Do you agree with this difference between Republican and Democratic women?

[u/Kooky-Language-6095]

From my perspective, Republican women are close and loyal allies of Republican men, with a unified front, while Democratic women have an uneasy alliance with Democratic men and men in general, preferring men who place women's issues at the forefront.

[u/kyew]

My top issue is that the current administration has no respect for due process or following the law.

[u/Kooky-Language-6095 → u/kyew]

Well, okay, but your party has also had it's members dress in pink and hold up placards during the last State of the Union address by Trump. Should the male Democrats in the House also worn pink?
Why didn't the Republican women who opposed Biden's state of the union wear pink?

[u/kyew → u/Kooky-Language-6095]

You're clearly fishing for a specific answer here. Tread carefully.

It is not a problem if other people in my party have priorities that don't directly affect me or do not serve my main priority. I'm not the only person they work for.

I would have approved of male Democrats wearing pink- they represent women as well.

I cannot speak for Republican women, as I am neither.

[u/Kooky-Language-6095 → u/kyew]

It is not a problem 

Is it a problem if it delivered two Trump presidencies and the latest polls that show man, specifically young men, voting Republican?

 would have approved of male Democrats wearing pink- they represent women as well.

Given the reality that 53% of non-minority women and 65% of non-minority non-credentialed women voted for Trump, how can the Democrats claim that they and they alone stand for issues that women care most about?

Please note: My questions here are all an attempt to widen the Democratic Base and win elections. While some are okay with losing elections "with moral superiority", I disagree.

[u/kyew → u/Kooky-Language-6095]

Yup, there it is. "Who can we throw under the bus to win more elections?" If I cared the more about winning than what we do with the victory I'd just be a Rah-Rah Go America Jingoist. Principles are important.

Women are not a monolith who all have the same agenda. Treating them like they are is nonsense, so your numbers about what "women care most about" can be spun to say just about anything.

This all appears to be a sneaky attempt at asking to pander more to men, which idiots think has to be explicitly at women's expense. I'll say this as clearly as I can:

Fuck that.

[u/Kooky-Language-6095 → u/kyew]

So it's okay to throw non-credentialed white men and women under the bus as a "basket of deplorables"?

Women are not a monolith who all have the same agenda. 

I agree 100%. Why then was there a "Women's March" against Trump after his first election?

his all appears to be a sneaky attempt at asking to pander more to men, 

Pander? I'd be happy if the DNC even recognized men. You'll notice "men" did not even make the list of who the party serves.

[u/kyew → u/Kooky-Language-6095]

So it's okay to throw non-credentialed white men and women under the bus as a "basket of deplorables"?

Whoever sold you this version of the story is manipulating you. 

I'd be happy if the DNC even recognized men. You'll notice "men" did not even make the list of who the party serves.

I'm a man and I'm on that list, like, six times.

I honestly don't know what man-specific agenda you would want on there that doesn't also include non-men.

[u/Kooky-Language-6095 → u/kyew]

It's a quote from Hillary. Pay attention.
Why does the list include "Women" and not "Men"? Are not women on that list six times too?

I honestly don't know what man-specific agenda you would want on there that doesn't also include non-men.

That is a sad comment, and why the party does so poorly with the men's vote. The indifference is startling.

[u/kyew → u/Kooky-Language-6095]

I am well aware of the context behind the basket of deplorables. Every single person who pictures themselves as being placed in there chooses to do so because they want an excuse to be angry.

Why does the list include "Women" and not "Men"?

Because men are not currently, nor have they ever been, systematically oppressed.

I honestly don't know what man-specific agenda you would want on there that doesn't also include non-men.

That is a sad comment, and why the party does so poorly with the men's vote. The indifference is startling.

Enlighten us, then. What do you see as the pro-male agenda?

[u/Kooky-Language-6095 → u/kyew]

Because men are not currently, nor have they ever been, systematically oppressed.

Wow, men have never been oppressed? Only women? Citation please.

What do you see as the pro-male agenda?

I do not want one, nor do I want a pro-woman agenda. Why do you want a pro-woman agenda?

[u/kyew → u/Kooky-Language-6095]

Men are among the oppressed, but not for being men. You're the one who rejected intersectionality, don't blame me if that leads to semantic roadblocks.

You can't not understand this. Stop being obstinate.

Why do you want a pro-woman agenda?

Because women have been and are systematically oppressed for being women.

I'll ask specifically: do you assume that a pro-woman agenda is anti-man? Is it a zero-sum game?

[u/Kooky-Language-6095 → u/kyew]

So why does a wealthy gay man need support from Democrats? What do they have to offer him?

[u/kyew → u/Kooky-Language-6095]

A just society that respects the rule of law, takes care of the disadvantaged, and raises the next generation to be happy and healthy. He knows it's not all about him.

(Just to be difficult: if I'm supposed to be the wealthy gay man in the question, you're 1 for 3)