The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
Harris states (once? more than once? over the years?) that we should have the "most lethal fighting force." Those behaviors are words.
Yet, she refused the death penalty for a cop killer. That behavior is behavior.
Behavior predicts behavior. Her words will predict her words, and her behavior will predict her behavior.
Putin and all of our enemies in the world can distinguish between something said at a convention to attract voters and actually meaning it when it's time to engage in behaviors.
We trust none of the four candidates to take these threats seriously. We are voting for neither party.
We needed Tammy Duckworth and Mark Kelly: Two people whose past behavior will predict their future behavior.
I doubt Duckworth and Kelly are much for the death penalty. And I don't think being skeptical of the death penalty indicates a reluctance to send military aid to allies. If Putin looks at Trump and Harris, obviously Trump is more enthusiastic about the death penalty (though he did pardon a cop killer), but Trump is also obviously the better choice for Russia. In fact, Trump is more isolationist than Harris.
Regarding skepticism towards foreign wars, the cranks that have realigned are all men. I’m skeptical the “lethal force” appealed to the cranks. Glenn Greenwald etc. are the most skeptical and were most ardent defenders of civil liberties back in the Bush days. You’re getting something wrong or not capturing another axis: women tend to be more supportive of “institutional state power” to crack down on bad actors. Men think there needs to be a wider overturn window, not “mercy” but just tolerance of more views. Which explains why Glenn Greenwald types were defending Muslims caught up in Bush War on Terror and now defending January 6 rioters getting longer sentences.
Not to sound silly, but the "gap" or disparity might be a matter of (and thereby analogous to) anatomy -- the differing perspectives of an "outie" vs an "innie." A male is more likely to experience himself as acting in (or penetrating) the outside world -- while a female might be more inclined to focus on how the world could enter (or impact) her life. It might even be interesting to see whether there are gender differences in views regarding "nature vs nurture."
One aspect of this, indeed, involves different approaches to risk. (For that matter, the crux of the disagreement on nuclear power vs fossil fuels is arguably about existing vs potential [new] risks.)
"It’s for people who think January 6 was bad, abortion should be legal, and Trump seems mentally unstable, but who also believes that the world is an inherently violent place and that prosperity and social stability hinge on the willingness of “good guys” to organize and use violence for constructive purposes."
This sounds like it describes almost every Democrat - anyone who supports redistribution or the very existence of government, not just the Male Men of the Democratic coalition...
The big problem with this is that the things men like more than women are mostly stupid. As regards energy, CCS has never worked at ll, geothermal has never delivered at a scale that matters, nuclear fission is too slow and expensive to make a difference (apart from restarting existing nukes) and nuclear fusion is a pipe dream. Meanwhile, solar+storage is doing the job and getting cheaper every day.
Similar points apply to the various forms of violence that appeal mostly to men, but I've already poked enough hornets.
Harris has to pander to these prejudices to win, but let's not pretend that these are matters of preference rather than false beliefs. And the more pandering you do to get elected, the more constrained you are after you win.
I don't think the gender gap is about policy but about communication. I'd argue that men are more likely to want communication that feels unsupportive or unnecessarily harsh to many educated women.
To put it another way, I think men are more likely to want canidates to say, "if push comes to shove I'm going to put your interests in front of the interests of immigrants" and sure then they are open to the argument that there isn't a conflict or there is a positive sum solution. I think women are more likely to see that kind of communication as needlessly harsh and something you only say because you actually don't care about immigrants.
I say men and women here but obviously this only correlates to a degree with gender. I suspect that it correlates as or more strongly with education and other factors that divide the parties.
Several of my lib friends, including the lib woman i was sorta dating at the time, lost their minds over the “world’s most lethal military” line. I was like, what do you suppose a military should be other than lethal af?! So disappointing 🤦🏽♂️
I've been following this on X/Twitter, and it is such a brutalizing story. I sat with it privately for weeks before telling my gentleman friend, deciding ultimately he had to hear it, had to know what's out there, had to hear how utterly depraved the husband and his invitees were, let alone how the French courts have treated Pelicot.
I can't read most of the article. How does the case of this violent group of men relate to the headline "Not All Men, But Any Man"? And how is that relevant to Matt's article?
To me, not the OP, but it's relevant because this comment section has several people bemoaning that the Western world doesn't celebrate men enough, is too feminized, supports women too much, too harsh on masculinity, etc. This rape case is a high profile example of the fact that many Western men - nearly 100 in a small area - are either willing to do violence to innocent women or to at least not stop other people from raping an innocent woman. It's not about collective guilt, but about an illustration of why women don't have social equality yet. It's the backdrop to how women live and why so many of us are put off by violence and prefer things to be "feminized."
Also, "not all men, but any man" title is a reference to the fact that often the men women trust most are willing to show a sexually violent side, so many women are afraid that even the men they trust secretly want to hurt them. And in cases like Ms. Pelicot's, they are. It's incredibly difficult to tell which men are safe or not, and even moreso to know which men would intervene if they saw you being attacked by another man.
It's totally absurd to treat that group of men as being representative of Western men in general.
Do you not see how it could be problematic being a young man who has done nothing wrong, tries to do the right thing, and yet still might get branded as a potentially violent rapist?
I mean, sorry women are afraid of men being rapists? Here’s a high profile example of nearly a hundred guys - well-respected guys, police officers, city councilors, businessmen - getting involved directly in this, with god knows how many more people were aware of it and did nothing. Most women know someone who was raped by someone they trusted if they haven’t outright experienced themselves. No, not at all men are rapists, but it’s impossible to tell which men are or aren’t, so yes, most women conduct themselves with fear and suspicion.
Okay well, you're free to demonize men as rapists and criminals in the exact same way Trump and Vance demonize immigrants and minorities as rapists and criminals.
But when people like you act like that, don't be shocked when you see men preferring to associate with and, most importantly, vote for the political ideologies/movements/parties that don't demonize them.
Y’all get demonized because *we get raped*. No wonder women pick the bear; a man who doesn’t bother to understand why women may be suspicious of men probably doesn’t consider her safety very important.
"Harris is reassuring doubters — mostly, though, not exclusively men — that she’s not one of those people who would shy away from killing others in defense of American society."
This is an insightful observation. I suspect Matt here is describing in part how the comment reassured *him*, because he believes.
I also have a personal intellectual, and even more temperamental/emotional 'filter' that screens out or devalues people who might be "one of those people who would shy away from killing others in defense of American society."..........even though I intellectually recognize you get no good results by indiscriminately lashing out violently in the *general direction* of an enemy, and its an illusory promise to control the violence process.
At times, women need the reassurance that a would-be leader won't let the national/tribal community won't get taken advantage of nearly as much as men....like after major terrorist attacks like 9/11, but yes, it is gender imbalanced, with men more temperamentally inclined to think this way and to accept there will be additional casualties on both sides and women more quickly discouraging themselves on considering costs in lives. Post 9/11, I personally noted women being more all-in for a variety of fortress America defensive anti-terrorist provisions, but less enthused about the striking out at terrorists in their lair offensive operations than men.
In the belief "that the world is an inherently violent place and that prosperity and social stability hinge on the willingness of “good guys” to organize and use violence for constructive purposes." I am in my gut with Matt, even though I am for gun control, and know that as a statistical matter, the civilian good guy with gun method rarely is a good antidote to random crime - Unintended consequences outweigh intended by a high multiple.
In that regard, I would suggest that me and Matt, who have probably pulled the lever for Dems over Reps in *very* election, have some *emotional* kinship or commonality with swing voters or 'cross-pressured' voters who have gone both ways. The swingers have sometimes swung right over violence-related issues. I've always still intellectually convinced myself that the weight of likely policy impact that realistically empowered Dems could have in my lifetime would be superior to what would come from the policy/utilitarian impact of realistically empowered Reps. In that way, I'm Liberal/Progressive in mind, but at times Conservative/Reactionary at heart. [not all the time, but yeah, some of the time]
..........and I'm someone who's pulled the lever for Dems all the time, and sometimes for the more left populist alternative.
So, if that's my gut nervous reaction, think how conservative/reactionary the impulses and instincts of genuine undecideds/sings/cross--pressureds/independents are likely to be on average, and how badly appeals primarily to high-minded liberal cosmopolitan temperament, that assumes they are universal givens accepted by all, can flop.
Among all the factors listed here, I think censorship of speech and cancel culture are probably the biggest reasons. Men like to talk trash (both liberals and conservatives), either for fun or to let off steam and then forget all about it the next day. The penalty for doing that has become unacceptably high, specially if they are about race or gender or some protected group. DEI and AA is another area where most men (moderates and conservatives) favor meritocracy over diversity and representation.
"And I think talking more about these issues — particularly if she can get coverage in media outlets that men pay attention to . . . "
As with everything else in politics that caveat in the second half of the sentence is key. Harris making each of the points that Matt recommends is a tree falling in the forest with no one around if it doesn't break through. So you need a two-pronged approach: say things that help attract men's votes and do it in a way that makes the media prick up their ears and amplify it. "Lethal" fighting force did that because it wasn't part of the Democratic brand and it was a female candidate saying it. Saying she'd shoot the poor fool who broke into her house did the same thing.
But doing that as more than a lucky one-off is really hard, or at least hard to control. In part, it's just luck or fortuitous conflation of events. No one could predict that Tim Walz's "weird" shtick would break through or that Project 2025 would become a big thing. Like the main character in "Shakespeare in Love" explained it, "it's a mystery."
I would like to hear more about the implicit assumption that this won't drive away as many or more women as it gains men. Does this strategy rely on "going on Rogan", and if so, could it backfire if (for example) the New York Times runs a story about how Kamala is trying to be different things to different people? Or is the argument that men care more about nuclear power than women? In general, the median voter theorem says that you should try to moderate your image and this would seem to be in line with that, but "women" are not the left flank of the Democratic party!
I don't think Harris is at risk of losing women voters by going on Rogan. No woman who's already planning on voting for her will decide to sit it out or vote for Trump because she started talking about gun rights and going on Rogan.
Hah, I was going to post this comment and got all the way to the very last comment before finding someone had posted it already. I think this is a really big missing piece from the article. Sure, Harris could talk up things that men like more than women, but, uh... why wouldn't that turn off as many, or more, women than it picks up in male supporters?
Shame this is buried so deep in the comments nobody will read it.
Every time I read about gender differences, I feel like a mutant weirdo freak, because I'm a woman, but my positions tend to code as masculine. I strongly support nuclear energy. I think the death penalty should be used very sparingly and only in cases where the evidence is overwhelming, but I believe there are cases where it's justified, like some depraved serial rapist-torturer-killer or the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. I was a bit startled when Kamala said that line about the "most lethal military in the world," but I agreed with her: *someone* is going to have the most powerful military, and I'd much rather it were us than Russia or China or North Korea.
Of course, I am one of the 14% of Slow Boring commentariat that is female, so I am in no way representative of women. Also, I love Star Wars - the original trilogy, the Thrawn novels, The Clone Wars, some episodes of Rebels were really good - and I don't like the Disney+ Star Wars content other than Andor. The Acolyte straight up sucked.
drosophilist, I hear you, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that you happily engage as part of the 14% female SBers. Why? I don’t think we know yet, but I do think these traits are correlated.
I'm the opposite, I'm a man whose positions tend to code as feminine. Reading through this article it was strange finding myself on the "women" side of so many issues, though it was mostly the "violence"-related issues, since I tended to side more with my gender in the "science and technology" section. I think I am just averse to violence to general. It would explain a lot of my opinions from my dislike of American gun culture to my general apathy towards contact sports.
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
Harris states (once? more than once? over the years?) that we should have the "most lethal fighting force." Those behaviors are words.
Yet, she refused the death penalty for a cop killer. That behavior is behavior.
Behavior predicts behavior. Her words will predict her words, and her behavior will predict her behavior.
Putin and all of our enemies in the world can distinguish between something said at a convention to attract voters and actually meaning it when it's time to engage in behaviors.
We trust none of the four candidates to take these threats seriously. We are voting for neither party.
We needed Tammy Duckworth and Mark Kelly: Two people whose past behavior will predict their future behavior.
I doubt Duckworth and Kelly are much for the death penalty. And I don't think being skeptical of the death penalty indicates a reluctance to send military aid to allies. If Putin looks at Trump and Harris, obviously Trump is more enthusiastic about the death penalty (though he did pardon a cop killer), but Trump is also obviously the better choice for Russia. In fact, Trump is more isolationist than Harris.
Regarding skepticism towards foreign wars, the cranks that have realigned are all men. I’m skeptical the “lethal force” appealed to the cranks. Glenn Greenwald etc. are the most skeptical and were most ardent defenders of civil liberties back in the Bush days. You’re getting something wrong or not capturing another axis: women tend to be more supportive of “institutional state power” to crack down on bad actors. Men think there needs to be a wider overturn window, not “mercy” but just tolerance of more views. Which explains why Glenn Greenwald types were defending Muslims caught up in Bush War on Terror and now defending January 6 rioters getting longer sentences.
Not to sound silly, but the "gap" or disparity might be a matter of (and thereby analogous to) anatomy -- the differing perspectives of an "outie" vs an "innie." A male is more likely to experience himself as acting in (or penetrating) the outside world -- while a female might be more inclined to focus on how the world could enter (or impact) her life. It might even be interesting to see whether there are gender differences in views regarding "nature vs nurture."
One aspect of this, indeed, involves different approaches to risk. (For that matter, the crux of the disagreement on nuclear power vs fossil fuels is arguably about existing vs potential [new] risks.)
"It’s for people who think January 6 was bad, abortion should be legal, and Trump seems mentally unstable, but who also believes that the world is an inherently violent place and that prosperity and social stability hinge on the willingness of “good guys” to organize and use violence for constructive purposes."
This sounds like it describes almost every Democrat - anyone who supports redistribution or the very existence of government, not just the Male Men of the Democratic coalition...
The big problem with this is that the things men like more than women are mostly stupid. As regards energy, CCS has never worked at ll, geothermal has never delivered at a scale that matters, nuclear fission is too slow and expensive to make a difference (apart from restarting existing nukes) and nuclear fusion is a pipe dream. Meanwhile, solar+storage is doing the job and getting cheaper every day.
Similar points apply to the various forms of violence that appeal mostly to men, but I've already poked enough hornets.
Harris has to pander to these prejudices to win, but let's not pretend that these are matters of preference rather than false beliefs. And the more pandering you do to get elected, the more constrained you are after you win.
I don't think the gender gap is about policy but about communication. I'd argue that men are more likely to want communication that feels unsupportive or unnecessarily harsh to many educated women.
To put it another way, I think men are more likely to want canidates to say, "if push comes to shove I'm going to put your interests in front of the interests of immigrants" and sure then they are open to the argument that there isn't a conflict or there is a positive sum solution. I think women are more likely to see that kind of communication as needlessly harsh and something you only say because you actually don't care about immigrants.
I say men and women here but obviously this only correlates to a degree with gender. I suspect that it correlates as or more strongly with education and other factors that divide the parties.
Peace through strength, strength through industry, industry through education.
Has Harris considered accessorizing the VP Limo with Truck Nutz?
Several of my lib friends, including the lib woman i was sorta dating at the time, lost their minds over the “world’s most lethal military” line. I was like, what do you suppose a military should be other than lethal af?! So disappointing 🤦🏽♂️
Yep. And if the US doesn't have the world's most lethal military, then a country like Russia or China will.
I've warned you before for comments like this and I see you've been banned before. Dropping a one week ban here.
I'm just going to put this here: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2024/10/gisele-pelicot-rape-trial/680131/
Warning: This is a horrific story of rape and humiliation.
I've been following this on X/Twitter, and it is such a brutalizing story. I sat with it privately for weeks before telling my gentleman friend, deciding ultimately he had to hear it, had to know what's out there, had to hear how utterly depraved the husband and his invitees were, let alone how the French courts have treated Pelicot.
I can't read most of the article. How does the case of this violent group of men relate to the headline "Not All Men, But Any Man"? And how is that relevant to Matt's article?
To me, not the OP, but it's relevant because this comment section has several people bemoaning that the Western world doesn't celebrate men enough, is too feminized, supports women too much, too harsh on masculinity, etc. This rape case is a high profile example of the fact that many Western men - nearly 100 in a small area - are either willing to do violence to innocent women or to at least not stop other people from raping an innocent woman. It's not about collective guilt, but about an illustration of why women don't have social equality yet. It's the backdrop to how women live and why so many of us are put off by violence and prefer things to be "feminized."
Also, "not all men, but any man" title is a reference to the fact that often the men women trust most are willing to show a sexually violent side, so many women are afraid that even the men they trust secretly want to hurt them. And in cases like Ms. Pelicot's, they are. It's incredibly difficult to tell which men are safe or not, and even moreso to know which men would intervene if they saw you being attacked by another man.
That's what I took from the OP posting this.
It's totally absurd to treat that group of men as being representative of Western men in general.
Do you not see how it could be problematic being a young man who has done nothing wrong, tries to do the right thing, and yet still might get branded as a potentially violent rapist?
I mean, sorry women are afraid of men being rapists? Here’s a high profile example of nearly a hundred guys - well-respected guys, police officers, city councilors, businessmen - getting involved directly in this, with god knows how many more people were aware of it and did nothing. Most women know someone who was raped by someone they trusted if they haven’t outright experienced themselves. No, not at all men are rapists, but it’s impossible to tell which men are or aren’t, so yes, most women conduct themselves with fear and suspicion.
Okay well, you're free to demonize men as rapists and criminals in the exact same way Trump and Vance demonize immigrants and minorities as rapists and criminals.
But when people like you act like that, don't be shocked when you see men preferring to associate with and, most importantly, vote for the political ideologies/movements/parties that don't demonize them.
Y’all get demonized because *we get raped*. No wonder women pick the bear; a man who doesn’t bother to understand why women may be suspicious of men probably doesn’t consider her safety very important.
"Harris is reassuring doubters — mostly, though, not exclusively men — that she’s not one of those people who would shy away from killing others in defense of American society."
This is an insightful observation. I suspect Matt here is describing in part how the comment reassured *him*, because he believes.
I also have a personal intellectual, and even more temperamental/emotional 'filter' that screens out or devalues people who might be "one of those people who would shy away from killing others in defense of American society."..........even though I intellectually recognize you get no good results by indiscriminately lashing out violently in the *general direction* of an enemy, and its an illusory promise to control the violence process.
At times, women need the reassurance that a would-be leader won't let the national/tribal community won't get taken advantage of nearly as much as men....like after major terrorist attacks like 9/11, but yes, it is gender imbalanced, with men more temperamentally inclined to think this way and to accept there will be additional casualties on both sides and women more quickly discouraging themselves on considering costs in lives. Post 9/11, I personally noted women being more all-in for a variety of fortress America defensive anti-terrorist provisions, but less enthused about the striking out at terrorists in their lair offensive operations than men.
In the belief "that the world is an inherently violent place and that prosperity and social stability hinge on the willingness of “good guys” to organize and use violence for constructive purposes." I am in my gut with Matt, even though I am for gun control, and know that as a statistical matter, the civilian good guy with gun method rarely is a good antidote to random crime - Unintended consequences outweigh intended by a high multiple.
In that regard, I would suggest that me and Matt, who have probably pulled the lever for Dems over Reps in *very* election, have some *emotional* kinship or commonality with swing voters or 'cross-pressured' voters who have gone both ways. The swingers have sometimes swung right over violence-related issues. I've always still intellectually convinced myself that the weight of likely policy impact that realistically empowered Dems could have in my lifetime would be superior to what would come from the policy/utilitarian impact of realistically empowered Reps. In that way, I'm Liberal/Progressive in mind, but at times Conservative/Reactionary at heart. [not all the time, but yeah, some of the time]
..........and I'm someone who's pulled the lever for Dems all the time, and sometimes for the more left populist alternative.
So, if that's my gut nervous reaction, think how conservative/reactionary the impulses and instincts of genuine undecideds/sings/cross--pressureds/independents are likely to be on average, and how badly appeals primarily to high-minded liberal cosmopolitan temperament, that assumes they are universal givens accepted by all, can flop.
Never thought Matt would finally come out in favor of repealing the 19th Amendment.
Slow Boring turned into Adrian Vermeule's Substack so slowly I hardly noticed!
Dafuq? How can Matt Y's piece be in any way, shape, or form interpreted as wanting to repeal the 19th Amendment?
/j
Among all the factors listed here, I think censorship of speech and cancel culture are probably the biggest reasons. Men like to talk trash (both liberals and conservatives), either for fun or to let off steam and then forget all about it the next day. The penalty for doing that has become unacceptably high, specially if they are about race or gender or some protected group. DEI and AA is another area where most men (moderates and conservatives) favor meritocracy over diversity and representation.
"And I think talking more about these issues — particularly if she can get coverage in media outlets that men pay attention to . . . "
As with everything else in politics that caveat in the second half of the sentence is key. Harris making each of the points that Matt recommends is a tree falling in the forest with no one around if it doesn't break through. So you need a two-pronged approach: say things that help attract men's votes and do it in a way that makes the media prick up their ears and amplify it. "Lethal" fighting force did that because it wasn't part of the Democratic brand and it was a female candidate saying it. Saying she'd shoot the poor fool who broke into her house did the same thing.
But doing that as more than a lucky one-off is really hard, or at least hard to control. In part, it's just luck or fortuitous conflation of events. No one could predict that Tim Walz's "weird" shtick would break through or that Project 2025 would become a big thing. Like the main character in "Shakespeare in Love" explained it, "it's a mystery."
I would like to hear more about the implicit assumption that this won't drive away as many or more women as it gains men. Does this strategy rely on "going on Rogan", and if so, could it backfire if (for example) the New York Times runs a story about how Kamala is trying to be different things to different people? Or is the argument that men care more about nuclear power than women? In general, the median voter theorem says that you should try to moderate your image and this would seem to be in line with that, but "women" are not the left flank of the Democratic party!
I don't think Harris is at risk of losing women voters by going on Rogan. No woman who's already planning on voting for her will decide to sit it out or vote for Trump because she started talking about gun rights and going on Rogan.
Hah, I was going to post this comment and got all the way to the very last comment before finding someone had posted it already. I think this is a really big missing piece from the article. Sure, Harris could talk up things that men like more than women, but, uh... why wouldn't that turn off as many, or more, women than it picks up in male supporters?
Shame this is buried so deep in the comments nobody will read it.
Thank you for a fascinating piece, Matt Y!
Every time I read about gender differences, I feel like a mutant weirdo freak, because I'm a woman, but my positions tend to code as masculine. I strongly support nuclear energy. I think the death penalty should be used very sparingly and only in cases where the evidence is overwhelming, but I believe there are cases where it's justified, like some depraved serial rapist-torturer-killer or the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. I was a bit startled when Kamala said that line about the "most lethal military in the world," but I agreed with her: *someone* is going to have the most powerful military, and I'd much rather it were us than Russia or China or North Korea.
Of course, I am one of the 14% of Slow Boring commentariat that is female, so I am in no way representative of women. Also, I love Star Wars - the original trilogy, the Thrawn novels, The Clone Wars, some episodes of Rebels were really good - and I don't like the Disney+ Star Wars content other than Andor. The Acolyte straight up sucked.
drosophilist, I hear you, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that you happily engage as part of the 14% female SBers. Why? I don’t think we know yet, but I do think these traits are correlated.
I'm the opposite, I'm a man whose positions tend to code as feminine. Reading through this article it was strange finding myself on the "women" side of so many issues, though it was mostly the "violence"-related issues, since I tended to side more with my gender in the "science and technology" section. I think I am just averse to violence to general. It would explain a lot of my opinions from my dislike of American gun culture to my general apathy towards contact sports.
How much ya bench?