31 Comments
User's avatar
Tyler Stuart's avatar

Thanks for writing this, Jeremy. I very much agree the Trump and his lackeys are harnessing a righteous anger that the left has broadly failed to address. I also appreciate the way you model, through your writing, the value of emotional intelligence for men. That you being in touch with your anger — and beneath it, your sadness and fear — is actually a reliable sense-making apparatus. It helps you recognize and even empathize with men who've been claimed by Trump's resentful narratives; to offer understanding rather than, simply, dismissal. Props.

While I whole-heartedly agree that the left needs to offer, as you say, "a better, more convincing story for men," I'm not hearing you attempting to put forward that story. Of course, as I writer myself, I know this is big work, and we can't address everything in each article. But I will say that the examples you offer as starting points for an alternative story — talking about the complexity of sex and gender; promoting emotional intelligence; popping our historical delusions about what constitutes "traditional" roles; reframing patriarchy as a social order that harms men, too — all of these threads don't feel like a story to me. In fact, to me they feel like more of the very thing you're trying to say is the problem: abstract concepts that don't resonate with men's daily lives, don't pluck their heart-strings. These are the very stories that men captured by the online right are unconvinced with. It's not compelling to them.

Now, the question of how to pluck at those heart-strings without propping up a reactionary politics is a tricky one because of the intellectual bind we're in. On the one hand, we're forced into a reactionary essentialism, and on the other, left hand, we seem only capable of adopting a stance that denudes masculinity of any real substance. The only meanings we are able to entertain are entirely subjective and highly individualistic. And god forbid we advocate for the notion of manhood having a cultural function. But I think this is what men are longing for: to know that something about who they are is, and can be, a beautiful offering.

I'd be curious to hear how this lands with you.

Expand full comment
Jeremy Mohler's avatar

Thanks for reading and the feedback! I'm trying to figure out how to ground what I'm saying in the everyday reality of men's daily lives. This newsletter is a work in progress to trying to figure out how to articulate that story better. I so resonate with the "tricky" question you named. I'm hoping I can contribute to getting past that dilemma!

Expand full comment
Tyler Stuart's avatar

I'm right there with you, Jeremy. I'm trying to do the same thing myself, and I'm constantly struck by how challenging it is. The best precedent I've found for threading the needle of that tricky question is the mythopoetic men's movement. Clearly they tapped something very raw and real for men in the 80s and 90s, but it also wasn't anti-feminist. They weren't explicitly leftist, which I think was probably important, but they were also very critical of industrial capitalism.

Expand full comment
Jeremy Mohler's avatar

My hunch is it’s replicating (obviously with some differences) what socialist feminists like Silvia Federici and others have done for the history of women and capitalism. Love this back and forth, btw!

Expand full comment
Tyler Stuart's avatar

That's a really interesting point. Hadn't made the connection to Federici, but I can see the link there. In both cases, there is some kind of gesture toward a way of life — and gendered relationships — that's been lost through the violence of enclosure and industrialization. Bly talks about the separation of the son from witnessing his father at work as a primal wound in the development of mature masculinity, and one that's tied to the myth of progress.

Expand full comment
PB's avatar
Feb 27Edited

I think that the left or the Democrats need to have some kind of image or ideal of masculinity to which men can both identify with and aspire to. Obama did this in a very low key kind of way, as I think Joe Biden did as well. Also, my impression is that talk about capitalism or anti-capitalism (or socialism or neoliberalism too) turns a lot of people off, and especially a lot of working class people. It sounds cringey and like the sort of thing a college freshman would say, not like a fully grown adult. I think that talk of fighting elites and the powerful and the wealthy is good, but if you start talking about “isms” you stop sounding like a normie. Just talk about the specifics of what you want to do and how that will make people’s lives better. Also, I suspect, but cannot prove, that messages about how a politician or party will make changes that result in men having more freedom or agency do really well, and have been something missing since Obama’s 2008 campaign. “Hope and change”, “Yes we can”, and “we are the ones that we have been waiting for” were always cringe inducing and hokey, but they were also directionally correct and I think successfully sent the message that men were welcome in the coalition.

Expand full comment
Shawn's avatar

I’m a lifelong leftist and yet so much of the parlance on the left about capitalism and all the other isms is so played out that I cringe when I see it. Our messaging is too esoteric and academic. That doesn’t mean we dumb ourselves down, but we must talk in concrete terms and using words that regular people actually use.

Expand full comment
Jeremy Mohler's avatar

Totally agree, Shawn! I need to try harder to speak and write that way.

Expand full comment
Grant Angus's avatar

With Andrew Tate and his brother now in Florida, presumably with the blessing of Trump or his acolytes, I sincerely hope a great number of men will be so embarrassed by this that they will turn their backs on this administration and support the women of America who will no doubt be horrified at what this represents. However, I have my doubts that this will happen. Sadly!

Expand full comment
Miles vel Day's avatar

I think we should try to separate good policies from the idea of “the left” completely.

Expand full comment
bevan's avatar

That’s an interesting idea and one I’ve been mulling over as well. I’ve set myself a goal for this year to try and avoid using political signifiers when describing mine, or anyone’s else, politics. Instead I’m trying to get specific about exactly what sort of policies, organizations and ideas I support. When interacting with others I’m challenging myself to ask them questions about the specifics of things they support. I don’t know what will come of this or if I’ll stick with it but so far I’m enjoying having to be more curious about my own and other’s positions.

The following video lays out some interesting ideas about this topic: https://youtu.be/MYoA1R38cuc

Expand full comment
Jeremy Mohler's avatar

I like that goal!

Expand full comment
Jeremy Mohler's avatar

Why’s that? I’m a socialist and hold on to my leftist communities dearly.

Expand full comment
Dave Deek's avatar

When people say that, they mean some Matt Ygesiasas bullshit to punch left rather actually try to implement any good idea

Expand full comment
Miles vel Day's avatar

"Punch left," lol.

Expand full comment
Dave Deek's avatar

Hey, Quacks like a duck

Expand full comment
Miles vel Day's avatar

Hi Jeremy, sorry for the delay in response, I've been very busy with a project. My thoughts on this issue are... complicated. But to illustrate, there was a Daily Show bit this week where Jon Stewart went over the essential services being cut from the government... and how the "savings" paled in comparison to subsidies freely given to massively successful corporations like those in the oil industry.

I mean, what's "left wing" about that? "The government shouldn't give money to people who make billions a year in profit" isn't a left wing notion in the slightest... so why are we presenting it as if it were? It's non-ideologically populist. It's arguably just common sense, and, theoretically, the thing that the most Americans possible could agree on! But we've allowed things to get twisted up where, in the perception of voters, you can't oppose subsidies to the oil industry without signing up for an entire raft of other stuff... and a lot of people really don't like that stuff.

Just because somebody doesn't identify as a socialist, or even like the idea of socialism, doesn't mean that they can't be an ally if you get them focused in the right direction. Stalin was not a good guy, but he was an ally when we agreed on what issue needed to be dealt with and were willing to put others on hold.

Take a look at the deeply embarrassing post by Dave Deek below (nice subtweet, Dave) to see what happens if you try to express anything outside of community orthodoxy. I mean, I barely expressed ANYTHING and I'm already "punching left" in Dave's estimation, and he's already assigned me the entire worldview of [blogger he doesn't like.] Despite, you know, not knowing anything about me...

And what is the orthodoxy BASED on? Groupings of policies named by where French politicians sat 240 years ago?

If you come out and say "I'm not left wing" like Dan Osborn did in Nebraska then people actually listen to you. The right has not yet laid the groundwork to make people tune somebody with that reasonable tone out. Even if it's kind of bullshit and you're just advocating the same policies as Tim Kaine.

We have an opportunity right now, with the massive unpopularity that is coming for the MAGA movement, to redefine where our policy lines stand, the same way MAGA itself has... we shouldn't blow it by retreating to the same battlements and waiting for the people to come to us.

Expand full comment
Dave Deek's avatar

You aren't like the other folks who talks about “the left”? 

Where have I heard this before?

Expand full comment
marie elizabeth's avatar

yesss I'm so excited to see you and other men start to find these stories. I will say as a woman, that I trust your instinct, after seeing how you listen to others, and how you have made the choice to honor your own deep worth. Stories are deeper than our minds -- a story that compels you from that space of your center -- there's something there. I'm here for it <3

Expand full comment
Jeremy Mohler's avatar

Aw thanks!

Expand full comment
Arturo Mijangos's avatar

I like to tell people that patriarchy reduces the options for men. I think that if I was not raised in a patriarchal religion with explicit expectations for men I might have chosen to be a stay at home father. I loved making bread with my mom and learning how to sow from my grandmother; but these traits were not for men. Imagine if more men chose to stay home or work in the service industry? What if there was no shame for being an equal partner, even if you don’t earn a paycheck.

I am excited to hear more from you.

Expand full comment
Jeremy Mohler's avatar

Love this! I’m getting into soup-making and bread-baking, and sometimes I find myself judging myself because of internalized patriarchal norms and bs about “traditional” gender roles. It’s hard to shake.

Expand full comment
Grey's avatar
Mar 3Edited

The framing of this article is bad and on it's face, there are some gaping holes with how you depict this issue.

You're using "men" in your writing as a stand-in for "white straight cisgendered men". The biggest indicator for support for the GOP isn't gender but if you are white. The GOP isn't speaking to men, it's speaking to white people. And it might look the same because white men are the largest voting bloc of white people but it isn't the same.

Because when we look at non-white men, gay men, bi men, queer men, or queer men, that GOP story for men isn't appealing to those men. The men in any group outside white-straight-cisgendered-men voted for the story the left is presenting (the only exception being latino men aged 45-64).

If we were to just to look at men, the right's story is still not appealing to men in a majority, just only appealing to white straight cisgendered men.

There is critique on the democrats in power here that I agree with but it's false to say that the right has a better story when every group of men but white-straight-cisgendered-men voted against the right.

Expand full comment
Jeremy Mohler's avatar

Thanks for the comment and feedback, Grey. I haven't dug super deep into the voting data from the last election, but I've read multiple times from different sources that young men (including Latino men), while mostly still voting Democrat, shifted rightward compared to the 2020 election. You're right though that sometimes I slip into using "men" to stand-in for white straight cisgendered men, which is what I am. Working on getting more precise with my analysis and language.

Expand full comment
Grey's avatar
Mar 3Edited

Of course and in case it doesn't come through in my writing, i mean to voice this concern kindly.

So sorry if I write a lot here, I just think it's a complex topic and I'll try to reciprocate the effort in your own writing.

I have a knee-jerk reaction when I encounter the term "men" used as white straight cisgendered men. It creates the framing that the GOP is talking to a wide group but that's not actually happening when we actually look at GOP voter support.

And in my view, it then becomes apparent that the GOP is just talking to white people when the GOP support rate is more similar between white men and white women than between white men and any-other-group-of-men. (the closest group to match white men's support of the GOP is white women)

That's a WHOLE separate picture than "the right is speaking to men" framing presents.

I used to be a political analyst for the DoS when I was attached to a reconstruction team so many years ago and it is troubling in how this "data" is used to create stories in the different sources we see. I used data in quotations because the only data we have is exit polls, which can't actually tell the story we have been seeing in media.

The exit polls can't measure turnout or actual demographic changes in voting. They only measure the percentage of those that DID vote. And that's different.

So one of the most common misconceptions is this idea that latino men shifted towards the GOP or young men shifting towards the GOP. But that's not actually supported in the data we have out so far.

It's just picked up in media because it tells a story that sells ad revenue because it either plays into common expectations or refutes them.

One of the biggest issues in those exit polls is that it cannot account for the loss of democratic voters. From 2020 to 2024, democrats has 6 million less votes (but we'd expect about 8 million missing voters due to population growth). Vote totals rarely if ever shrink and in nearly all cases they grow with the voting age population. This happened as Trump got statistically the same votes for 2020 and 2024 (Trump won 22.4% of the population in 2020, that's 22.6% in 2024).

And the loss of democratic voters messed with exit poll percentages. I'll try to show how using overly simplified math.

Trump wins 4 votes from latino men in 2020. Biden wins 6 votes from latino men in 2020. The exit poll would show that 40% of latino men voted for Trump.

In 2024, Trump won 4 votes from latino men. Harris only win 3. The exit polls now show 57% of latino men voted for Trump even though it's the same exact number of latino men voting for Trump. That's not a shift of latino men, that's latino democrats staying home.

And that's the crux of all these media sources saying latino men shifted right. They are using exit polls as a stand-in for actual voting statistics.

And there's a big problem with the math assumed by using these exit polls.

About 8.3 million latino men voted in 2020. And 32% percent of them voted for Biden in 2020 and 47% voted for trump in 2024. That's 1.25 million latino men that supposedly shifted their votes to Trump.

Trump only received 3.1 million more votes in 2024 than he did in 2020. Do we actually think 40% of Trump vote growth came from specifically latino men? That's not statistically possible for latino men, that only make up 6% of the electorate in 2024 to make up 40% of Trumps total growth in votes from 2020.

Especially when considering that Trump seemingly also gained votes in the shift of all young men.

The most likely answer is that democrats had a huge drop of votes this election and it skewed the percentages. Which we see evidence of in total votes for Harris. And the media is just selling stories that generates clicks based on partial information.

Either you love or you hate a story that says latino men shifted to Trump, that's ad revenue. Similar math exists for all young men that supposedly shifted towards Trump in 2024.

I tried my best to simplify this wherever possible, but please let me know if you have questions. I can't reference links on this platform but I'm happy to share my work.

Why this matters:

The stories we tell drive a narrative and it changes how we view people. Suggesting that young men are shifting right changes how we view that group. The same is true for latino men. So if we use our platform to repeat media stories that go on to shape how we view these groups, I think we have an obligation to investigate if these stories are true and to make corrections when possible.

Expand full comment
Andrew's avatar

I sometimes wonder if it’s less “what men need to hear” or even “what men need to see” and more “what men/people need to experience”. Do they experience people in their lives showing up for them in both their times of joy and their times of struggle? Do they experience platonic friendships with women? Do they experience what it’s like to have a coworker stick up for them to the boss or management? Do they experience someone different from them fighting for them? Do they experience solidarity, compassion, and fun in their civic community life? And if they don’t, can we do things in our daily life to change that?

Having an effective message is important but it could be putting the cart before the horse if we don’t invest in the conditions that would help that message land on receptive ears, which I believe comes from lived experience.

Expand full comment
Beverley Jackson's avatar

I think it needs to get worse for men. White men and men in general are still operating under the concept of things get better for them when they can take rights away from women and watch other demographics suffer. This election was supposed to make sure women went back into the homes, immigrants went back to their native countries and minorities get to the back of the line. We need more “misery loves company”. I’m not lifting a finger to comfort those who voted their this.

Expand full comment
Robin Taylor (he/him)'s avatar

Men as a group need to get vocal and show their anger over everything happening. They are the most underrepresented group in protests right now. It's upsetting that even in this article men are painted as somehow victims of this administration when they hold more power than any other group in the US. As a visibly queer trans man I am openly opposing the hatred that's growing in this country and I'm asking for my fellow men to stand with me. Until that happens things will continue to worsen.

Expand full comment
Dave Deek's avatar

That line of thinking does not and has not work

Expand full comment
Beverley Jackson's avatar

When have we ever tried it? When has “boys will be boys” never been a thing? When has coddling , pleading and being nice girls ever worked?

Expand full comment
Dave Deek's avatar

The 2010s?

Expand full comment