For the record, I am still a man. I am, however, formerly young and formerly a Democrat. Much has been made about the party’s dollar dump at a high-end venue to noodle out why young men are taking their allegiance and their votes elsewhere. Part of this can also be attributed to the fact that Leftists love to go to high-end venues and spend front-end loaders of money. It’s part of the appeal of being a Democrat. Another part of this is because if you were raised in Leftist culture, you quickly learn that everything is an issues and tissues session.
The fact that young men opted for a mass exodus from the Left has been decades in the making. I was there when the whole thing started in the 1970s with the television show and accompanying LP (complete with a book), “Free to Be You and Me.” You youngsters will need to find Indiana Jones to unearth that particular relic, but those of us from Gen X who grew up in Democratic homes remember the show and the record, which sought to show us that women were just as capable as men, and that traditional gender roles needed to be reconsidered. And women are just as good as men, but they are different, something that serious people understand. But the seeds were planted.
It was not long after that that the phrase “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” made its debut. No one was burning bras at this point; that was a “last decade” phenomenon, but the sprouts were being nurtured. It is essential to remember that for years, this was presented as an effort to create equality between the sexes, and I have no doubt that for some, it was. But not for all.
When the '90s rolled around, t-shirts started appearing that read “Boys are dumb. Throw rocks at them.” In the early 2000s, reports were already beginning to surface that boys were going to camps where they were taught how to dress in drag and were feminized. Even before DEI, equity and transgenderism were making headlines, covert efforts were well underway. Men and boys were being told to shut up and/or go away for decades. Some men embraced it, hoping to curry favor with women. More than a few are still fumbling with that strategy. Others decided to keep quiet and ride it out until they couldn’t stand it anymore.
So, yes, when a party makes it a plank to eliminate masculinity and brand men as evil misogynists and consistently tar and feather them as being responsible for every horrible thing that has happened since the Precambrian Period, men are going to walk away.
The Democrats seem to think this is a messaging problem. It isn’t. Some argue that common ground and clearer articulation are necessary in terms of policy. That won’t work.
How do Dems win back Young Men? (ft @OliviaJulianna)
— Micah Erfan (@micah_erfan) May 27, 2025
00:00 Start
00:51 Dems Are Wrong About Men
03:28 Messaging to Men
04:52 Making Men Feel Welcome
06:15 Meeting Men Where They’re At
09:34 Inclusive Messaging
12:44 Simple Policy Platform pic.twitter.com/i9gWKeLqnt
The problem is one of power. The Democratic Party likes power too much to change its stripes. History has repeatedly shown that the creation of victims and constantly calling for revolution, change, or whatever the battle cry du jour happens to be are effective methods for gaining, consolidating, and keeping power. Victims are easy to manipulate. Of course, for those things to happen, there must be an enemy. In this case, the enemy is men.
Originally, these women were angry over the way that men had treated them over the years, and I am not saying that they did not have any valid points. However, when they began their rise to power, most of the culprits were dead, retired, uninvolved, or otherwise out of reach. So they turned their guns on the next generation of men and found willing disciples in the next generation of women. Hey, go with what works, right?
Long-time readers of mine may recall that when I was trying to become an Episcopal priest, I was told off the record that the diocese was not ordaining straight white men at the time. What I have never discussed is what happened before that conversation.
My first wife, who passed away a few years ago, struggled with severe mental problems that began to surface and accelerate after we married. Addictions to alcohol and prescription drugs exacerbated them. In addition to the issues with dishonesty, theft, and infidelity, she developed a temper.
Many were the nights that I endured a bloody nose, a scratched face, or even a shiner. I had bruises on my back and legs, dodged various airborne household objects, and woke up one night with her pressing a pillow over my face. These incidents could be triggered by an offhand comment, a look on my face, the clothes I wore, my being a few minutes late or early, failure to give her money on demand, or her mood. I was once slapped and forced out of the house for watching the news. She was convinced I was having an affair with the anchor.
Eventually, I divorced her because I couldn’t take being abused anymore. I was raised never to hit a woman under any circumstances. Male victims of spousal abuse pretty much kept it to themselves back then, and it is not uncommon for them to do so now.
She showed up at my door a couple of times when her new boyfriend slapped her, choked her out, and stalked her. I called the cops, took her to the ER, and got her into a women’s shelter and hooked her up with the local victim’s advocacy office. I even gave her a few bucks when she was broke.
Fast forward a few years to when I tried to make another ill-fated run at the priesthood. In retrospect, I would have made a rotten minister, and the Episcopal Church would have shown me the door sooner or later. But at that time, I was still leaning left and did not have any issues with women as doctors, lawyers, accountants, or anything else. And that included bishops and priests. And to be honest, I still don’t care.
The process began with a meeting of the committee. I was interviewed by a panel of four women and one man. I started out with a few jokes to keep the mood light. Back then, Episcopalians still had a sense of humor. Later, the bishop called me into her office and told me that I had not shown the proper solemnity for such an event. I was too cavalier.
During the meeting, I shared the story about my ex-wife with the committee. One of the things that the entire experience gave me was a perspective on domestic violence that most men do not have. Granted, I don’t fully understand the issue from a woman’s perspective, but I understand the stress, the misery, the hopelessness, the frustration, the feeling that no one would believe me, and the sense of defeat that comes with being on the receiving end of domestic violence. I had intended to turn that part of my life into a basis for ministry.
As I told the story, a slight smile crept across the face of the priest who was chairing the committee. I believe she was a Canon. If something about my experience amused her, I could not imagine what it could possibly be. She dropped the smile and said, “So, given your experience, do you have a problem with women?” Of all the questions to ask, that was her query. Of course, I did not have a problem with women. I never have. She looked unconvinced.
It was a short meeting, too short, in fact. It was maybe a week or two later that I got the letter informing me that I had been rejected. Not long after that, I had the conversation with the priest that I have documented before on these pages. He took me aside and said, “The diocese just isn’t ordaining straight, white men right now. If you can hang on and play the game, things may change, eventually.”
That’s when it all came together. I never stood a chance. The committee was never going to green-light me. The chair was just looking for an excuse. The fact that I mentioned my experience was enough for them to suspect me of disliking women. Letting me into the ordination process could have eventually become a threat to the power structure. I was just one more straight guy. In trying to be upfront, I handed them the rope.
The Left is interested in power, not in what young men think. The Democrats are worried about messaging, not what they are doing. They are fretting over style because they don’t see anything wrong with their substance. It has not occurred to the Left that it can spin things all it wants. It can change the message all it wants. So the Left may change the advertising without ever thinking that it might be wrong.
The Left wants the votes back, and it doesn’t care what happens to the men after that, as long as they stay out of the way. But young men have seen behind the curtain. They are saying to the Left, “It’s not the messaging; it’s you.” These men realize that no matter how impressive the presentation may be on the plate, garbage is still garbage, no matter how well it is garnished. They’ve had a gut full. And they aren’t coming back for seconds.
