The Battle for Men in American Politics
By J. Simpson
Newsweek recently published an essay titled We Can Do Better Than Positive Masculinity. Written by author Ruth Whippman, who recently published Boy Mom, a memoir about her conflicted feelings about raising sons, the essay expresses her frustration around an election that could result in the first female President of the United States still orbiting the idea of masculinity – positive or negative. Whippmann wonders if Americans would be better off abandoning the “masculinity rhetoric altogether,” noting that
Rather than challenging the old stereotypes and patterns, the whole positive masculinity framework actually seems to be reinforcing them.
Whippman’s critique came in light of the Left’s lionizing Vice President Tim Walz as an antidote to the brand of masculinity being put forth by Donald Trump and his Vice Presidential candidate, J. D. Vance.
Whippman may be right about these expectations reinforcing existing notions around masculinity, but her conclusions might bear some scrutiny. American voters think so, too, as gender is turning out to be one of the most divisive issues this election cycle.
What Is Positive Masculinity?
The Center For Male Psychology defines positive masculinity as “recognizing the strengths of masculinity, such as how physical strength and risk-taking are crucial in many aspects of life, such as the emergency services where physical strength and courage are vital.” They go on to contrast positive masculinity against toxic masculinity, which they describe as simply being immature.
Liberals and Democrats are fond of rolling out examples of positive masculinity when the topic comes up. Mr. Rogers, Aragon, Sam, and Frodo from Lord of the Rings are all commonly found on these lists. While admirable, Mr. Rogers doesn’t exactly radiate the cool, rugged sexiness many young men will aspire to. Sam and Frodo’s friendship is commendable, but the pair are frequently mistaken for gay lovers, even by Liberals themselves. Aragon is quite literally a king who engages in widespread slaughter when the situation arises. Even for those advocating for it, positive masculinity feels like more clever wordplay designed to manipulate men into behaving how they’re supposed to. Men aren’t necessarily buying it, though.
How Gender Is Impacting The Upcoming Election
At present, gender is the most divisive topic in the 2024 election. Harris is leading by 14 points among women while Trump is ahead by 13 points with men. A recent Pew Research poll found Harris leading by 9 points with women while Trump leads by 8 points among men. ABC/Ipsos lists Harris leading with women by 13 points, with Trump ahead by 5 points with men. This split gets even more pronounced with young voters according to the Harvard IOP poll that shows while Democrats dominate among young women they are in danger of losing the next generation of young men.
Why is this? We are often told Trump’s history of sexual misconduct and attitudes toward women are some of the main criticisms of those who oppose the former President. Censorship is one of the leading concerns for those opposing the Democrats, as practices like de-platforming and cancellation were at their zenith during Trump’s presidency. But does the answer lie deeper in the way gender is discussed and portrayed in modern America?
On Shifting Gender Roles and the Future of Boys and Men
Later on in Whippman’s essay, she frames her critique of positive masculinity, noting “It would be hard to imagine a program aimed at busting stereotypes for girls that branded itself “Aspirational Femininity” and told girls that they could be scientists or chief executives or rugby players or president of the United States and “still be feminine and attractive.” Or any mainstream news outlet suggesting that two female politicians were offering the electorate “two models for femininity.”
For at least the last 30 years, feminism has been pushing the narrative that girls and women can be and do anything they want, any way they want. There have been extensive valid critiques of the ways that society tends to devalue feminine contributions. Movements like Choice Feminism argue that choosing to be a stay-at-home mother is every bit as valid as a feminist choice as being the CEO of a non-profit.
Whippman’s observations and Choice Feminism are both excellent illustrations of some of the problems plaguing current conversations around sex and gender. They also offer hints of a possible way forward that’s beneficial for everybody. First, let’s look at Whippman; while it would be difficult to say for certain, she’s likely right. There haven’t been any government initiatives for women to abandon the workplace. The trouble is that feminism, as a term, doesn’t just refer to official organizations like N.O.W., it also refers to feminists in daily life. This discrepancy is part of what’s responsible for some of the tensions around the feminist conversation. This means that the “everything boys can do girls can do better” style of “girl power” feminism also falls under the feminist umbrella. Simultaneously, feminists were pushing to allow access to spaces traditionally reserved for boys and men as a result of historical exclusion. The same mechanisms were used to rebrand traits traditionally associated with masculinity to make them more gender inclusive. Together, this has left two categories – “toxic masculinity” and “everything else.”
Current conversations around gender roles are suffering from a slightly incoherent mixing and matching, especially where boys and men are concerned. Violence and aggression are decried, yet men are still routinely shamed for not stepping up to defend others. Men’s forwardness in the realm of dating and romance is constantly called out, yet women still overwhelmingly prefer men who are considerably more self-confident and somewhat more dominant than themselves, both of which could be a useful shorthand for men’s willingness to approach dating. They’re also around 3x less likely to date someone who earns less or is less educated than themselves, suggesting that status and stability are still important to women when selecting a partner, despite their ability to earn their own income.
Masculinity is shifting, and men and boys need a say in where it’s heading.
How Masculinity is Shaping the Election
This November, two different visions of masculinity are squaring off at the ballot box. Neither one seems exceptionally appealing to vast swathes of American men. The discrepancy could have major implications for the upcoming election.
Both Republicans and Democrats seem to realize this, as both candidates have been scrambling to reach men in the final few moments before the election. Unfortunately, even the attempt at outreach illustrates Democrats’ weakness in connecting with men. While Republicans aren’t offering much in the way of real policy, either, at least Donald Trump has a better grip on how traditional men tend to think and behave.
Last week, a group of ad executives calling themselves Creatives for Harris ran an ad people have taken to calling “Man Enough.” In the ad, five traditional-looking men describe their manly interests, like drinking whiskey by the barrelful, rebuilding a carburetor, and “braiding the sh*t out of my daughter’s hair.” Not only does it sound like it was written by someone who has never spent more than five seconds talking to a man who wields a hammer or a shovel for a living, it stops just short of nearly mocking the voters they’re trying to convert. Most tellingly, it still suggests that the only reason a man might not vote for Kamala Harris is insecurity.
The “Man Enough” ad just doubles down on the Democrats’ approach to winning over male voters. Earlier this month, former President Barack Obama told Black men attending a Nevada rally they needed to get over their “insecurity” and just vote for a woman. First of all, this suggests that Democrats think gender is the only problem voters have with Harris. Secondly, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of male psychology. Men, generally speaking, do not like to be told what to do. Simply shaming them into behaving how they’re supposed to act is a losing strategy, and it’s been losing them voters each election. If they’re not careful, it could lose them this election.
If the Democrats hope to get, and keep, power in November, they need to focus on policies that matter to men. Men tend to emphasize economic concerns, so real, tangible programs for incentivizing business and fostering job growth stand to gain the most traction. The Democrats have made a strong showing with manufacturing jobs over the last four years, resulting in a record high of $225 billion even with inflation. The Republicans are also running on economic issues, publishing a 20-point plan on how they plan to realize this vision. Four of these 20 points have to deal with the economy, indicating that fiscal concerns are at least 20% of the Republican platform.
Of course, the truthfulness of these claims remains to be seen. The information that’s out there is often contradictory, which is par for the course for politics in 2024. Some claim having a Republican in office will be good for business. Others state that it will gut job training and workforce development programs. Since it’s so hard to get a straight answer from the media, it’s more imperative than ever that whoever wins in November follows up with some real, actionable programs that yield concrete, tangible results. This is especially true for men and boys, as traditional notions of chivalry have been invoked for too long to get men to vote for Liberal candidates.
It seems safe to infer that masculine gender roles are acceptable to invoke when convenient. Positive masculinity is just repackaged traditional masculinity. Toxic masculinity is sometimes just masculinity applied disproportionately or at the wrong time. To move forward, we need to have some open, honest conversations about gender roles. We also need to at least consider creating some official policies specifically for boys and men. Women have been earning more bachelor’s degrees than men since 1981. The discrepancy is now greater than when Title IX was created, yet there are barely any men’s only scholarships. Creating some form of employment incentives for men, like women in STEM programs, could also help to restore goodwill between the sexes. Focusing on real financial issues and economic policies could restore even more. Whichever party figures this out first could win men’s hearts and minds for some time to come.
