The Mommy Party, The Daddy Party, and 2024

OR: Democrats have a Katherine Heigl problem

OK but childbirth sucks and I am WITH Ms. Heigl in this particular scene. (SOURCE: YouTube)

NOTE: Parts of this will make a whole lot more sense if you read my grand theory of gender and presidential elections, in which I establish the differences between Men, Guys, and Women.

–

The Guy won in 2024.

You knew this. We all did. Donald Trump is a Guy. Kamala Harris is not. And my rule of American presidential elections is: Guys win. And this time was no different.

And so when I’ve thought about writing a fresh take on what 2024 taught us, I have come up blank. I mean, dude won, lady lost. Why bother?

But upon sitting and thinking for a while, I’ve realized that there’s little to say about the subtleties of masculinity in the 2024 election. In fact, if you saw any subtlety happening in 2024, the year that Hulk Hogan and the UFC were represented at a political convention, please alert me.

Rather, Election 2024 taught me a few much simpler truths:

1. More than any time I can remember – perhaps more than ever – the two major parties themselves are gendered.

2. In the process, this election firmly reinforced society’s gender hierarchy: masculinity rules. Femininity…well, it just doesn’t.

3. Democrats in 2024 had a big Katherine Heigl problem. (I’ll explain this later.)

–

2024 was the year Trump supercharged his masculinity, to the extent that no one could not-notice.

He went to UFC fights. He talked about those fights on podcasts, as he and JD Vance did their bro podcasters tour. He got shot at and immediately stood back up immediately to tell his crowd to fight. He got UFC CEO Dana White on his side, and Hulk Hogan to rip his shirt off at the RNC¹. He went to barber shops. Trump aide Jason Miller called Tim Walz “effeminate” in the runup to the VP debate. For the love of God, on election night, Stephen Miller tweeted, “If you know any men who haven’t voted, get them to the polls.”

–

There were powerful gendered undercurrents to American politics long before Trump came along or before women were nominated for the presidency.²

Decades ago, linguist George Lakoff was talking about how the parties are gendered. He’s been writing for years about how the Republican party is the party of the “strict father” sensibility, with its tough-on-crime, personal responsibility ethos. Democrats, meanwhile, are the “nurturing parent” party, with their concern about safety nets and fairness.

An excerpt from a 1996 article about this theory:

A major difference between the two systems is that conservatives give the values of "moral strength" and "moral obedience" top priority. This means that anything that promotes weakness is immoral, says Lakoff.

The "good" father seeks to develop self-discipline in his children by exercising his authority using rewards and punishments. Punishment is seen as a form of nurturing in that it teaches discipline, self-reliance and respect for authority.

… Carried into the political realm, this moral system -- which puts strength at the top of the list of values -- leads to the belief that "your poverty or your drug habit or your illegitimate children can be explained only as moral weakness, and any discussion of social causes cannot be relevant," Lakoff explained.

By contrast, for liberals, the highest moral good is nurturance, including empathy, fairness and protection but not painful punishment.

The "good" parent, therefore, develops the child's capacity to achieve happiness and fulfillment by being empathetic to its needs and teaching responsibility. This was originally a mother's model, said Lakoff, but is now widely expressed by both sexes.

Again, he was writing about this back in the 1990s. However, I have two addenda, 30 years later.

One is that it’s incredible how literal the Mom and Dad stuff got in this election. I started spotting the slogan “daddy’s home” on shirts at Trump rallies, featuring a sunglasses-ed Trump standing on the White House lawn. Or think about how Mel Gibson told Sean Hannity in January, “I’m glad Trump’s here at the moment. It’s like Daddy arrived and he’s taking his belt off, you know?”³

It wasn’t just the Trump faithful doing this. I remember in the weeks leading up to the election running across a comedy bit on social media that cast the parties as divorced parents – with Trump as the fun but irresponsible dad and Democrats as a harried mom who keeps things together.

(It was a very pro-Democrat routine, to be clear – the Democratic mom said something to the effect of “Fuck, kids, could you quiet down? I just want to give you health care,” and the Trump/Republican dad said something to the effect of “Hey guess what – you can go use slurs now.”)

I recently went looking for this reel and couldn’t find it anywhere. So I put out a call on BlueSky asking if anyone else could locate it. Two people came back with videos – one of ZoltanComedy and one of Ryan Goldsher:

Here’s the wild thing: NEITHER of these videos is the one I was thinking of…which only underscores my point: either a couple of these comedians were doing some real joke-stealing, or a run of comedians (and, I’d bet, normal non-comedian people) noticed this mom-dad dynamic during this cycle.

Which brings me to point number two. If you believe George Lakoff, the parties have been gendered for a while. But still, something new is going on. The Republican party of the 1990s was full of Moral Men who wanted people to Pull Themselves Up By Their Bootstraps and Contentedly Maintain a Family Unit. You could HEAR the capital letters as Republicans like Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich talked about Family Values.

The Republican party under Trump … is not that. This is a party that cusses and goes to UFC fights and talks about weightlifting on Joe Rogan and takes the stage with a chainsaw at CPAC can’t believe you take everything so seriously lol.

The Republican party is the Guy party now. And in our society, Guys are fun. Women…less so.

—

All of this matters because there’s a gender hierarchy in our society. And if you want to see how this played out in 2024, think about how the parties reached out to the opposite genders.

Republicans were trying to win women voters, especially as Democrats assailed their anti-abortion policies. And their main message – or at least, Trump’s main message – in doing this was in telling women they needed protection: from immigrants, from criminals, from transgender people.

In other words: when Republicans appealed to women, they often did it firmly from the perch of manhood. Not “we’re like you” but rather, “we’ll protect you.”

Being masculine was the strategy, even in appealing to feminine voters.

Now think about how Democrats handled gender. They struggled to come up with a men strategy…until one Mr. Sergeant Coach Gun-Owner Papa Tim Walz appeared on the scene.

Democrats went so hard on making sure you knew Tim Walz was a coach, a veteran, a hunter, a dad who could fix a car. The message was also: “No, we swear, we can be regular dudes.” Masculinity in all things.

And the kicker is that through all of this, Kamala Harris was careful not to refer to her gender (or race) too explicitly.

To be clear: I am not saying anyone did campaigning wrong. I’m just saying that when push comes to shove, when trying to appeal to the broadest cross-section of voters, the parties would both rather emphasize masculinity. Masculinity is the default.

—

All of this brings me to the movie I keep thinking about as I ponder the 2024 election:

Knocked Up.

Hear me out.

In Knocked Up, uber-guy Seth Rogen gets beautiful, responsible Katherine Heigl pregnant during a one-night stand. Hilarity ensues as Rogen (an immature, minimally employed stoner) and Heigl (an E! correspondent) grapple with their situation.

After the movie came out, Heigl got in big big trouble by declaring the movie sexist, because of how it depicted the women as humorless shrews, while the men got all the laughs. (And by the way, she was right.)

The thing is, though, Heigl’s character makes total sense as she tells Seth Rogen to, I don’t know, get a job. Start acting like a dad if he’s going to be one. Move out of his stoner group house. She has real concerns – of COURSE she doesn’t have time to be fun. There’s room for one type of schlub in this movie, and it ain’t a ladyschlub.

Because here’s the thing: Rogen’s character is fun. Yes, he’s portrayed as irresponsible, but we don’t go to the movies to see responsible people go about normal business. We go to be entertained, and these guys are most definitely entertaining.

Similarly: Democrats were very, very upset in 2024. A group of people tried to violently overturn an election. Democrats wanted to emphasize that to voters. Dobbs happened, and women died as a result. Democrats wanted to emphasize that to voters.

And so Democrats got mad and remained mad for four years. They had real concerns. Those concerns manifested in a lot of stern talk into microphones about how democracy is sacred, about how women’s lives should be saved.

To be clear, I’m not saying Democrats were wrong to be upset about these things⁴ … rather, I’m saying that I genuinely think that the very existence of Democrats’ many serious concerns turned off a lot of voters. And I don’t know what they can do about it.

In the last few weeks, I’ve heard a few other commentators cotton onto this idea – Ryan Broderick, on his Panic World podcast, put it this way:

Like, Biden’s entire reelection campaign was the most grim, incredibly serious, hushed-voice – i mean part of that was because he was very elderly – this notion of like, “there’s no celebration, there’s no joy, there’s no nothing. You have a duty to show up stone-faced and vote to protect this country in this way.” And it’s not a thing that for two, three years a lot of people want to hear constantly repeated. …

I think that that’s a little bit of what happened to Democrats – is like, describing what’s happening to the country makes you sound, if not insane, just really strident and really sort of like a hall monitor.

There was no gendered aspect to what Broderick was saying…but Cartoons Hate Her got at that in her own very thoughtful essay⁵, arguing that liberals are now cringey-middle-aged-white-lady coded, making no one want to side with them (or as she puts it: “everyone is mad at Mommy, and nobody wants to eat their broccoli!”).

I think the truth is a mix of these points: Democrats in 2024 were raising alarms about democracy and January 6 and the social safety net and people’s basic rights, and they didn’t find a way to do that without coming off as a bunch of buzzkills. Without coming off as a hall monitor. Without coming off as the middle-aged mom telling kids that yes, toilet-papering your classmates’ houses is fun but also it’s disrespectful and think about who’s going to clean that up and I can’t believe you would be so thoughtless and I raised you better than that and I am so fucking mad at you right now.⁶

But I’d add this, also: what Cartoons Hate Her is getting at is that yeah, Americans are broadly biased against women and things that are women-coded. But what I’m perpetually getting at in my masculinity writing is a very important addendum: sexism isn’t just about hating women — it’s about loving men. And more specifically, people in America also really, really, really love Guys — irreverent Guys who swear and break shit and do everything for the lolz.

And the current Guy-ness of the Republican Party made it extra hard for Democrats. When one party was saying you need to chill the fuck out and listen to Rogan and watch some fights, how could you not come off as the more-serious AND more-feminine party? Mom isn’t fun, after all.

I’m by no means taking a side here or downplaying the seriousness of what Democrats were talking about. I’m just saying: as a person who was out and about at 2024 events, Republicans were having more (very masculine) fun. And even (especially?) in Serious Times, I would bet that swayed some voters.

I think we’re going to see this dynamic evolve as Democrats try to counter President Trump as he blows up governmental norms/agencies/international alliances.

This leaves two questions: 1) As the Trump presidency tears along, to what degree do the parties keep their fun dad/serious mom personas, and 2) what does it take to make voters decide they want to go hang out with the other parent?

---

Links and Recommendations

WORK STUFF:

On Trump’s chaotic tariff policy: The Mexico and Canada tariffs will happen on February 1. No, March 4. No, April? No. March. For real. And so on and so on.

Trump claims power over (formerly) independent agencies: This sounds like arcane administrative law shit, but I promise it’s not. In his latest usurpation of Congress’ powers, Trump has decided he now controls the SEC, FDIC, EEOC, and so on. This raises a lot of conflict of interest issues — for example, the SEC regulates crypto. And someone in the White House now has his own meme coin, not to mention other crypto business interests.

Some Michigan Arab and Muslim voters are unimpressed with Trump: A great report from my colleague Sarah McCammon, catching up on a demographic group everyone was watching as Election Day approached.

NPR’s annotated fact-check of Trump’s address to Congress: It does what it says on the carton. I love these fact-checks and love that we have a whole team of people lending their expertise to them.

The R-word is back: Brittany Luse (host of It’s Been a Minute) has a knack for naming things in the atmosphere that you have vaguely noticed but not articulated. Here’s another example.

—

OTHER STUFF:

Tree of Smoke by Denis Johnson. A good book but/and a monster…a serious monster about war (Vietnam in this case) and America and family and duty and manhood and and and. Anyway, as a palate-cleanser I’m rereading The Future by Naomi Alderman, which is a hell of a fun potboiler about dystopia and Big Tech and cults and the end of the world.

Speaking of which: Taking recommendations for similarly fun books. Think the vein of The Great Circle/The Future/Stephen King’s better stuff. High-ish quality plot-heavy books in which NO CHILDREN DIE PLEASE. Drop suggestions in the comments

Down with Love. Guys. Guys. How did this movie happen unnoticed. Renee Zellweger at her most charming and Ewan McGregor at the height of his Dreamboat powers in a DEEPLY screwy screwball comedy. There are incredible costumes. There’s a romantic subplot between David Hyde Pierce and Sarah Paulson (MY HEART!). There’s a monologue Zellweger delivers at the end that started off cute and then took a TURN for the weird and as it stretched on for 2-3-4 minutes or however long it was, had me HOLLERING. One of the most-fun times I’ve had with a movie in a very long time.

YOUR FORGOTTEN INTERNET JOY OF THE DAY: If you have not seen Isabella Rossellini’s videos on animal sexual behavior, my God. Go watch now. It’s a perfect mix of art cinema and strangeness and science. There are a bunch on YouTube — search for “Isabella Rossellini seduce me” (I mean if you haven’t already) — and they will brighten your day. (NOTE: These are…I guess NSFW? They’re so odd and cartoonish that they might not be, but I don’t want to get you fired, my dear reader.)

1. Hulk ripped his own shirt off here, not Trump’s.

2. Side note: Trump’s ascendancy and women’s ascendancy happened at the same time, not coincidentally. One thing I suspect but can’t prove is that Trump became the Republican nominee precisely because Hillary Clinton was widely expected to win the 2016 Democratic nomination.

3. I hereby award Mr. Gibson 1,000 yikes.

4. NOR AM I SAYING THEY WERE RIGHT. DO NOT TAKE AWAY MY JOURNALIST CARD.

5. AGAIN THIS DOES NOT MEAN I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY SO DON’T MAKE ME BURN MY OBJECTIVE JOURNALIST CARD.

6. Why yes I have experience with this. In my case, in fact, it was my dad yelling at me. But my point still stands.