Losing Men, Winning Elections Mark Sutton on the Democrats' Gamble

Are the Democrats risking it all by losing male voters? Tony sits with political strategist Mark Sutton discussing trends, strategy, and the long-term consequences of the party's shifting demographics and minimizing the male vote.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Our founding fathers here in this country, brought about the
only true revolution that has ever taken place in man's history.
Evolve the idea that you and I have within ourselves,
the god given right and the ability to determine our
own destiny.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
The United States of America the greatest nation in history,
ordained by our founders to be guided by divine providence,
but today we are witnessing the orchestrated disintegration of America.
Take a few seconds and take a look around your town,
your state, look at your country and your world, and

(00:39):
boldly ask what in the hell is going on?

Speaker 1 (00:43):
But freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream.
The only way they can inherit the freedom we have
known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend.

Speaker 3 (00:56):
It, and then hand it to them with the well.

Speaker 1 (00:59):
Taught lessons of how they in their lifetime.

Speaker 3 (01:01):
Let's do the same.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
Welcome to the podcast Project Third Eye Open, where we
dare to question with boldness the events that are unfolding
around us that others won't. At the end of the day,
it is we the people who will decide the destiny
of the Nation. Now introducing your host, Tony l.

Speaker 3 (01:33):
Greetings, Grittings, greetings everyone.

Speaker 4 (01:35):
This is another very very very special podcast presentation and
the project that I open.

Speaker 3 (01:42):
Of course, this is tonyel and.

Speaker 4 (01:46):
Got another one, got another one, Asso, living and breathing Democrat.
There was a question whether he's a JFK Democrat or
the Obama Democrat, but we are going to get abe
to find out. So I am talking to mister Mark

(02:06):
Sutton again. He is a Democrat for thirty five years.
So I don't know if that was at birth, because
you look kind of young. You've been officially for thirty
five years. He's authored a book how Democrats can Win
back Men, and that's what caught my eye because that

(02:27):
is something that is a phenomena and it's people can
say Democrat party is is embracing that conversion.

Speaker 3 (02:40):
But he asked the question can they win that way
for long perm? So long term? So Mark, let everybody
know who you are.

Speaker 5 (02:49):
All right, thank you Tony for having me. It's a
pleasure to be here. I'm coming to you today from
San Francisco, California. Of course you are, yeah, and yeah,
as you mentioned, I've been a Democrat. My whole life.
But I've also been somebody who has advocated for mill
well being, and in my work at advocating for the
well being of men, I work with people across the

(03:11):
political spectrum. So that's why I feel comfortable talking to anyone,
you know, even to people who have some different beliefs
than me. And I think it's important that we do that.
So yeah, thank you for having me today. That's really important.
And one thing I have noticed is that the Democratic
Party has consistently ignored men in their issues. And as

(03:33):
somebody who is in this kind of unique spot of being,
you know, a Democrat who focuses on mill well being
has been incredibly incredibly let me say it one more time,
incredibly frustrating that the Democratic Party does not focus on men.
Now they're just at this last election, they're starting to
see a few people say a few things, but you know,

(03:56):
just to get to the to the basic premise, I
look at social outcomes of populations. I'm a data guy.
I come from community development finance background and a data background,
and I care about the well being of a group
of people. So for instance, let's say you're looking at
two countries, right, and one country has a life expectancy

(04:17):
of seventy two. The other one has a life expectancy
of sixty six, a six year difference. Say, oh, well,
this country is doing a lot better than that country, right, Like,
it's just the numbers say that. You don't even need
to get into an argument. Right, Well, in the United States,
men live six years shorter than women. Okay, and now

(04:37):
you say, well, men and women are biologically little different,
maybe there's a difference. The closest comparison we can make.
They've done studies between nurses, I'm sorry, not nurse nuns
and men who are in monasteries monks, and the life
expects the difference between those two populations about one year.
So that's sort of correcting for because they live very similar.

(04:58):
Lifestyle is very routine, and they know exactly what they eat,
they know their behaviors, they know where they live. Is
it's a perfect way to sort of control for everything
except for biological sex. And when you do that, the
difference is about one year. Okay, one hundred years ago
in the United States, the difference between men and women
in life expectancy was one year. Now it's six years.

(05:19):
So just at the very surface, like, oh, this group
seems to be not doing as well in terms of
health outcomes. Right, that's just and that's non controversial data.
We have very good birth and death records in the
United States, so we do know when people were born
and when they died. So this is very non controversial data.
And to me, it's just very clear. Now, what did

(05:41):
the Democrats do in their last thing. They never mentioned
it once, They never mentioned health once, men's health once,
and in fact, in the last two years they added
six hundred million dollars for women's health. We have eight
offices of women's health and none for men's health. Now,
I think the thing that really maybe the most there

(06:05):
was a representative from New Jersey who a black man,
who said, hey, we need an office of men's health.
He got a bill, he started a bill in Congress.
The Democrats ignored it. And you know, I had suggested
for President Biden's State of the Union last year, I
said he should he should talk about this, and he

(06:27):
could he could, you know, support his Democrat in Congress.
Have the person stand up and clap like, hey, we
want an office of men's health. It probably wouldn't have passed,
but it would have been a free talking point to
get men to at least like, oh, they at least
are saying something about us. He didn't. And the reason
why his name is Representative Pain from New Jersey. The
reason why he started this because his father had died

(06:48):
prematurely of cancer. And here's the really sad part of
this story. A couple of weeks after the State of
the Union, Representative Pain himself passed away, and on top
of that, the Biden White House they sent out a notice.
In their notice, they made no mention of his advocacy
for men's health or anything like that. They just completely

(07:11):
ignored it. And I was so upset by that. I thought,
why would men vote for you? Why would you be
surprised when men are not voting for you when you ignore,
like to that degree, ignore their problems, you know. I
just thought it was so offensive. So anyway, that just
gives you a taste of where I'm coming from. I'm
a definitely very moderate Democrat. You said at the beginning,

(07:33):
there's kind of the different democrats. I think you called
it a JFK Democrat and Obama. So if JFK is
what would consider more centrist, yeah, I'm probably I'm probably
more I'm definitely more of a moderate Democrat. There's a
lot on the far left that I don't agree with,
and I actually I find myself agreeing more with some

(07:54):
moderate Republicans than the far left Democrats.

Speaker 4 (07:58):
Yeah, that's yeah, I think that's that's that's why you're here,
because if if you're on the far left, I mean,
I reached out to a lot of fall left and
day is.

Speaker 3 (08:07):
I mean, it wasn't it wasn't nice.

Speaker 4 (08:09):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (08:09):
A lot of them told me I get it.

Speaker 4 (08:12):
I mean, I mean, I respect I respect that, I
respect that. But it's interesting the figures that that the
data that that you espouse talked about, because I was
unaware that it was that people with difference. I always
thought that just women and women and women and men
and men and real different and women always had a

(08:34):
lot longer lifespan just because they don't put themselves in
peril in many cases just lifestyle occupations that they're out
there trying to save the world, so to.

Speaker 3 (08:47):
Speak, as men are.

Speaker 4 (08:50):
Hunting and putting themselves in and parents situations hunting.

Speaker 5 (08:57):
Yeah, I mean men are Men are over nine percent
of occupational deaths, So firemen, police officers, truck drivers are
very dangerous procession is a very dangerous profession. Those jobs
are all vast majority mail, well over ninety percent, So
it's not surprising that most of the work like deaths
are also male.

Speaker 3 (09:18):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (09:18):
So that's why I thought that there's always been a
big gap and for us a life expecacies just based
on the occupations and particularly occupations I.

Speaker 5 (09:29):
Think in terms of the numbers still, so that is true,
but I think in terms of the numbers, uh, that's
a small percentage of death. Overwhelmingly the causes of death
are medical heart disease, cancer, things like that, And so
men are getting cancer at much higher rates than women
and dying much earlier. That's a much bigger factor than

(09:50):
okay than jobs. Yeah, I mean that job thing is
a part of it, is a part, but much bigger
is the medical issues.

Speaker 3 (09:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (09:57):
Maybe because I die it is maybe different because I'm imagine.

Speaker 3 (10:00):
Men eat more red meat and women eat more salad.
I don't know, be.

Speaker 5 (10:06):
Part of it. Yeah, Lifestyle factors, you know, lifestyle factors
can be a part of it. And you know, the
other side of the argument is, well, men are dying earlier,
that's their own fault. But I say, but isn't the
role of government to try to at least educate people,
Like you said, you didn't even know that there was
this existed. The White House won't talk about it, you know,
when Biden was the president, he wouldn't talk about it.

(10:27):
So how can people make the best choices when the
government is actively stifling the information that they would share
for I can only assume for political purposes. So I
just find it incredibly sad that we live in this
society where it's like the Democrats feel like they can't
talk about men for fear of There's a quote in

(10:48):
my book from an article in the Atlantic where, yeah,
there was the Democrats. There was a strategist who was
a speech writer, and he said that he was or
he or she. It doesn't say anonymous strategists, but was
quoted as saying, I was told to take all reference
to men's issues out of the speeches for fear of
alienating female Democratic voters. And I think the answer should

(11:10):
be not to take the references out of the speech.
It should be to inform female Note voters that they
shouldn't be alienated by the topic. Right, that's the correct response.
You do it the other way, You know say oh yeah, well,
I don't want to say anything that might no they
need And I think this is really right, and I'm
glad we got to that point because I think really

(11:30):
is the crux of what needs to happen for the
Democratic Party if they want to be more successful. And
I would say a lot this topic kind of goes
to everyone. I've just found that the Democrats are very
strongly this way. People who are independent or more conservative
tend to not feel as much. But I think the
lessons that everyone could learn, I mean everyone could understand
these issues better. I've got Republicans who've read my book

(11:53):
and said, mark your book. You could have just made
it a neutral book and said the same thing for
both parties because Republicans could do a lot better better
job focusing on men's issues as well. But I feel
like they just are they just kind of have to
hold serve because the Democrats are so bad.

Speaker 4 (12:09):
But I think I was just I've done a couple
of podcasts or what about America was not meant to
be a feminine country? And I go into the female
ego and the masculine ego because as a consciousness it's different,

(12:35):
and I think socialism is a feminine It's kind of
ideology is it weighs on being taken care of. It
weighs on the feminine.

Speaker 3 (12:56):
Aspects of.

Speaker 4 (12:59):
Going on through the crowd, not offending, and being taken
care of. That's the feminine ego compared to the masculine
ego is very aggressive. Would stand up for their family
and themselves in spite of what the crowd says.

Speaker 3 (13:17):
And that's America.

Speaker 4 (13:18):
So when you when when you look at what's going
on in our culture and always say it's never one thing,
it's like you mentioned.

Speaker 3 (13:30):
It's the whatever.

Speaker 4 (13:32):
Insplicably, Democrat parties since ninety eight in particular, had just
gone away from from any mention of masculine topics or.

Speaker 3 (13:44):
Topics that would benefit men.

Speaker 4 (13:46):
When you go back and look at saying the sixties,
that's a blue collar party, masculine party, you know, union heavy.
Some just they still officially union heavy, but different union
heavy patch of election unions went away from them and

(14:06):
droves because of the topics that they were trying to
champion had nothing to do with men, which is interesting
and leads me to the point that it's not not
never just one thing.

Speaker 3 (14:23):
We have come into a global economy, global world.

Speaker 4 (14:27):
Particularly with Biden, he was very much and a globalist
and uh, in my opinion, and so.

Speaker 3 (14:36):
Is Obama very globalists.

Speaker 4 (14:38):
And when you look at how things are happening, not
just in America but in all Western cultures, it's turning
very very feminine where where you look at where the church.

Speaker 3 (14:50):
Is going, where where where where governments are.

Speaker 4 (14:53):
Pretty much not even like I said, not even trying
to pretend that they're trying to ingratiate and sets with men.
You know, it's all about women rights, women rights, what's
good for the women. Everything you see on the TV
commercials give women a.

Speaker 3 (15:15):
Pat on the back. Yeah, men nothing.

Speaker 5 (15:18):
If you notice this. By the way, speaking of TV,
there's something that I did a little study on this.
If you ever look at a commercial for a home
security system, the robber is always male. When there's a
porch pirate or anything, anyone can anyone can be a
porch pirate. So they want equal opportunity when it's something
good or equal representative something. Yeah, and it's ninety nine

(15:41):
percent white man. There were a couple of minority mails
I saw. I looked at like twenty different home security
companies and it was like one or two.

Speaker 3 (15:49):
Quite should they caught flack for that?

Speaker 5 (15:51):
They probably did. They probably did. Yeah, And it's just
it's just I don't know, it's uh, it got I
think there. I think we are seeing a pushback against
that in general. Uh. And I would say that even
you know, since the election of a few governors, a
few politicians have come out and started on the Democrats

(16:11):
side and said, hey, we've got to actually stop ignoring
men or the like. And I say, just just a
couple of people. I'm not saying this is a couple
of people.

Speaker 3 (16:23):
I heard that.

Speaker 5 (16:24):
I always encouraged.

Speaker 3 (16:25):
It makes it makes political sense. I mean, because if
you're true about your that you.

Speaker 4 (16:30):
Want to eat this week, you know, you got to
look at things in reality. I mean trying to say
that Commander laws for anything other than the fact she
wasn't good candidate and one she waited. Her whole thing
was about reproductive rights. Men don't care about reproductive rights.
You know, men don't have them.

Speaker 5 (16:51):
That's why they never said the other side should men
have the So if a woman can have an abortion,
can a man have a financial abortion or paper abortion
what they call can he just legally surrender his paternity
have no rights but no responsibilities. So because if a
woman can choose if she wants to be a parent
or not, a man should be able to choose. The
demotize wouldn't touch that with a ten foot point. They

(17:12):
wouldn't even come close to that. There's a guy, there's
a guy who has advocated for paternity rights named Carnell Smith.
Are you familiar with him? I believe he's for but
his whole issue was paternity fraud. Now he did get
Tennessee to pass I believe it's Tennessee to pass a
law about you know, just even the idea that a

(17:35):
man should not have to pay for a child that's
not biologically his. I mean, they have to pass laws
for that. And again and if you bring this up
in democratic circles, they look at you like what rights too?
Like you know, even the concept like I said, I
focus on male well being because I do male well
being includes political rights. That's a part of well being.

(17:56):
It's not everything. That's why I say I advocate for
me well being. But that even the terms men's rights
activist has become Oh that's bad. So wait a second,
So we all can advocate for our rights and I'm
a man, but so if I navocate for my rights,
then I'm bad. Wait, we're.

Speaker 4 (18:14):
Human rights champion, women's rights, right, But but what what
that does to the young men coming up. It's devastating
because they don't see them in any of this. They
see sister again, all the accolades, buff again, all the
accolades me.

Speaker 3 (18:36):
You know, it's just like nobody.

Speaker 4 (18:38):
Cares about me winning because I guess I'm supposed to win,
you know. But no, that bill self esteem. It build
self confidence growing up. You're stronger because you feel that
you can do it. I just see young men really,
and and statistics show the young men are catching hell
because they don't have no identity. When you look at

(19:01):
how how much pleasure and and and roads is are
being thrown at the females and not just in women.

Speaker 3 (19:08):
But yeah, something is out of balance.

Speaker 5 (19:12):
It is out of balance. I'm glad you said that.
That's exactly what I said in my book. I said
the Democratic Party is out of balance when it comes
to gender issue. Is not that they should all of
a sudden start ignoring women or tell them that they
have to live a certain way. No, is out of
balance and we just need to bring it back into balance,
which is not such a radical message. I mean, it's
a pretty straightforward. That's funny. A lot of people have

(19:35):
agreed with me and have have welcomed my message I
have got. Of course, there's always going to be haters
out there, right, so some people who disagree with it,
But I said, what is it? What is it that
you disagree with? And the thing that kind of boils
down to for some people is simply, you know, until
women have everything that they need, we can't do anything
for men.

Speaker 3 (19:55):
Like what I just think, like what what? I mean?
What do women need?

Speaker 4 (20:00):
Because the natural order of things is that the man is.

Speaker 3 (20:05):
This maybe sex is so you know, spoiler alert.

Speaker 4 (20:10):
Man is supposed to to protect the woman, provide for
the women, and women should take care of their home
ways a child. Not that they can't intersect or cross pollinate,
but this is the natural order. So say, if you
remove the man, as you mentioned, and most things are

(20:33):
built by men, most discoveries are by men, wars are
laws and fought by men.

Speaker 3 (20:41):
So is that good for the culture?

Speaker 5 (20:46):
Yeah, and you know, I hear what you're saying. My
feeling about that issue is this, I believe we should
let people be who they are and that's why like
America you're talking about is freedom. And if you do that,
you're going to see trends. Like you said, there's going
to be more men in construction. Doesn't mean we should
say women can't do it. But if you just let

(21:07):
everyone choose what they want to do, construction is going
to happen.

Speaker 4 (21:11):
We've done that, We've done that. Women don't want to
dig dishes. Honestly, they don't want to be out there
asphalt all that you find some right if they want
to do that, fine.

Speaker 5 (21:23):
Great, right. So when you're saying, I guess it's the
slight distinction, I would have to what you said is
I guess I would just say men tend to do
these things. Women tend to do these things, but every
individual might be different, or like you said, a balance,
there's a balance men. Men also nurture men also, you know,

(21:44):
and and women also women have that mama bear in them.
They won't fight for their kids too.

Speaker 4 (21:50):
But but how we made and left to own devices
and this has been done. Yeah, give a woman and
say okay, do whatever you want. Up they still go
towards nursing. The soft scientists sciencests. You know, they don't

(22:12):
choose manufacturing overall, they don't choose construction overall. They don't
choose military in the sense that they want to be
out in the field overall. As far as Greenberry, the
the higher more.

Speaker 3 (22:29):
Focused, there's some but overall, women be women.

Speaker 4 (22:34):
And I think the Women's Live really put a damper
on people women wanting to be women because they said, well,
it's real bad as far as you know, you shouldn't
be in the home vision of family.

Speaker 5 (22:48):
Right exactly. And I think that I agree there. There's
part of me this also a little bit libertarian, where
I'm like, I don't want the government telling me what
masculinity is or feminine right Still, I mean, it is
a baseball player more masculine than an opera singer. What
if he's a bosso profundo with that big, deep voice.
I mean, is that not masculine? Right?

Speaker 3 (23:08):
I mean?

Speaker 5 (23:08):
What is masculine too? So that's why I talk about
social outcomes and mal well being. Again, I don't in
terms of the government and less about masculinity because masculinity
can mean different things to different people. It's an important thing.
Go get me wrong, But I don't think the government
should be legislating what is masculine.

Speaker 4 (23:27):
Sure, not right, but if they are doing that, and
like I said, nothing happens just on one off when
comes to government.

Speaker 3 (23:37):
There's all the reason why government does this, and I
think it.

Speaker 4 (23:40):
Has to do with the decline, you know, making culture
as a whole.

Speaker 3 (23:46):
I think done purposely because when you look at things
not common sense.

Speaker 4 (23:52):
You know, when ALBSJA took the man out the home
in particularly in the black community, it probably wasn't a
surprise to them, say ten years later where you saw
the black community go down because of of ala child wedlock,
because then the government came in the place of demand.

(24:16):
So the government does things purposely, and I think that
that that whole point of believening masculinity and believing the
man is done purposely to all set and and and
and destroy the culture as a whole. And maybe it
turned us to be a social that's feminized culture.

Speaker 5 (24:34):
Interesting. I agree with a lot of what you just
said about how government programs have denigrated fatherhood. I'm actually
part I'm a founding member of a new organization called
the California Fatherhood Council, and we're working with different groups
around the state and working with the state government itself

(24:54):
to try to make the laws better, make fatherhood more
respective as an important part of life, ideally in uh
locally right that I'm sorry, Yeah, this is just in
the state of California. Yeah, but it's still sick. California
is pretty good. We have a lot of momentum. We're
doing good and you know, they're starting to change some laws,

(25:18):
particularly around child support, that have been again things that
keep fathers away from the kids, things that see fathers
only as wallets and and nothing else, but doesn't respect them.
Because all this so I'm sure you know, there's so
many studies show when you have an involved father with
the children, it's like better, They're more likely to graduate
from school, less likely to into violence, less likely to

(25:41):
go to jail. Like every everything, every again, social outcome.
That's why I look at social outcomes. We want a
population with good social outcomes. All the evidence point that
in the case of you know, of course, there are
a few parents of any sex who might be bad
parents who shouldn't be around their kids, but without the
small percentage of exceptions, most of the time it is

(26:04):
better to have both parents involved with their kids. And
if they're not married, that's okay. Then you have there's
a movement toward equal shared parenting where both parents are
equally involved with the kid and it's not one child.
One parent raises a kid, the other one just sends
a check every month. It's not good for the kid.

Speaker 4 (26:21):
Now that many people would be surprised that this whole
notion of in a divorce that the woman automatically expected
to get the child. This is relatively new, and I
guess it's late. At the nineteen thirties, it was suspected
that the man would get the child. Why because children
prosper more under men, and because men are able to

(26:44):
go out and get hunt for work that pays.

Speaker 3 (26:49):
More than what maybe someone.

Speaker 4 (26:54):
A waitress or a school teacher or something like that.
So this whole thing of I mean being automatically giving
a child and in the divorce, it's really to be new.
It used to be men because people knew and against
statistics show that children with a single parent, that is,
the male, does a lot better economically than a single

(27:16):
parent with the female because in a lot of cases, unfortunately,
they are in poverty or under the poverty line.

Speaker 3 (27:24):
When we do apples and applets from comparison.

Speaker 5 (27:28):
Yeah, yeah, so I think again the I think that
I think the tide is turning on this in a
good way.

Speaker 3 (27:36):
Though.

Speaker 5 (27:36):
I think the evidence is just so clear. So let
me give you an example. In California, we have had
so for the last fifty years or so, we have
all these commissions on the status of women and girls.
In fact, there was and there's in San Francisco, we
don't even have commit We have a department on the
Status of women. We have a whole department in our government.

(27:56):
Of course, there isn't one for men. Okay, but and
it was just an expose that that Department Status of
Women has had some real corruption in it. But I
won't go down that all. But it's pretty funny. But
in this state, and I didn't know this until about
ten years ago. I was working with a gentleman out
here named doctor Warren Ferrell, who started a group to

(28:18):
try to create a White House Council for Boys and men.
I said, Okay, I wonder what's going on in California.
So I researched, and I found out not only is
there a California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls,
it has a multimillion dollar budget and five or six
full time staff the San Francisco Department. As I mentioned,
there are twenty five county, city, and state commissions on

(28:41):
the status of women and girls, and there are none
for men and boys. Zero. However, what you are starting
to see are fatherhood groups. There's an organization called First
Five California that worked with families with young kids because
again the research shows those first five years of formative
years are so important for the kids. So California just

(29:02):
you know, wants to do whatever it can to support
young parents and young families for those kids.

Speaker 4 (29:06):
Who stars those groups. Is it Christian based or individuals
who are Christians? Tell me the type of people who
start the groups up.

Speaker 5 (29:16):
Okay, so it's a it's a mix, and there are
some people who are religiously affiliated in some of the nonprofits.
So the the First five California that's the state agency,
and each county in California has its own and some
of these are they have they have a fatherhood initiative,
so now they're doing fatherhood summits. There was an Alameda
County Fatherhood Summit which was just fantastic, really supportive fathers

(29:38):
and just provided with all sorts of resources and emotional
support too, and networking, so that was really good. There
are Yeah, there are also others, as you say, who
are nonprofit organizations that are independent. Some of those are
faith based as well, and some of them are not.
Some of them are just more focused on their demographic
that they're working with.

Speaker 4 (29:58):
So I think eventually things are going to be doing
it down to the local communities as far as getting
any thing done. Yeah, I think you're highlighted because I
think the federal government is on a whole different agenda.
That that's why in many cases people believe that the
federal government is on some some some something else because
they're not listening to the people anymore risks. You know,

(30:21):
people saw that in the last election. But I do
think that there is an overall agenda to diminisical capacity
of of of our nation as a whole, because you
see a lot of things like the removing of any
visualization of our minute men having guns, you know, or

(30:44):
or or anything that's just more kinder, engender society.

Speaker 3 (30:50):
We are as opposed to being more you know, aggressive
in your face.

Speaker 4 (30:56):
Everything from political correctness, you know, where you can't tell
a person how you actually feel I.

Speaker 3 (31:03):
Don't like you. I can tell you I don't like me.
I got good or good.

Speaker 4 (31:08):
You know, it's very very passive, and I think again
it's that's not by accident now, it's I do see things,
as you mentioned locally that people are saying, hey, we
gotta do something because it's just this ain't right. Where
I see communities having men come and and have tie

(31:30):
tying days, where where events where you have young men
from all over a lot of them with our father's
coming in and men in the community showing them how
to do the basic thing of tying the tie and
such as that.

Speaker 3 (31:44):
So people are seeing that there needs to be a correction.

Speaker 4 (31:48):
And they're doing it on their own as a community
and not necessarily looking for government, definitely not looking for
looking for a failed government to do it, because again
people are understanding that they're on a different agenda because
what the doing goes contra to.

Speaker 3 (32:01):
This common sense, you know.

Speaker 4 (32:04):
So that's how I see it, because you are a
lot more positive on the future, uh than I am.
But I think you're looking at it from an insight
out from local out, not necessarily from federal government, in
which is good. And I think that's how we could

(32:27):
That's how we can be positive because I think at
the local level we see that this needs to be
corrected in all aspects, and that's where government should start
in your yard. So I think that that it's it's
it's hope there because we all understand that with not men.

Speaker 3 (32:49):
Who's who's protecting the door?

Speaker 4 (32:51):
If if if there's if there's no man there, and
and that could be figuratively literally that's what men do.

Speaker 3 (32:59):
We protect the face family. And when you see a home.

Speaker 4 (33:04):
Divided, you see baby girl get harm and you see
baby Johnny get harm. I mean without the man there.
In the culture, particularly in our culture.

Speaker 3 (33:16):
I can't speak for Europe.

Speaker 4 (33:17):
Europe on a totally different space altogether. How they created
from the from the top downs as parts to the
bottom up.

Speaker 3 (33:25):
It's totally different. We were not designed to be Europe.

Speaker 4 (33:30):
So Trump people have issues with Trump because they say
he's two voice.

Speaker 3 (33:35):
First, he's too.

Speaker 4 (33:38):
Masculine, you know, if you people want to say it's masculinely,
he don't care what people think about him when he says,
and he says stuff off his head and may be wrong.

Speaker 3 (33:51):
He may have an issue with owning it, but he's
going to say it.

Speaker 4 (33:54):
But when you look at politicians like I go back
to Teddy Roosevelt, he will tell somebody to face, you know,
and I think writes about it. Yeah, that's our culture
back then. So in your eye, what has changed in
the home is that the moving the removal of the man.
And why is it that the Democrats, whether it be

(34:16):
federal or local, seem to be okay with the fact
that they're losing men.

Speaker 5 (34:23):
So I think it has changed. I mean gender rules
have changed as our economy has changed. Uh. We saw
it at the end of both world wars like in
the past one hundred years, because women were officially many
women had the right to vote before World War One,
but after World War One it was every woman that
was In nineteen eighteen, I think was a Voting Rights

(34:45):
Act that made women have the.

Speaker 4 (34:48):
Right correction correction appoint or I guess all the time,
women always had the right to vote as.

Speaker 3 (34:55):
A state issue.

Speaker 4 (34:57):
Yeah, in the sixties became a federal Oklahoma, New Hampshire,
a lot of states, a lot of women to vote,
A lot of states allowed niggles to vote.

Speaker 5 (35:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (35:09):
I had this notion that we all got blessed in
the nineteen sixties.

Speaker 5 (35:14):
No, Yeah, states had the right.

Speaker 4 (35:16):
To make the rules who to vote, who could not vote.
So I just want to bring that, yeah, tay a
vote that women they had to right to vote before
the fideral government got involved.

Speaker 5 (35:27):
Yeah, exactly. That's a really good point. That's a really
good point. And you know, after World War Two there
was Rosie the Riveter and a lot of women wanted
to work. And then as time has gone forward, you
just you know, the economy, like you said, used to
be more physically based. A large percentage of people worked
on farms or you know, in manufacturing, and those jobs
were very physical and so there were certain gender roles

(35:49):
that played out. Also, people had super large families ten
twelve kids. I mean, if you have ten twelve kids
and you're running the household, that's more than a full
time job right there, right, like so, and that's the
man who's expected to work earn money, and women was
more focused on, you know, managing the household. That was
just a vision of labor. Well, now the household labor
has gone down, so now both parents can work and

(36:11):
so what it's interesting you say, like why are democrats
against the traditional gender rules? And it's funny in some
circles if a woman doesn't have to work, like that's
a privilege, Like that's the privilege that you don't have
to work a job, you know.

Speaker 4 (36:30):
And it's sure if you ask women on a blind test,
would you rather weigh shouldn' or would you rather work
and let the man work?

Speaker 3 (36:41):
Most women say, I go with the job to strake
as a kid.

Speaker 5 (36:45):
Yeah, I think so, and and you And why are
the Democrats this way?

Speaker 3 (36:49):
You know?

Speaker 5 (36:49):
I don't exactly know. I think sometimes people think whatever
is best for them is best for everyone, and I
think there are probably some very powerful women who have
thought that way. I'm reminded of what came to mind
when you asked that question. Was Hillary Clinton and when
she was First Lady so early nineties ninety three or so,

(37:10):
she had she was having some convening with women at
the White House and she says something like, oh, I'm
not going to have tea parties and have tea and
crumpets and something like. She says something to that effect.
I don't know the exact quote offened up my head.
The meaning she made some reference to, like I'm not
going to just be sitting around sipping tea with my
friends where I got to actually, I'm going to be
a first lady who accomplishes things, and which is fine.

(37:33):
She could just say that I have a new approach
to being the first lady. I want to do this,
this and this, and this is who I am and
this is what I'm gonna do, right, I don't care what.

Speaker 4 (37:43):
As opposed to the rife of FDR wasn't doing something right.

Speaker 3 (37:48):
I mean she was doing stuff.

Speaker 5 (37:50):
Too, yeah, So then she could have just said I'm
going to be more like her and I'm going to
be an active for some first ladies do other things,
and that's fine too. I think there's this notion some
people feel like if you're not like me, you are wrong.
And that's what again where my libertarian side comes out,
and I'm just like, I'm a big free to be
you and me like you want to. If you want

(38:12):
to be someone who spends most of your time at home,
great and if you're happy and you can make that
work in your life, good for you. If you're somebody
who wants to get out in the field and work
and whatever real estate or business or whatever it is,
it is, you're regardless of what you know biological sex.
You are great, go for it, like do your thing,
and America should just my my vision of America is

(38:34):
just like where we can all do that and you're
not shamed for doing the thing that you don't want
to do. But it's also understood that you know, their
patterns are going to fall. It's not going to be
fifty to fifty. It's not going to be like you
know this way.

Speaker 3 (38:47):
Isn't that how you America used to be?

Speaker 4 (38:48):
Of course, I mean America was grinding on Julia Christianism,
so that there's some things that may may not have
been as patable, you know, especially when how how homosexuality
have been treated in this country and just in the
Western courture or the world for that part, you know,

(39:10):
so and and and women women were to me put
on a pedestal. And particularly if I mean back in
the day, if women was carrying she she wasn't allowed
around men because there was this notion that that men
shoot off this energy that that made harm defeats that

(39:33):
is that right?

Speaker 3 (39:34):
Is that wrong? I don't know, but that.

Speaker 5 (39:37):
I haven't heard that one before. That's fascinating.

Speaker 3 (39:40):
Yeah, I mean, I mean I ain't seeing dry that wrong.
That was their thing.

Speaker 4 (39:47):
So that's why women weren't allowed around men when they
were carrying. But so it's all these things and a
lot of the things how we treat women I think
comes from biblical notions. And we can even go back
and I'm watching a Kojak movie and they showed the

(40:10):
temple and they were in separate beds, and it's it's
kind of like I love Lucy, you know, so we
right would come to an evolution. People could say, well,
that's better than it's a day where that sex is
just a free for all.

Speaker 3 (40:28):
I guess again, it's a matter of opinion. You do you.

Speaker 4 (40:31):
I mean, if that's that's how you want to leave
your life, fine, if we don't bother me, don't bother me.

Speaker 5 (40:36):
And by the way, that was birth control back then,
separate day. We don't want any kids over there.

Speaker 3 (40:42):
It worked.

Speaker 4 (40:46):
So, I mean, there's a lot of things that was
based on belief structure.

Speaker 3 (40:51):
But at least they had the belief structure. We don't
have a belief structure.

Speaker 5 (40:56):
People have very different feelings. Well, when you allow people
to think different things that it's not surprising that people
do think differently when they have times when they're not
told you have to think this way, and that is
a challenge of our culture. I think it's something exciting
about our culture too, and something fun, but it's also
a challenge. I wanted to make one other point too,
to address your question about why the Democratic Party hasn't

(41:19):
been able to see these issues among men. And there's
another thing that I called it. I didn't invent this,
but it is called the apex fallacy, which is if
you look at the fact that all the presidents have
been men, fair enough, but that doesn't mean that men
and boys don't have issues that need to be addressed
by the government. Okay, So, for instance, take a homeless man.

(41:43):
Seventy five percent of the unhe sheltered homeless in the
Bay Area are male, and even the National Homeless Coalition
said homelessness is a male gendered problem. We need to
figure out why so many men are homeless. And so
I mean, if you're one of those, you know people
in that situation, you're living in a tent underneath the
iad Bridge and Oakland or something. And like this is

(42:03):
the fact that Donald Trump or Joe Biden happens to
be a biological male, does that really affect your day.
Did that affect the fact that you're homeless? If if
if Harris had won to set a trump and she was,
wouldn't have made a difference that. No, now there's a
woman probably that made it worse. I don't know if
it would have. I don't think it would have affected

(42:24):
it one way or the other.

Speaker 4 (42:25):
Women under the bridge then you know, all boats, all ships,
would it came up to the rescue?

Speaker 3 (42:31):
You know, man, you can handle at some point.

Speaker 5 (42:35):
Yeah. So that's called the Apex ballast, And I think
this is one of the real key things. I think
Democrats need to chip because I think that people who
have disagreed with my premise mostly it's been some version
of that apex fallacy. Oh but women don't have the
right to choose yet, or they did, but they've kind
of lost it and in some stays, and women have

(42:55):
not been in positions of leadership as much, which is true. Like, okay, great,
so you have set of issues here that you care
about legitimate. I've got my set of issues here, and
you're saying we can't even discuss my issues or put
them on the agenda until your issues have all been
taken care of. That's not equality. That's not fair and
it loses. So it's bad policy because half the population's

(43:17):
be ignored. And it's bad strategy because you've lost the
White House, the Senate, the Congress, and the Supreme Court.
You've lost everything. I mean, at a certain point when
your team is zero to twelve, don't you like fire
the coach, fire the GM, get a new quarterback, Like
don't you just like clean house and like start over?
Like it didn't work strategy?

Speaker 3 (43:38):
Do you see that happen? I know.

Speaker 4 (43:42):
You probably don't agree with my position that this is
done deliberately to weaken the culture by making more feminine.

Speaker 3 (43:49):
And if that is the case, it's not going to change.

Speaker 5 (43:54):
Some people agree, I've heard that.

Speaker 3 (43:56):
From you from a national perspective. Locally really different.

Speaker 4 (44:00):
But it's a point where before Barack Obama, this wasn't
an issue. I disagree with that as such as strong
as strong like it wasn't it wasn't like we couldn't
see I mean, like I could remember where there was

(44:23):
a debate on ESPN NFL and they wanted to bring
on Rust Limbaugh, and the main characters off that program
said no, we're about football. So he wasn't allowed then
ESPN changed to Disney and not ESPN. It's all into

(44:48):
politics in particular, when you look at it's culture now,
like for one first first take, it's very feminine and
all feminine like soccer, feminine basketball, anything feminine is highlighted

(45:10):
more so than it was back.

Speaker 3 (45:12):
When before it became Disney.

Speaker 4 (45:15):
And when you look at all of the inroads that
you see the feminine culture at the expence, someone say
to the male culture, it cannot be by accident.

Speaker 5 (45:28):
Right, Well, I guess in terms of promoting women's sports,
I think you're probably correct that ESPN is choosing to
They're trying to build an audio, They're trying to increase
their customer base and say, oh, maybe this is more
derat party claim be doing also, well, no, because they're
they're doing the opposite. They're ignoring men.

Speaker 4 (45:50):
No no, I say they're claiming they I mean ESPNS to
say they're ignoring men too at the spence because they
want to bring.

Speaker 3 (45:58):
The women into the the couch with the man.

Speaker 4 (46:01):
So this beat in their mind because they see that
the woman has the press string. So the Democrat Party's
kind of seen the same thing that they see. The
gender equation almost equal with maybe a little bit more
man male in the popul lation. I forget how it goes,
but it's almost almost fifty to fifty. So they're trying

(46:24):
to appease a woman. So they're both trying to appease
a woman at the spence of the man.

Speaker 5 (46:30):
It's a little bit different though, because the Democratic base
has been more female for almost fifty years. So the
real big turning point, and when I look at presidential
voting was nineteen eighty when Ronald Reagan got elected. So
seventy two and seventy six, men and women voted kind
of the same. Nixon actually won everyone by about twenty

(46:51):
five points in seventy two, and then of course Watergate happened,
and then so he lost in seventy six and Carter
won both men and women by about five points.

Speaker 4 (47:00):
Where could have been the reason because women were still
listening to their male husband.

Speaker 5 (47:06):
I think there are a lot more traditional families where
men and women vote the same, yes, right, And I
think that's and so nineteen eighty is when that changes.
And ever since then, ever since nineteen eighty, you have
this total, this gap, and that's called and in fact,
it was Ronald Reagan's advisor Richard Worthlin, who coined the
term gender gap in voting, how women voted more things.

(47:30):
And he had a quote, and I have this in
my book of his that I think it's so fascinating.
He said, you know, we won those elections by so much,
and everyone was worried about if we were losing women.
I can't tell, you know, he said, he often was
asked like, why aren't the Republicans doing a male doing
as well among women? He said, but no reporter ever

(47:50):
asked me why are Republicans doing so much better with men?
So think about that. This guy was Ronald Reagan's in
his whole career. He was Reagan's guy for his I
mean he got Reagan to the governor's office in California
and then into the White House, right, he was his guy.
And he said, nobody ever asked me why we did

(48:12):
so well among men. Male as men as voters are
I think ignored by everyone as much. They're not considered
like a special interest or special group, even though they're
half the voters. And so I think that I think
we will all do well. I would actually like to
see both parties kind of fighting over men, fighting over

(48:33):
the male vote. So what do you know, let's have it,
you know, at the presidential bate, I have a question.
Men are struggling in this country. They're dying earlier. They're
ninety two percent of prisoners, they are only forty percent
of college students. What are you going to do to
help men of all ages? And have both parties do
get out? Oh, I'm going to do a special thing.
You know, at least let them tell.

Speaker 4 (48:52):
The media would go crazy and saying your sexist or
your your male toxicity, or if they come with something
like that, they would kill that person for even bringing
it up.

Speaker 5 (49:04):
And they can ask the same question about women too.
They could do it both. Okay, we have one question
on men, one question on women. There's half the voters here,
half the voters there. That's why I really like that data.
When you look at all the vote for president male, female,
Republican Democrat, you get like all the voters kind of
half and half. It's like these four quadrants. It's really
powerful data. And I'm just shocked that the Democratic Party

(49:26):
doesn't look at it. And I got to imagine the
Republican strategists sitting back there like, oh, this is so sweet.
They're just handing us this whole chunk of voter we
don't even have to do anything. And then.

Speaker 3 (49:39):
Of voters that's what Republicans are. Well. I know Trump
is definitely preaching it because when he did his not State.

Speaker 4 (49:47):
Of Union, but when he did address to the Congress,
he gave him an opportunities for Democrats to act normal.

Speaker 3 (49:55):
You know, with the kid.

Speaker 4 (49:58):
Who has ki or cancer thing, they just stand up.
I mean, that's the moment that we could all say, yes,
you know, doing together, even if you.

Speaker 5 (50:07):
Don't like the policies right and other things, Hey you
know this kid, Yes, yes, awesome humanity.

Speaker 4 (50:14):
And I think this when you look at the share
of black men for the first time going towards Republicans,
the share of Hispanic men going towards the Republicans. And
to your point, if the Democrats don't wake up and
change what they're doing and throw.

Speaker 3 (50:33):
Some roases out, even if it's pedals to the males,
even if it's just pedals like.

Speaker 4 (50:39):
Something, yeah, I mean, they're gonna this tie is just
getting started.

Speaker 5 (50:44):
Yeah. I was one of the reason I wrote this
book this election. I thought this was a real pivotal election.
I put in my book said if the Democrats don't
do that in twenty twenty four, they could they could
be out of power for the next twenty years very easily.
And I still believe that answering ancident.

Speaker 4 (51:01):
So to wrap up, what do you see, honestly, not
this on the local.

Speaker 3 (51:09):
Level, but people who you spoke to speak to. Do
you see any.

Speaker 4 (51:17):
Change from the AOC's the bunny what's his name, the
old guy changing because they seem to be the ones
who are ruling the rules and Democrats they we.

Speaker 3 (51:30):
Don't have a leader per se that they see to
be the next generation.

Speaker 4 (51:37):
Do you see this changing from what people will call
the extreme left leftist turn of the Democrats where they
would say women are fine, but men are fine, but women,
women and men together are great.

Speaker 5 (51:56):
I would say I'm seeing a little bit, but not
at the highest levels, not from the Democratic National Committee,
not from Ken Martin, not from Bernie Sanders AOC. I'm
not hearing it. There are some people, maybe a notch
down who are still pretty powerful. So a couple of governor's,
a guy named Rory Moore from Maryland, governor of Maryland.

(52:18):
He came out with a really strong male advocacy statement
and similar to what you say, like, hey, well of
course women's issues matter. We all need to help each other.
And it was a more inclusive message, but with a
real specific focus on trying to include basically exactly what
I suggested in my book. So he's the first one,
but he's a governor of a relatively small state, and

(52:39):
good for him. I mean, it's great, just somewhere, right,
You got to start somewhere. There was another item, like
right before the election, where I pulled my hair out
because Harris and Michigan Governor Meg Whitmer they did this
photo op having beer and I remember this and there
was a hot mic moment where they had a shotgun. Michael,

(53:01):
they didn't know could hear them, and and Harris said, oh,
we're doing this because we're yeah, we're getting we're losing
among men, so we gotta like.

Speaker 3 (53:09):
Have heard yeah anyway.

Speaker 5 (53:13):
And then so since the election, and I I'm sure
other people, but I came out with an article criticizing this.
This is exactly why you're going to lose. This is
exactly like you ignore men. And then two weeks before
the election, let's have a beer. That's your approach to men.
And but Since the election, now Whitmer Governor Whitmer, to
her credit, has come out and said, hey, you know,

(53:35):
we actually have to do a better job of focusing
on men and boys. She hasn't been quite as vocal
as Roy Morris, but at least she says something about
it again, what it's genuine, though, we have to wait
and see. We have to wait and see. But I
guess when you're starving any little crumbs, right.

Speaker 3 (53:55):
I mean, you're doing Noman's work.

Speaker 4 (53:58):
I don't see a time because I do think on
the national level, they got to totally demonic agenda at
play because what they're doing doesn't make sense.

Speaker 3 (54:07):
It does.

Speaker 4 (54:08):
It doesn't make sense to ignore men as much as
they're doing.

Speaker 3 (54:14):
Women are great. I love women.

Speaker 4 (54:15):
I love women, but yeah, we've all got our roles
to play, and so just just just to ignore your
right arm for your left doesn't make any sense because
the right and armed together really work, you know, in harmony.

Speaker 5 (54:31):
Yeah, I think I do basically agree with you, but
I think I have internally framed it differently. You're talking
about this demonic or something like that, evil or bad.
I kind of agree because people have asked me often
like Mark I don't understand why do you care about
this male well being issue, or like the gender issues.
Why do you care about this? And I said, because
I've seen the results of the way but things have

(54:51):
been doing, has been driving men and women apart. It's
and that's not good.

Speaker 4 (54:56):
Physically all not just here, but but in all all
the world.

Speaker 3 (55:00):
Yeah, women dividing.

Speaker 5 (55:02):
And we and we don't want that. We're all interconnected,
and if one group is doing poorly, that it is
bad forever. What's good for the goose is good for
the gander, and vice versas. So I think in that sense,
I'm coming from a viewpoint that's not totally different from yours,
because I have seen this, this societal division. Let's heal it,
let's bring it back together, all right.

Speaker 4 (55:21):
I think that's that's we differ in the sense that
you think that they're that this is that that Democrat
party is doing this by accident, and they don't see
what you see, they don't see what I see, and
that eventually they're gonna wake up one day and say, Martha,
we need to change this.

Speaker 3 (55:41):
I don't see that happening. You kind of do, I don't.

Speaker 4 (55:45):
I don't see that happening now, not anytime soon, because
there's an agenda at foot that they are gonna die
on his heel. And it'd be interesting to see what
the next election turns out, where there's not the president,
but it's the Congresses, and if they continue on this way,
what the propultists are going to say, if they agree

(56:08):
with it or don't agree with it, that that will
be very telling to see in the next election.

Speaker 3 (56:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (56:14):
And by the way, I kind of said this before too,
but I mean I support the legislation on a like
part of my life is part of a lot of
my life, in fact, part of the majority of its nonpartisan.
I just support these issues, and so I'm happy to support.
Like if Republicans are going to say, oh, we're going
to do this thing, if it's a good thing, I'll

(56:35):
say that's great. I support that. I'm not going to
say I can't support it because of Republicans. No, I
want the Republicans to do it too. In fact, I'd
love to be just a nonpartisan person if all this
stuff were.

Speaker 3 (56:45):
Just well, I think we saw more of you come to.

Speaker 4 (56:50):
The foe in the last election than we ever did,
and I think that's a trend that's going to continue
because I don't see the Democrat on a national level
changing this tripes. So that's that's what I see. Hope
I'm proving one with our country be a lot better
if they do. But I think they're listening to a
different drummer right now. Then they have back in JFK time.

(57:16):
But tell people where to follow you and keep it
with you, reach out to you great.

Speaker 5 (57:22):
So again, the book is called How Democrats Can Win
Back Men, and it is available on Amazon. So and
my name is Mark W. Sutton, so they can just
go to Amazon Mark W. Sutton, How Democrats Coming Back Men.
My website is Mark dash Sutton dot com. So it's
got all the links there, including to my subsect, which
was it's called men in the twenty twenty four elections.

(57:45):
So I was following this during the whole election cycle
and listening for when the parties talked about men or
ignored men and how they did it, and unfortunately it
played out the way we know it well, unfortunately for
the Democrats, fortunately for.

Speaker 3 (57:57):
The other side. Hey, I definitely do appreciate your time.

Speaker 4 (58:01):
I definitely do appreciate you following the sword for for.

Speaker 3 (58:06):
For your team.

Speaker 4 (58:07):
Actually, always if we can just have this have conversation,
you know, not necessarily with the agenda I'm gonna change
your mind, but you know, I learned some things from
you and hopefully you learn some things from me. I
think that's that's what makes us stronger in the end,
where we aren't just listening to echo chambers. We have
to get out and see what what is the other

(58:29):
site really saying, really saying without the filters or or
the interpretations for other people.

Speaker 3 (58:34):
I think it works, what's better.

Speaker 4 (58:35):
So I definitely do appreciate your time, mark and anything
for you want to reach out too many any point,
definitely do do that.

Speaker 3 (58:42):
I'm I'll definitely answering your call.

Speaker 5 (58:44):
All right, Thank you, it's such a pleasure.

Speaker 2 (58:46):
Thanks thanks for listening to today's show, and don't forget

(59:10):
to like and subscribe to this podcast and look for
Project Thirdeye Open on your favorite social media platforms. Check
out our web page at Projectthirdiopen dot com and that's
third I with the letter I Projectthirdiopen dot com. Drop
us a note at tonyel at Projectthirdiopen dot com. That's

(59:32):
tonyel at Projectthirdiyopen dot com. As you wait for our
next podcast to drop, don't take anything we've said us back. Instead,
do your own homework, make up your own mind, then
take action. Until next time, be blessed, be good, and
be free.