Republican Party's Masculinist Conservatism Fuels Women's Exclusion

Key Quotes

"You know, it seems as if the right, especially the new right, really lionizes women who absolutely fall in line and who are absolutely obeying the party line. So, you know, they'll lionize them as mama bears, for example, when they're taking on left-leaning school boards, but so long as they are loyal foot soldiers implementing the party's will, they are celebrated. Look, see, we're not sexist at all. Look at how much we have put forward these really strong women as part of the right. But then, there's as soon as there's any mold-breaking here, as soon as there's start to not fit exactly with what, sort of, the dominant party line is, the turn is incredibly rapid and incredibly vicious, and there seems to be really no tolerance for disagreement and dissent."

Michelle Cottle argues that the Republican party celebrates women only when they conform to the party's agenda, likening them to "mama bears" for specific causes. However, Cottle explains that this support quickly turns vicious and intolerant when women deviate from the dominant party line, demonstrating a lack of genuine acceptance for independent thought.

"No, I was going to say this feels very much like a dog bites man situation, right? Like you have a political movement whose genesis, you know, we talked about the beginnings of Trumpism in terms of its nativism and xenophobia and racism, etc., etc., but its genesis includes, like, anger at, disdain for, opposition to high-profile female leadership, right? Like, Trump likely isn't as successful in 2016 if not for Hillary Clinton being his foil, and the extent to which Trump, in that election and in this past election, defines himself against female leadership, defines himself against women leadership, defines himself as defending not just conservatism, but sort of a masculinist vision of conservatism, one that is predicated on male dominance cannot be obscured, cannot be hand-waved away."

Jamelle Bouie posits that the core of the Trump movement includes a fundamental opposition to female leadership. Bouie explains that Donald Trump's political success has been significantly built on defining himself against women in power, promoting a vision of conservatism rooted in male dominance.

"And then you just have more kind of nebulous, generic, broad-based complaints. There's been reports by, you know, multiple news organizations that Republican House women are unhappy with this speaker and leadership, plat in particular, in terms of how their issues are treated. They feel like they've been passed over for opportunities. It's just getting a little bit tense over there, which this is a long-running problem for the party, but it's getting even hotter these days."

Michelle Cottle highlights that beyond high-profile disputes, there are widespread, less visible grievances among Republican women in the House. Cottle reports that these women feel their concerns are not adequately addressed by leadership and that they are overlooked for advancement opportunities, indicating a worsening internal party dynamic.

"My thesis is that this, that this is actually going to end up being far more impactful than any kind of online sexism, which we all know gets kind of confined into the online echo chamber. So, Michelle, my question for you is, am I saying too much? Is it, are you sensing, are you seeing that this is actually, this approach towards women is really leaking out into this wider world that people are experiencing it in their lives rather than sort of watching it on their computers or phones?"

David French questions whether the exclusionary approach towards women within conservative spheres is manifesting in tangible, real-world consequences beyond online discourse. French asks Michelle Cottle if she is observing this trend impacting people's daily lives, suggesting it could be more significant than isolated online incidents.

"And that's basically what Trump has been beating the drum on, and you see it not just with older folks, but you see it with, like, young men who are angry that, you know, they thought that their life was going to be XYZ and it's not, and they don't know what it means to be a productive man anymore, and they're just like, well, that just means I need to, you know, double down on ultimate fighting and listening to Andrew Tate in the morning."

Michelle Cottle observes that Donald Trump's rhetoric appeals to a sense of grievance among men, particularly younger men, who feel their expected life paths have not materialized. Cottle explains that this anger is channeled into embracing figures and activities associated with a hyper-masculine, often aggressive, online culture.

"I strongly believe that sort of people's explanations for their lives don't just emerge out of a vacuum. It's not like a coincidence that a bunch of young men began thinking that women were responsible for their problems. That's been like a, a deliberate message of a set of basically ideological entrepreneurs who have, you know, who are on podcasts, on the internet, on social media, who are acting as influencers who are selling something to people."

Jamelle Bouie argues that the narrative blaming women for men's problems is not organic but a deliberately constructed message. Bouie explains that ideological entrepreneurs on online platforms actively promote this idea to their audiences, often with the intent to sell products or ideologies.