I was big Bernie Sanders supporter. I just loved his message, and I felt (and still do) that the Democratic National Committee was biased against his candidacy. But Hillary Clinton is the nominee and I’m going to vote for her. What I’m not happy about is that my vote will be much more a vote against her opponent—who terrifies me—than a vote for her.
For close to a quarter century I have watched as government, media, and the educational establishment have strongly encouraged girls and young women, paying almost no attention whatsoever to their brothers.
|
There is one thing Clinton can do that will make me an eager—if not outright enthusiastic—supporter, and that is to say something addressing the needs of a large group in our country that is clearly struggling: boys and young men. For close to a quarter century I have watched as government, media, and the educational establishment have strongly encouraged girls and young women, paying almost no attention whatsoever to their brothers.
I have not simply sat on the sidelines hoping that Clinton will one day acknowledge their problems; I have tried—through direct contact with a couple of people high up in her staff—to urge her to talk about the problems facing young males, especially those of color, but also including whites. For example, back in December 2015, before the primaries had even started, I was able to speak on the phone with Jennifer Klein, an advisor to Clinton on women’s issues, who Politico had on its 2014 list of “Hillary Clinton’s top 50 influentials.”
I also had an email exchange with Amanda Renteria, who is Clinton’s political director. In my emails and on the phone, I said that Clinton, as a long-standing feminist whose credentials concerning women and girls were virtually unquestionable, was ideally suited to call the nation’s attention to the long-neglected problems boys have faced.
Incidentally, both Klein and Renteria are mothers of sons.
Here’s a substantial excerpt of what I wrote in an email to Ms. Renteria, and subsequently talked about in my conversation with Ms. Klein:
Dear Ms. Renteria,
I am a lifelong Democrat, and writing at the suggestion of —, who I believe you met at a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in — a couple of weeks ago. I have worked with — and others on an issue of great importance to me, both personally and professionally: the difficulties facing boys and young men in America today (and in many countries in the developed world). Professionally, I am an emeritus professor of psychology at SUNY New Paltz, with a longstanding interest in gender issues; I have a blog on Psychology Today, where I often write about issues concerning boys and young men. As you may be well aware, on some very important statistics — such as suicide rates, incarceration, school suspensions, and college enrollment, they are not doing nearly as well as girls and young women.
I would be more than happy to share data and other material with you. (I have been seriously involved in this area for more than 20 years.)
On the personal side, I am the father of three grown sons and four young grandsons (ages two to 10). I particularly worry for my grandsons’ future. (Of course, I worry for all our children’s futures, but I think that boys have been particularly neglected.)
I could see Secretary Clinton making a statement to the effect that it is important to recognize that we need to pay attention to our nation’s boys and young men as well as girls and young women…I could almost picture how she might say it: “I have always been a champion for girls and women across the globe, and here at home, and I will continue to be. But our nation’s boys and young men need our attention too. And I will be the President for all of our children!”
Ms. Renteria, I know that there are many mothers out there worried about their sons, and I think this kind of statement would resonate strongly with them. I also know of parents of daughters concerned about the lack of ambition in so many young men their daughters meet, so this message might resonate with them as well. And I truly believe that just a statement of concern for boys and men would bring in support and votes from a lot of men who might otherwise feel left out.
She wrote back almost immediately, and said that she knew Ms. Clinton agreed with me on the importance of boys and men, but that when she talked about women and girls, it’s what got press coverage. But she added that she also knew how important families are to the Secretary.
In my telephone conversation with Jennifer Klein, when she asked if I felt that the Secretary should specifically talk about boys and men’s needs, I said, “Yes!” Ms. Klein definitely got it.
… why not be truly inclusive and say, “Let’s keep going until every one of the 322 million women, men, and children across America have the opportunities they all deserve.”
|
And yet I have kept waiting for any kind of public statement from Ms. Clinton specifically addressing the issues facing young males in our country. The closest she came—and I did notice this—was when, in her acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination on July 28, she said she was “Happy for boys and men too, because when any barrier falls in America, for anyone, it clears the way for everyone. When there are no ceilings, the sky’s the limit.”
But my happiness over hearing this (and feeling that perhaps I, and Warren Farrell, a major supporter of boys, who’d also spoken with Jennifer Klein, had helped lead her to saying it) was mitigated by its context. Here’s where those six words appeared:
Tonight, we’ve reached a milestone in our nation’s march toward a more perfect union: the first time that a major party has nominated a woman for President.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad freeStanding here as my mother’s daughter, and my daughter’s mother, I’m so happy this day has come.
Happy for grandmothers and little girls and everyone in between.
Happy for boys and men too, because when any barrier falls in America, for anyone, it clears the way for everyone. When there are no ceilings, the sky’s the limit.
So let’s keep going, until every one of the 161 million women and girls across America has the opportunity she deserves.
It was hearing the word “girls” that made me wince. Are women facing obstacles today that men are not? Yes. But girls (especially as compared to boys)? I don’t think so. When I Google “‘boys are struggling school’ 2014,” I get more than 6,000 results; for “‘girls…’,” I get only six.
And besides, why not be truly inclusive and say, “Let’s keep going until every one of the 322 million women, men, and children across America have the opportunities they all deserve.”
Ms. Clinton understandably may not be crazy about men, but I know she’s going to be crazy about at least one little boy.
|
Interesting that Ms. Clinton talking about standing here as “my mother’s daughter and my daughter’s mother” stopped there, when she could have gone on to say “and my granddaughter’s grandmother.” But then she would have been faced with the fact that she is also her grandson’s grandmother. And I’m sure his future is as important to her as that of her daughter and granddaughter. (Statistically, he is more likely to struggle than his sister.)
And it is that simple fact, that were Hillary to win, she would be the first President in nearly a quarter century with a male descendant. That alone gives me hope for my sons and especially my grandsons. Ms. Clinton understandably may not be crazy about men, but I know she’s going to be crazy about at least one little boy.
—
Photo: Getty Images/Robyn Beck
Unlike sex, a vote doesn’t need to be enthusiastic to still count as such.
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. ”
This quote says it all. She is so focused on the plight of women that men are invisible to her as they are to society at large. When I think of this quote I see young men’s bodies on foreign shores to give her the freedom to run for Potus. Her cortical blindness is striking and horrible. Don’t expect any focus on men from her.
I thought that quote was fake when I first heard about it. But then I remembered you can say anything you want about men and get away with it.
So the future President believes men and boys are not victims in war. Got it…
Yeah, I’ll be voting for that.
OMG. You claim to care about boys? Yet you might be excited about voting for the woman who’s leadership destroyed a country and the futures of thousands of children. I suppose being black africans, their lives mean little or nothing to you. Or, you’re too blinded by your favourite narratives and echo chamber to notice.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/clinton-emails-on-libya-e_b_9054182.html
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/even_critics_understate_how_catastrophically_bad_the_hillary_clinton_led_nato_bombing_of_libya_was/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014236/Libya-Children-young-7-trained-fight-Gaddafi.html
http://www.libyanexpress.com/un-said-279-000-children-deprived-from-attending-schools-in-libya/
She’s not going to care. She may-may- make some lip service, but she knows it’s not politcally expedient. If she does, she’d have the jezebellites screaming “whutaboddahmenz???” at her for the next four years.
And nothing will change. Boys will continue to backslide and the left will just shrug their shoulders and decide it’s all occurring because women are just superior.
Just like they have been for the last, what? thirty years?
For close to a quarter century I have watched as government, media, and the educational establishment have strongly encouraged girls and young women, paying almost no attention whatsoever to their brothers. Not just pay no attention but actively demonize, shame, and discourage. She wrote back almost immediately, and said that she knew Ms. Clinton agreed with me on the importance of boys and men, but that when she talked about women and girls, it’s what got press coverage. Which speaks to a larger issue. Helping men and boys doesn’t get votes, attention, or notice. In short boys and men are… Read more »
Thanks for your comment, Danny. I wrote that “Ms. Clinton understandably may not be crazy about men” because, in my experience (and this is, admittedly anecdotal), women who feel they have been wronged by their husbands – perhaps even publicly humiliated by their behavior — may develop not such great feelings about men. In terms of Monica Lewinsky, and even earlier than that, few women’s experiences with an “errant” husband have received such international attention. As for your second question, I have, for several years, been involved with a group that has been working toward the establishment of a White… Read more »
” wrote that “Ms. Clinton understandably may not be crazy about men” because, in my experience (and this is, admittedly anecdotal), women who feel they have been wronged by their husbands – perhaps even publicly humiliated by their behavior — may develop not such great feelings about men.” So in your mind it’s reasonable for the leader of a country to hold disdain (or “not be crazy for”) half the population of the country they lead, based solely on the actions of one individual who has apparently suffered no actual consequences for their transgression? (I mean, beyond continuing to be… Read more »
Let’s be direct Mark. The reason her not being crazy about men is seen as understandable isn’t because of her experiences with men but because its about a woman in relation to men.
At this point its almost fashionable to have disdain for men so being annoyed by them is okay regardless of past history.
If a male politician were described as not being crazy about women regardless of his past with women he’s be called a misogynist.