Nov 252012
 

A great deal has been said about the results of the election earlier this month.  A lot of it is nothing but an attempt to spin the Republican Party into a manufactured crisis so it abandons its principles.  However, the Republican Party does need to solidify and expand its voter base somewhat if it doesn’t want to keep dealing with elections where the results are effectively a coin toss.  Most pundits will say that the only way for the Republican Party to expand its base are to make it more appealing to women and/or minorities.  Besides requiring the Republican Party to abandon its principles, that idea rests on two assumptions that aren’t true, that men and women from a minority group will always be politically unified and there are no other ways for the Republicans to get more votes.  There is a way for the Republican Party to work around all of this, and that is by openly supporting mens rights.

Women make up 56% of the American voting population, but they only make up approximately 51% of the population.  The gender breakdown of the American voting population should be approximately the same as the adult American population so why is it so different?  Why do more American men than American women choose not to vote?  Both the Republicans and Democrats cater to women so there is a large amount of men who have unconsciously realized that both the Republicans and the Democrats are hostile to their interests.  The Democrats are never going to try to reach out to these men so the Republicans should try and reach out to them.  The way for the Republicans to do this is by communicating to these men that the Republican Party will support their interests.  The only way for the Republican Party to do this is by supporting mens rights.  If the Republicans can get enough non-voting men to vote Republican so that women only make up around 51% of voters, this will guarantee that the Republicans will win the presidency and other national elections for the next several election cycles.

Supporting mens rights also provides the Republicans a way to reach out to non-white men and break up the women and minorities coalition.  Many people believe that women and minorities are all benefiting from government largesse.  This is not the case for minority men.  Affirmative action is a good example of this.  In many cases affirmative action only benefits “underrepresented minorities” which means Asian men do not benefit from it.  Minority men always lose out to minority women because minority women provide double the affirmative action benefit since they are both minority and female.  Minority men lose out to white women since women always have the edge in affirmative action.  If the Republicans can communicate to minority men that affirmative action and other government programs don’t benefit them, some minority men who previously voted Democrat will vote Republican.  Other minority men still won’t vote Republican, but knowing that the Democrats really are only supporting women will sour them on the Democrats.  Even though it won’t mean more votes for the Republicans, it does mean less votes for the Democrats which benefits the Republican Party.

Supporting mens rights gives the Republicans a powerful weapon against the “war on women” myth.  Anytime a Democrat says there is a “war on women”, Republicans can counter with facts about feminist abuses against men.  Anytime there is a commercial that says there is a “war on women”, the Republicans can produce a commercial showing how men lose their jobs, lose their children, and are falsely thrown in jail because of feminism.  Supporting mens rights allows the Republicans to counter the “war on women” myth with the message of “we’re defending freedom against the feminist/gynocentric police state”.  This messages allows the Republicans to contrast themselves as defending freedom and the facts against Democrats who are paranoid and concocting lies against men to setup a police state.

Will the Republican Party adopt this strategy?  Probably not.  The Republicans will probably think that they need to white knight for women more as a result of this election.  This will not work because in the end more talk like “binders full of women” cause their base and potential base to shrink..  It will also mean that the Republican Party will abandon its stated principles.  Supporting mens rights is the only way for the Republican party to keep its principles and win national elections.

  19 Responses to “Why The Republican Party Needs To Start Supporting Mens Rights”

  1. If the GOP openly supported men’s rights, a large number of GOP women would defect.
    Single women would be particularly flipped out. The Dems would successfully paint “men’s rights” as a “return to oppressive patriarchy.” The US has had 50 years of MEN SUCK…DON’T TRUST THEM instilled into the voting public.

    I agree with your logic, but the current environment wouldn’t favor the outcomes you predict. But hey, maybe I’ong.

    • Single women are already not supporting the Republicans, so that isn’t a problem. The Democrats already paint the Republicans as a “return to oppressive patriarchy”. That’s what the Democrats accusations about the “war on women” is. Obviously, the current Republican strategy in dealing with these things isn’t working. They need to do something different, and that means actually supporting mens rights.

  2. “…maybe I’m wrong.”

    Fucking keyboard at work is shit.

  3. One way to do what you propose without backlash would be to make it a Black Men’s Rights Movement. The MSM media wouldn’t dare attack black men because not only would they lose black men but also black women. Whereas 87% of black men supported Obama, fully 96% of black women did. All this can be done without becoming liberal or promising give a ways. Men (all men) will rally around the common good and a fair fight if they believe in the sincerity of the cause. White men (all men) would gain as much if not more benefits from such a campaign as black men. One issue that republicans could take on is that of education. There is a crisis going on in the education of boys in general, but black boys in particular. Republicans could push for changes in how we teach black boys which would in fact benefit all boys. They would immediately win more men to their side as well as more minorities. This plan however rests on one very minor assumption, that the republican party and/or many of its supporters aren’t in fact racist.

    • This would be very effective because it would help to break the women and minorities coalition. It’s also important to remember that Black men and boys are probably the ones who have been hurt by feminism the most so any large scale anti-feminist strategy should make use of this fact.

      • I’d personally welcome such an effort. Despite the rap we white men get as “trying to keep the black man down”,if I had a choice between “black men’s rights” or “no men’s rights”,I’d take the former. That way, at least America might pull itself back from the brink at some point in the future. If we continue disenfranchising and marginalizing all the thinkers,toilers and inventors,i.e.men,we’re fucking doomed.

        Do the powers that be really think women are going to save us all when they refuse to even do so much as pay a fucking light bill out of their own salary without threatening divorce? If they have to do anything to help, they’ll all probably just move to fucking France or something. They love France for some goddamned reason.

  4. The fact that over 5 million men are incarcerated and previous felons don’t have the right to vote even after completing prison in several states, this helps account for why the voting women population is bigger than the voting male population.

  5. Mitt Romney did make it a point to emphasize that children needed fathers in a response to a debate question, so that was perhaps a coded appeal to fathers rights.

    Question: Wouldn’t an open appeal to men’s rights rally feminists and swarms of organized women’s groups against you, while men only suspiciously responded to the appeal?

    Really, the Rep party isnt the proper messanger, not yet

    • Question: Wouldn’t an open appeal to men’s rights rally feminists and swarms of organized women’s groups against you

      You could have what happened in the last election instead where feminists and organized women’s groups rallied against the Republican Party without the benefit of the Republicans openly supporting mens rights. The Republican Party is already being attacked continuously with the “war on women” myth.

      All the negatives to this everyone brings up is already happening without the Republican Party openly supporting mens rights. The GOP might as well support mens rights at this point. The Republicans are going to get the downside of this strategy regardless of whether they use it or not. They might as well use it and get the benefits of it.

      • I see what you’re driving at,friend. I’m with you. It doesn’t take anything to convince people of the most outrageous shit these days. Articles from The Onion are regularly confused with “serious journalism” and in the last election we saw a guy from the party of taxation,who had just jailed a guy for exercising his freedom of speech successfully convince a majority of Americans that is was the other guy who wanted to raise their taxes and take their freedoms away.

        Clearly,the old rules no longer apply. I honestly think the GOP would get more votes if they donned brown shirts and starting marching in torchlit swastika formations. Those faggots in New York and L.A. might hop on board and call it Hitler Chic or some stupid bullshit.

        About 40% of the retards in this country think communism is better than capitalism,so apparently death camps,totalitarianism, and genocide is in style now.

  6. This is key. What has been almost ignored by the MSM is that the white vote has declined in successive elections since 2004 by around 10-12 million, particularly amongst white men. White married women also voted for Romney by nearly as much as white men. The GOP would have little to lose by ignoring SWF (they vote Dem anyway) and much to gain by appealing to men in general and white men in particular. A clearly articulated message directed at men might also bring over men from other minorities (Hispanics and Asians especially). Married white women would also probably go along with such a approach.

    It wouldn’t be PC, but it might just save the GOP. If white men had voted for Romney at the same rate as they did in 2000, he would have won by a landslide.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106.html

    http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/09/26/the-reality-of-2012-voter-turnout-the-white-voter/

  7. Won’t happen, for reasons I discuss here :

    http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/11/why-republicans-will-not-shrink-government.html

    Also, when Dominic Raab, a UK politician, took a strong Men’s Rights position, the so-called “MRAs’ didn’t even organize to write letters of encouragement to him.

    A politician will not take a position that does not appear to have supporters. When Dominic Raab took a Men’s Rights position, MRAs missed their moment of opportunity to show him that this position has supporters.

    • In the end, I suspect you’re right, but I still had the write this post. It’s not just Dominic Raab. Were MRAs voting in droves for Gary Johnson? I doubt it.

      • Oh, keep in mind the blue text at the bottom of my article above.

        Government spending will NOT go down until misandry is confronted in full force.

        They will try to avoid confronting misandry by raising taxes, auditing people (men) more aggressively, and enduring downgrades. But spending will NOT go down without a pervasive battle against feminism.

        The first of many fiscal cliffs is in a month. Let’s see how many downgrades happen before basic market forces wallop any entity (including the US and EU governments) that is too deeply immersed in spreading misandry.

  8. the republicans need to understand that they can’t win against dems by trying to be more like them
    why should women, blacks, minorities vote ‘free stuff light’ ?

    “If the GOP openly supported men’s rights, a large number of GOP women would defect.”
    he’s probably right, pmaft
    how could the guy who once introduced the term ‘conservative female supremacist’ into the manosphere not see that?

    that being said, however, the introduction of the CFSes in democrat ranks, with their more openly supremacist ways, might wake up quite a few men on that side of the fence [who are only cool with feminism because they're too retarded to see what we see] and bring them over here

    • he’s probably right, pmaft
      how could the guy who once introduced the term ‘conservative female supremacist’ into the manosphere not see that?

      This is already happening. The Republicans have already lost anyone they would lose with this strategy.

  9. I agree that Republicans need to be a pro-male party. Republicans should also move in a more libertarian direction generally because America has a center-libertarian majority. Americans want a smaller government, but reject so-cons and neo-cons (I use this term in a narrow sense to mean that small clique of influential people that favor perpetual war to spread democracy to the 3rd world). Republicans already lose single women and aren’t winning them. The way forward for the GOP is to win men, especially young men.

    All whites under 30 voted for Romney at the same rate whites of all ages voted Reagan in the 1980 landslide (with a similarly large number of 3rd party votes for mostly right-wing parties). 20% of black men under 30 and basically 0% of black women under 30 voted for Mitt. This was despite the fact that many young men voted Obama because they were bitter about Ron Paul’s primary defeat and considered both candidates the same anyway. Basically, young men should be a solid GOP voting block. Married men and women statistically vote the same and single men vote basically the same as married people. Republicans need more young men votes to make up for the single women going overwhelmingly for Democrats. In 2016, Hillary Clinton is the near-certain Democrat candidate, giving Republicans an opportunity with young minorities and no opportunity to win single women. Once voters turn 30, their minds are usually made up. If the Republicans have any sense, every man under 30 will know that Hillary wants a “gatekeeper” for the Internet, censorship of video games and is an extreme misandrist in general. They need to make her toxic to young men and motivate 80-90% of us to show up and prevent the first woman President.

  10. if we want the republican party to start supporting men’s rights it might do good to start speaking out when femra’s say shit like “the only reason republicans killed vawa is because they’re a bunch of racist pigs that just didn’t like all the new pro-immigration/native american stuff added to it”

  11. [...] Usher in 2005, and Anti-feminist-tech-blog are two articles I could find extolling the virtues of MRM/Republican political spooning; yet today [...]

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

%d bloggers like this: