was very easy for the opposition to twist it into painting us as wanting to abolish the police entirely. Shifting the focus from the problem to the solution, without vilifying anyone, is the strongest message on this topic. The moderates are our "proles". They value their own self-interest over partisan politics, so the key is to identify self-interest issues with broad, bipartisan benefits. 

This model is the evolution of Hampton's Rainbow Coalition. He got the Black Panthers to join forces with (leftist) Confederate sympathizers by showing them that they had common goals and interests outside of race. See, the whole point of the training around race narratives is that identity politics is a weapon used by oppressors (and both major parties have historically been complicit in oppression) to keep the proles divided and fighting amongst themselves. Racial identity is important, but no one race can escape oppression without solidarity from the others. MLK reinforced that idea in his letter from Birmingham Jail (which should be taught in every school alongside his "I have a dream speech").

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Edited by Phoenix_person
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

That a majority of people have endured oppression is THE tenet of Marxism.

Can I have a source?  I recently decided to start tackling Marx's Communist Manifesto, and while I'm not far into it, I fail to see the notion expressed.   I did text searches on "majority", "most", "endured", and "oppress", and the tenet is absent.  People have endured oppression?  Absolutely.   "A majority" of people?  I need a little help from you.

I get all your post about classes and whatnot, but I'm missing where Marxism says anything about "a majority of people".  Quoting 1984 is interesting, as Orwell was hardly a marxist, and from what I can tell from a quick google, only a fan of Lenin during Orwell's younger days, eventually thinking of him and Stalin as fairly similar.   And also, your Orwell quote is talking about a situation similar to the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Jordan is talking about all the humans from cavemen to tribes to feudalism to all the rest of it, across time.

Heh - keep in mind you're talking to someone who knows almost nothing about communism or Marxism.  (I mean, other than IT'S WRONG AND EVIL!!!I!)

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...