‘Be a man and vote for a woman’: Kamala Harris’s unlikely edge in America’s masculinity election
‘Be a man and vote for a woman’: Kamala Harris’s unlikely edge in America’s masculinity election
“I don’t see why any man would vote Democrat. It’s not the party of virtue, security. It’s not the party of strength,” Watters said, shortly after White Dudes for Harris held a call with more than 190,000 participants. Watters added: “I heard the scientists say the other day that when a man votes for a woman, he actually transitions into a woman.”
Uh... what? Are we sure this isn't a The Onion article?
if "will people think i'm alpha if i do this?" plays any part of any decision someone makes, then they're most definitely not manly, let alone whatever the fuck they define "alpha" as
Alpha means caring deeply about what others think of you and conforming to their expectations, right?
…right?
Almost every time I read an article from a liberally coded publication of how gender affects political affiliation, it comes off as both hopelessly out of touch and extremely patronizing.
I feel like this article fundamentally misunderstands the issues it is trying to claim expertise on. There was no discussion of the very real struggles men face today. There was also extremely limited discussion on how young men vs older men view gender in politics, a genuine answer on why conservative claims of masculinity under attack resonate with Gen Z men in particular, or a discussion of how some liberals behave in a sexist way themselves.
The part about "benevolent sexism" was downright insulting. A huge complaint among younger conservative men is "benevolent sexism" towards women in the democratic party. Even a lot of liberals will admit that there's way too much of the "women are wonderful" effect going around without any real checks on biases.
This is all of course coming from the guardian, which has had some of the most insufferable takes on gender over the past decade. It's frustrating enough when some op ed shames every single man for the actions of a few, like the guardian did with catcalling. It's on another level when they then publish another article by the same author where she complains about not being catcalled after 30 somehow blames men for that too.
I personally think Trump will underperform with men. I specifically think he himself doesn't understand the issues young men have, a small minority of his older base have his tuned out without telling anyone, his surrogates focus on the wrong things, and his turnout machine is gonna end up being trash. However I think that going forward democrats will have to put in real genuine work to win over male voters, and that will require acknowledging some uncomfortable truths that they are unable to do.
As a sidenote, I encourage everyone to read Christine Emba's op-ed in the Washington Post. It provides a lot better a framework on what's happening.
Unfortunately convincing people to understand all this requires a very strongly pushed but very moderate opinion, which is difficult to express in a meaningfully correct way
Couldn't have said any of this better myself.
I just went to look for the catcalling article you mentioned (it's this one) and she is obviously not "complaining" about not getting catcalled. Instead, she's talking about how her ageing affects her sense of self-worth. Her getting catcalled less often is only the impetus of this reflection, not the actual source of her negative feelings.
I'm pretty sure the subtitle of this article was altered since the initial release. The first one was something like "I feel worse now that I'm not being catcalled, and I hate the patriarchy for making me feel that way".
Her articles generally consisted of some valid points on feminism mixed with absolutely outrageous statements and claims. The latter was intentionally designed to offend, because the mid 2010s was the peak ragebait era for news.
As a sidenote I think a huge portion of toxicity in the culture war is just bad faith actors trying to use it to make a profit.
Couldn't care less what's in Trump's or Harris's pants, nor whether or not voting for either is 'manly'.
I don't want a fucking Nazi in the white house; and Harris's policy stances are for the most part ones that the US needs.
I could see gender becoming a factor as a tie breaker if all else were equal, just for representation sake, but all else is not equal: another Trump presidency would be disastrous for way more than just the US, vs Harris being actually qualified for the job. There is no contest here.
Gender ain't in the pants, it's in the brain.
Donald Trump doesn't give a crap about men other than himself.
if trump is the definition of "manly," then i'm renouncing and defenestrating every element of masculinity in my being
except my penis. i'll keep that just to piss them off
Or those who never had any option or attempt at bettering themselves, and cheer for someone failing upwards.
That option was always available, it just wasn't the easy option.
It's worse than that... These people have severe cognitive issues.
If they could read, they'd be very upset by what I just wrote.