The Gender Wars to World War III / Forever Wars Pipeline

An often missed aspect of the increasing association between masculinity and the right

Much has been said about the supposed gender wars of our times, and its effects on politics, as seen in the unprecedented gender gap in support between left-of-center and right-of-center politics. I was not really going to talk about this topic in too much detail, because I feel like it's not something that's going to stick long-term. Recently however, I'm beginning to feel that I do have to address it, because I fear there might be some dire implications for the future of world peace, that people are not talking enough about. Let me explain.

Many people say that the political gender gap started when the center-left began to alienate men, particularly young men. I think it happened because of two factors: firstly, the deliberate mainstreaming of oppressor vs. oppressed-based postmodern critical theory by far-left activists, as part of their wide-ranging revolutionary agenda. Secondly, the increasing strategic use of identity politics by mainstream liberals, especially around the time of Hillary Clinton's campaign for the 2016 US Presidential election, which provided the perfect opportunity for identity-based critical theory to have influence further and wider than previously imagined. This meant that mainstream feminism suddenly became unnecessarily divisive in many ways, as seen in the use of essentially meaningless terms like 'mansplaining' and 'manspreading'. Many men began to feel like they were unwelcome in 'progressive' circles. 

The right, particularly the new 'populist right' and the far-right, took this opportunity by trying to recruit young men feeling lost and frustrated in this political landscape to their cause. All this resulted in the rise of the 'manosphere', and likely helped Trump win men of all ages in 2024. What we need to remember here is that, the fact that Trump performed so well among young men was perhaps the most shocking thing from that election. Back in 2004, President Bush won re-election with a stronger popular vote, and he also did pretty well with Latinos and Black voters. What Bush couldn't do however, and what Trump was able to do, was winning young men under 30. This shocking result, combined with poll after poll showing a wide political gender gap between young men and young women in Gen Z in most Western countries, finally provided the necessary wake-up call to mainstream liberals, to end the divisive identity politics influence.

This story has been told so many times that it is indeed very old news by now. However, many commentators only see the 'gender wars' angle here. I see the far-right playing another game altogether. You see, the far-right and the manosphere are not only praising men and masculinity in general, but rather promoting a specific form of masculinity, and encouraging young men to adopt it. This version of masculinity celebrates aggression over patient consensus-building, tribalism over universal concern for humanity, anger over rationality, and sees compassion as weakness rather than strength. It is also implicitly pro-authority, pro-conformity, anti-intellectual query, and not too keen on individual freedoms. In short, these characteristics, being packaged as 'real masculinity' by the far-right, are actually things that make war more likely, and/or make it harder for people to oppose war. This is very bad news for those of us who want to see world peace. Now, you might imagine why some people would want to push these values onto our young men. Many people actually profit from war. The tech-bros are the latest to join this category, with AI and robotics fast becoming valuable assets to have in wars. Not coincidentally, we are seeing the kind of people who would profit from war, tech-bros included, cozying up to the populist right across the Western world in recent years.

I think the solution to this is twofold: firstly, we need to end the political gender gap. We need mainstream liberals to stop sending young men to the pro-war right, and they can do that if they stop alienating them. As I often say, we need to put an end to all this oppressor vs. oppressed madness. Secondly, we equally need to call out and take a stand against those who are essentially deliberately pushing society towards a pro-war mindset. While many people have rightfully pointed out the faults of the 'manosphere' movement, relatively few have addressed the war and peace angle. We need to be talking about this more. I think we also need to actively promote pro-peace values, as an antidote to pro-war values flooding our cultural conversation. Values like objectivity, rationality, querying authority, compassion, consensus-building, universal concern for humanity, and the Moral Libertarian principle of upholding equal and maximum moral agency for every individual. In the current moment, those who believe in ending the forever wars are facing challenges like we haven't been for a long time. But if we keep the faith, and work hard for peace, I believe there's still a chance that peace will win out.

 

Why the Populist Right is Inherently Anti-Democracy

The important question is whether the ‘populist right’ can co-exist alongside liberals in a healthy democratic system. I honestly don't think they can.

Contrary to popular belief, the ‘populist right’ does not represent a set of policy commitments that is clearly different from pre-2016 conservatism, except on the one issue of immigration. Social conservatism, to the degree that it should actually be called reactionism, was a hallmark of many 20th century ‘fusionist’ conservative administrations. During the Bush-43 administration, there were very ugly culture wars around gay marriage. ‘Questions of collective identity’ were also clearly on the agenda during that time. Bush-era culture wars included everything from the Merry Christmas vs Seasons Greetings war, to the whole ‘debate’ about whether Islam was compatible with the West, to opposition to government services in Spanish and calls for English to be made America’s official language. On the other hand, protectionist trade policies appear to be specific to Trump, and there doesn’t appear to be a unified stance on trade policy among the ‘populist right’ globally (or even in the US Republican Party). Argentina’s Milei is actually very pro-free trade, and has actually reduced tariffs, for example. This leaves immigration restriction as the only substantial policy commitment that is truly a hallmark of the ‘populist right’ in every country.

What sets the ‘populist right’ apart from conventional conservatives is actually the way they do politics. The populist right relies on emotive messaging, rather than rational persuasion, to gain support. It enjoys exploiting existing problems, conflicts and frustrations, and attempts to extract the biggest political benefit from it, while ignoring the very real harms caused to society in terms of increased polarization and tribalism, and reduced rationality and mutual understanding. In other words, ‘populists’, in their ruthless pursuit of power, aren’t above tearing our social fabric apart and increasing hate and animosity in society in the process. I’ve seen this happen in real time, to my dismay, in areas of debate from immigration, to climate issues and LGBT issues, to COVID-era frustrations, and frankly I’ve had enough. And this certainly isn’t a Trump-only problem either. Many of the aforementioned issues were first made into battlegrounds by online influencers, and only later taken up by Trump. Moreover, all of Trump’s potential successors have demonstrated a willingness to continue this emotionally driven, negative-tribalism based mode of politics. The next ‘populist right’ leader might not exactly sound like Trump, but they will certainly be using a largely similar approach to playing the game of politics.

As a classical liberal, I see my work as about increasing mutual understanding, encouraging good faith rational conversation, and bringing about consensus as a result of that. The ‘populist right’ apparently wants the opposite of all this, because they enjoy having the problem heated and unresolved, so that they can extract political benefit from it. This, I think, makes the ‘populist right’ incompatible with democracy. A healthy democracy requires people to be able to have rational conversations, to come to an understanding about a shared reality, and to make informed decisions at the ballot box based on that. In a political landscape where the ‘populist right’ makes rational debate and informed decision making impossible, even if elections keep happening it would be a very ‘flawed democracy’, not the healthy kind of democracy we should all aspire to. And I strongly believe we should not settle for a future where the people who come after us have to live under a flawed democracy, just because we lack the will to call out and stand against the worst features of the ‘populist right’ when we still can. It would be as if the Allies suddenly sued for peace with Nazi Germany in 1943 just because they were sick of fighting. I think all of us would agree that it would be deeply irresponsible and tragic if that had happened.