The Democratic Party and Men - One Good Way to Preclude Listening

As noted in a previous post:

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-2016-election-and-middle-class.html

the Democratic Party seems to have written off doing much of anything for men. Now prominent Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren say that they want to listen.

Warren says:

As for the protests that have sprung up across the country in opposition to Trump, Warren said, “People are upset and they’re right to be upset. This is our country, and people have a right to have their voices heard.” But, she added, “we also have an obligation to listen.” Not necessarily to Trump, but to those who decided to vote for him despite his “bigotry.”

There seems to be a disconnect between  Warren's "obligation to listen statement" and the way her web-based email is set up. I wanted to send her a message saying that the problem was that the Democratic Party was entirely focused on women and was not doing anything for men; it should not be a big surprise that men do not vote for Democrats in big numbers. Here is Warren's email contact link:

https://www.warren.senate.gov/index.cfm?p=email_senator

Note that one must pick a topic from a drop down computer list. There is no topic on that list that would seem to fit the "listening" that Warren claims should be happening. The closest topic to allow men to comment that they voted for Trump because the Democratic Party had deserted men is, I guess, "women's issues." There is, of course, no topic choice for "men's issues," I suppose because  men do not have any issues that the Democratic Party deems worthy of attention, let alone action. Half of the constituents she represents are men. Even if the Democratic Party has no intention of doing anything for men, it would help her "listening" objective if men at least were considered in her topic list.

The 2016 Election and Middle Class White Males

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/10/elizabeth-warren-faces-president-trump-with-rachel-maddow-no-compromise-on-bigotry.html

Warren says:

As for the protests that have sprung up across the country in opposition to Trump, Warren said, “People are upset and they’re right to be upset. This is our country, and people have a right to have their voices heard.” But, she added, “we also have an obligation to listen.” Not necessarily to Trump, but to those who decided to vote for him despite his “bigotry.”

Comment:

Warren is right about listening to those who voted for Trump despite his bigotry. People need to see the Democratic Party working on their behalf. The party lost badly among men and especially badly among white men in particular. Why? It is pretty simple. The Party has become increasingly hostile toward men in general, and white men in particular. There are many members of the Party that that have adopted some of the radical women's movement practices of disparaging men by spewing "male privilege" and disparaging white men in particular by spewing " white male privilege" in any discussion of any societal problem (e.g.Ref[1], Ref[2]). While it is true that Democratic politicians generally do not use these terms themselves, it is also true that they have not discouraged the use of these terms among members of the Party. By their silence, the Democratic politicians are complicit in disparaging men. The liberal wing of the party is so focused on the mantra of "white male privilege" that white males have essentially been deserted by the party.

While it is easy to list many things that the Party has done to help women, it is hard to list things that the Party has done to help men. Even what "benefits" to men I have heard liberals mention seem to be solely side effects of policies designed to help women. The fact that men are affected by policies meant to help women is largely unavoidable. There can occasionally be some benefits to men, but that is not the purpose of the policies. There are also some deleterious side effects on men that the Party just seems to accept as some kind of acceptable collateral damage in the attempts to help women.

Are there any efforts that the Party has made that were directed specifically at improving men's lives in the same way the Party directs efforts specifically at improving women's lives? I cannot think of a single one. If there have been any attempts, the Party should do a better job of communicating attempts specifically directed at improving men's lives, just as the Party does with attempts specifically directed at improving women's lives.

It is a good guess that middle class males, especially white middle class males, are not voting for Republicans because Republicans have done much for them. How have Republican policies helped middle class men? Republican policies have not improved the lives of middle class men any more than Democratic policies. This is actually good news for the Democratic Party as many of these men have no real attachment to the Republican Party. Middle class men will return to the Democratic Party when two things happen. First, the liberal wing of the Party should stop the outright hostility toward men in favor of welcoming men. Second, the Party actually needs to show men that the Party is acting on their behalf, at least a small fraction of the time (say 20%?), if it expects men to vote Democratic. 

Winning elections is going to remain difficult as long as the Democratic Party remains hostile to men and the only "benefits" to men that the Party can point to are simply side effects of policies to help women.

Why do Some Men with Significant Assets Marry without Prenuptial Contracts?

What are some of the reasons that men with assets, especially young men, agree to marry under a default contract that is so much worse for them than they could obtain by negotiation?

1. Ignorance. Many men, especially young men, are simply ignorant about how bad the default marriage  contract can be for men. The older and wiser a man gets, the more a man has seen what the default has meant for other men and will choose a prenuptial agreement.

2. Innocence, expense, and laziness. Many men, especially young men, are predisposed to believe that the default marriage contract is fair because examining the terms of the default marriage contract is impossible; the terms are not written down anywhere. A good family attorney can explain the implications of the default marriage contract. Getting legal advice requires the man to know that he should never get married under the default contract without legal advice and to expend considerable  time, effort, and expense to become informed. The older and wiser a man gets, the more a man has seen what the default has meant for other men and will choose a prenuptial agreement.

3. Societal and family intimidation against prenuptial contracts. Men know that most fiancees believe (correctly) that the fiancees could never hope to negotiate a more favorable contract than the default and that men likely will have to endure tears, screaming fits, and unwarranted hostile accusations. Many women will rail against the mere idea of negotiating a prenuptial contract. Even suggesting that a woman have her lawyer prepare a prenuptial contract stating the marriage contract that she wants can result in  tears, screaming fits, and unwarranted hostile accusations. These intimidating tactics are not employed because a prenuptial contract is unfair in some discussable way, they are employed because the woman, or her attorney,  wants to preserve, without discussion, the favorable unfairness associated with the default contract. The problem with her attorney preparing a  written prenuptial contract? The problem is that although her attorney can write whatever provisions she wants,  the man can question the reasonableness of the provisions. If the fiancee cannot justify the provisions to his satisfaction, she is going to look like a gold digger to him. Much better to have an unwritten contract whose provisions are not even known until divorce time.

4. Structural bias. Note that the law basically requires that women get legal advice about a prenuptial contract before signing so that she understands the implications of what she is signing, there is no legal requirement that a man understand the implications of the default marriage contract that he is signing.