Feel free to use this as appropriate -- authorship unknown:
'Whatever you give a woman, she will make greater. If you give her sperm, she'll give you a baby. If you give her a house, she'll give you a home. If you give her groceries, she'll give you a meal. If you give her a smile, she'll give you her heart. She multiplies and enlarges what is given to her. So, if you give her any crap, be ready to receive a ton of shit.'
Not really. All greatness in society and in the world has come through men. Women are much more tightly grouped around the mean, and mediocre in abilities.
Interesting to be only the second to comment (and the second woman, though that doesn't surprise me). I'll try to be gentle, but I find this piece very confused from the get-go. (i) The "war of the sexes" rubric has moved into literary trope (if it was ever anything else), and has little bearing on the state of feminist thinking in Europe-the US since 1950, OR anywhere else in the human world before or after that somewhat arbitrary date. Nor do I fathom how any US election can stand in for any sort of "war" (other than metaphorically, but it's a depressing metaphor). Careless writing/careless thinking, a disappointment for me. (ii) I'm not convinced that you have done much reading in US feminism, the sole evidence being a slighting reference to "someone like Shulamith Firestone." (iii) If this is the failure of "men's education" you reference (or even if it isn't), I'd love to hear more about how you would like to see your fellow males educated and how the US government (under any administration) would be the way forward for that. (iv) Your own statistics, and a very able (thank you) rendering of the Dobbs minority opinion and US Constitutional history, reminds us all that reproductive choice/freedom is not (and never has been) important only to the "girls' team." --Nor, IMO, are gun rights only important to the "boys'" (or even "dads'") team.
We are truly all in this together--cisgender, nonbinary, White, Black, Brown, Jewish, Arab, Indigenous, immigrant.
If you are looking for further information about the men’s education crisis I recommend Richard V Reeves “Of Boys And Men”. Basically girls mature faster than boys and have higher non cognitive skills (Ability to sit still and focus, self management) especially in elementary school and that has significant downstream effects, especially among working class boys and boys of color, ending in 60% of college degrees being given to women now. Reeves basically suggests holding boys back a year in school and trying to get a lot more men, especially men of color, to teach elementary school.
Thanks Kc77! Still not sure how Sam would have wanted Kamala/Tim to bring this issue to the forefront of the DNC, though Harris'/the Dems' choice of a (cis male)(public) high school teacher in a(n admittedly predominantly White) working class MN town as our VP candidate may give the crisis more visibility. (Mankato also has seen its share of premature opioid deaths so there's another box ticked.) (I'm pulling myself back out of the rabbit hole of "Mankato MN demographics," but hmm, it does look like MN women go to college at a higher rate than men, but make significantly less income anyway.)
I'll bet Walz has read Reeves' book; even if not, I think if he's elected, we can expect him to work hard on this issue on behalf of ALL Americans, men, women and nonbinary, White, Black, Brown and mixed-race. Again, dividing our electorate along any binary-or-other, supposedly bright-line scale, is just not going to help anyone except the very wealthy, and mobile, who are beyond depending on good government whether in Washington or in their local states/counties/cities, and who can vote with their feet. The rest of us need to work together across gender, racial, religious and even linguistic lines.
Expecting any national elected official to work hard on any issue on behalf of anyone but donors might just be a bridge too far at this moment, it's just not what the system incentivizes.
I think you've already left the discussion. It really wouldn't have been very hard to talk about the male 'education crisis' or some related issue at the DNC. The Dems wouldn't really have had to do anything about it! - just make it a campaign talking point. What really struck me at the DNC was that reproductive rights were the only substantial issue raised; there was no attempt to single out an issue that would appeal to male swing voters. Just as an observation about election strategy, that seems to me remarkably short-sighted.
Could they do that? Could the technocratic elite (the DNC) make a very utlitarian decision to say, yes here are some male issues, go play in your machine shops, have some more male teachers, but leave us (the people actually making these decisions) alone.
This is more identity politics but heterosexual men are now an identity that can be brought out into the open. Their reluctance to cross this line after the politics of the last decade is completely understandable.
I have to wonder, would this actually work? Or would this kind of patronizing top-down social engineering be deeply unacceptable to most men, whose unstated desires are probably to shape the system rather than being herded around like cattle.
I think the commentators are overthinking this. Sam’s point is just that a few rhetorical references to specifically male-interests would be a cheap way for party spokesmen (make and female) to signal to voters (male and female) that the party is paying is paying attention to those issues, alongside abortion rights (which are undeniably the party’s most strategic issue this cycle). It’s a little odd, and a political error, that they didn’t do that.
I think you’re being unnecessarily dismissive. All of your points are right - Sam may be poorly educated in feminism, reproductive freedom is almost as important to men as women (I think he actually makes this point), and certainly we’re all in it together. The very large populations of liberal men and conservative women make it plain that politics are not a war of the sexes.
But those facts don’t contradict the argument that the two parties right now have gravitated toward distinctively female and male coded styles of discourse and decision making. That argument may also be wrong, but the points you made don’t entirely address it.
More so than leadership, it's an issue of culture. With leadership, at least at the top political levels, I don't expect to see too much difference whether it's a man or woman in charge. And it's not really about policy since you accurately pointed out that on even a highly gendered and hotly contested issue like abortion, men and women are largely in agreement.
By "culture," I mean all the factors that aren't obviously political and are consequently resistant/impossible to turn into policy proposals. So they're litigated through the shaping of dominant cultural norms. And with greater gender equality, the focus falls on these cultural factors, many of which have some basis on innate sexual differences, like preferences in dating and sex, preferred modes of communication, the differing biological clocks, etc.
There's no better or worse side of these preferences, but that only makes the battles more contentious because one side can't provide a seemingly objective principle as to why our culture should cater to their preferences. Or they can try to dress it up as adhering to a greater principle, but these attempts fall flat as self-interest disguised as morality.
Definitely agree on the cultural aspect. Young straight men and women seem to be inhabiting increasingly different worlds. And if there is little overlap between these cultures, there is less space for serendipity, for romance, for some joie de vivre.
Yeah, the terms I'm using here are really clunky and imprecise. I'm staying way clear of the word 'matriarchy,' which has no obvious meaning. I completely agree with you and Chris that these are basically questions about 'culture.'
I agree the terminology is tricky! I’ve seen others use the term “feminisation” to describe the spread of female-coded norms in liberal institutions (see for example, the recent conversation between Louise Perry and the controversial Amy Wax on the “Feminisation of Academia”). I’d say the phenomenon you are describing represents a Pyrrhic victory for a certain kind of feminism, rather than the natural terminus of feminism per se. In The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir faulted women for going along with the decreased expectations for female artists and thinkers (John Pistelli identifies a similar strain of critique in the portrayal of female characters in Middlemarch). And let’s not forget the men who still wield a substantial amount of hard power who have quietly acquiesced to these laxer standards — perhaps to escape the weight of responsibility themselves — or those who take themselves to be defenders of the higher ideals of the past, but are incapable of maintaining basic standards of humane behaviour within their own movements. So while the 2024 US election may in some ways be playing out as a gender war, the solutions will have to be orthogonal to gender.
That's very interesting Mary Jane. Yeah, it's true, I'm completely eliding over arguments within the feminist movement, and defining 'feminism' is a much longer conversation. I guess I would argue that there is a feminist consensus that prevails in the liberal West, which is that the advancement of women in positions of power is always a good; and that a net increase in female social power is inextricable from, or maybe the essence of, 'historical progress' and 'social justice.' Those ideas so saturate the background of liberal societies I've been a part of that they can almost unstated and certainly without any full analysis of some of the unintended consequences.
I agree the problem lies with those who are willing to pursue power, including “class power”, at any cost, but it is difficult to talk about unintended consequences with those who believe themselves to be on the right side of Herstory.
"Donald Trump — whom I believe to be a misogynist to the bone"
Of course you are welcome to your opinion. But you should also recognize that there are a lot of women who don't think that way, including many who have worked with him.
Fair enough. I don't know Donald Trump - and don't know anybody who knows him. But based off his public statements - "nasty woman," "Miss Piggy," "grab them by the pussy," etc - I think there's a pretty strong case for an underlying misogyny.
lol speaking as a cis straight make the notion of misandry and the insults women face is frankly laughably. I would say this is how you see the world says more about you than it does about women.
Why don’t you explain why Trump isn’t misogynistic rather than this lazy position. It’s a big country out there, we can find people for any position. There is a yawning gap between men and women in terms of women against trump. Maybe you could explain that.
I recognize that this is probably a very confusing piece - I think necessarily because a lot of it falls outside of our standard frames of discourse and reference - so here's a summary of my claims:
1.The 'war of the sexes' is a real thing and pervades our social interactions. I think anybody who's reached adulthood would have to recognize that there's some truth in this statement.
2.Feminism, in its totality, represents a move in the 'war of the sexes' - i.e. a rebalancing of power, a rewriting of the social contract. This is not at all a values statement - just a description. Certainly, that's not what the majority of feminist talking points are, but this point has been made explicitly by radical feminists, and I would happily argue this description out.
3.In female-led institutions, some different patterns of leadership are apparent. This shouldn't be a particularly controversial statement. A great selling point of the feminist revolution was that female leadership would result in very different social structures (e.g. 'the future is female'). We can - at least haltingly, anecdotally - talk about what some of those patterns look like.
4.The trajectory of feminism is cross-hatched with American electoral politics, with voters often in a position of making gendered decisions (e.g. voting for a man vs. voting for a woman) and with gendered characterizations now a pervasive part of the political rhetoric.
5.The two major American political parties have to a great extent differentiated themselves along gendered lines - the numbers are unequivocal about this - and it seems more than likely that the key determinant in the election will have to do with voters' conceptions of gendered leadership, which is as much a culture question as it is about specific 'issues.'
The only normative claim I'm making anywhere in here is that, in our roles as journalists, chatterers, free-thinkers, etc, we should be capable of openly discussing what is obviously a fraught and complicated subject. Everything else is a descriptive statement.
Thanks Sam. I entirely agree that our war of the sexes and therein contested sexualities needs to be more openly recognised and discussed in the public arena. I understand the philosophical history and cultural development of Feminism to run parallel to and interweave with that of Capitalism. Any attempts to analyse or critique aspects of its unintended social consequences quickly end up in similar my way or the highway conflicts. Conflict being at root the cultural dynamo that still informs all of our political nation state structures. Protestant or Catholic, Democrat or Monarchist, Southerner or Northerner, Red or Blue, Rich v Poor, Man v Woman etc… Conflict that is both exacerbated and further embedded by an unthinking feedback loop within our mass education, social media and advertising industries. I live in eternal hope that when enough of us perceive this historical philosophical faultline that continues to mess with all of us in our daily lives in hidden and nasty ways, that we may come up with a way to untie this Gordian Knot 🐈⬛
I really don’t think “war of the sexes” is a useful framing for what I think is a very persuasive argument. I also think that debating what feminism is and isn’t is a distraction here.
I think female and male styles of leadership/ decision making is the key point.
I found this persuasive, especially in the light of recently reading Joyce Benenson’s “Warriors and Worriers.” (But that is a controversial book which one wouldn’t have to agree with to find this essay persuasive.)
Hi Sam — I would have left the discussion, as you note, but for some reason at just that moment I had to resubscribe to the stack/blog, which distracted me, so I’m still here. But delighted to hear directly from you!
Not to belabor my original point, I think you are somewhat underselling the cis male population that I believe you mean to represent. Using my male partner as an example, I asked him yesterday if he’d felt left out of the discussion at the DNC (which he watched with me on TV). He looked a bit puzzled so I went on — was there too much talk about women’s issues? Reproductive rights? Women’s health care? No and no.
It may be because we suffered two miscarriages together 30 years ago (or because his sister became a single Mom circa 1968, with somewhat disastrous results for the entire family), or following any number of other experiences known or unknown to me— but he’s in fact quite interested in the politico religious issues surrounding human reproduction. Such interest of course is certainly not a requirement for you or anyone else, but given the number of conventions, States of the union and stump speeches I’ve sat through that have focused on US war making (from Vietnam to Iraq and on and on), “public safety”—including the opioid crisis—and “tax reform,” please do not begrudge your fellow voters this one candidacy. (Ps I’m a liberal-quasi-pacifist, but I DO like the way Vp Harris rolls the words “lethal force” off her tongue, don’t you?)
Feminists like me have been working hard to recognize the contributions men have made to our welfare—including reproductive rights (the majority opinion in Roe v Wade having been written by a man, after all, at a time when the entire Court was male). We simply could not be where we are today without the support of men. VP Harris began her acceptance speech, after all, by thanking her husband, the gracious “First Gentleman” Doug Emhoff.
I’m sure it’s jarring to many, not just you, that in 2024, the female majority of the US population is making itself heard both on our own behalf and on behalf of the US population generally, rather than continuing to occupy the margin as we have for so long. But…it’s not “war,” and the fact that the (predominantly Christian) R opposition chose reproductive rights (rather than, say, men’s education, the opioid crisis, or income inequality) as its rallying cry and claim to have made things so much better for the rank and file is not something to be laid at the D’s feet.
Interesting article in todays NYT (by the way) called “Trump’s Opponents See New Ways to Cast the G.O.P. as ‘Team Misogyny’” —subtitled
“The issue of gender dominated the campaign over a week that included a scandal in North Carolina and reporting on the fatal fallout of abortion bans.”—focusing on R Pres campaign and their Dear Leader’s unfortunate penchant for allying Itself with scumbags. Heaven help us if we wind up with another chaotic Trump Presidency, all because the Democratic Party’s optics/rhetoric/or lack thereof are human, and therefore imperfect.
So, with a lot of my pieces - and this one especially - I have a tendency to wear a lot of hats simultaneously. In political commentary, the main hat I'm wearing is (as a Democrat) being skeptical of the Democrats' election strategy. Watching something like the DNC, I'm really trying to see it as a swing voter would.
At the end of the day, I'm really not the audience who matters for the DNC - I'm going to vote for Kamala regardless. And I suspect that your husband isn't either. The audience that really matters are low-information voters in swing states, and the job of the campaign is to give them something that makes them feel concretely that their lives will improve. This piece - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/11/us/politics/undecided-voters-react-debate.html - is very revealing on swing voters' mindsets. "I want to know how all this affects my family financially," said one.
I've been struck at the effectiveness of what Trump is doing. He's appearing on podcasts like this one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC5cHjcgt5g - with a young comedian/influencer who's recently gotten sober and they have a wide-ranging, personal conversation about, among other things, the opioid crisis in middle America.
Harris, to win, really will need to have something to offer to the same kinds of people who watch Theo Von's podcast - whether that's emphasizing student loan forgiveness, or taking steps on the opioid crisis, etc. The Democrats have identified reproductive rights as a wedge issue - it worked in 2022 and likely will be a significant issue in 2024 as well - and they're dialing it up strongly. It's not a terrible strategy - since there are undecided female voters the Dems can still pick up, and, as we've discussed, males overwhelmingly favor abortion rights as well - but Harris at the same time can't afford to get blown out with male voters. There are a lot of very unhappy guys, maybe especially in the swing states. They feel that the trajectory of America is moving in a way that leaves them behind - the manufacturing jobs disappeared and opioids became a huge, unaddressed problem, and then on top of everything they're being told that their 'toxic masculinity' is why the world is falling apart. With Biden and his centrist positions, the Dems were hanging on by a thread to a lot of these voters. If they feel that Kamala isn't speaking to them in any way, they're going to go completely for Trump, and in an election as close as this one, that really could be the difference.
I really didn’t read this as expressing male resentment against a putative takeover of the Dem party by female interests, but rather a sense that the parties are sorting themselves in terms of gender-coded leadership styles and rhetoric. Even if this is true, plenty of men prefer Democratic styles and women prefer Republican ones.
I also don’t think he’s saying that the Dems *shoildnt* be talking a lot about abortion - it’s our strongest card, due tobRepublicans’ unpopular policies.
I now understand Sam to be talking about what he thinks undecided male ("unhappy guys") voters need to hear, rather than any general Dem party stance whether at the convention or on the stump/during debates--so, I think he & I were basically "ships passing in the night."
I've written elsewhere (in response to a R/undecided post I read somewhere--maybe NYT, where I also shoot my mouth off regularly) that the most important thing in a candidate, more important even than campaign promises, is their readiness for the unexpected--their ability to build an Administration of smart, dedicated public servants, including (for Pres candidates) a running mate who complements them, and runs with them as a team. This cycle, we have a bully/isolationist who has shown himself completely unable to build an Administration, nor to work constructively on either domestic or international issues, plus an equally dishonest rich boy running mate (granted, JDV escaped a horrible childhood environment), versus two seasoned administrators, a VP and a governor, both of whom "read" as caring human beings with the same pocketbook issues as voters have.
I can't hear with the ears of "very unhappy guys," nor do I know how they imagine--if they do--that another Trump presidency will make them any happier. Maybe the best I can hope for is that they'll stay home and let those of us who feel that positive change is possible--Kamala/Tim's overriding message at the DNC--vote in new leadership, instead of the handing our fates to a duo that disparages US chances for renewal.
An interesting piece, I will think through my response, but one of the first things that struck me was an echo, in your framing of George Lakoff's description, in the 90s, of Republicans appealing to a model of authority that he describes as, "strong father " and Democrats the, "nurturing parent."
"At this point, a natural question arises. What gives rise of the cluster of conservative moral metaphors? Why should those metaphors fit together as they do? The answer, interestingly enough, is the family. Conservatives share an ideal model of what a family should be. I will refer to as the Strict Father Model."
By contrast, he says of liberals
"The Nurturant Parent Model. The family is of either one or two parents. Two are generally preferable, but not always possible.
The primal experience behind this model is one of being cared for and cared about, having one's desires for loving interactions met, living as happily as possible, and deriving meaning from one's community and from caring for and about others."
He is also operating at the level of broad imprecise generalizations, but I mention it to suggest that some of the gendered political split that you see is not at all new.
I've missed sparring with you! I saw you've been reading up a storm on Substack.
That's a really interesting description by Lakoff. That strikes me as basically right but it's evolved since the '90s. The idea that MAGA conveys is 'you do you' - if you're a teenager, you sit in your room and play XBox, if you're an adult you do whatever you need to do to make a buck. On the other hand, the idea the Dems convey is - you have to come out of your room and sit on the table and make nice with your parents' friends and finish what's your plate and then do the dishes. What the parties seem to represent at this point is Id vs. Superego. To a lot of voters, the Dems just stand for taxes and regulation - and they really resent that.
Good to hear from you. Yes, I've been enjoying substack and finding that it offers a good way to be introduced to a rang of writing (thinking about my top-3 reads we have a music Stack, a stack which is political but with a fair amount of literary and music writing, and an old-school blogger who's also a comics artist).
I've been mulling over your post today and what I'd say is that you have a couple of interesting ideas presented in a way that, for me, they are in tension with each other as often as they reinforce each other.
If I were to try to disentangle the threads as they look to me (which will inevitable not match your sense of them). I'd say that you're correct to note:
1) A strong gender divide in partisan affiliation; in the rhetoric of the two parties, and in certain cultural institutions (as you note, higher ed is increasingly female).
2) That it's worth examining how the shifting balance of power manifests in daily life.
Your portrait of male- or female-lead office environments seems believable to me (I say having mostly worked for a very small company which is disproportionately male and which which has been a good fit for my own tendency to be an oddball introvert -- in ways which align with your summary).
That said you're fairly clearly describing stereotypes which are not going to perfectly align with reality -- I think there are a couple of cases in which your shaping the stereotype based on your own political interests. For example I'd note that much of what you describe as female leadership styles could also reflect someone who is concerned about challenges to the legitimacy of their leadership and trying to preempt that possibility. To the extent that's true it suggests the importance of seeing an evolving situation, not an expression of gender essentialism.
From that starting point I think it is interesting to ask:
1) How do men and women tend to exercise authority in their daily life?
2) What sort of leaders are men and women attracted to in politics?
3) What sorts of policies would be helpful to promote a society in which men and women both have opportunities to flourish (in ways that may be distinctively masculine of feminine)
4) Are there tensions between the answers to those three questions? Do the political styles that succeed in a world of gender polarization help or inhibit productive policies?
I don't know that your piece answers those questions for me, but it does seem interesting to work on those questions.
Hopefully at least some of that summary feel right to you. I started to think about elaborating on those points but then it got very long, so I'll leave it at that for now.
In terms of 'stereotypes,' there's a fine line always between a 'general observation' and a 'stereotype.' It's sort of like the difference between a cult and a religion; or a dialect and a language. Just making a generalized observation - especially based on own's experience - is not a stereotype. A stereotype is when some passed-down generalized observation is ossified into an a priori belief for dealing with a new experience.
I think that you and I sometimes have different frames of reference. I tend to think of power as a sort of primordial entity that is genderless and precedes all of us - a bit like the 'force' or 'dark side of the force' in Star Wars. In human terms, power is based in inequalities and imbalances, and so there are essential power imbalances within gender relations. Women have the capacity for childbirth, which creates a tremendous power imbalance in anything related to procreation or childrearing. Women also have an inbuilt power around the sex act - an ability to say 'no' and to choose. This sometimes gets called 'pussy power.' There is also the power imbalance of upper body strength, which gives men an unequal power of violence.
Responding to your points:
1. Once we're in developed institutions - the modern office, etc - we're a pretty long way from any of these 'state of nature' type observations. Power there mostly comes from access to money and sometimes to the state's monopoly of violence. Power in the modern workplace tends to be organized hierarchically - with those at the top of the chain having access to whatever the vital resource is of said organization. That hierarchy is in theory genderless but if you put men or women in positions of hierarchical power some slightly different patterns will tend to emerge.
2. I'm not sure that men and women are necessarily attracted to different types of leaders in politics. What people want from leaders is, I suspect, largely the same across genders - people want security, benevolence, and relatability. Where the differences really start to come in is in male/female patterns of social organization. Think about what recess or the lunchroom looked like in middle school, where boys and girls tend to create very different social structures. Boys often tend towards sports or fights (joke battles are another from of fighting) in which they are trying to establish a vertical hierarchy but also ideas of teamwork. Girls often tend more towards talk and clique-building - these intricate social networks of inclusion/exclusion, of building up friendship coalitions and then sometimes betraying them. We can argue until the end of time about whether these types of gendered social organization are societally-developed or innate, but they have certainly been a big part of my experience of the world and I suspect of that of everybody reading this. Once we're in integrated office spaces in adulthood, those bifurcating types of social organization aren't nearly as clearcut, but in my experience some of those patterns are very much still there. A central claim of women in the MeToo era is that the workplace still has a patriarchal bullying culture built into it - that men when in positions of authority have an implied coercive power over women working in their employ, which is only ever a step away from sexual harassment or other types of harassment. There's certainly some truth in this but also of course some truth in the (less-discussed) other side of the equation, that men in a more female-dominated office space may be a disadvantage in navigating a different type of social organization.
3.I don't know that any specific policies would be of help. I think what all liberals were hoping would happen was that the integrated workforce would result in a co-ed culture, in which gender really didn't matter and anybody could fulfill any role without any problem. And sometimes that really happens and works very well - I've had educational and workplace environments where I all but forget about gender. But, more often than not, it's just not like that. There's always going to be somebody at the top of the organization. That person is always going to be one gender or another. And that person will always set the tone, whether consciously or sub-consciously. There's no way to guarantee that everybody is always going to have good bosses or bosses who are uniquely sensitive about these matters. I suppose what would help is having gender parity in executive positions - and that's something that the society is working towards. But it's not an easy goal - or an easy goal to force. And what seems to be happening more is that different industries skew towards being dominated more by one gender or another.
4.I don't think I understand your fourth question or what you mean exactly by 'tensions.' But, yes, I think where politicians can help is that they can genuinely be leaders, understand the deeper societal divisions, and work energetically to heal them. Obama was a model in that regard. Once we have Trump in play, all bets are sort of off, and the entire liberal side of the aisle is capable of thinking only about defeating Trump. But what grieves me - and is part of the impetus for writing this article - is that the Dems seem to be missing opportunities to coalition-build, to find wedge issues that would appeal to men or to actively court men. I think people inside the liberal bubbles have no idea of how much liberal rhetoric has alienated males - phrase like 'toxic masculinity' leave a long shadow - and rhetorical miscues like that can have dire effects in electoral politics, as well as contributing further to polarization.
Thank you; that gives me a better sense of where you're coming from that the original "battle of the sexes" framing. A handful of thoughts in response.
I don't know that there's a clear distinction between "stereotype" and "broad generalization" but I can try to think through my associations with the word. Anytime you're making that sort of generalization it's worth taking a moment to stop and think, "how much confidence do I have in the picture that I'm drawing? Do I think this statement can hold much weight or is mostly a façade?" (I remember seeing the term "load-bearing beliefs" at some point and it's a helpful metaphor). For stereotypes there's a dynamic in which the beliefs are made load-bearing because society will push them to be true. You can see this in the term "stereotype thread" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat )
With that in mind I'd offer the following as not particularly load-bearing beliefs.
In more gender-equal societies men are half as likely to be depressed, less likely to commit suicide, have around a 40% smaller risk of dying a violent death and even suffer less from chronic back pain. Adolescent boys in those countries have fewer psychosomatic complaints and are more likely to use contraceptives. And sex? Contrary to the stereotypes, one study found that men with feminist partners reported greater sexual satisfaction, as did women with partners who supported feminism.
-----------end quote---------
Part of why I tried to separate the threads of politics and policy is that we do see a difference between which parties appeal to men and women, but that isn't the same thing as assessing which policies will benefit men and women.
It was funny for me, for example, in your original post when you made a comment about the DNC having, "precious little on manufacturing jobs, opioid addiction" since both of those are policy areas that I associate with the Democratic party. I think of "opioid addiction" as something that Democrats have been talking about for close to a decade. Perhaps it wasn't emphasized this year simply because of JD Vance on the opposing ticket (which makes me think that there should be a question about opioids in the VP debate). As far as manufacturing jobs go, you've probably heard say that "we need to make sure that Green Jobs are Good Jobs" over and over again and we just saw a major push towards industrial policy with the IRA and CHIPS acts. For example Noah Smith just recommended this interview about the CHIPS act which is both encouraging in terms of the obvious attention, thought, and effort trying to make it successful and you can see why it's a little early to show results yet: https://www.fabricatedknowledge.com/p/an-interview-with-dan-kim-and-hassan
-------------quote------------------
It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation, once there was a manufacturer manufacturing base. The institutions for training and education came along and did their work in developing the talent, right? But it's hard to do that without having a manufacturing base. And so I think we're going to see that we're doing the hard work of revitalizing our manufacturing and putting in the fabs and ecosystem they'll create.
And then, we want to make sure that the companies we are supporting have an executable plan to partner with local universities, community colleges, and even high schools to create talent pipelines to feed into their ecosystems. And we're encouraged to see how they're all doing. Now that we have created some momentum here, universities and others are coming to us for advice on how they can participate. And so, I see the tide turning there as well. And it needs to because that's the only way we can make it successful.
-------------------end quote------------------
So I think you should ask the question of, "what would it look like if people in the Democratic party were concerned with the challenges that men face?" From a policy perspective that might not be _too far_ from what we are actually seeing.
But, as you note, that politically that doesn't translate into a strong appeal for, "male swing voters."
In addition to your comment about leadership styles I'd mention something else. In fiction there are characters that are described as the "audience surrogate" Someone who is new to the situation and becomes the lens through which the audience can learn what's going on and what needs attention.
There is definitely a political divide about how that audience surrogate should be gendered, in the stories politicians tell. I think that has become more emotionally fraught. When I was growing up the overwhelming majority of stories were based around male perspectives and, to some extent, that was just taken for granted (and embodied in the language with the masculine being used to refer to a generic mixed gender group. For example "men" rather than "people" as a catch-all term).
Now, it's clearly a choice that people have to make, and that choice draws attention -- to whom is being highlighted or ignored.
I think that's going to be a real point of contention for a while. Personally I think the best solution is to arrive at a more gender-equal default, but that's not a simple transition.
Also, as you say, we can use terms like "gender-equal" but that average encompasses great variation. In certain situations men or women may have a significant advantage separate from the broad social default.
Finally, while you're thinking about this topic. I would highly recommend Alice Evans' Substack. For example this post about what social factors lead to gender divergence between men & women vs stronger overlap and shared beliefs: https://www.ggd.world/p/what-prevents-and-what-drives-gendered
-----------------quote--------------------
Men and women tend to think alike in societies where there is
* Close-knit interdependence, religosity and authoritarianism, or
* Common culture and mixed gendered offline socialising.
Thanks Nick. A couple quick things: I'd be a bit suspicious of that survey The Guardian cites. I just don't know how anybody could possibly run a meaningful study on this. What exactly does "more gender-equal" mean? How can you be sure that that heightened gender equality is what correlates to men's better health outcomes as opposed to myriad possible economic factors? The study itself is behind a paywall, but it seems to only be comparing European and North American countries against each other, which seems not very helpful.
I don't disagree necessarily. It's certainly possible that a "more gender-equal society" is "better for men." That's just such a broad statement that that we'd have to really talk it through. I'm also not really sure I know what "equal" means in the gender conversation.
I've been pretty affected by my experiences in documentary film. I've worked on a lot of shoots in different parts of Middle America, including some battleground areas. I'm just always so struck by the vast cultural difference between the crews I'm working with (almost all liberals) and the subjects of the documentaries. They just so often seem to be speaking totally past each other. I don't think liberals have a very good understanding of the opioid crisis, of the decline of manufacturing jobs, of the emergent 'crisis of men.' Republican candidates certainly may not do more on any of these than their Democratic counterparts but I do think they're speaking the language of aggrieved men much better, and that's a real electoral handicap for Democrats.
I agree that the quoted bit from the Guardian seems plausible, but I wouldn't take it as necessarily true.
I do think it's interesting the way in which we're still talking past each other a little bit. When you say, "I don't think liberals have a very good understanding of the opioid crisis, of the decline of manufacturing jobs ... Republican candidates certainly may not do more on any of these than their Democratic counterparts but I do think they're speaking the language of aggrieved men much better" my point is that "good understanding " and "speaking the language" are two distinct things.
I'm not sure that liberals have a good understanding, but from a policy perspective, I don't see a better solution (not just from Republicans; I don't know that international comparisons offer obvious improvements either. I think there are countries that have better drug policies than the US, but I don't know if that offers a model which would specifically address the opioid crisis).
I do think that "speaking the language of aggrieved men" matters from an electoral perspective, but I *don't* think it's a good marker for, "understands how to solve the problem."
Your concerns about being silenced or marginalized always strike me as very personal. Have you been censored or #me too-d at some point ? You might enjoy or benefit from reading Gerda Lerner if you are trying to glean universal facts of the “gender wars” from pre-history to contemporary times.
You're right, they are personal concerns. I haven't been canceled or MeToo'd or directly censored, but I've worked in or tried or break into several industries - documentary films, theater, publishing, also journalism - that all went through an intense politicization especially over the past decade. These sorts of questions were in the background of everything and touched everything. I'll probably write a more personal piece on all of this at some point.
Hi Sam - great references here on the mindset of undecided voters, and I will certainly follow up on them. I too see lots of concern on the economy, though I don't think "bidenomics" is (are?) entirely to blame, nor do I imagine that a Trump presidency would salve those particular wounds. But certainly it's important to know what the opposition is doing, and to counter it as best we can, not with our own Koolaid but with compassionate understanding of all sectors of the US population, and an appeal to sanity.
In short, I still have great confidence in Dem strategy and am looking forward to the election of our country's first female President/second President of color, and her decent, capable, White het male VP candidate.
And, btw, we should give credit where it's due. The Dems did manage (belatedly) to get Biden off the ticket. They have a strong candidate in Harris. They stage managed the convention well. Harris won the debate and has been a strong stump speaker. They have at least a 50/50 chance of winning the election - but, since the election will come down to, likely, a few thousand voters in a handful of swing states, there is no margin for error here.
oh PS - my man and I, for all our differences (we're celebrating the 25th anniversary of our 1999 divorce this December <wink>) are definitely not "undecided"--fwiw, we also both hold graduate degrees, one MBA and one JD, and have joyfully put in our time in multiple endeavors, from blue collar to philanthropic, prior to retirement. (Though, is there really such a thing? she asked.)
I agree with you about the difference in female leadership styles, that it has downsides and upsides - but I don't really see what that has to do with 'feminism' overall or Kamala in general. I also object to your take that 'feminism' is a 'war between the sexes.' Feminism is defined as full political and economic equality between the sexes, not the oppression of one gender for the benefit of the other.
In the Kamala world, this equality is based on class; rich and powerful men and women indeed enjoy equality (more or less) across race and gender lines. However, she did more to harm poor & struggling women of all colors than any other recent California AG.
I think you may be conflating the COS-play of identitarian 'feminism' with the real thing. Kamala certainly has no history of having a 'soft' management style; she has a history of being impossible, messy, vapid and mean - with aides quitting in droves. Kamala has no history of true feminist activism, unless threatening to imprison mothers in struggling families for their kid's truancy and act of 'feminism.' In her history as California's 'top cop' she provided cover during a wide spread scandal of cops trafficking kids, and another covering for a rape scandal with the archdiocese. Oh - and by the way, the Willie Brown charges are true. Now, of course adults can take lovers. But her meteoric rise to power in SF was due to that relationship; hardly model feminism in my view.
There was a particularly lovely case where a schizophrenic woman in crisis was wielding a knife - so the cops shot her (several times.) Not only did Kamala cover for the cops - she prosecuted the sick woman.
Her utter lack of empathy for the parents of slaughtered babies is hardly feminism. She repeats, , ad nauseam, the story of 'mass rape' (there is no evidence of mass rape) of Israelis but not a world about the 'mass rapes' we've seen on video.
What Kamala brings to the table is more of the same shit we've had since Reagan held office - and a continuation of what Joe Biden has wrought, which is an Oval Office where the resident has ceded all control to a group of out-of-control war-mongering ghouls.
Kamala might be branding herself as the modern face of feminism, but she's just another dude in a pantsuit. Real feminism doesn't cheer slaughtered children, advocate for more wars, brag about owning guns, or believe that our sons and husbands and fathers are less important than our daughters, mothers, and aunts.
Of course you're right that the 'definition' of feminism is very different from my (controversial) interpretation of it. I guess I would just argue that "full equality" between the sexes is something of an impossibility - there's very little movement out there for men to have the ability to give birth, for example, and, between men and women, we are always dealing with some asymmetries. "Economic and political equality" is a goal that a lot of people can agree with, but it can get complicated when we get into zero-sum situations of men competing against women in the job market or for positions of power. There has been an active movement within feminism - Firestone, for instance - that argues not just for achieving metrics of equality but for very profoundly changing the social structures that can generate inequality. The word 'empowerment,' which is a very important word within feminism, has, of course, far-reaching consequences, since achieving power very often means taking power from someone else.
Please do understand that I'm not saying this by way of criticism of feminism. I think a reshaping of societal power structures is a completely valid project. We just can be mature enough to recognize that, in human relations, 'equality' can mean a lot of different things, and that any time a group obtains a greater share of social power it can come at the expense of another group.
This piece wasn't so much about Kamala specifically. I can respond to your points about her elsewhere.
'Feminism' has become like every other 'ism' - an empty identarian trick - a pretense of social justice that costs nothing, makes liberals feel good, and gives our leaders another 'cultural' issue to divide us.
(Real feminism would be maternity and paternity leave, tax credits or cash payments for elder care, universal health, and universal pre-k through Uni.)
I think I need to go have another micro aggression.
As someone who might be seen to pick apart things, I'll just say what Reverend Hale says of theology in "The Crucible," which is that an argument ought to be a fortress and that no crack ought to be considered small. I actually think there is potential for real harm with generalization and with loosely defined terms. And so I have this experience, Sam, of reading your work and really marveling at the incisiveness of much of it, and then feeling a visceral reaction against phrases like "a tendency to," which are often pretty large cracks in the reasoning because they render the assertions so contestable and threaten the integrity of the whole.
In this case, the boys team vs. girls team dichotomy is at least borne out by evidence. Political polarization is at an all-time high among young people and widening. This is a branding crisis for the Democrats if they hope to build an enduring coalition. It is one version of Mark Lilla's prescient argument in 2016 about the destructive arc of identity politics. And I have been encouraged by Kamala Harris's avoidance of that rhetoric.
Where I thoroughly disagree with you is on leadership styles. This is where I don't see any evidence and where anecdote cannot be enough to carry the argument. Theoretically, feminism would be more inclusive and egalitarian in the ways that you describe. But there isn't really a consensus among women about what feminism is. For some women it is exactly what you say: considering the historical plight of women ought to make any female leader mindful of power dynamics and responsive to those with the least power. For others it is more simply an "it's our turn" mentality, and any leader like that who gets a big stick is going to swing it for the girl team and scoff at male tears. I could add my own anecdotal examples, but I wouldn't consider them evidence of anything but my subjective experience. Here's where the subject really does require some disciplined scholarly attention. And this is one of the things I dislike most about Substack, is that it is not built for scholarship.
As you say, there's no need for Democrats to fall into the payback mentality. I still agree with Lilla that those binaries are self-defeating in the long term.
I had a feeling you would pick this apart and I take your points to heart.
As much as we agree on a lot of things, I do suspect that a place where we differ is at a fairly deep epistemological level. I'm not a scholar and I think I would go so far as to say that I don't particularly believe in data or maybe even logic. I think that, for human beings, it's impossible to get to any truth greater than one's own lived experience, honestly reckoned with. Of course, one's lived experience is limited - since one isn't everywhere all at once - and data and scholarship are invaluable at providing access to knowledge that one can't obtain on one's own. You're absolutely right that very often, as I'm rounding up an argument, I'll just finish up with my own instinct or intuition. But I don't apologize for this! I do think that, in the end, we all just offer subjective perspectives. One needs to be humble about the limits of one's own point of view, but I think that there can be no possible higher authority than this.
Happy to hash all this out more fully!
In terms of my leadership styles point, I would argue (as I do with S.L. above) that, beyond 'first, second, third wave' feminism, etc, what is most salient is a 'feminist consensus' that has taken root in liberal society - certainly, without any question, in the majority of offices and educational institutions I have been a part of. This defaults to a soft preference for hiring women; a certain deference to women's point of view; and a belief that, over and above any individual task the organization may be carrying out, there is a commitment to being on the 'right side of history,' which is understood to involve feminism's continued advance and women's continued empowerment. These premises have absolutely been the air I've breathed for years. I'm not arguing with any of them. I just do think they're worth stating openly and analyzing. You're right that I'm pushing things with my 'leadership styles' point - this doesn't go beyond observation. But what can I say? It's something that I've really noticed - that the male and female-dominated work environments I've been in have had a strikingly different character, and some of this (I suspect) has to do with some differing modes of male and female social organization. My experience of the playground was that boys and girls organized themselves very differently. I don't think it would be surprising at all if, in adulthood, male and female leaders exhibited somewhat different organizational tendencies.
Sam, appreciate your thoughts here. This is a really interesting (and testable) hypothesis: "My experience of the playground was that boys and girls organized themselves very differently. I don't think it would be surprising at all if, in adulthood, male and female leaders exhibited somewhat different organizational tendencies." It's certainly true that women face different obstacles to (or responses to) leadership and have to adjust accordingly. But I can't generalize from my own experience, and there's where data seems essential to any meaningful discourse.
Sure, there are problems with peer review, and there is plenty of scholarship afflicted with confirmation bias. But that isn't because the scholarly method is flawed any more than bad data means the scientific method doesn't work. Data and logic were a blessed relief from the hysteria in Salem, and that's still the best approximation of reality that we have, IMO. If we are all inherently subjective, the least we can do is hedge against our limitations, which is what data and reason do.
Otherwise, how do we know that all those kids got lead poisoning in Flint, Michigan, and it wasn't just a hoax to get government money? How do we actually know that young men are struggling?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but if you don't believe in data and logic, how can scholarship be an invaluable way to gain access to knowledge that we can't obtain on our own?
What I meant was that I don't see 'data' or 'logic' as authoritative. Certainly, they can be vital supplemental tools in helping us to expand the scope of our empirical knowledge and in keeping us honest about our intuitions. You put it very well that "data and reason...hedge against our limitations."
I'm not taking away from scholarship, which is a beautiful endeavor. But I am not a scholar and my method is a little different from scholarship. I like to share an intuition and impression - although certainly checking it against various forms of data - as opposed to contributing to an ever-expansive store of verifiable knowledge, which is what scholarship aims at.
I also think there are all kinds of complex cultural questions that would be extremely hard to get in any kind of data - I'm not even really sure how one could go about obtaining data for something as nebulous as leadership styles - and in situations like that the best we can do is offer the observations that we have.
Ah, that is a fairly deep difference in belief, then. I heard what you're saying, and some of your skepticism about all of this is precisely what I hated about trying to assess teaching excellence, which I thought of as, in many ways, impenetrably mysterious.
But I think data in its ideal presentation is an amalgamation of enough subjective experiences that discernible patterns emerge. There is a lot of "bad data" that masquerades as authoritative. But I think one could survey enough people on a topic like this, testing your hypothesis, to reach something better than an anecdotal hunch.
As one of your other readers pointed out, some of these things are deeply personal (I certainly have views of gender and the particular girlboss phenomenon that are heavily shaped by my failed marriage). And when things cut that close to the bone, I think we become less reliable narrators about the broader picture.
But you're making me think that this would be a really engaging panel discussion amongst some Substackers!
I was just reading the rest of the thread and several of your comments -- particularly this one -- helped me better understand how we were talking past each other. Thanks.
I know I will get some backlash, but as a woman, here are my observations:
1. While it is true feminism opened door to equal pay, it also necessitated a two Income family to economically survive; thus, a woman's choice to raise her children as a homemaker was demoted, ostracized, and in many cases, taken.
2. I do not vote for candidates based on gender. Never. What you say about Trump is spot-on: he defies description. He is a megalomaniac. However, most women I know plan to vote for him. Yes, I live in the Bible belt.To say that women will vote for Harris diminishes their intelligence as Harris campaigns with a depth of ideas similar to a cheerleader running for high school student council president.
3. Most women in the workforce would rather have a strong mix of men and women in the office. Most confident and intelligent women I know have experienced workplace harrassment at the hands on insecure and/or unqualified female coworkers. It is ruthless. You don't get this with men. The "Me too" movement shed light on the problems with men.
Thank you for your article. The subject is, indeed, complex.
Define temperament.
Feel free to use this as appropriate -- authorship unknown:
'Whatever you give a woman, she will make greater. If you give her sperm, she'll give you a baby. If you give her a house, she'll give you a home. If you give her groceries, she'll give you a meal. If you give her a smile, she'll give you her heart. She multiplies and enlarges what is given to her. So, if you give her any crap, be ready to receive a ton of shit.'
Omfg that's so true!
Not really. All greatness in society and in the world has come through men. Women are much more tightly grouped around the mean, and mediocre in abilities.
Interesting to be only the second to comment (and the second woman, though that doesn't surprise me). I'll try to be gentle, but I find this piece very confused from the get-go. (i) The "war of the sexes" rubric has moved into literary trope (if it was ever anything else), and has little bearing on the state of feminist thinking in Europe-the US since 1950, OR anywhere else in the human world before or after that somewhat arbitrary date. Nor do I fathom how any US election can stand in for any sort of "war" (other than metaphorically, but it's a depressing metaphor). Careless writing/careless thinking, a disappointment for me. (ii) I'm not convinced that you have done much reading in US feminism, the sole evidence being a slighting reference to "someone like Shulamith Firestone." (iii) If this is the failure of "men's education" you reference (or even if it isn't), I'd love to hear more about how you would like to see your fellow males educated and how the US government (under any administration) would be the way forward for that. (iv) Your own statistics, and a very able (thank you) rendering of the Dobbs minority opinion and US Constitutional history, reminds us all that reproductive choice/freedom is not (and never has been) important only to the "girls' team." --Nor, IMO, are gun rights only important to the "boys'" (or even "dads'") team.
We are truly all in this together--cisgender, nonbinary, White, Black, Brown, Jewish, Arab, Indigenous, immigrant.
If you are looking for further information about the men’s education crisis I recommend Richard V Reeves “Of Boys And Men”. Basically girls mature faster than boys and have higher non cognitive skills (Ability to sit still and focus, self management) especially in elementary school and that has significant downstream effects, especially among working class boys and boys of color, ending in 60% of college degrees being given to women now. Reeves basically suggests holding boys back a year in school and trying to get a lot more men, especially men of color, to teach elementary school.
Thanks Kc77! Still not sure how Sam would have wanted Kamala/Tim to bring this issue to the forefront of the DNC, though Harris'/the Dems' choice of a (cis male)(public) high school teacher in a(n admittedly predominantly White) working class MN town as our VP candidate may give the crisis more visibility. (Mankato also has seen its share of premature opioid deaths so there's another box ticked.) (I'm pulling myself back out of the rabbit hole of "Mankato MN demographics," but hmm, it does look like MN women go to college at a higher rate than men, but make significantly less income anyway.)
I'll bet Walz has read Reeves' book; even if not, I think if he's elected, we can expect him to work hard on this issue on behalf of ALL Americans, men, women and nonbinary, White, Black, Brown and mixed-race. Again, dividing our electorate along any binary-or-other, supposedly bright-line scale, is just not going to help anyone except the very wealthy, and mobile, who are beyond depending on good government whether in Washington or in their local states/counties/cities, and who can vote with their feet. The rest of us need to work together across gender, racial, religious and even linguistic lines.
Expecting any national elected official to work hard on any issue on behalf of anyone but donors might just be a bridge too far at this moment, it's just not what the system incentivizes.
Hi Poetry,
I think you've already left the discussion. It really wouldn't have been very hard to talk about the male 'education crisis' or some related issue at the DNC. The Dems wouldn't really have had to do anything about it! - just make it a campaign talking point. What really struck me at the DNC was that reproductive rights were the only substantial issue raised; there was no attempt to single out an issue that would appeal to male swing voters. Just as an observation about election strategy, that seems to me remarkably short-sighted.
Could they do that? Could the technocratic elite (the DNC) make a very utlitarian decision to say, yes here are some male issues, go play in your machine shops, have some more male teachers, but leave us (the people actually making these decisions) alone.
This is more identity politics but heterosexual men are now an identity that can be brought out into the open. Their reluctance to cross this line after the politics of the last decade is completely understandable.
I have to wonder, would this actually work? Or would this kind of patronizing top-down social engineering be deeply unacceptable to most men, whose unstated desires are probably to shape the system rather than being herded around like cattle.
I think the commentators are overthinking this. Sam’s point is just that a few rhetorical references to specifically male-interests would be a cheap way for party spokesmen (make and female) to signal to voters (male and female) that the party is paying is paying attention to those issues, alongside abortion rights (which are undeniably the party’s most strategic issue this cycle). It’s a little odd, and a political error, that they didn’t do that.
I think you’re being unnecessarily dismissive. All of your points are right - Sam may be poorly educated in feminism, reproductive freedom is almost as important to men as women (I think he actually makes this point), and certainly we’re all in it together. The very large populations of liberal men and conservative women make it plain that politics are not a war of the sexes.
But those facts don’t contradict the argument that the two parties right now have gravitated toward distinctively female and male coded styles of discourse and decision making. That argument may also be wrong, but the points you made don’t entirely address it.
More so than leadership, it's an issue of culture. With leadership, at least at the top political levels, I don't expect to see too much difference whether it's a man or woman in charge. And it's not really about policy since you accurately pointed out that on even a highly gendered and hotly contested issue like abortion, men and women are largely in agreement.
By "culture," I mean all the factors that aren't obviously political and are consequently resistant/impossible to turn into policy proposals. So they're litigated through the shaping of dominant cultural norms. And with greater gender equality, the focus falls on these cultural factors, many of which have some basis on innate sexual differences, like preferences in dating and sex, preferred modes of communication, the differing biological clocks, etc.
There's no better or worse side of these preferences, but that only makes the battles more contentious because one side can't provide a seemingly objective principle as to why our culture should cater to their preferences. Or they can try to dress it up as adhering to a greater principle, but these attempts fall flat as self-interest disguised as morality.
Definitely agree on the cultural aspect. Young straight men and women seem to be inhabiting increasingly different worlds. And if there is little overlap between these cultures, there is less space for serendipity, for romance, for some joie de vivre.
Yeah, the terms I'm using here are really clunky and imprecise. I'm staying way clear of the word 'matriarchy,' which has no obvious meaning. I completely agree with you and Chris that these are basically questions about 'culture.'
I agree the terminology is tricky! I’ve seen others use the term “feminisation” to describe the spread of female-coded norms in liberal institutions (see for example, the recent conversation between Louise Perry and the controversial Amy Wax on the “Feminisation of Academia”). I’d say the phenomenon you are describing represents a Pyrrhic victory for a certain kind of feminism, rather than the natural terminus of feminism per se. In The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir faulted women for going along with the decreased expectations for female artists and thinkers (John Pistelli identifies a similar strain of critique in the portrayal of female characters in Middlemarch). And let’s not forget the men who still wield a substantial amount of hard power who have quietly acquiesced to these laxer standards — perhaps to escape the weight of responsibility themselves — or those who take themselves to be defenders of the higher ideals of the past, but are incapable of maintaining basic standards of humane behaviour within their own movements. So while the 2024 US election may in some ways be playing out as a gender war, the solutions will have to be orthogonal to gender.
That's very interesting Mary Jane. Yeah, it's true, I'm completely eliding over arguments within the feminist movement, and defining 'feminism' is a much longer conversation. I guess I would argue that there is a feminist consensus that prevails in the liberal West, which is that the advancement of women in positions of power is always a good; and that a net increase in female social power is inextricable from, or maybe the essence of, 'historical progress' and 'social justice.' Those ideas so saturate the background of liberal societies I've been a part of that they can almost unstated and certainly without any full analysis of some of the unintended consequences.
I agree the problem lies with those who are willing to pursue power, including “class power”, at any cost, but it is difficult to talk about unintended consequences with those who believe themselves to be on the right side of Herstory.
"Donald Trump — whom I believe to be a misogynist to the bone"
Of course you are welcome to your opinion. But you should also recognize that there are a lot of women who don't think that way, including many who have worked with him.
Fair enough. I don't know Donald Trump - and don't know anybody who knows him. But based off his public statements - "nasty woman," "Miss Piggy," "grab them by the pussy," etc - I think there's a pretty strong case for an underlying misogyny.
Far more prevalent is the issue of misandry and the casual disrespect that women show to men nowadays, rather than a few comments made by Trump.
lol speaking as a cis straight make the notion of misandry and the insults women face is frankly laughably. I would say this is how you see the world says more about you than it does about women.
Why don’t you explain why Trump isn’t misogynistic rather than this lazy position. It’s a big country out there, we can find people for any position. There is a yawning gap between men and women in terms of women against trump. Maybe you could explain that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Wow, that’s cynical. I’ll be muting this thread, just hope y’all will vote blue up and down ballot, cynical or not.
I recognize that this is probably a very confusing piece - I think necessarily because a lot of it falls outside of our standard frames of discourse and reference - so here's a summary of my claims:
1.The 'war of the sexes' is a real thing and pervades our social interactions. I think anybody who's reached adulthood would have to recognize that there's some truth in this statement.
2.Feminism, in its totality, represents a move in the 'war of the sexes' - i.e. a rebalancing of power, a rewriting of the social contract. This is not at all a values statement - just a description. Certainly, that's not what the majority of feminist talking points are, but this point has been made explicitly by radical feminists, and I would happily argue this description out.
3.In female-led institutions, some different patterns of leadership are apparent. This shouldn't be a particularly controversial statement. A great selling point of the feminist revolution was that female leadership would result in very different social structures (e.g. 'the future is female'). We can - at least haltingly, anecdotally - talk about what some of those patterns look like.
4.The trajectory of feminism is cross-hatched with American electoral politics, with voters often in a position of making gendered decisions (e.g. voting for a man vs. voting for a woman) and with gendered characterizations now a pervasive part of the political rhetoric.
5.The two major American political parties have to a great extent differentiated themselves along gendered lines - the numbers are unequivocal about this - and it seems more than likely that the key determinant in the election will have to do with voters' conceptions of gendered leadership, which is as much a culture question as it is about specific 'issues.'
The only normative claim I'm making anywhere in here is that, in our roles as journalists, chatterers, free-thinkers, etc, we should be capable of openly discussing what is obviously a fraught and complicated subject. Everything else is a descriptive statement.
- Sam
Thanks Sam. I entirely agree that our war of the sexes and therein contested sexualities needs to be more openly recognised and discussed in the public arena. I understand the philosophical history and cultural development of Feminism to run parallel to and interweave with that of Capitalism. Any attempts to analyse or critique aspects of its unintended social consequences quickly end up in similar my way or the highway conflicts. Conflict being at root the cultural dynamo that still informs all of our political nation state structures. Protestant or Catholic, Democrat or Monarchist, Southerner or Northerner, Red or Blue, Rich v Poor, Man v Woman etc… Conflict that is both exacerbated and further embedded by an unthinking feedback loop within our mass education, social media and advertising industries. I live in eternal hope that when enough of us perceive this historical philosophical faultline that continues to mess with all of us in our daily lives in hidden and nasty ways, that we may come up with a way to untie this Gordian Knot 🐈⬛
Very interesting. Thanks Monnina.
I really don’t think “war of the sexes” is a useful framing for what I think is a very persuasive argument. I also think that debating what feminism is and isn’t is a distraction here.
I think female and male styles of leadership/ decision making is the key point.
I found this persuasive, especially in the light of recently reading Joyce Benenson’s “Warriors and Worriers.” (But that is a controversial book which one wouldn’t have to agree with to find this essay persuasive.)
Thanks Jeremy. You're right that this essay maybe tries to bite off more than it should.
Hi Sam — I would have left the discussion, as you note, but for some reason at just that moment I had to resubscribe to the stack/blog, which distracted me, so I’m still here. But delighted to hear directly from you!
Not to belabor my original point, I think you are somewhat underselling the cis male population that I believe you mean to represent. Using my male partner as an example, I asked him yesterday if he’d felt left out of the discussion at the DNC (which he watched with me on TV). He looked a bit puzzled so I went on — was there too much talk about women’s issues? Reproductive rights? Women’s health care? No and no.
It may be because we suffered two miscarriages together 30 years ago (or because his sister became a single Mom circa 1968, with somewhat disastrous results for the entire family), or following any number of other experiences known or unknown to me— but he’s in fact quite interested in the politico religious issues surrounding human reproduction. Such interest of course is certainly not a requirement for you or anyone else, but given the number of conventions, States of the union and stump speeches I’ve sat through that have focused on US war making (from Vietnam to Iraq and on and on), “public safety”—including the opioid crisis—and “tax reform,” please do not begrudge your fellow voters this one candidacy. (Ps I’m a liberal-quasi-pacifist, but I DO like the way Vp Harris rolls the words “lethal force” off her tongue, don’t you?)
Feminists like me have been working hard to recognize the contributions men have made to our welfare—including reproductive rights (the majority opinion in Roe v Wade having been written by a man, after all, at a time when the entire Court was male). We simply could not be where we are today without the support of men. VP Harris began her acceptance speech, after all, by thanking her husband, the gracious “First Gentleman” Doug Emhoff.
I’m sure it’s jarring to many, not just you, that in 2024, the female majority of the US population is making itself heard both on our own behalf and on behalf of the US population generally, rather than continuing to occupy the margin as we have for so long. But…it’s not “war,” and the fact that the (predominantly Christian) R opposition chose reproductive rights (rather than, say, men’s education, the opioid crisis, or income inequality) as its rallying cry and claim to have made things so much better for the rank and file is not something to be laid at the D’s feet.
Interesting article in todays NYT (by the way) called “Trump’s Opponents See New Ways to Cast the G.O.P. as ‘Team Misogyny’” —subtitled
“The issue of gender dominated the campaign over a week that included a scandal in North Carolina and reporting on the fatal fallout of abortion bans.”—focusing on R Pres campaign and their Dear Leader’s unfortunate penchant for allying Itself with scumbags. Heaven help us if we wind up with another chaotic Trump Presidency, all because the Democratic Party’s optics/rhetoric/or lack thereof are human, and therefore imperfect.
Namaste, bro.
Hi Poetry,
I really appreciate the thoughtful comment!
So, with a lot of my pieces - and this one especially - I have a tendency to wear a lot of hats simultaneously. In political commentary, the main hat I'm wearing is (as a Democrat) being skeptical of the Democrats' election strategy. Watching something like the DNC, I'm really trying to see it as a swing voter would.
At the end of the day, I'm really not the audience who matters for the DNC - I'm going to vote for Kamala regardless. And I suspect that your husband isn't either. The audience that really matters are low-information voters in swing states, and the job of the campaign is to give them something that makes them feel concretely that their lives will improve. This piece - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/11/us/politics/undecided-voters-react-debate.html - is very revealing on swing voters' mindsets. "I want to know how all this affects my family financially," said one.
I've been struck at the effectiveness of what Trump is doing. He's appearing on podcasts like this one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC5cHjcgt5g - with a young comedian/influencer who's recently gotten sober and they have a wide-ranging, personal conversation about, among other things, the opioid crisis in middle America.
Harris, to win, really will need to have something to offer to the same kinds of people who watch Theo Von's podcast - whether that's emphasizing student loan forgiveness, or taking steps on the opioid crisis, etc. The Democrats have identified reproductive rights as a wedge issue - it worked in 2022 and likely will be a significant issue in 2024 as well - and they're dialing it up strongly. It's not a terrible strategy - since there are undecided female voters the Dems can still pick up, and, as we've discussed, males overwhelmingly favor abortion rights as well - but Harris at the same time can't afford to get blown out with male voters. There are a lot of very unhappy guys, maybe especially in the swing states. They feel that the trajectory of America is moving in a way that leaves them behind - the manufacturing jobs disappeared and opioids became a huge, unaddressed problem, and then on top of everything they're being told that their 'toxic masculinity' is why the world is falling apart. With Biden and his centrist positions, the Dems were hanging on by a thread to a lot of these voters. If they feel that Kamala isn't speaking to them in any way, they're going to go completely for Trump, and in an election as close as this one, that really could be the difference.
Thank you again for the note. Namaste to you!
- Sam
I really didn’t read this as expressing male resentment against a putative takeover of the Dem party by female interests, but rather a sense that the parties are sorting themselves in terms of gender-coded leadership styles and rhetoric. Even if this is true, plenty of men prefer Democratic styles and women prefer Republican ones.
I also don’t think he’s saying that the Dems *shoildnt* be talking a lot about abortion - it’s our strongest card, due tobRepublicans’ unpopular policies.
I now understand Sam to be talking about what he thinks undecided male ("unhappy guys") voters need to hear, rather than any general Dem party stance whether at the convention or on the stump/during debates--so, I think he & I were basically "ships passing in the night."
I've written elsewhere (in response to a R/undecided post I read somewhere--maybe NYT, where I also shoot my mouth off regularly) that the most important thing in a candidate, more important even than campaign promises, is their readiness for the unexpected--their ability to build an Administration of smart, dedicated public servants, including (for Pres candidates) a running mate who complements them, and runs with them as a team. This cycle, we have a bully/isolationist who has shown himself completely unable to build an Administration, nor to work constructively on either domestic or international issues, plus an equally dishonest rich boy running mate (granted, JDV escaped a horrible childhood environment), versus two seasoned administrators, a VP and a governor, both of whom "read" as caring human beings with the same pocketbook issues as voters have.
I can't hear with the ears of "very unhappy guys," nor do I know how they imagine--if they do--that another Trump presidency will make them any happier. Maybe the best I can hope for is that they'll stay home and let those of us who feel that positive change is possible--Kamala/Tim's overriding message at the DNC--vote in new leadership, instead of the handing our fates to a duo that disparages US chances for renewal.
Thanks Poetry. Nicely put.
I agree with both of those points. Thank you for that clarification.
An interesting piece, I will think through my response, but one of the first things that struck me was an echo, in your framing of George Lakoff's description, in the 90s, of Republicans appealing to a model of authority that he describes as, "strong father " and Democrats the, "nurturing parent."
http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
"At this point, a natural question arises. What gives rise of the cluster of conservative moral metaphors? Why should those metaphors fit together as they do? The answer, interestingly enough, is the family. Conservatives share an ideal model of what a family should be. I will refer to as the Strict Father Model."
By contrast, he says of liberals
"The Nurturant Parent Model. The family is of either one or two parents. Two are generally preferable, but not always possible.
The primal experience behind this model is one of being cared for and cared about, having one's desires for loving interactions met, living as happily as possible, and deriving meaning from one's community and from caring for and about others."
He is also operating at the level of broad imprecise generalizations, but I mention it to suggest that some of the gendered political split that you see is not at all new.
Nick,
I've missed sparring with you! I saw you've been reading up a storm on Substack.
That's a really interesting description by Lakoff. That strikes me as basically right but it's evolved since the '90s. The idea that MAGA conveys is 'you do you' - if you're a teenager, you sit in your room and play XBox, if you're an adult you do whatever you need to do to make a buck. On the other hand, the idea the Dems convey is - you have to come out of your room and sit on the table and make nice with your parents' friends and finish what's your plate and then do the dishes. What the parties seem to represent at this point is Id vs. Superego. To a lot of voters, the Dems just stand for taxes and regulation - and they really resent that.
Good to hear from you. Yes, I've been enjoying substack and finding that it offers a good way to be introduced to a rang of writing (thinking about my top-3 reads we have a music Stack, a stack which is political but with a fair amount of literary and music writing, and an old-school blogger who's also a comics artist).
I've been mulling over your post today and what I'd say is that you have a couple of interesting ideas presented in a way that, for me, they are in tension with each other as often as they reinforce each other.
If I were to try to disentangle the threads as they look to me (which will inevitable not match your sense of them). I'd say that you're correct to note:
1) A strong gender divide in partisan affiliation; in the rhetoric of the two parties, and in certain cultural institutions (as you note, higher ed is increasingly female).
2) That it's worth examining how the shifting balance of power manifests in daily life.
Your portrait of male- or female-lead office environments seems believable to me (I say having mostly worked for a very small company which is disproportionately male and which which has been a good fit for my own tendency to be an oddball introvert -- in ways which align with your summary).
That said you're fairly clearly describing stereotypes which are not going to perfectly align with reality -- I think there are a couple of cases in which your shaping the stereotype based on your own political interests. For example I'd note that much of what you describe as female leadership styles could also reflect someone who is concerned about challenges to the legitimacy of their leadership and trying to preempt that possibility. To the extent that's true it suggests the importance of seeing an evolving situation, not an expression of gender essentialism.
From that starting point I think it is interesting to ask:
1) How do men and women tend to exercise authority in their daily life?
2) What sort of leaders are men and women attracted to in politics?
3) What sorts of policies would be helpful to promote a society in which men and women both have opportunities to flourish (in ways that may be distinctively masculine of feminine)
4) Are there tensions between the answers to those three questions? Do the political styles that succeed in a world of gender polarization help or inhibit productive policies?
I don't know that your piece answers those questions for me, but it does seem interesting to work on those questions.
Hopefully at least some of that summary feel right to you. I started to think about elaborating on those points but then it got very long, so I'll leave it at that for now.
Ah Nick, you always force me to think.
I'll try to respond to each of your points.
In terms of 'stereotypes,' there's a fine line always between a 'general observation' and a 'stereotype.' It's sort of like the difference between a cult and a religion; or a dialect and a language. Just making a generalized observation - especially based on own's experience - is not a stereotype. A stereotype is when some passed-down generalized observation is ossified into an a priori belief for dealing with a new experience.
I think that you and I sometimes have different frames of reference. I tend to think of power as a sort of primordial entity that is genderless and precedes all of us - a bit like the 'force' or 'dark side of the force' in Star Wars. In human terms, power is based in inequalities and imbalances, and so there are essential power imbalances within gender relations. Women have the capacity for childbirth, which creates a tremendous power imbalance in anything related to procreation or childrearing. Women also have an inbuilt power around the sex act - an ability to say 'no' and to choose. This sometimes gets called 'pussy power.' There is also the power imbalance of upper body strength, which gives men an unequal power of violence.
Responding to your points:
1. Once we're in developed institutions - the modern office, etc - we're a pretty long way from any of these 'state of nature' type observations. Power there mostly comes from access to money and sometimes to the state's monopoly of violence. Power in the modern workplace tends to be organized hierarchically - with those at the top of the chain having access to whatever the vital resource is of said organization. That hierarchy is in theory genderless but if you put men or women in positions of hierarchical power some slightly different patterns will tend to emerge.
2. I'm not sure that men and women are necessarily attracted to different types of leaders in politics. What people want from leaders is, I suspect, largely the same across genders - people want security, benevolence, and relatability. Where the differences really start to come in is in male/female patterns of social organization. Think about what recess or the lunchroom looked like in middle school, where boys and girls tend to create very different social structures. Boys often tend towards sports or fights (joke battles are another from of fighting) in which they are trying to establish a vertical hierarchy but also ideas of teamwork. Girls often tend more towards talk and clique-building - these intricate social networks of inclusion/exclusion, of building up friendship coalitions and then sometimes betraying them. We can argue until the end of time about whether these types of gendered social organization are societally-developed or innate, but they have certainly been a big part of my experience of the world and I suspect of that of everybody reading this. Once we're in integrated office spaces in adulthood, those bifurcating types of social organization aren't nearly as clearcut, but in my experience some of those patterns are very much still there. A central claim of women in the MeToo era is that the workplace still has a patriarchal bullying culture built into it - that men when in positions of authority have an implied coercive power over women working in their employ, which is only ever a step away from sexual harassment or other types of harassment. There's certainly some truth in this but also of course some truth in the (less-discussed) other side of the equation, that men in a more female-dominated office space may be a disadvantage in navigating a different type of social organization.
3.I don't know that any specific policies would be of help. I think what all liberals were hoping would happen was that the integrated workforce would result in a co-ed culture, in which gender really didn't matter and anybody could fulfill any role without any problem. And sometimes that really happens and works very well - I've had educational and workplace environments where I all but forget about gender. But, more often than not, it's just not like that. There's always going to be somebody at the top of the organization. That person is always going to be one gender or another. And that person will always set the tone, whether consciously or sub-consciously. There's no way to guarantee that everybody is always going to have good bosses or bosses who are uniquely sensitive about these matters. I suppose what would help is having gender parity in executive positions - and that's something that the society is working towards. But it's not an easy goal - or an easy goal to force. And what seems to be happening more is that different industries skew towards being dominated more by one gender or another.
4.I don't think I understand your fourth question or what you mean exactly by 'tensions.' But, yes, I think where politicians can help is that they can genuinely be leaders, understand the deeper societal divisions, and work energetically to heal them. Obama was a model in that regard. Once we have Trump in play, all bets are sort of off, and the entire liberal side of the aisle is capable of thinking only about defeating Trump. But what grieves me - and is part of the impetus for writing this article - is that the Dems seem to be missing opportunities to coalition-build, to find wedge issues that would appeal to men or to actively court men. I think people inside the liberal bubbles have no idea of how much liberal rhetoric has alienated males - phrase like 'toxic masculinity' leave a long shadow - and rhetorical miscues like that can have dire effects in electoral politics, as well as contributing further to polarization.
Cheers!
- Sam
Thank you; that gives me a better sense of where you're coming from that the original "battle of the sexes" framing. A handful of thoughts in response.
I don't know that there's a clear distinction between "stereotype" and "broad generalization" but I can try to think through my associations with the word. Anytime you're making that sort of generalization it's worth taking a moment to stop and think, "how much confidence do I have in the picture that I'm drawing? Do I think this statement can hold much weight or is mostly a façade?" (I remember seeing the term "load-bearing beliefs" at some point and it's a helpful metaphor). For stereotypes there's a dynamic in which the beliefs are made load-bearing because society will push them to be true. You can see this in the term "stereotype thread" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat )
With that in mind I'd offer the following as not particularly load-bearing beliefs.
First, I think it's important to keep in mind the argument that feminism benefits everyone, and that it isn't purely a competition. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/08/gender-equal-international-womens-day-men
-----------quote---------
In more gender-equal societies men are half as likely to be depressed, less likely to commit suicide, have around a 40% smaller risk of dying a violent death and even suffer less from chronic back pain. Adolescent boys in those countries have fewer psychosomatic complaints and are more likely to use contraceptives. And sex? Contrary to the stereotypes, one study found that men with feminist partners reported greater sexual satisfaction, as did women with partners who supported feminism.
-----------end quote---------
Part of why I tried to separate the threads of politics and policy is that we do see a difference between which parties appeal to men and women, but that isn't the same thing as assessing which policies will benefit men and women.
It was funny for me, for example, in your original post when you made a comment about the DNC having, "precious little on manufacturing jobs, opioid addiction" since both of those are policy areas that I associate with the Democratic party. I think of "opioid addiction" as something that Democrats have been talking about for close to a decade. Perhaps it wasn't emphasized this year simply because of JD Vance on the opposing ticket (which makes me think that there should be a question about opioids in the VP debate). As far as manufacturing jobs go, you've probably heard say that "we need to make sure that Green Jobs are Good Jobs" over and over again and we just saw a major push towards industrial policy with the IRA and CHIPS acts. For example Noah Smith just recommended this interview about the CHIPS act which is both encouraging in terms of the obvious attention, thought, and effort trying to make it successful and you can see why it's a little early to show results yet: https://www.fabricatedknowledge.com/p/an-interview-with-dan-kim-and-hassan
-------------quote------------------
It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation, once there was a manufacturer manufacturing base. The institutions for training and education came along and did their work in developing the talent, right? But it's hard to do that without having a manufacturing base. And so I think we're going to see that we're doing the hard work of revitalizing our manufacturing and putting in the fabs and ecosystem they'll create.
And then, we want to make sure that the companies we are supporting have an executable plan to partner with local universities, community colleges, and even high schools to create talent pipelines to feed into their ecosystems. And we're encouraged to see how they're all doing. Now that we have created some momentum here, universities and others are coming to us for advice on how they can participate. And so, I see the tide turning there as well. And it needs to because that's the only way we can make it successful.
-------------------end quote------------------
So I think you should ask the question of, "what would it look like if people in the Democratic party were concerned with the challenges that men face?" From a policy perspective that might not be _too far_ from what we are actually seeing.
But, as you note, that politically that doesn't translate into a strong appeal for, "male swing voters."
In addition to your comment about leadership styles I'd mention something else. In fiction there are characters that are described as the "audience surrogate" Someone who is new to the situation and becomes the lens through which the audience can learn what's going on and what needs attention.
There is definitely a political divide about how that audience surrogate should be gendered, in the stories politicians tell. I think that has become more emotionally fraught. When I was growing up the overwhelming majority of stories were based around male perspectives and, to some extent, that was just taken for granted (and embodied in the language with the masculine being used to refer to a generic mixed gender group. For example "men" rather than "people" as a catch-all term).
Now, it's clearly a choice that people have to make, and that choice draws attention -- to whom is being highlighted or ignored.
I think that's going to be a real point of contention for a while. Personally I think the best solution is to arrive at a more gender-equal default, but that's not a simple transition.
Also, as you say, we can use terms like "gender-equal" but that average encompasses great variation. In certain situations men or women may have a significant advantage separate from the broad social default.
Finally, while you're thinking about this topic. I would highly recommend Alice Evans' Substack. For example this post about what social factors lead to gender divergence between men & women vs stronger overlap and shared beliefs: https://www.ggd.world/p/what-prevents-and-what-drives-gendered
-----------------quote--------------------
Men and women tend to think alike in societies where there is
* Close-knit interdependence, religosity and authoritarianism, or
* Common culture and mixed gendered offline socialising.
Gendered ideological polarisation appears encouraged by:
* Feminised public culture
* Economic resentment
* Social media filter bubbles
* Cultural entrepreneurs.
------------ end quote ------------
Or this recent post about marriage and social power: https://www.ggd.world/p/ghosting-the-patriarchy-female-empowerment
Thanks Nick. A couple quick things: I'd be a bit suspicious of that survey The Guardian cites. I just don't know how anybody could possibly run a meaningful study on this. What exactly does "more gender-equal" mean? How can you be sure that that heightened gender equality is what correlates to men's better health outcomes as opposed to myriad possible economic factors? The study itself is behind a paywall, but it seems to only be comparing European and North American countries against each other, which seems not very helpful.
I don't disagree necessarily. It's certainly possible that a "more gender-equal society" is "better for men." That's just such a broad statement that that we'd have to really talk it through. I'm also not really sure I know what "equal" means in the gender conversation.
I've been pretty affected by my experiences in documentary film. I've worked on a lot of shoots in different parts of Middle America, including some battleground areas. I'm just always so struck by the vast cultural difference between the crews I'm working with (almost all liberals) and the subjects of the documentaries. They just so often seem to be speaking totally past each other. I don't think liberals have a very good understanding of the opioid crisis, of the decline of manufacturing jobs, of the emergent 'crisis of men.' Republican candidates certainly may not do more on any of these than their Democratic counterparts but I do think they're speaking the language of aggrieved men much better, and that's a real electoral handicap for Democrats.
I agree that the quoted bit from the Guardian seems plausible, but I wouldn't take it as necessarily true.
I do think it's interesting the way in which we're still talking past each other a little bit. When you say, "I don't think liberals have a very good understanding of the opioid crisis, of the decline of manufacturing jobs ... Republican candidates certainly may not do more on any of these than their Democratic counterparts but I do think they're speaking the language of aggrieved men much better" my point is that "good understanding " and "speaking the language" are two distinct things.
I'm not sure that liberals have a good understanding, but from a policy perspective, I don't see a better solution (not just from Republicans; I don't know that international comparisons offer obvious improvements either. I think there are countries that have better drug policies than the US, but I don't know if that offers a model which would specifically address the opioid crisis).
I do think that "speaking the language of aggrieved men" matters from an electoral perspective, but I *don't* think it's a good marker for, "understands how to solve the problem."
In terms of your comment about documentary filmmaking, it reminds me of this recent post about the possibility of a "Great Global Divergence of Values" -- https://www.forkingpaths.co/p/the-great-global-divergence-of-values
And a lot of women voters resent the superego vibe and a lot of men dislike the unleashed Id vibe. Many of both sexes dislike both of them.
Your concerns about being silenced or marginalized always strike me as very personal. Have you been censored or #me too-d at some point ? You might enjoy or benefit from reading Gerda Lerner if you are trying to glean universal facts of the “gender wars” from pre-history to contemporary times.
Hi Kyra,
You're right, they are personal concerns. I haven't been canceled or MeToo'd or directly censored, but I've worked in or tried or break into several industries - documentary films, theater, publishing, also journalism - that all went through an intense politicization especially over the past decade. These sorts of questions were in the background of everything and touched everything. I'll probably write a more personal piece on all of this at some point.
Cheers,
Sam
Hi Sam - great references here on the mindset of undecided voters, and I will certainly follow up on them. I too see lots of concern on the economy, though I don't think "bidenomics" is (are?) entirely to blame, nor do I imagine that a Trump presidency would salve those particular wounds. But certainly it's important to know what the opposition is doing, and to counter it as best we can, not with our own Koolaid but with compassionate understanding of all sectors of the US population, and an appeal to sanity.
In short, I still have great confidence in Dem strategy and am looking forward to the election of our country's first female President/second President of color, and her decent, capable, White het male VP candidate.
Fingers crossed! I really hope you're right!
And, btw, we should give credit where it's due. The Dems did manage (belatedly) to get Biden off the ticket. They have a strong candidate in Harris. They stage managed the convention well. Harris won the debate and has been a strong stump speaker. They have at least a 50/50 chance of winning the election - but, since the election will come down to, likely, a few thousand voters in a handful of swing states, there is no margin for error here.
But, yes, here's to the Harris/Walz ticket!
I don't think they have a strong candidate. I think they have a good marketing department.
oh PS - my man and I, for all our differences (we're celebrating the 25th anniversary of our 1999 divorce this December <wink>) are definitely not "undecided"--fwiw, we also both hold graduate degrees, one MBA and one JD, and have joyfully put in our time in multiple endeavors, from blue collar to philanthropic, prior to retirement. (Though, is there really such a thing? she asked.)
Sam,
I agree with you about the difference in female leadership styles, that it has downsides and upsides - but I don't really see what that has to do with 'feminism' overall or Kamala in general. I also object to your take that 'feminism' is a 'war between the sexes.' Feminism is defined as full political and economic equality between the sexes, not the oppression of one gender for the benefit of the other.
In the Kamala world, this equality is based on class; rich and powerful men and women indeed enjoy equality (more or less) across race and gender lines. However, she did more to harm poor & struggling women of all colors than any other recent California AG.
I think you may be conflating the COS-play of identitarian 'feminism' with the real thing. Kamala certainly has no history of having a 'soft' management style; she has a history of being impossible, messy, vapid and mean - with aides quitting in droves. Kamala has no history of true feminist activism, unless threatening to imprison mothers in struggling families for their kid's truancy and act of 'feminism.' In her history as California's 'top cop' she provided cover during a wide spread scandal of cops trafficking kids, and another covering for a rape scandal with the archdiocese. Oh - and by the way, the Willie Brown charges are true. Now, of course adults can take lovers. But her meteoric rise to power in SF was due to that relationship; hardly model feminism in my view.
There was a particularly lovely case where a schizophrenic woman in crisis was wielding a knife - so the cops shot her (several times.) Not only did Kamala cover for the cops - she prosecuted the sick woman.
Her utter lack of empathy for the parents of slaughtered babies is hardly feminism. She repeats, , ad nauseam, the story of 'mass rape' (there is no evidence of mass rape) of Israelis but not a world about the 'mass rapes' we've seen on video.
What Kamala brings to the table is more of the same shit we've had since Reagan held office - and a continuation of what Joe Biden has wrought, which is an Oval Office where the resident has ceded all control to a group of out-of-control war-mongering ghouls.
Kamala might be branding herself as the modern face of feminism, but she's just another dude in a pantsuit. Real feminism doesn't cheer slaughtered children, advocate for more wars, brag about owning guns, or believe that our sons and husbands and fathers are less important than our daughters, mothers, and aunts.
Hi S.L.,
Of course you're right that the 'definition' of feminism is very different from my (controversial) interpretation of it. I guess I would just argue that "full equality" between the sexes is something of an impossibility - there's very little movement out there for men to have the ability to give birth, for example, and, between men and women, we are always dealing with some asymmetries. "Economic and political equality" is a goal that a lot of people can agree with, but it can get complicated when we get into zero-sum situations of men competing against women in the job market or for positions of power. There has been an active movement within feminism - Firestone, for instance - that argues not just for achieving metrics of equality but for very profoundly changing the social structures that can generate inequality. The word 'empowerment,' which is a very important word within feminism, has, of course, far-reaching consequences, since achieving power very often means taking power from someone else.
Please do understand that I'm not saying this by way of criticism of feminism. I think a reshaping of societal power structures is a completely valid project. We just can be mature enough to recognize that, in human relations, 'equality' can mean a lot of different things, and that any time a group obtains a greater share of social power it can come at the expense of another group.
This piece wasn't so much about Kamala specifically. I can respond to your points about her elsewhere.
- Sam
'Feminism' has become like every other 'ism' - an empty identarian trick - a pretense of social justice that costs nothing, makes liberals feel good, and gives our leaders another 'cultural' issue to divide us.
(Real feminism would be maternity and paternity leave, tax credits or cash payments for elder care, universal health, and universal pre-k through Uni.)
I think I need to go have another micro aggression.
Haha lol!
As someone who might be seen to pick apart things, I'll just say what Reverend Hale says of theology in "The Crucible," which is that an argument ought to be a fortress and that no crack ought to be considered small. I actually think there is potential for real harm with generalization and with loosely defined terms. And so I have this experience, Sam, of reading your work and really marveling at the incisiveness of much of it, and then feeling a visceral reaction against phrases like "a tendency to," which are often pretty large cracks in the reasoning because they render the assertions so contestable and threaten the integrity of the whole.
In this case, the boys team vs. girls team dichotomy is at least borne out by evidence. Political polarization is at an all-time high among young people and widening. This is a branding crisis for the Democrats if they hope to build an enduring coalition. It is one version of Mark Lilla's prescient argument in 2016 about the destructive arc of identity politics. And I have been encouraged by Kamala Harris's avoidance of that rhetoric.
Where I thoroughly disagree with you is on leadership styles. This is where I don't see any evidence and where anecdote cannot be enough to carry the argument. Theoretically, feminism would be more inclusive and egalitarian in the ways that you describe. But there isn't really a consensus among women about what feminism is. For some women it is exactly what you say: considering the historical plight of women ought to make any female leader mindful of power dynamics and responsive to those with the least power. For others it is more simply an "it's our turn" mentality, and any leader like that who gets a big stick is going to swing it for the girl team and scoff at male tears. I could add my own anecdotal examples, but I wouldn't consider them evidence of anything but my subjective experience. Here's where the subject really does require some disciplined scholarly attention. And this is one of the things I dislike most about Substack, is that it is not built for scholarship.
As you say, there's no need for Democrats to fall into the payback mentality. I still agree with Lilla that those binaries are self-defeating in the long term.
Hi Josh,
I had a feeling you would pick this apart and I take your points to heart.
As much as we agree on a lot of things, I do suspect that a place where we differ is at a fairly deep epistemological level. I'm not a scholar and I think I would go so far as to say that I don't particularly believe in data or maybe even logic. I think that, for human beings, it's impossible to get to any truth greater than one's own lived experience, honestly reckoned with. Of course, one's lived experience is limited - since one isn't everywhere all at once - and data and scholarship are invaluable at providing access to knowledge that one can't obtain on one's own. You're absolutely right that very often, as I'm rounding up an argument, I'll just finish up with my own instinct or intuition. But I don't apologize for this! I do think that, in the end, we all just offer subjective perspectives. One needs to be humble about the limits of one's own point of view, but I think that there can be no possible higher authority than this.
Happy to hash all this out more fully!
In terms of my leadership styles point, I would argue (as I do with S.L. above) that, beyond 'first, second, third wave' feminism, etc, what is most salient is a 'feminist consensus' that has taken root in liberal society - certainly, without any question, in the majority of offices and educational institutions I have been a part of. This defaults to a soft preference for hiring women; a certain deference to women's point of view; and a belief that, over and above any individual task the organization may be carrying out, there is a commitment to being on the 'right side of history,' which is understood to involve feminism's continued advance and women's continued empowerment. These premises have absolutely been the air I've breathed for years. I'm not arguing with any of them. I just do think they're worth stating openly and analyzing. You're right that I'm pushing things with my 'leadership styles' point - this doesn't go beyond observation. But what can I say? It's something that I've really noticed - that the male and female-dominated work environments I've been in have had a strikingly different character, and some of this (I suspect) has to do with some differing modes of male and female social organization. My experience of the playground was that boys and girls organized themselves very differently. I don't think it would be surprising at all if, in adulthood, male and female leaders exhibited somewhat different organizational tendencies.
Best as always,
Sam
Sam, appreciate your thoughts here. This is a really interesting (and testable) hypothesis: "My experience of the playground was that boys and girls organized themselves very differently. I don't think it would be surprising at all if, in adulthood, male and female leaders exhibited somewhat different organizational tendencies." It's certainly true that women face different obstacles to (or responses to) leadership and have to adjust accordingly. But I can't generalize from my own experience, and there's where data seems essential to any meaningful discourse.
Sure, there are problems with peer review, and there is plenty of scholarship afflicted with confirmation bias. But that isn't because the scholarly method is flawed any more than bad data means the scientific method doesn't work. Data and logic were a blessed relief from the hysteria in Salem, and that's still the best approximation of reality that we have, IMO. If we are all inherently subjective, the least we can do is hedge against our limitations, which is what data and reason do.
Otherwise, how do we know that all those kids got lead poisoning in Flint, Michigan, and it wasn't just a hoax to get government money? How do we actually know that young men are struggling?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but if you don't believe in data and logic, how can scholarship be an invaluable way to gain access to knowledge that we can't obtain on our own?
What I meant was that I don't see 'data' or 'logic' as authoritative. Certainly, they can be vital supplemental tools in helping us to expand the scope of our empirical knowledge and in keeping us honest about our intuitions. You put it very well that "data and reason...hedge against our limitations."
I'm not taking away from scholarship, which is a beautiful endeavor. But I am not a scholar and my method is a little different from scholarship. I like to share an intuition and impression - although certainly checking it against various forms of data - as opposed to contributing to an ever-expansive store of verifiable knowledge, which is what scholarship aims at.
I also think there are all kinds of complex cultural questions that would be extremely hard to get in any kind of data - I'm not even really sure how one could go about obtaining data for something as nebulous as leadership styles - and in situations like that the best we can do is offer the observations that we have.
Happy to discuss further!
Ah, that is a fairly deep difference in belief, then. I heard what you're saying, and some of your skepticism about all of this is precisely what I hated about trying to assess teaching excellence, which I thought of as, in many ways, impenetrably mysterious.
But I think data in its ideal presentation is an amalgamation of enough subjective experiences that discernible patterns emerge. There is a lot of "bad data" that masquerades as authoritative. But I think one could survey enough people on a topic like this, testing your hypothesis, to reach something better than an anecdotal hunch.
As one of your other readers pointed out, some of these things are deeply personal (I certainly have views of gender and the particular girlboss phenomenon that are heavily shaped by my failed marriage). And when things cut that close to the bone, I think we become less reliable narrators about the broader picture.
But you're making me think that this would be a really engaging panel discussion amongst some Substackers!
I was just reading the rest of the thread and several of your comments -- particularly this one -- helped me better understand how we were talking past each other. Thanks.
I know I will get some backlash, but as a woman, here are my observations:
1. While it is true feminism opened door to equal pay, it also necessitated a two Income family to economically survive; thus, a woman's choice to raise her children as a homemaker was demoted, ostracized, and in many cases, taken.
2. I do not vote for candidates based on gender. Never. What you say about Trump is spot-on: he defies description. He is a megalomaniac. However, most women I know plan to vote for him. Yes, I live in the Bible belt.To say that women will vote for Harris diminishes their intelligence as Harris campaigns with a depth of ideas similar to a cheerleader running for high school student council president.
3. Most women in the workforce would rather have a strong mix of men and women in the office. Most confident and intelligent women I know have experienced workplace harrassment at the hands on insecure and/or unqualified female coworkers. It is ruthless. You don't get this with men. The "Me too" movement shed light on the problems with men.
Thank you for your article. The subject is, indeed, complex.
Thanks for the comments Cathy! It is complex!
I have no idea if you are correct Sam but at least you are always interesting!
Thank you Anne! This was a challenging piece to press 'publish' on. Appreciate your engaging with it!