Soft Power
The Left is from Venus and the Right is from Mars
This election season has been a wild ride, to say the least. Not one, but two assassination attempts, a palace coup to oust the incumbent President; joy, fascism, cats and dawgs.. The Cheneys are supporting a Democrat nominee and a Kennedy is on Team GOP. No wonder pollsters have been throwing up their hands – 2024’s race for the White House is an Upside Down.
But polling for this election has concretized one long-time trend: women are heading left, while men are heading right. “One of the defining features of the election is a massive gender gap between Harris and Trump, with women supporting Harris by a 14-point margin (55%-41%) and men backing Trump by 16-points (56%-40%),“ according toNBC News. New research shows that in younger generations, the gender divide is even more pronounced.
Yes, one candidate is a man and one is a woman, but there’s more going on than that. See if you can detect a pattern. Trump went to McDonald’s, Harris went to a Planned Parenthood. He exudes confidence, she exudes tentativeness. Trump has the support of rocket man, Elon Musk; Harris is endorsed by proudly-childless cat lady, Taylor Swift. Trump appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Harris sat down with Brene Brown. One campaign is running on bold action (or at least promising it), the other is happy to roll with vibes, hopes and aspirations (and promising very little).1 Writer Mary Harrington observes that there is even a strange dichotomy between the physical assassination attempt on Donald Trump and the political “assassination” of President Biden – one, a brutal act of violence by a solitary, young man; the other a whisper campaign by a faceless swarm. No man gets to choose his Waterloo, but in a bizarrely cosmic way, these events seem strangely apt.2
It’s not a brand new observation that liberal politics is coding female. The left, currently formulated, is preoccupied with feminine preferences: collectives, emotional displays and “a more collegiate [model of society] with a focus on consensus-formation rather than chains of command, and a more indirect means of dealing with enemies” (as noted by Harrington). The left’s priorities embody a continuation of the zeitgeist behind feminism – all barriers to personal autonomy should be abolished (and paid for, natch). And so, progressive women are fiercely protective of abortion and transgender “women” in female sports; then, causes such as reparations, open borders, climate, the plight of Gaza and censorship of speech get mashed into the unified struggle for the equity “omnicause”. Here’s a helpful observation: “If you think about it, the typical feminist political victory takes the form of persuading some other agency to do something or intervene on their behalf. It is a politics of empowerment and empowerment almost invariably rests upon the existence of some more fundamental power that acts as one’s patron and comes to your aid against other parties.”
More fundamentally perhaps, some of the attraction of leftist ideology for women can be chalked up to women doing what they have always done: seeking protection and provision for themselves and those they feel responsible for. Some years ago, Jordan Peterson linked progressive activism with misplaced maternal instinct: “the political landscape is being viewed through the lens of a hyper-concerned mother for her infant.” (But maybe don’t tell that to feminists.) Historically, the sources of protection and provision were men and marriage and the church. But with all of these demoted in value in the last few decades, the state has replaced them as the default source of deliverance. Exemplified by President Obama’s administration, liberal political messaging assures women that the government is more dependable than a man and being independent is more fulfilling than marriage and motherhood.
The oft-heard complaint by conservative men on the internet that modern America is a feminized place is perfectly understandable. It’s not just that there are generally more women in the public square and the workplace than a century ago, but where they are placed. Women may not occupy the most powerful positions in society, but they naturally gravitate towards less conspicuous yet very influential spaces which impact society in ways that a president or CEO cannot. (I’m not saying that is a conspiracy, only that women’s natural affinities lead them to care and hospitality work, language professions and community organizing). One blogger sums it up like this: “While men generally do dominate in positions of overt and direct public power and authority, women often exert considerably more indirect and relational power in their communities and societies.” So, even in their occupational choices, women are prominent in values-disseminating vocations – academia (especially psychology and law), teaching, library services, counseling, Human Resources and the arts. As the left has dominated American institutions for most of the last two decades, the culture has fed and been fed by feminist ways of thinking.
David French once wrote a frank piece capturing the affect of this change on the ground:
“Our society is unlearning masculinity, it’s feminizing every stage of male life, and boys are paying a steep price…stereotypically male characteristics of aggression, risk-taking, and high-energy work and play are ‘toxic’ and need to be medicated or educated right out of the home…We don’t need as many strong backs and strong arms to make America great. There are more cubicles, more people typing, and more people talking. It’s great to be glib. Strength is strictly optional. Oh, and when cubicle-working men do try to carve out their own spaces for hobbies, sports, and other pursuits, they’re often mocked…In place of teaching men to channel their aggression and adventurous spirits in productive ways, we ask them to stifle their truest natures. In place of teaching them to protect others, we lie and declare all violence to be bad. Instead of telling the truth that men and women are different, we try to transform men into women.
Despite all this, the left will insist that America is still afflicted with toxic masculinity. If you search for definitions of toxic masculinity, you will find similar symptoms listed to those French was speaking of. Violent behavior and sexual promiscuity are put on a par with shirking on his “fair share” around the house, taking too many risks and not expressing emotions.3 The left is not anti-men, they say, just certain types of men. This recent advertisement presented some things VP Harris’ campaign thinks a man should be. Yeah, he lifts, drinks bourbon and eats his steak rare, but he subscribes to a feminized, superficial kind of masculinity, the kind a liberal woman would approve – he cries at movies, asks for directions, and in a reversal of God’s design, likes women who take charge. It’s not a problem that men might cry or ask for help, but pitching those things as a mark of masculinity is misguided.
So which is it? Is America overly feminzed or toxically masculine? I submit that it’s both – what we have is the worst version of both sexes. The cultural choices presented to women are pretty awful – shoot for girl boss or become a screeching harpy activist or try a dour (or fake) tradwife existence. Men have similarly abysmal models – self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate, the effete and uxorious “wife guy” or perhaps an “incel” languishing behind his keyboard. This is the fruit produced by a society which tries to pretend that there are no differences in the sexes. But “differences in sexes don’t stop just because we subscribe to a gender-neutral world,” as Christian blogger, Alistair Roberts points out. All this kicking against God’s reality ends up normalizing either useless and disorienting androgyny or destructive extremes, both of which serve no one. Joy Pullman argues this in a recent piece:
We have feminization where there should be masculinity, and masculinization where there should be femininity. Our women are pushed to act like men, and our men to act like women, and the resulting social transgenderism makes everyone extremely unhappy, not to mention dysfunctional. Both sexes are out of whack. We are all transgender now.
We must talk about this, as Alistair Roberts admonishes his readers to do. In his lengthy post on the disconnect between men and women, he argues that the progressive aim to flatten out all distinctions is harming society and needs to be discussed, not brushed to one side. (His post is excellent; full of insightful observations and is well-worth sifting through, when you get a chance.) While “men are naturally highly protective of and closely bound to the women in their lives” (as it ought to be), “men cannot trust men whose primary concern is what women think, or who demonstrate little concern for what other men think…Men like this cannot be relied upon to show appropriate loyalty to other men, nor to speak the truth when those actions might displease women.” Roberts’ insight reveals that recovering true masculinity is not about trucks and guns and football, but something more fundamental.
Roberts points out that men are often oblivious to how women operate, which contributes to dysfunction. Women use their wit and way with words to gain social status with “conversational games”. Men have power, he says, but women have leverage. “Where some men might throw a punch, many women know that the carefully engineered put-down can be far more shattering.” Roberts pins a lot of this on “failures of healthy forms of gendered socialization”. “The social virtues that are elevated in women’s groups tend to be things like inclusion, supportiveness, empathy, care, and equality” whereas young men need to be trained for “strength, honor, courage, and mastery.“ The maternal instinct “calls us all radically to accommodate to weakness” but the manly code “calls us all to play to strength.” To do this, boys and men need mentors and fathers. The also need spaces where they can just be males. (Note that progressives are now worried about right wing dominance in men’s spaces and hobbies – they might be incubating fascists!)
It may seem that I have been unkind to women here or that I have put too much blame on men. Have men abdicated their responsibilities? Have women bullied them into it?4 Women have used their soft power to shame men or pout over the unfairness of it all5, and men have opted to be soft rather than do the hard work of taking charge. We have arrived at this place because neither sex has done a stellar job of understanding its God-given strengths, which is showing up in the gender divide for this election.
But as I see it, if both are responsible, either can begin to fix the problem. For the women, Joy Pullman reminds them they need to stop competing with men and embrace all that’s good about being female. For the men, blogger Dave Greene observes that today, we have too much distance between actions and consequences. He urges listeners to think about “how can we create systems that have tight feedback loops such that responsible…masculine politics emerges from that dynamic – and I'm not trying to be misogynistic – but all real politics are masculine politics”. It sounds grand but so much change can start with little revolutions right at home. We women should encourage each other to “love our husbands and children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed,” as St Paul writes. Men could heed St Paul as he admonishes Christian men to be “sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience.”
Whatever the outcome this November, America will continue to flounder in its purpose and identity if men and women don’t recover who they are. The battle of sexes may seem inconsequential compared to what happens in Washington, but the enmity between men and women is one of the oldest curses to ever fall on mankind, as Genesis 3 records. It is the source of all kinds of evil. Think about how the devil is happy to break down the reality of sexes and have Babel in every home – a household divided against itself cannot stand. Divided households cannot support a nation that prospers.
But there are good things already happening. Women will likely be aware of small movements that are promoting love of homemaking and mothering. But men are also finding their feet. The silly game of trying to obey secular progressive rules has sent men back to church. Consultant and writer Aaron Renn says the intentional choice of young men to seek out a surer foundation in church may be the good disruption the church needs, as well as a way to heal the rift between sexes. Mary Harrington proposes that men are waking up to the notion that dysfunction in our culture is, at its core, spiritual. “I don’t blame those young men who read the signs and portents, and conclude that the world really is stranger than the moderns thought and maybe gods and demons actually are real…And if this is so, perhaps we really are in a spiritual war — and the only rational place left to stand is in a longstanding spiritual tradition, with a well-worked-out approach to demons and the uncanny [- the church].”
Wielding the mighty word of God is not soft, but is mighty for pulling down strongholds. If you haven’t joined the Sons of Solomon, a global prayer movement for men, find out more about it here.
Although ostensibly chosen to help win disenfranchised men, the nominees’ running mates are also like night and day. Senator J D Vance handles hostile media with clarity and sense, whereas Governor Tim Walz won’t stand by his own claims, pleading a “knucklehead” defense. Vance joined fishermen for a bro-friendly competition but it’s not clear whether male voters will be convinced by Walz’ display of hunting ability. Vance epitomizes the idea that you can make something of your life with grit and determination; Walz’ governorship pushed woke equity programs in Minnesota and he has said that government should protect people from nasty speech.
Of course, these are loose comparisons. Whisper campaigns are not solely carried out by women, nor is violence the preserve of men. And there is plenty of evidence that the differences between the two major parties are not so pronounced as conservatives would hope when it comes to global “uniparty” agendas. But no matter what you think of the parties and their policies, there are obvious reasons why one side is resonating with men and one with women.
Whether male suicide is always linked to stoicism and whether everyone needs to subscribe to the Western psychology’s formula for processing trauma is up for debate; a subject for another time…
From Roberts: “Women’s competition, by contrast [to men’s], is largely carried out by such means as pressure to conform under the threat of social ostracization, leveraging male power to their advantage, recruiting males to attack people they dislike or rally to their aid, forming friendships or relationships with people of power or influence, gossip, cattiness, sassiness, sabotaging other people’s reputations, veiled antagonisms in friendships, etc. It is so successfully dissembled that remarkably little is said about the fact, for instance, that the majority of—and much of the most damaging—misogynistic abuse is instigated by women, even in cases where men are involved. Within a mixed group, men would rarely be able to bully a woman without permission from or the instigation of other women in the group.”