Why They're Losing: 'The View' Dismisses Dem Masculinity Problems Since Men Are 'Sexists

www.westernjournal.com

For those of you who haven’t been following The New York Times and the Democratic Party very closely — and I know given our readership that’s probably a goodly portion, and I don’t blame any of you, but you are missing out on some spectacular inadvertent comedy — the party of the American left is having a problem with men.

The problem is so acute that even the ladies of “The View” are talking about it. Joy Behar’s conclusion? Don’t try to reach out to these fools, tell them that they’re bigots instead. That’s the ticket!

So, in case you’re catching up, the flibbertigibbet-fest on ABC was talking about a much-discussed Thursday piece in the Times about the 2024 election titled “Six Months Later, Democrats Are Still Searching for the Path Forward.” TL;DR version: After being told in November that the wokeness emperor was naked, the Dems are still struggling to find a clothier, especially with men.

One section of the article, tucked in toward the end, has been the subject of much discussion (and chortling) among the punditocracy:

For now, Democratic donors and strategists have been gathering at luxury hotels to discuss how to win back working-class voters, commissioning new projects that can read like anthropological studies of people from faraway places.

The prospectus for one new $20 million effort, obtained by The Times, aims to reverse the erosion of Democratic support among young men, especially online. It is code-named SAM — short for “Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan” — and promises investment to “study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces.” It recommends buying advertisements in video games, among other things.

“Above all, we must shift from a moralizing tone,” it urges.

Yeah, because there’s nothing that says you’re straying away from moralizing quite like saying you need to “study the syntax, language and context” of Americans with Y chromosomes and coming to the conclusion that what you really need is ads in video games. Can’t you just picture it? You’re in the middle of a game of Grand Theft Auto V and, on the loading screen, a pop-up ad: “Sure, guns are fun in video games, but vote Democrat, so we can do away with the Second Amendment! Don’t worry, though: We’ll still let you steal stuff in real life, too.”

This is all fun and games (literally) until you watch “The View” and you realize they really do need to spend this money figuring out how to talk to half the American electorate.

Will Dems ever figure out their masculinity problem?

Yes: 2% (1 Votes)

No: 98% (49 Votes)

Let’s face facts here: Aside from the token emphatic air-quotes “conservative” or two they include, “The View” is basically a panel discussion, which deals with the concerns of left-leaning women between the ages of 35 and 75. I sometimes laugh to myself when I see ads for Democratic candidates during the show; what do those campaigns suppose was airing before the commercial break? Why waste your money duplicating it?

Take Friday’s show, where the Times’ piece — and a concomitant opinion column by the NYT’s resident air-quotes “conservative,” David French, who said the Democrats were failing to realize “the manosphere … was an organic response to a deep personal need” —  was the first item on the agenda.

“Democrats are spending $20 million just to learn how to speak their language,” co-host Joy Behar said at the outset of the segment. “You heard it, 20 million bucks just to talk to boys. So, is this a good idea or a waste of money?”

Alyssa Farah Griffin — the air-quotes “conservative” du jour on the show’s panel — was the only one who managed to get it slightly right, noting that “nothing says authenticity like spending $20 millions to pay consultants and strategists and focus groups to tell you how to talk to a certain audience.” But after five minutes of babble, Joy announced she had the real answer.

“You know what I think? I think it’s a waste of money. Maybe these guys should spend their money on teaching men to not be such sexists,” Behar said, to predictable applause:

When Griffin noted that “the stats don’t bear that out” and that if the Democrats want to keep on losing, they can keep on doing that, Behar took that as another opportunity to bash her head against the concrete wall of reality.

“[Trump] was running against a woman, I’m telling you,” she said.

“You think that Democrats who were with Biden in 2020 left to be with Trump because they’re sexist?” Griffin said.

“I don’t know the reason, but it’s very suspicious,” Behar said.

She’s “suspicious?” Is this election denialism? I’ve been told that’s a punishable offense in the media world. J’accuse, Joy Behar!

If you don’t have eight minutes to waste, those comments get no better in context, I assure you — but if you do, enjoy the self-parodying self-own of the panel normalizing misandry in its full glory:



Now, while the three paragraphs I shared are the ones that got the most attention, the Times’ piece was actually fairly thorough in noting that this wasn’t a Donald v. Hillary or Donald v. Kamala problem, but a Republican v. Democrat problem, particularly as it relates to male voters. Remember, the prediction going into Nov. 5 was that the presidential race would be razor-thin, it was anyone’s guess who would take the Senate, but the Democrats had the advantage in the House. The first two were decisively lost by the Democrats; the third was decided by a thin margin — but still for the Republicans.

Not all of those candidates were women. In fact, all four of the Republicans’ Senate pickups were male v. male races, so that doesn’t compute. Are the ladies of “The View” really saying that now-former Montana Sen. Jon Tester was too feminine? Was Republican Sen. Deb Fischer’s larger-than-expected margin of victory in Nebraska against independent Democratic-leaning candidate Dan Osborn a sign those sexist men can secretly be self-hating, too?

Joy Behar doesn’t think about these things because Joy Behar doesn’t think, period. Neither does the person who claps along with her.

This is a great scripted line straight from the “Republicans are Trump, Democrats are Kamala, vote for the first and you’re a sexist and a double-racist since she’s black and Indian” school of left-wing identitarian reductionism.  It all sounds so wonderful on a TV show, lousy on election night.

It’s why you need to hole up a bunch of lefty apparatchiks in fancy hotels to decide on a $20 million “how do you do, fellow males?” campaign: Because right after that farce gets splashed all over the pages of the left’s official newspaper, the left’s official gab-fest declares that you could spend that money on lecturing “men to not be such sexists.” Because that worked so well last year, right?

Contributor, Commentary

SummaryMore Biographical InformationRecent PostsContact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he's written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he's written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014. Aside from politics, he enjoys spending time with his wife, literature (especially British comic novels and modern Japanese lit), indie rock, coffee, Formula One and football (of both American and world varieties).

Birthplace

Morristown, New Jersey

Education

Catholic University of America

Languages Spoken

English, Spanish

Topics of Expertise

American Politics, World Politics, Culture

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.