Just posted this in soc.men; alt.feminism
bold face is mine.

Masculist wrote:
> In close races men should vote Republican. In all other races vote
> libertarian except if the candidate is female. If enough men vote this
> way, which is reasonable under the circumstances, then the pollsters
> will pick up the pattern and we get on the RADAR.

It's tempting for a concerned man to vote for a man,
thinking that his interests will be better served,
but isn't this an illusion? What have male politicians
actually done for us all these years? They stumble
over each other to please the ladies and show off
how emancipated they are. Have they ever really stood
up for us?

Speaking in general, I think voting for a female
may not necessarily be a bad thing, considering
the fact that male politicians are largely to blame
for the many anti-male laws that have been past
the last 40 years. A moderate female may be a better
bet. She will not be so damn chivalrous and eager
to please, she will not be so afraid to confront
and criticize women, and if she does she will be
more credible and more likely to stand her ground.
Some of the most influential antifeminist books
have been written by women.

When it comes to voting, the following scale
of preference could be made.

1) antifeminist female
2) antifeminist male
3) moderate female
4) moderate male
5) feminist male
6) feminist female

Not that we actually have these choices in reality.

Good stuff, bola, spot on!

I also would like to point out that our worst enemys in the last 20 years have been Republicans (welfare reform written by Republicans , Michigans Attorney general mike Cox republican , ) Republicans are the snotty brother of Democrats Both parties are fairly anti male . i think our ONLY choice is to vote 3rd parties I myself prefer libertarians ... we need to actually start getting behind Candidates for office .... we need a member who is an adeqaute writer to construct an letter that all our members have access to so we can start sending them to candidates in our areas I have No problem looking out for our Michigan delegation

I think men's issues need to be heard enough by politicians so that they take notice and realize that it are big problems. Then they would want to do something about it.

Bola wrote:

That's all well and good, but, when it boils down to it, won't make that much of a difference

Because...

It really doesn't matter if an individual politician, even a PM/President, wants something- it will be his/her party that will control the outcome of legislation to the masses

Unless the party itself promotes men's rights, then it doesn't matter what the individual thinks

And they wouldn't be elected in the first place if they held views that were contrary to the party itself !!

Plus- the party will only side with men's rights if the public demand it

Politicians already know that women vote selfishly, and, because their anti-male proposals/legislation have gone, by and large, unopposed, they will continue to act this way

The public needs to start demanding rights for men

Even if there is a national strike !!

Men need to start voting for themselves more- and they need to let the government know this

VicVanity wrote:

We have a 3rd party over here in the UK- and they're called the Liberal Democrats

And if they were voted in, we would have the same misandric bile that we've always had

I ask you: does this party you speak of raise the issue of men's rights?

I doubt it

It doesn't matter which party gets through, they will only continue to look out for themselves, not men

Unless men start protesting/voicing/striking