A 2021 study by psychologists Theresa Vescio and Nathaniel Schermerhorn found that hegemonic masculinity was a better predictor of whether the American people saw Donald Trump as a good leader in 2016 and 2020 than sexism or racism alone. It was perhaps a better predictor than "trust in the government" or even party affiliation. This study needs a closer look, and so does a recent article written by Elizabeth Spiers in the New York Times, a day after his victory.
It is vital to note how Trump consistently polled high amongst all American males, across race and other socio-economic identities. It’s part of a persistent trend that aligned with what happened in 2016 (when Trump was contesting against Hillary Clinton) and now in 2024 (against Harris Kamala).
It’s not as if other factors don’t or didn’t matter.
The comprehensive nature of Trump’s victory does give a lot of other variable factors a chance: inflation, economic insecurity, heightened uncertainty, useless foreign policy, a weak Democratic leadership in Biden etc, but still, one factor that consistently weighed in favour of Trump’s return to power was his macho-leader image possessing an intrinsic capability to drive disruptive change for securing the people's well-being (independent of what past evidence suggests).
When Tucker Carlson invited a crowd to imagine how preposterous it would be for Harris to claim victory, he said, “She got 85 million votes… because she’s just so impressive as the first Samoan-Malaysian, low IQ, former California prosecutor ever to be elected president.”
Trump’s rambling speeches in more than 900 rallies made this kind of bigotry normal, not only in the Republican camps but also in mainstream American public discourse.
As Spiers argued in her column for the Times, “Professionally successful, non-childbearing women can look like a threat, both to the men who adhere to these ideals and to the hierarchy that enables the men to justify their status and power.”
For (American) men who feel displaced, isolated, and alienated, accusing women and minorities of benefitting from an unfair advantage, and demanding that their so-called subordinate position be restored, might be an appealing option.
It’s a sentiment that the Trump campaign and Trump himself have quite commonly promoted, rally after rally, and even in interpersonal conduct during his previous presidential term. There is little hope that this term will be any different in this regard.
This is also part of an ideological framework that populist-authoritarian figures like Trump embody to cater to a conservative, hyper-masculine tendency amongst male voters. There are some who embrace a newer definition of masculinity, one that is more open to empathy and softness, and reliant on communication. Still, there are countless young men who choose to be hyper-masculine and follow far-right “manosphere” influencers.
Spiers also argues how one can "connect the dots — the snide insults and the brotastic podcasts and the attack on reproductive rights and the emphasis on natalism — and you get a world in which women are told to drop out of the labor force and attend to domestic matters, making themselves sexually available (but only to their husbands), producing children and supporting their husband’s career, regardless of the effect on their work, time and happiness."
It then becomes clearer to understand how Harris failed to cater to this group of voters who imbibe and exhibit regressive masculinity. Some might say that maybe she could have done more to accommodate this group's insecurity and announce prescriptions to garner their support (say, proposing military service as a cure for male alienation, or avoiding reasonable critiques of sexism because they might make some men feel that they are being attacked).
In any case, all of this would only aid in reinforcing hegemonic masculinity and that is incompatible with a vision for America where the needs and interests of women and minorities are not valued less than those of white men.
What about going forward?
The MAGA movement’s toxic mix of ignorance, vitriol and bravado poses a threat to the men most likely to be drawn to it. The Covid-19 pandemic is a clear example from the past. Trump and his supporters portrayed defiance of public health measures, like wearing masks and practising social distancing, as matters of manhood and toughness.
Studies have shown that this kind of toxic masculinity was a major driver of vaccine hesitancy in men, which in turn was a contributing factor to the disproportionately high excess death rate for Republicans after the vaccines became available.
Trump leaned into his hyper-masculine anti-science agenda by promoting his “Make America Healthy Again” slogan with anti-vax conspiracy theorist Robert F Kennedy Jr, an archetype for toxic masculinity in his own right, who has reportedly been promised a role in Trump’s administration.
Let's take gun violence as another example. In 2022, NBC News reported on a study that linked conservative policies to higher mortality rates among working-age people. According to the report, “Conservative policies on guns — such as fewer bans on semi-automatic weapons or more lax background check rules — were associated with higher suicide rates among men.”
The overwhelming majority of gun violence in the US is committed by men, and activists and researchers have long pointed to hyper-masculinity as a driver of gun violence. And, the MAGA movement has done a great deal to discourage men from receiving the mental health care and attention they need.
As Ja’han Jones argues here, “We see this in the right-wing attack on suicide prevention programs and “social and emotional learning” programs in school, which experts have used to help boys better process their emotions”. And yet, MAGA even found a way to stigmatise mental health and demonise immigrants at the same time by falsely claiming that the Biden administration is welcoming them from “insane asylums” and “mental institutions.” As Jones emphasises, “MAGA men get the message, and it's just one of many ways they've endangered their own health - and others’ - thanks to their allegiance to Trump.”
My larger concern here is how this detrimental effect may now not only be limited to the context of the US alone, taking the unholy shape of having a wider effect on a more conflicted multi-polar world order.
[Deepanshu Mohan is Professor of Economics and Dean, IDEAS, Office of InterDiscplinary Studies, OP Jindal Global University (JGU), India. His teaching affiliation for taught courses in areas of comparative political economy, development studies, research methods, is with the Jindal School of Liberal Arts and Humanities at the University (JGU), where he is also Director, Centre for New Economics Studies (CNES), and Senior Research Fellow, International Institute of Higher Education (IIHED). He is currently visiting Oxford University as a Visiting Research Fellow at the Asian and Middle Eastern Studies (AMES). Prof. Mohan is also a Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and is associated with Birkbeck College’s Faculty of Social Sciences as an Honorary Research Fellow.]
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)