I’ve read a lot of opining about masculinity in the last two weeks, specifically about the two political parties.
First, there is a general consensus that the Republicans and the Democrats are not just presenting different policies, and we know they are on different sides of the culture war, but part of that is the very different versions of masculinity that are on the ticket (and the ticket is loosely defined).
On the GOP side you have Trump and Vance. And they are doing, and have done, everything they can to portray an image of toughness. They want to be known as fighters. Part of that image is that they are constantly on the attack. They put their opponents down. They put women down. Trump is trying to tout the narrative that he has been supportive of women in his administration, but that is a hard story to tell when his whole persona is one of denigrating women and women’s spaces. You can’t exactly talk about grabbing women by their most intimate areas against their consent and be a force for equality. And Vance can’t open his mouth without belittling women. Anybody who believes that childless women shouldn’t have a say in America’s future does not respect women or women’s choices. And their gruff image plays into this ideology. The whole party is really invested in the image of men as inviolable. Men can’t be afraid or tainted by anything “weak” or “too emotional.” Men have to be tough and traditional.
I have to make a sidenote about the “emotional” thing. That is such bs. Men are every bit as emotional as women – even the ones who are 100% invested in traditional masculinity. It’s just that we’ve been trained to think of men’s emotions as normal or just boys being boys. Because you know what – anger, resentment, jealousy, and rage are all emotions! And often those emotions are the result of burying OTHER emotions! Men get angry. Some of them get furious. And we’re supposed to buy that they are somehow not emotional? No, that’s crap. It’s just that we have marginalized women’s expressions of emotion and elevated men’s. Somehow men’s expressions of emotions are somehow signs of strength and leadership while women’s expressions of emotions are signs of weakness or irrationality.
And if you need me to draw a line between those dots for you, then the patriarchy is alive and well. When Trump gets angry and yells things like, “You’re the puppet!” after being called Putin’s puppet, I’m somehow supposed to believe that this anger, resentment, and, frankly, immaturity is a sign of “leadership” because he’s “telling it like it is” and “cutting through the bs” and “draining the swamp.” But honestly, it’s just a man’s emotions running wild and making him unable to communicate clearly.
So, what do the Dems have to offer that is any different?
Before I talk about this, I want to clarify that this is not meant to be an endorsement of the Dems, so much as an analysis of what they are presenting to the public. I will freely admit that I will be voting blue, but I also admit there are problems with that ticket. But I am firmly of the belief that voting isn’t about finding the perfect candidate, it is about finding the best candidate. And I say that because there are marginalized people in my life that I love very much who would suffer mightily if too many people voted for a third party and it ushered Trump into the White House again.
But, all of that is neither here nor there. The question on the table for today is what does masculinity look like?
Well, there is Trump and Vance on one side, and on the other side we have Tim Walz, and to a certain extent Doug Emhoff.
I actually want to start with Emhoff.
When he started speaking at the convention, I was initially unimpressed. He seemed a bit awkward, and his delivery wasn’t exactly confident or soaring. But the more he got into it the more I realized this was something special – this was something great.
Emhoff’s whole speech was about how he loves and supports Harris. It was a speech about his family, his tenderness, and the happiness he gets out of spending time with his loved ones. It was gentle. It was caring.
It was the anti-Trump.
Emhoff presented a completely different picture of masculinity than what the GOP has been serving us for the last few years. And I think that is worth noting.
Where Trump and Vance come out swinging, Emhoff gave us a pat on the hand, or maybe even a hug. And he told us not about how he wanted to assault or constrain women, but how he loved and supported the women in his life, and his whole goal was to lift up this one particular woman and be there for her and be the best man he could for her.
When he said in his silly voice, “It’s Doug,” I think a lot of people smiled and laughed, because that is what we want from the men in our lives. We want somebody who will just love us.
This is a very different picture of “manhood” than what Trump has been portraying the past few years. Trump wants us to believe he is the kind of man who will take care of us by starting a war for us. He will fight or belittle anyone who opposes him or us. Emhoff is the kind of man who will take care of us by lifting us up and making us feel good about ourselves. And after about a decade of vitriol some people might be looking for a loving dad, not a would-be-bully.
So, let’s talk about Walz, then.
Walz is, in every way, the kind of guy who should be a “man’s man.”
He was in the military for years. He was a football coach. He is a hunter and had a stellar rating from the NRA until he started fighting for progressive causes. His position on guns didn’t change at all, but just by being blue, the NRA tanked him. He’s every Republican’s dream!
But he’s one of the most progressive people in mainstream politics right now.
And there’s lots of talk out there about how he is America’s dad and how he is loveable and silly – but I think he is performing some of the functions that our friend Doug is. He is showing us a version of masculinity that has been missing for a while.
We all saw Guz Walz stand up and exuberantly celebrate his dad’s achievements. It was a beautiful, outward expression of love and support that you don’t often see from men or teenagers. And the best part is that nobody tried to hush him. Nobody told him to sit down or keep him constrained. Tim Walz was just as excited that his son supported him as Gus Walz was to support his dad.
And when the Walz family all met up on the stage they cried and laughed and hugged.
This is not just a family that loves each other, but these are parents that have created an environment in which it is perfectly okay for their kids to express their joy, their admiration, their excitement, and their affection. In the Walz family, it’s not weird for somebody to jump up and say, “I’m proud!” or “I love you!” That’s just how the family behaves.
Tim Walz isn’t a billionaire. He’s a teacher with no investments. The videos he posts aren’t him standing in front of a flag attacking his opponents, they are of him riding the slingshot at the state fair with his daughter.
Can you imagine Trump at the state fair? Can you imagine Trump riding the slingshot???
And I want to hearken back to something I said last week – about the “weird” label. Republicans are trying to hard to turn the “weird” label back on Walz and his family. But I think they are just confused as to what I am getting at right now. Walz presents a kind of masculinity that they just really can’t deal with. He is kind, compassionate, and nurturing. He is a football coach, but he was the sponsor of the GSA at his school. He guided young men, but he wanted feminine hygiene products in the locker room for visiting women’s teams who would use those spaces. And the right is trying to label this weird. The thing is, they might really think he IS weird. Because his version of masculinity is completely opposed to what they have been presented with for really the past ten years or so. Walz (and Emhoff) and showing us a picture of masculinity that is kind, loving, and wants to see you do your best.
Compare that to a masculinity that is harsh, oppressive, and wants to keep you in your place.
Now, I have, admittedly, not said anything really all that original so far. There are many people out there who have observed that what we are getting out of the two parties are very different pictures of what it means to be a father or a parent or a leader in some way.
But here is where I want to depart. And I am warning you. I am about to get weird. And if you don’t follow me to this destination, I totally get it. This is some wild, theoretical stuff.
Let me start with this:
Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are completely invested in Empire. They are imperial in the cultural sense, the economic sense, and the military sense. That’s why I started with that disclaimer – I acknowledge there are serious problems with both parties. So, while, yeah, I’m voting blue, I recognize that means I am voting for the military industrial complex.
America is an Imperial power. There’s just no way around that. And if you watched the last night of the DNC, you saw just how invested in Empire the Dems are. I had whole conversations with people about how I thought it was a misstep to end the DNC on Empire and cops instead of something more hopeful, but I get that you needed to do something to bring in the moderates. You have to show them that there is something more than just hope and vibes.
The thing about Empire is though, that it depends on patriarchy.
I mean this in the most logistical and cultural senses, too.
Pragmatically, patriarchy organizes empire. Patriarchy is the means by which property is handled and economics is rendered operational. In a patriarchal society you know who is in charge, you know who handles the money, you know who owns the property, and you know who is the authority.
There is also the cultural organization. In a patriarchal society cultural norms are easily recognized. You know who leaders are. You know the hierarchy.
I lay all this out for you to think about because I want to make the wild claim that a challenge to patriarchy is a challenge to empire.
Now, I know that may seem like a far reach.
But consider what patriarchy does. Consider the function of patriarchy. When you try to upset patriarchy, you aren’t just asking for equal wages, you are asking for an upheaval of society. Patriarchy orders empire. It gives us our proprietary and societal rules to follow. So, when you challenge that, it is not just a challenge to your creepy boss, it’s a bigger move.
So let me see if I can put a few thoughts together.
First, I do not want to make the claim that the Democratic Party is in any way outwardly anti-Imperial. I don’t think they would ever do anything to explicitly challenge empire.
But.
People like Emhoff and Walz DO challenge traditional masculinity roles.
Okay, what does all of this mean?
I think the response from the right – the confusion, and even repulsion – elicited from Tim Walz, Gus Walz, and Doug Emhoff, are a response to these two connected branches of the same tree: masculinity as gender identity and masculinity as empire.
There are people who absolutely cannot fathom a caring man. They are befuddled by men who would rather hug you than hurt you. And that is a searing indictment of American masculinity.
Secondly, and I don’t think anyone would consciously say this, I think when there are challenges to toxic masculinity some people subconsciously see it as a challenge to empire.
Traditional masculinity has organized our society for generations. It has brought us to where we are in terms of economics, culture, and sociology. And a different picture of masculinity could require a different version of all of those things.
So be on the lookout for the attacks on Walz, and even his family, and Harris’s. Look for what people try to label as “weird” or “creepy.” Notice the coded attacks against the men on the left and ask yourself what are they really upset about?
I think a lot of it boils down to the fact that they are just weirded out by a nice man. Because nice men are bad for mean men, cultural hegemony, and the economy.
Which doesn’t say a lot for any of those things.
Music in this episode is “Fearless First” by Kevin MacLeod at https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3742-fearless-first.
Leave a Reply