In the last weeks of the 2024 United States presidential campaign, the candidates and their supporters made a final plea to voters. Polls revealing a gender gap in support for Kamala Harris and Donald Trump prompted the Harris campaign, in particular, to attempt to engage men in its messaging about women’s rights.
Michelle Obama’s appeal to men in the waning days of the election campaign was an example.
Some observers have argued that recent movements like #MeToo may have left men feeling like they shouldn’t have a say over women’s issues or, even worse, attacked and disenchanted.
The Harris campaign attempted to counter these concerns by calling on men in women’s hour of need.
How can we understand the gendered messaging during the campaign? In the end, Trump prevailed, and it’s possible his appeals to traditional masculinity helped turn out the male vote to the detriment of Harris.
Voting for women’s rights
We explored similar dynamics in a 2021 research paper on how men were mobilized during Ireland’s 2018 abortion debate. Our findings help shed light on this current moment in the United States.
Harris’s campaign and supporters made it clear that a vote for her was a vote for women’s rights, and yet, they were aware that they were losing male voters to Trump.
Coalitions of individuals based on gendered identities emerged in support of Harris’s presidential bid, from self-proclaimed “girl dads” (including actor Ben Stiller, The National band members and Harris’s husband, Doug Emhoff) to “White Dudes for Harris.” These ads targeted and encouraged men to consider the women in their lives when casting their ballots.
(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
Our research on the 2018 Irish abortion referendum examined the strategic use of gender and gender norms in the Twitter posts (now X) of two key organizations: the anti-repeal/anti-abortion Love Both and the pro-repeal/pro-abortion rights Together for Yes.
We found that targeting men explicitly was a relatively small part of the campaign of both organizations. Subtler invocations of gender were more common.
Campaign ads featured “role models” for men — including popular athletes, an attractive male celebrity or a relatable “dude dad” — who used accessible language to explain why they supported abortion rights, sometimes talking about their daughters or wives.
The underlying message was that manly men were needed to ensure women won reproductive rights, similar to the Harris campaign’s messaging in its final push.
While there are other parallels between the two campaigns, there are also important differences. Most obviously, the Irish campaign was a single-issue debate about abortion rights and whether to pave the way to liberalizing abortion law. Women’s reproductive rights were just one of many issues, however, in the U.S. election campaign.
Read more:
The role gender played in Donald Trump’s victory and his renewed efforts to remake America
Other differences
Another major difference is the relative starting points in terms of gender narratives in each campaign. Trump and his supporters characterized him as an ideal representation of hyper-masculinity. Trump also said he would be the protector of women whether they “like it or not.”
Men who supported Harris also had their masculinity questioned by Trump supporters, including Donald Trump Jr., who dubbed the “White Dudes for Harris” group “Cucks for Kamala.”
In Ireland, however, this type of hyper-masculine narrative was largely absent in the campaign messaging from either side. As we discuss in our research paper, both the “Yes” and “No” camps called on men to varying extents and in different ways, but even the conservative anti-abortion “No” side avoided leaning into hyper-masculinity.
Instead, the campaigns focused their efforts on the emotional vulnerability that comes with men’s protector roles as partners and fathers. Both sides were able to mobilize around this type of benevolent sexism — attitudes and beliefs that appear positive or well-intentioned towards women, but ultimately reinforce traditional gender roles and maintain male dominance.
One side argued that women were better protected by having abortion access, and the other argued they were better protected by keeping abortion illegal.
Read more:
Gender is playing a crucial role in this US election – and it’s not just about Kamala Harris
Critical questions
These two campaigns raise the following questions about whether a political messaging strategy focused on “real men” is truly effective:
- Did men who care deeply about women’s rights already plan to vote for Harris, and the messaging simply further alienated those who were on the fence?
- How can men be encouraged to think about their women relatives and care about the rights of others?
- Does benevolent sexism under the guise of supporting women inhibit progress in some way?
- Is emphasizing that you can “be a man” and “still” vote for a woman just further normalizing the idea that how men vote is a reflection of their masculinity?
These are open questions as society grapples with whose rights are at stake during important societal debates.