The Men vs. Women Election
Editor's Note
With each election cycle, we move further and further from the republican ideal of citizens engaging in good-faith disagreement, of campaigns as an exercise in persuasion. Increasingly, our politics divide into one side versus the other — two regimes with irreconcilable understandings of what our nation is and ought to be.
As Peachy Keenan notes, one way that division breaks is a simple one: men vs. women. This can be explained in large part by the Kamalists’ explicitly anti-man messaging. They understand the nature of our crisis — a cold civil war between two regimes — and they conduct their politics accordingly. Have Republicans learned the same lesson?
The trends are clear: young men are veering right; young women are veering left in dramatic numbers. All through the election, women favored Kamala by large percentages, and men did likewise for Trump. This trend is all but certain to continue. In fact, the gap is likely to widen into an unbridgeable canyon.
But what if I told you that the political gender gap in America was not strictly about gender? Well, for women, I think it is. Women have been conditioned to fear and distrust men, and many have had bad experiences with men in their own lives that they project onto any man who wants to “be in charge.” A female leader is emotionally more comforting, less scary. They’re seeking rule by Mother Hen, not by rooster.
But what about young men? Is it actually the case that young men will only vote for men? Or is there something else at work here?
The latest talking point on the culture war, and the election, is that men, especially America’s errant chads and bros, want no part of a Kamala Harris presidency. But can you blame them? They are, as Michelle Obama scolded in her one Harris campaign appearance, the problem. They don’t care about abortion as much as women do. They’re rapists, and some, presumably, are good people. But only if they vote for Kamala. Voting for Kamala Harris is the only way to show the world you are not a woman-hating Nazi fascist.
Can anyone say “deplorable”? We’ve seen all this before. I have the strangest feeling I’m reliving Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, only this one has a veneer of diversity.
Hillary and Kamala both wore an endless series of monochrome pant suits (Hillary liked brights, Kamala sticks to fall tones).
Hillary and Kamala both chose white, gold-plated beta male VPs named Tim. You can practically smell the bottom of Kamala’s boots on Walz’s breath.
Hillary and Kamala also ended their campaigns with an endless critique of men.
Oh, why don’t men we’re bent on erasing from society like us!? Truly a mystery!
But blaming misogyny for the political gender gap is wrong. Instead, blame the ideology. Young men don’t shun Harris and similar candidates because they are uterus-havers. It’s not their chromosomes. They shun them because they have learned over the past decade that women like this have been trained to shun them. To support policies that relegate men to second-class citizens. They have learned that in the identity-based caste pyramid, they come last.
They understand the real-world implications of the bumper sticker feel-good phrase, “Girl Power.” It means girls diminishing men and rendering them powerless. They get that, in America, young straight men — particularly white men and any man who does not call himself a feminist “ally” — are the enemy.
And it’s not jut men who dislike Kamala and her ilk. I am a woman, and I despise Kamala Harris – is that my internalized misogyny, or am I just clear-headed? And what about the many other smart, highly educated women I know personally who would crawl across broken ceiling glass to vote for Donald Trump? Is that their internalized misogyny, or are they just too smart to get suckered into voting based on gender?
My theory is that gender actually doesn’t matter. Well, it does, but only on the Left. On the Right, politics still reign supreme. If Kamala Harris and Donald Trump swapped bodies, and suddenly Orange Kamala in a pantsuit was calling for mass deportations and no wars, trust me: she would be the guys’ candidate of choice.
If the choice this year was between Tulsi Gabbard and Kamala Harris, millions of right-wing young men would vote for Tulsi without worrying about her gender.
Is there misogyny on the Right? I hear there is, so maybe. But I can say personally that the only hateful comments I’ve ever gotten on social media are 100% from the left. I have gotten death threats, threats of violence and sexual assault, and name-calling by Biden-Harris voters. I can’t hold it against them, though; those people are profoundly retarded and as a Christian, I am called to treat the disabled with grace.
As proof of my theory, I predict that quite soon we will see the rise of powerful female politicians on the Right that can capture the imagination of the MAGA base and conservative men and women. Will J.D. Vance choose someone like Tulsi Gabbard as a future running mate?
I predict a large crop of female candidates to rise from the ranks and take on the hegemony of the progressive Longhouse that offers nothing but abortifacients, confiscatory taxation, and foreign wars. In fact, right-wing politics will be a ripe job market for zoomer and alpha women. They’ll have scant competition, and the demand for them will far outweigh supply.
Remember that Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton failed with men because they were terrible candidates who offered nothing but an infinite supply of cringe, pandering, and anti-male policies. Though they would project this charge onto their opponents, they were the ones who pitted one half of America against the other — explicitly so. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is a unifying figure. Over 50% of white women voted from him in 2016 and 2020. This year, his base is a diverse rainbow coalition of people from every race and every walk of life.
The Kamalist myth of gender supremacy must be debunked. The future may be female, but the men are not dead yet.