Gendering the Election

[hooligan]

WHY BUSH WON

by
Ken Mondschein

Unlike most of my Kerry-supporting friends, I refused to have faith in a Democratic victory. I can remember the exact moment I lost my religion, too: Watching the second debate, the so-called "town-hall meeting," where the two candidates stalked one another in the ring like a couple of gladiators before a national TV audience. It was all I could do to keep from screaming: While all Kerry could do was impotently point and accuse like Banquo's (or Dukakis') ghost—being careful never to descend to Howard Dean-like shrillness—Bush seemed smugly confident, sure of himself, a warrior-king addressing his armies.

The next day, all any of my liberal New York activist colleagues could talk about was what a swaggering, arrogant, macho prick Bush came off as. After all, in our circles, men who don't exhibit empathy and interpersonal communication skills aren't very well thought of (though they do seem to get laid at about the same rate as the rest of us). However, what most of us artsy middle-class professional PoMo bohemian/yuppie types, with our highlighted hair and carefully-chosen thrift-store ensembles, failed to realize is that Bush's base of support goes beyond the "I got mine" conservatives with their SUVs and $400,000 tract homes that they can't afford to furnish, the gun nuts with their AR-15s, and the Christian theocrats with their red-letter Bibles open to Genesis 19. Bush couldn't have won as big as he did without the support of ordinary people who work in offices in fear of their bosses and their mortgages and getting laid off.

Guys who crank up Metallica in their cars and pound the steering wheel to "Master of Puppets," even though the last time they actually went to a concert was in high school ten years ago, because they're stuck in traffic and pissed off and there's nothing else they can do except go slowly mad.

Men who proudly describe themselves as "rednecks" with bumper stickers and lawn ornaments because they long for an ethnic identity more substantial than "one eighth Scottish, one eighth Irish, a quarter Polish, half German, and a little Cherokee," and, being deeply suspicious of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," want to be able to wear plaid flannel shirts around the house on weekends.

Fathers who aren't sure they like the domesticated life, but are too in terror of family-court judges to walk out on the wife and baby, and whose fears of not measuring up to being a provider like Dad was (never mind falling real wages) are only worsened by gay marriage and metrosexual New Yorkers with hair highlighting.

Say what you like—that at least Bush finally got elected, that the Red Sox swept the World Series because Kerry had to borrow the curse, that America deserves what it gets—but, in my humble opinion, this perceived American crisis of masculinity is the real cause of what happened November 2. Like watching action movies or professional sports, participating in the Bush victory was a psychic restorative, giving back some semblance of a sense of manly honor that has been stolen away by time clocks, Dr. Phil, and Zoloft. Bush's message speaks directly to the heart of the emasculated modern man: stick with me, and we'll stand tall, provide for our families, and kick terrorist ass.

And Kerry? No way he'd use anything like Karl Rove's boys' club gender politics. Hell, his campaign manager was even a woman.

The problem with the Democratic party isn't that it didn't address the issues—as the New York Times will tell you, it sure as hell did a better job of that than Bush—but that it's not addressing our society on a larger scale. We are a nation of feelers, not thinkers, and being sure our sense of gender is central to our sense of security, homeland or otherwise—which is no doubt why ten of eleven states passed anti-gay-marriage referendums.

(And as for the women who voted for Bush—hell, someone's got to marry those arrogant, smug, sexy assholes. Nothing like your own Dubbya between the sheets, especially if he's an old-fashioned type who will be a husband and provider.)

One thing's for sure: If the Left wants to get back on its feet, it had better grow a pair—or at least start acting like it has.

I agree with what this speaker had to say ... whoo.

http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories...whybushwon.htm

no, i don't believe that this was what the election was all about, but i do believe that this was one of the decisive factors during the election. there was this sense of machismo about the bush campaign, one that spoke to white male privelege, and no one really noticed. apparently, a lot of people liked it.

[younggiftedandblack]

I agree with the part about us being a nation of feelers and not thinkers. Driven by our emotions.

[Yeahman]

The problem with that analysis is that Bush increased his female base as well.

[TB4000]

So you women folk want a Dubya between the sheets, huh?

[hooligan]

Originally Posted by ye110man

The problem with that analysis is that Bush increased his female base as well.

no, that article addressed it.

[Yeahman]

^ So then how is it gendering the election?
Kerry was more feminine and had a woman advisor so he lost ground with women?
Kerry coming across as a wuss may have had an effect but that's why Bush won.

[hooligan]

Originally Posted by ye110man

^ So then how is it gendering the election?
Kerry was more feminine and had a woman advisor so he lost ground with women?
Kerry coming across as a wuss may have had an effect but that's why Bush won.

so, do you think it's true? does the US try to overcompensate for their insecurities by looking into strong, masculine leaders? do we have a fear of the intellectuals?

what's up with this? i personally think that some of the points that the article raised were dead on. bush was able to connect in ways that, as a progressive, i thought that the US was past that. the cowboy mentality, the crusader, the moral, upstanding good christian, is not what we are, it's who the US generally pretends to be.

[Yeahman]

Even many Bush supporters thought that Bush was an idiot. They'd love to vote for a smart man but they stand with Bush on the issues important to them.
The left would love to think that those who voted for Bush were all WASP male trailer-trash. It would make them feel better about their loss. It hurts to admit that the majority of Americans actually agree with Bush or at least agree with him more than they do with Kerry.

[hooligan]

Originally Posted by ye110man

Even many Bush supporters thought that Bush was an idiot. They'd love to vote for a smart man but they stand with Bush on the issues important to them.
The left would love to think that those who voted for Bush were all WASP male trailer-trash. It would make them feel better about their loss. It hurts to admit that the majority of Americans actually agree with Bush or at least agree with him more than they do with Kerry.

That generalization is pretty shallow, if not invoking the same mistakes that the trailer-trash comment makes, but the article tends to discuss the overarching themes of the bush campaign. I don't think the majority of Americans actually believed in Kerry's campaign. He honestly ran a campaign that went to the right of bush on some of the weighted issues.

Unfortunately, in times of war, a lot of rhetoric comes out as to who is better suited or fitted to become the president. The article talks about those qualities that the majority of Americans believe makes a good president. What the article discusses in some of the inherent sexism and masculinity that is involved with politics.

Not only does it become an issue in this election, but it also drives many people to vote against a candidate who seems to embody some of the less desirable traits. Come on, you've must have heard it, Kerry's "wishy washy" and "soft", just some things that makes him less qualified to be president. Qualities that are usually associated with women, essentially effeminizing Kerry.

Now, let's tie this back to APIAs and how APIA males are made effeminate and also not desirable. Is there ... a connection here?

That my friend, was the point of argument.