This article is fantasy. Populism is best understood as a reaction to the failures of globalization and the corruption and incompetence of the elite class including the experts. Covid put all of that on display. The Epstein files are a marvelous sequel. The president of Harvard and economist big wig! Obama's White House attorney and Goldman Sachs general counsel! Former POTUS and head of Clinton Global initiative! The list is endless.
I am a woman, well educated, feminist and I am a populist. And I know men who are well educated like me, as well as guys with only a high school degree who are all populists. Our populism was inspired by seeing our towns destroyed by globalization, our factories close and move to China. All the while, the elites push an increasingly radical cultural narrative around anti-racism, transgenderism, green virtue signaling, and mass immigration. That was just a cover for their looting of our economy.
No, we dont admire Putin. On the contrary, American populists are mostly anti-authoritarian. We don't like strong and aggressive central government telling us what to do. We saw during covid just how incompetent and corrupt the so called expert class is. We are smart enough to realize that Putin and Orban are authoritarians, just a different flavor from the would be authoritarians in the west.
Isabelle, your point about the visceral reality of "towns destroyed" is the only one that actually accounts for the sheer scale of the catastrophe unfolding in the American interior.
While Gunitsky attempts to pathologize populism as a niche "incel" grievance, the data on Deaths of Despair suggests he is missing the forest for the trees. Since 1980, the Rust Belt has seen a 332% larger increase in deaths from suicide, overdose, and alcohol-related disease compared to the Coasts. We are talking about an annual "excess death" toll of approximately 160,000 people. A number that dwarfs the casualties of every war in our history.
By labeling these preventable deaths as a "gendered grievance," elites can continue to ignore the fact that for many, the "Trump Wrecking Ball" isn't a political choice. It’s a desperate act of self-defense against a system that has become a terminal risk to their lives. When will they heed their own call to, "Stop blaming the victims!"?
I think the author conflates the desire for some men to live like traditional men, and the desire by some men to repress women. The former does not require the latter necessarily. Some aspects of modernity (ie feminism) equate and demonize both, and that is an error. If we want to reconcile society, we need to be nuanced on these matters.
I think there is a lot of truth to what the article says. But I wish it would account for the Rassemblement National in France, which is headed by a woman (or maybe two women, if you count Marion Maréchal-Le Pen), and Fratelli d'Italia, which is headed Giorgia Meloni. What does it mean that two of the most important European populist movements are led by women? How does this figure in?
It’s much more than that. Alice Weidel and to a lesser extent Sanae Takaichi both also exemplify the same thing. I think male resentment is almost totally unconnected to the wave of right-wing populism.
“The elevation of women is the great achievement of modernity, and probably what makes modern life tolerable compared to much that came before. But it also by definition requires the partial feminization of traditional social structure”
I agree with much of this sentiment. Partial feminization has genuinely brought gains, and there are portions of society which still could go farther. However, the feminization has been applied unevenly. Many sectors, particularly education and academia with honorable mentions to journalism and entertainment, have gone far past partial feminization to almost complete feminization. It is undeniable that there has been a cultural overshoot which needs to be rolled back to a point of optimality. Women and femininity have won, and gained lasting and meaningful gains for themselves and the US (the world as a whole is of course mixed). There is a reluctance to acknowledge this and feel secure in culture’s change, but if things do not start moving back in the right direction - equality - resentment will only, and rightfully, grow.
Just another article using the extremes of the so-called manosphere to paint every man who is opposing the increasing feminization of modern societies as a reactionary misogynist. Instead of talking about these people maybe try to talk to some reasonable critics of the current cultural landscape? Try Richard Reeves, Arne Hoffmann from Germany, Helen Lewis. To me this article falls way short of the usual great standard that Persuasion publishes.
There is no ONE cause of anything ... but we really overlook the need for people to feel secure in their place when analyzing disruptive movements like the modern populist wave. Lots of people focus on economic displacement to explain populism, but social displacement is a major cause. One small example -- when people sit in classrooms without assigned seats, they gravitate toward the same seat/area. If someone "takes" their seat, they are unhappy/uncomfortable. Even without the dominance/subordination narrative, there is discomfort in change. Traditional gender roles are very comfortable for people (even women) who desire that kind of stability, even where navigating 'the devil you know'. Today's populist leaders find support from all kinds of people, each with their own reasons, but this article articulates one cause that I have personally believed in for a while. In the US, I'd also add the overreach by the progressive left in their thought-policing around language and expression as another cause that is also less articulated than the uber-masculine appeal of the strongman.
Was Fidel Castro a populist? How about Hugo Chavez? Chantal Mouffe called for a populism of the left for the simple reason that “le principal clivage dans nos sociétés est celui qui sépare les « perdants » des « gagnants » de la mondialisation et que leur intérêts ne peuvent être réconciliés.” I dont believe she is part of the manosphere, but rather she recognizes that there are winners and losers with globalization. Working class men have been big losers. The anti-globalists at The Battle of Seattle a quarter of a century ago were predominantly leftist. I don’t know whether or not they were populists. It seems that they were largely correct on many fronts.
In Capital et Idéologie Piketty dismissed the word populism as a « terme fourre-tout souvent utilisé par les élites pour disqualifier des mouvements politiques dont ils ne se sentent insuffisamment aux commandes. » I think he was right.
Ultimately, the fact that men are aggressive should surprise no one. That men should pursue manly pursuits is not a revelation. Neither should we be surprised that online influencers are often greedy and vulgar. That probably means that there is room for more traditional podcasts focused on gentlemanly behavior and books about travel and adventure. We should start by erasing the term « man cave » from our vocabulary. I’m going to go work out now.
It seems to me, and this is gonna' make my wife mad at me again, that evolutionary biology has patterned females as needing to be taken care of, and males to do the taking care of.
The feminist dream of male domination is not only doomed to failure, but even equality is likely not an achievable goal... as males and females are different... they can never be equal.
My view for optimizing gender relations and outcomes is to accept:
- There are two genders: male and female
- Both genders are different and thus cannot be equal
- Both genders should have absolute life-choice as long as they don't harm others
I think the "freedom to choose" was the actual target that feminism should have aimed for, hit and then went away.
I think there may be a bit of a correlation-causation problem here. It may be a little bit this, but it is probably also the kind of personality most likely to assert itself when it does not fit or thrive within the modern paradigm. You can see versions of the same dynamic in some women too - aligning with these men, or acting out a feminized version of the same grievance-driven, attention-seeking posture. At least part of this is probably just about who is willing to make a scene.
This article is fantasy. Populism is best understood as a reaction to the failures of globalization and the corruption and incompetence of the elite class including the experts. Covid put all of that on display. The Epstein files are a marvelous sequel. The president of Harvard and economist big wig! Obama's White House attorney and Goldman Sachs general counsel! Former POTUS and head of Clinton Global initiative! The list is endless.
I am a woman, well educated, feminist and I am a populist. And I know men who are well educated like me, as well as guys with only a high school degree who are all populists. Our populism was inspired by seeing our towns destroyed by globalization, our factories close and move to China. All the while, the elites push an increasingly radical cultural narrative around anti-racism, transgenderism, green virtue signaling, and mass immigration. That was just a cover for their looting of our economy.
No, we dont admire Putin. On the contrary, American populists are mostly anti-authoritarian. We don't like strong and aggressive central government telling us what to do. We saw during covid just how incompetent and corrupt the so called expert class is. We are smart enough to realize that Putin and Orban are authoritarians, just a different flavor from the would be authoritarians in the west.
Poul
Isabelle, your point about the visceral reality of "towns destroyed" is the only one that actually accounts for the sheer scale of the catastrophe unfolding in the American interior.
While Gunitsky attempts to pathologize populism as a niche "incel" grievance, the data on Deaths of Despair suggests he is missing the forest for the trees. Since 1980, the Rust Belt has seen a 332% larger increase in deaths from suicide, overdose, and alcohol-related disease compared to the Coasts. We are talking about an annual "excess death" toll of approximately 160,000 people. A number that dwarfs the casualties of every war in our history.
By labeling these preventable deaths as a "gendered grievance," elites can continue to ignore the fact that for many, the "Trump Wrecking Ball" isn't a political choice. It’s a desperate act of self-defense against a system that has become a terminal risk to their lives. When will they heed their own call to, "Stop blaming the victims!"?
Thank you. Well said.
I think the author conflates the desire for some men to live like traditional men, and the desire by some men to repress women. The former does not require the latter necessarily. Some aspects of modernity (ie feminism) equate and demonize both, and that is an error. If we want to reconcile society, we need to be nuanced on these matters.
I think there is a lot of truth to what the article says. But I wish it would account for the Rassemblement National in France, which is headed by a woman (or maybe two women, if you count Marion Maréchal-Le Pen), and Fratelli d'Italia, which is headed Giorgia Meloni. What does it mean that two of the most important European populist movements are led by women? How does this figure in?
It’s much more than that. Alice Weidel and to a lesser extent Sanae Takaichi both also exemplify the same thing. I think male resentment is almost totally unconnected to the wave of right-wing populism.
“The elevation of women is the great achievement of modernity, and probably what makes modern life tolerable compared to much that came before. But it also by definition requires the partial feminization of traditional social structure”
I agree with much of this sentiment. Partial feminization has genuinely brought gains, and there are portions of society which still could go farther. However, the feminization has been applied unevenly. Many sectors, particularly education and academia with honorable mentions to journalism and entertainment, have gone far past partial feminization to almost complete feminization. It is undeniable that there has been a cultural overshoot which needs to be rolled back to a point of optimality. Women and femininity have won, and gained lasting and meaningful gains for themselves and the US (the world as a whole is of course mixed). There is a reluctance to acknowledge this and feel secure in culture’s change, but if things do not start moving back in the right direction - equality - resentment will only, and rightfully, grow.
Just another article using the extremes of the so-called manosphere to paint every man who is opposing the increasing feminization of modern societies as a reactionary misogynist. Instead of talking about these people maybe try to talk to some reasonable critics of the current cultural landscape? Try Richard Reeves, Arne Hoffmann from Germany, Helen Lewis. To me this article falls way short of the usual great standard that Persuasion publishes.
There is no ONE cause of anything ... but we really overlook the need for people to feel secure in their place when analyzing disruptive movements like the modern populist wave. Lots of people focus on economic displacement to explain populism, but social displacement is a major cause. One small example -- when people sit in classrooms without assigned seats, they gravitate toward the same seat/area. If someone "takes" their seat, they are unhappy/uncomfortable. Even without the dominance/subordination narrative, there is discomfort in change. Traditional gender roles are very comfortable for people (even women) who desire that kind of stability, even where navigating 'the devil you know'. Today's populist leaders find support from all kinds of people, each with their own reasons, but this article articulates one cause that I have personally believed in for a while. In the US, I'd also add the overreach by the progressive left in their thought-policing around language and expression as another cause that is also less articulated than the uber-masculine appeal of the strongman.
Was Fidel Castro a populist? How about Hugo Chavez? Chantal Mouffe called for a populism of the left for the simple reason that “le principal clivage dans nos sociétés est celui qui sépare les « perdants » des « gagnants » de la mondialisation et que leur intérêts ne peuvent être réconciliés.” I dont believe she is part of the manosphere, but rather she recognizes that there are winners and losers with globalization. Working class men have been big losers. The anti-globalists at The Battle of Seattle a quarter of a century ago were predominantly leftist. I don’t know whether or not they were populists. It seems that they were largely correct on many fronts.
In Capital et Idéologie Piketty dismissed the word populism as a « terme fourre-tout souvent utilisé par les élites pour disqualifier des mouvements politiques dont ils ne se sentent insuffisamment aux commandes. » I think he was right.
Ultimately, the fact that men are aggressive should surprise no one. That men should pursue manly pursuits is not a revelation. Neither should we be surprised that online influencers are often greedy and vulgar. That probably means that there is room for more traditional podcasts focused on gentlemanly behavior and books about travel and adventure. We should start by erasing the term « man cave » from our vocabulary. I’m going to go work out now.
It seems to me, and this is gonna' make my wife mad at me again, that evolutionary biology has patterned females as needing to be taken care of, and males to do the taking care of.
The feminist dream of male domination is not only doomed to failure, but even equality is likely not an achievable goal... as males and females are different... they can never be equal.
My view for optimizing gender relations and outcomes is to accept:
- There are two genders: male and female
- Both genders are different and thus cannot be equal
- Both genders should have absolute life-choice as long as they don't harm others
I think the "freedom to choose" was the actual target that feminism should have aimed for, hit and then went away.
The most female-supporting people are those that reject the current 3rd wave feminist agenda.
I think there may be a bit of a correlation-causation problem here. It may be a little bit this, but it is probably also the kind of personality most likely to assert itself when it does not fit or thrive within the modern paradigm. You can see versions of the same dynamic in some women too - aligning with these men, or acting out a feminized version of the same grievance-driven, attention-seeking posture. At least part of this is probably just about who is willing to make a scene.