Manhood on the Ballot: Is the Premise Obvious or Absurd?

Recent articles in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times suggest that analyses of masculinities and politics have hit the mainstream. But not everyone is convinced.

Manhood on the Ballot: is the Premise Obvious or Absurd?

Two major American newspapers ran op-ed pieces this past weekend with startlingly similar headlines. The New York Times published a piece by conservative columnist Ross Douthat called “Masculinity is on the Ballot,” while over at The Wall Street Journal, liberal guest essayist Richard Reeves wrote an article entitled “On the Ballot: American Manhood.”

Something significant is afoot in the land when mainstream media appear ready -- at long last -- to discuss the politics of presidential masculinity. This critically important dimension of our politics has long been hiding in plain sight. Maybe we’re finally ready to have a thoughtful conversation about it?  

If so, it’s not a moment too soon, as a vengeful man-child authoritarian whose MAGA movement seeks a restoration of the most cartoonishly hypermasculine elements of patriarchal power is just a few thousand swing votes away in battle-ground states from landing back in the Oval Office.

It bears repeating: the only way Donald Trump can be re-elected is with huge majorities of the white male vote. (The way all right-wing candidates win elections in the US and many other countries).

It is thus not merely an academic exercise to wonder about the ways in which cultural ideas about “manhood” shape these voters’ choices. You might even say it’s a matter of utmost urgency in the defense of our fragile and vulnerable democracy.

People who have followed my work know that I’ve been writing, speaking, and organizing about the many intersections of masculinities and politics for a long time. In fact, an activist anti-sexist men’s group I started in Boston held our first public protest in 1988 at the George HW Bush for president campaign headquarters in Boston, where we carried signs and handed out slices of quiche.

This was a media gimmick designed to call attention to the ways in which the Bush campaign’s central strategy – under the direction of the notorious GOP political strategist Lee Atwater -- was to attack the masculine credibility of his opponent in the presidential race, the diminutive and cerebral Democratic Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis.  

Almost no one in political punditry recognized this at the time, preferring instead to focus on the racism of the right-wing attacks, (e.g. the “Willie Horton” ads), or the fact that Bush both blatantly and slyly impugned Dukakis’s patriotism (e.g. by holding a campaign photo op at a flag factory). Both of these lines of attack were deeply gendered, of course, but no one in mainstream media either understood this, or had the language to express it.

The sidewalk theater at Bush campaign HQ drew its rationale from two sources: 1) The anti-sexist men’s group’s semi-ironic name was Real Men, and 2) a best-selling satirical book about masculinity published in 1982 was entitled Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche. We thought media might cover the action because of the light-hearted theatricality, and as a result give us the opportunity to make the serious point that even in 1988, (and long before), “masculinity was on the ballot.”  We did get some coverage in Boston radio and print media, but mostly of the “brief notes in political news” variety, and nothing much more substantive.

I tell this story because it’s important for people to know that the issues of masculinity and politics have been with us forever – or at least as long as we’ve had electoral politics! And of course feminist historians, social theorists, and political scientists have been studying, researching, and writing about this and related topics for a long time – such as why we’ve never had a woman president.

Mainstream political observers – and Democratic Party strategists -- are only just now starting to pay attention.

But the recent “manhood on the ballot” headlines notwithstanding, there is still plenty of resistance in political commentary – and the culture at large -- to thinking about politics through the lens of gender, especially the masculinity angle. Some of this resistance is surely ideological in nature, and some is due simply to people’s lack of exposure to in-depth feminist analysis of the subject. 

In any event, the topic of masculinities and politics is deadly serious in its implications. For example, over the past decade, Donald Trump and his MAGA movement have deliberately weaponized men’s frustrations and resentments, especially white men’s. In recent years, they’ve also made serious inroads with young men, including young Black and Latino men. Ignoring this, or pretending that it’s not really happening, won’t make it go away.

Keep in mind that while moderates, liberals, and progressives have been cheered by the rise of Kamala Harris in recent polls, convicted felon and adjudicated sexual assaulter Donald Trump still has a good chance of regaining power in November.

Insights from the Wall Street Journal comments section

With that sobering reality as backdrop, I thought it would be useful to examine how various people respond to the idea that “manhood” is on the ballot this fall. Because I don’t have the time or money to do a big quantitative study, I decided to conduct my own version of research for this one.

I’ve chosen to use a somewhat unorthodox method of data collection. The Reeves and Douthat pieces represent a unique opportunity, because both have robust comments sections attached. Hundreds of people have weighed in on their essays. So – contrary to the customary caution one hears: “Don’t read the comments!”-- that’s where I’ve gone for insight.

Here’s a confession: I read comments sections fairly often. I find them quite useful as a way to encounter fresh ideas. I’m also curious to see how people can process the same material I just read and arrive at starkly different interpretations and conclusions.

For this piece, I’ve gone through all 705 of the comments that appeared (as of 8-18-24) after Richard Reeve’s “Manhood on the Ballot” essay in The Wall Street Journal. I’ve selected a number of them to feature here. Of course, my curation is entirely subjective; I would never claim the following to be any sort of “valid” scientific sample. It’s also important to note that the Journal’s readership is more male, more Republican, and more conservative than the average American. (One day soon I hope to do a similar outline of comments in response to Douthat’s piece in the more liberal New York Times.)

I’ve organized the comments into four main categories: 1) comments that are dismissive of the very premise that manhood is on the ballot; 2) comments that argue that Democrats hate (white) men; 3) comments that mock the manhood of men who support the Democratic Party; and 4) comments that push back from a feminist or profeminist vantage point against the MAGA idea that “real men” vote Republican.

Consider these comments as raw material for further conversations, journalistic explorations, research questions, and organizing actions between now and November 5, and beyond.

What Richard Reeves said that drew a response from readers

To set the stage, here are the first few paragraphs of Reeve’s WSJ piece, “On the Ballot: American Manhood,” that has drawn such a robust response:

The 2024 vote was set to be a referendum on the rights of women. Instead it has become a debate over the needs and desires of men. The question now is which model of manhood will win in November. The macho brawler of the Trump-Vance ticket, or the kindly “girl dad” offered by Harris and Walz? The fighter or the coach?

Even by Trumpian standards, the Republican campaign has adopted a boldly chauvinist tone. The Republican National Convention in July offered a parade of manly men praising Donald Trump for being the manliest of them all. Retired pro wrestler Hulk Hogan called him a “gladiator”; Dana White, chief executive of Ultimate Fighting Championship, touted Trump for being “the toughest, most resilient human being.” The former president has lately been flexing his rhetorical muscles in interviews with men who enjoy an ardent male following, including former pro wrestler Logan Paul, gamer Adin Ross and Elon Musk.

Men have broadly preferred Republican presidential candidates for decades, so it makes some sense for Republicans to be honing this appeal. The problem is that the party is now promoting a hypermasculine ideal that alienates female voters. Comments such as Sen. JD Vance’s about “childless cat ladies” have put the campaign on the defensive for the way they seem to denigrate women.

The Democrats, by contrast, have handily consolidated their natural advantage among women. Even before Vice President Kamala Harris rose to the top of the ticket, female voters were galvanized by an election that promises to dictate the future of their reproductive rights. Harris now earns reliable cheers from women at rallies when she declares, “We aren’t going back!”

The problem for Democrats is that their embrace of women’s issues often ignores the challenges facing men. Under the heading “Who We Serve,” the Democratic Party platform lists various demographic groups, including women, the LGBTQ+ community, African-Americans, and so on. Guess which group doesn’t make the list? Men. If many men feel that their concerns aren’t being taken seriously by Democrats, well, they are not wrong.

It is therefore no surprise to see a big gender gap in voting intentions. Among likely women voters, Harris leads Trump by 14 points (55% to 41%) in the latest New York Times/Siena College poll while Trump leads by 17 points among men (56% to 39%).

The responses of commenters, curated into four categories and anonymized

1. Dismissive of the article’s premise:

* Seriously? If a guy is looking to politicians to affirm their masculinity, they need to get a grip, or grow a set.

* The entire premise of this article is laughably absurd....

* Hey look, more identity politics. Just what America needs.

* The RNC has adopted "a boldly chauvinist tone"? How exactly? The author’s bias shows.

* "Richard Reeves is founder and president of the American Institute for Boys and Men" That explains a lot. A man whose life is dedicated to focusing on boys and men would believe "male voters are about to choose which model of masculinity will take them forward" instead of just choosing a president. Sorry, my skin is crawling.

* Did we really need another gender article? If you want open borders, criminals elevated over victims, high taxes to subsidize bad ideas and you want to reward the teachers' unions, hack doctors and politicians responsible for a two-year lockdown over a hyped-up virus threat, vote Democrat. Men and women should be able to figure this one out. * If men are actually worried about their manhood being defined by who they vote for President, then men's egos are in way worse shape than I imagined. Oy vey.

* To frame the upcoming choice in November as being about gender/race is increasingly tiresome to witness. The US have huge economic, national security and yes social issues to resolve. Trump's the obvious better choice on these matters - and to suggest selection of Harris with her nutty progressive ideas just because she's a black woman and to do otherwise is racist or misogynistic is absolutely insane.

* I can't believe this article and the comments are real. Being a male or female doesn't make one a better president. Being the best representative of the majority of voters is all that matters. Male, female, gay, straight, or anything else is a childish measurement of someone's worth and best fit for the job of being president.

* Leadership and a strong vision for our future is what I am looking for. I am not so insecure that I couldn't bring myself to vote for something other than a straight man.

* If we want to decide based on stupid things, why not vote for the team wearing the least makeup? Unfortunately, that would be the Harris/Waltz ticket. Lol. This election is about the issues facing all Americans, particularly but not exclusively: The overall record of Biden Harris - is that performance something we want to continue? The prior record of the Trump Administration - is that a desirable return? Trump and Harris’s relative abilities to form a cohesive Administration which can govern effectively and can handle crises? The whole men and women divide is overblown.

* American manhood is not on the ballot. Trump makes an effort to appeal to the minority of white males who are not so smart, very insecure and make up for it by driving huge pickup trucks and acting tough. Most males do not fall into this category and manhood is not an issue. On the dem side, they still can’t define a woman, so I guess manhood is somewhat on the ballot for them.

* Did a pair of truck nuts gain sentience via chatGPT in order to write this article? As a straight white male, I still cannot tell if this is being serious, or is a high-level troll. Showing Hulk Hogan at the top of this article really underscores the type of masculinity that the GOP ticket is trying to project right now: fake, probably enhanced with substances that are banned, and doing it primarily for personal gain.

* I'll be voting for the head of the executive branch of the government, not a model of masculinity. * What drivel. Why would the WSJ presume to allow someone so shallow to speak for me. I do not recognize any of the fly weight stereotypes laid out by these parties, or this author. I actually can say, in this case, that I am an expert at being an American Male.  

* Manhood isn't on the ballot, it never was. Only one party is obsessed with race, gender identity and so on. My costs for everything, along with many millions of Americans have soared about 45% in the last 3+ years. For many it's closer to 60%. That's what will be on the ballot. But by all means make it about race, Trump hates women, etc...yawn. Those same tired tropes won't work this time.

2. The Democrats hate men:

* Beta males vs. Alpha males

* Men? We still have those in the USA? Or have the Bolshevik Democrats done away with that too?

* Why would progressives do something about American men’s issues? They have spent decades causing these problems by promoting broken families and demasculinization.

* Here's something I think is overlooked but is topical for WSJ: Democrats love to regulate against jobs in fossil fuels. These are well-paying jobs that men do without college degrees. Coal, oil, gas, etc. are the enemy of progressive Democrats but many men love working outdoors with their hands. They make careers and get wealthy in those sectors. That won't change but neither will Dems wanting to bend human nature to their feminized utopia. Consequently, many men see the Republican party as the vessel for their interests. I don't see that changing.

* Emasculating men is a top priority for the Left/Dems. The Left/Dems want to do away with everything that impedes their ability to force socialism on us. Patriotism, nationalism, toughness, individuality, survival instincts, grit, physical strength, defiance, among other things, are impediments to their goal. Emasculated men are meek, weak, and compliant, just as the Left/Dems want them to be. Strong principled men are a major impediment to the Left/Dems so they must go, so no surprise that Trump/GOP is the last political refuge for men who refuse to be emasculated.

* The men invading this country are not soy drinking poets, they are men that are more than willing to subject the rest of the country to their brand of toxic masculinity. Dems think they will somehow become fellow travelers.

*Females receive 74% of college degrees. Soon females will dominate most professions and control most of the wealth in the US. US males have a life expectancy about 6-7 years less than females. Most advertisements are directed towards females. When straight-white males are shown in ads, which is rarely, they are usually depicted as being weak, dumb, and incompetent. This racist, sexist misandry has become institutionalized. DEI programs have been quite disadvantageous for straight-white males and very advantageous for all other demographic groups. From 1775 to the present, straight-white males have suffered, by far, more combat casualties than any other demographic. Feminists complain about virtually everything. One thing they do not complain about is females being exempted from conscription. Only young men have to sign up for the military draft. In sum, straight-white US males would be better off emigrating to Eastern or Southern Europe where they would have more opportunity and be treated more fairly than they are in the US.

* There's an ideal balance between Male and Female influence. Too much masculinity and brutes emerge. Too much Femininity and an effeminate man emerges. The latter is what's happening now; much to the detriment of our nation.

* Many men are just flat tired of the stereotypes being pushed by the left. Brutes, toxic, worthless, etc.. Don't need to rip your shirt off or do MMA, but at the same time, don't need Leftists and Hollywood telling me that a real man is a woman.

* A thoughtful article. It's good to see the topic of men at least being part of the conversation. The damage that has been done to two generations of men is tragic.

* "… After decades of disorienting social and economic change, male voters are about to choose which model of masculinity will take them forward." Well, it seems obvious to me, especially if they want a relationship with a "real woman", they will go with Hulk Hogan! Let's be honest ladies, what gets the juices flowing? Is it a Progressive/Marxist wimp who is whining about everything and thinking about a sex change, or is it a man who is built like an Adonis and acts like a MAN??

The biggest threat to the Democrat's Socialist agenda are strong men. We will not allow the government to put boys in our daughters' bathrooms or beat them in sports. We will not allow the government to take away our rights as parents. We will not allow the communists to take God out of our country. And if the city slicker WSJ metrosexual elites don't like it, tough.

3. Democratic men are wimps:

* I have to admit, I have been seeing the other side as a collection of silly, non-serious women and girly men, especially in the responses in this forum. Several times I have wanted to say, " I'm not surprised that blacks were given the vote 55 years before women were allowed to vote." But then I would read several great comments here from conservative women and I think, I cannot alienate them with that kind of comment. They are great. But I do see Democrat men as girly men. They are either not very successful in life and they want the government to take care of them, or they are unsuccessful with women and think by being feminist, they might be more successful with women. In other words, they come across to me as losers at life and love.

* As a Canadian who moved here decades ago to be part of American exceptionalism, it hurts to watch it being torn down by people who don't seem to understand why America is exceptional to begin with. Democrats tend to be government workers (teachers, bureaucrats, professors ) who have never experienced the competitive environment of business and thus don't have a visceral understanding of what drives the economy. Moreover, they don't seem to care, and put far left social policies at the forefront. It weakens America and the results can be seen in foreign wars, runaway inflation, porous borders, burgeoning crime, etc. I have no respect for the Democrat " girlie men" as mentioned in this article, and most are. However there are some great conservative women who post here. Hopefully we have enough masculine men and common sense conservative women to keep America as great as immigrants from other first world countries like us know it to be.

* I'm a woman and I don't trust most women, including Harris. I prefer America be led by strong, masculine males that male leaders of other nations (Russia, Iran, China) respect. A country that has too many sensitive, empathetic nice boys raised without a strong male role model in the home, will be taken over one day.

4. Feminist pushbacks against MAGA “manhood” ideology:

* Are you joking? What damage? As opposed to other major democracies, we have never elected a woman as President, have only had one female Vice-President, the vast majority of CEO's are males, we have never had a female Chair of the Joint Chiefs, etc, etc, etc. White Christian males have been favored in this country since its inception. Any men who feel threatened by the rise in power of women, LGBTU Americans, and people of color need to get over it.

* Why are men and particularly young men voting for the Fascist Party of America? currently in an increasingly diverse America the status of women is ascendant, and the status of men particularly young men is in decline. The election of Harris will undoubtedly cement this trend. young men are not happy about this and seek a way to reverse this trend. the Fascist Party of America with its 2025 plan to return American society to the way things were around the turn of the 19th century is offering a solution to their status problem. the Fascist Party of America's plan to reduce women to second class citizens, barefoot and in the kitchen, offer young men a chance to elevate their status. not by raising you men up but by lowering the status of women to that of chattel.

* Republicans have called Democrats pedophiles, Communists, snowflakes, socialists, baby killers, childless cat ladies and more. A Democrat said that Trump and Vance were weird and J.D. went on a Sunday show and said that he was being bullied.

* Hard to envision as manly the MAGA weenies who melted like snowflakes when they were asked to wear a mask during COVID.

* Donald Trump is the epitome of male weakness. He is physically weak, mentally weak, emotionally weak, morally weak, and spiritually weak. It is not surprising that he is the preferred candidate for weak men who are destined to die early from one of the various Deaths of Despair. Real men don't attend or watch WWE wrestling events. Real men don't admire but pity the likes of Hulk Hogan.

* The concept that “Real men” are the hypermasculine muscle man on steroids, strutting, women dominating brutes that preceded Donald Trump the night he received the Republican nomination, as a member of this “tough man” bunch, is ridiculous, bordering on laughable. Even, more laughable is that this “male model of dominance” is championed by Tucker Carlson, and Josh Hawley! If Hulk Hogan and Donald Trump are the models you put forth of a “real man”, it is really pathetic. That you find “real men” scarce, it is most likely you were too foolish to recognize them, as you were looking for a Hulk Hogan “look a like”. Open your eyes, they are all around you. They are American men at every age and status who love and support their families on a daily basis. Who work hard every day, often with a partner, to have a stable and supportive home, who are decent, honest and kind. Who demonstrate their “masculine strength” with dedication, faithfulness, leadership, love, and care, no matter what life brings.

* The Trump/Vance ticket may wear more makeup than the Harris/Walz ticket - possibly indicating this "masculinity" covers up a fragility of the ego.

* Oh, it's the fantasy manhood proposed by Josh "Scamper" Hawley, JD Vance and other Republicans that dooms young men in 2024. They're being expected to live up to a standard that never existed and certainly never will. Those obedient sexy wives waiting at the door for you nightly with a cold martini and the kids all lined up? Uh, that's a fantasy. Sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, insecure men worshipped at home? Only at Trump Tower. Sorry.

* I worry about this kind of masculinity. Pretty much all the "masculine" folks who spoke at the RNC have been accused of sexual assault or harassment. They’re a scary type of masculinity. Real men don't need the government to put up obstacles for women - they compete for opportunities with all takers - men or women, and win by their own merits, or accept loss gracefully. They also don't need to use their physical strength to subdue.

* I think some men, who no longer are the automatic beneficiaries of centuries of affirmative action for (usually white) men, are noticing their loss of privilege.

* A parade of manly men praising Donald Trump for being the manliest of them all. Seriously? These are cartoon characters, reminding one of Foghorn Leghorn,

* Acting manly, is not the same as being manly.

* Doing your duty when drafted is being manly. Even if you were scared to death while you were doing it. Getting a deferment for bone spurs is not manly.

*Being faithful to your wife, and setting a good example for your kids is being manly. Having three wives, an affair with a porn star, and "grabbing women's pu$$ies" is just acting manly. It's not being manly.

* Agreed - another victim article. Men and especially white men have had systematic and institutional advantages since the beginning of time. Now that policies have created a more equitable state they can't handle the competition. Get educated, retrained, compete for jobs, and quit complaining about immigrants taking your jobs when you don't even want those jobs. Adapt instead of whining and complaining and resorting to school yard bully name calling racists tactics just because things don't go your way. Life isn't fair; women and people of color have been dealing and adapting since the beginning of time.

* It's a vote between nice guys and high school bullies. Real men don't attack other men to make themselves look big. Real men don't grab women by their privates and then brag about it.

* If his own wife can't trust him, why should I trust him?