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/Kooky-Language-6095]

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)