Woman is the woe of man (2024)

As someone who voted for Kamala Harris and was shocked that Donald Trump was able to win by a landslide of swing state electoral votes, I spent a lot of time reflecting on how the Democrats lost their grasp on gender issues. Ultimately, I believe that voters overlooking female reproductive rights does not diminish the issue of female reproductive rights, but in fact, proves that it’s a bigger problem than we thought. Plus, whether we like it or not, it has revealed some ominous trends in the radicalization of men and women, especially in the younger generations.

Previous:

Gen Z men

It is no surprise that there is a lean towards the Democratic party among women and a lean towards the Republican party among men. The NBC exit polls show that, while the data is not comprehensive of all voters, a majority of women voted Democrat in the 2024 election, whereas more men voted Republican.

As a Gen Z woman, I was more curious to see the age-by-gender breakdown. Unsurprisingly, men across all age groups voted more Republican than Democrat. While there seems to be an upward trend of young men voting more Democrat than older men, there is a noticeably wider gender split in the youngest age group.

People online are taking note of this large gender divide among Gen Z voters in this election. Millennials who have been comically cyberbullied for their cringe humor and social media habits like the Instagram boomerang filter or the “millennial pause” are now rallying together to claim that at least they don’t have red-pilled fanboys among them. However, the statistics show that Gen Z men still vote, on average, more progressively than millennial men. Millennial men have dominated online spaces like 4chan and video game communities for decades, perpetuating the use of racial and sexual slurs and spreading anti-feminist ideals. Many right-wing manosphere influencers like Andrew Tate and the Nelk Boys are millennials themselves (unfortunately, others like Adin Ross and Nick Fuentes are Gen Z). Pinning the Democratic loss in this election on Gen Z men is near-sighted and ignorant of existing misogynist undercurrents that started long before the 2000s.

However, that’s not to say that Gen Z men are blameless either. There is still an upward trend where young men are becoming more and more socially conservative. A Financial Times article reports a growing split in political ideology alignment between men and women aged 18-29 years old across the world.

Manosphere influencers have been attracting exponentially more views as their content festers on mainstream channels like Tiktok, Twitter, and Twitch—where information is dispensed and absorbed at much faster rates than ever before—and even specifically right-wing apps like Rumble, Truth Social, and DLive—where the echo chambers become louder. As boys enter their young adult years and begin to feel insecure in their masculinity, they become easily susceptible to red-pill content that provides them with an easy target for their shortcomings: women. Instead of discussing how harmful expectations placed upon men are the result of deeply ingrained patriarchal ideals and toxic masculinity, red-pill content promotes a victimhood complex that absolves men of responsibility for their weaknesses.

Statistics show that young men exhibit more signs of career struggle than young women in modern society. Today, 31.3 million women aged 25 or older with a bachelor’s degree are in the U.S. labor force, compared with 30.5 million men. Not only do young women make up a bigger percentage of the labor force, but in many huge metropolitan areas in New York and Washington D.C., they also earn 2% more than young men in median annual earnings. Consequently, many young men attribute their financial hardships and lack of career opportunities to the rise of feminism, instead of other factors like the Covid-19 pandemic stunting career growth and a general shift away from traditional male-dominated industries. Additionally, over the last few years, young men have been experiencing the “male loneliness epidemic,” where they are becoming more detached from social institutions and communities. Men aged 25-34 are more likely (19.7%) to live at a parental home than women (12.3%) and men aged 18-30 on average spend 6.6 hours alone compared to 5.4 for women. Thus, young men feel increasingly left out of modern society and their social isolation makes them vulnerable to misguided teachings that shift the blame onto women. Or, perhaps there is no logical explanation for why some men feel this way: when you come from a position of privilege, equality looks a lot like oppression.

The evolution—or devolution—of initially well-intentioned red-pill content into this toxic and far-reaching misogyny that we see rampant among young men today is fascinating. As someone who’s never touched that side of the internet before, I consulted my Tiktok for-you page to listen to men explain this development. Red-pill content promotes a “better yourself” individualistic mindset where these “alpha males” go to the gym, eat healthier foods, and groom their bodies to be more attractive to women, in an effort to increase their demand in the sexual marketplace. Furthermore, because male-dominated hobbies like weightlifting and Jiu-Jitsu don’t expose men to many women, much less create opportunities for platonic friendships with them, they inevitably begin to see their female peers as objects of desire. Then, when their romantic advancements are unreciprocated, they blame women as they can’t fathom why they would reject a man who has done everything in his power to maximize his masculine appeal. As the male self-improvement and gym bro culture rapidly proliferates on social media and podcasts, the gross entitlement to women and collective view of them as one-dimensional beings only grows.

Therefore, it’s increasingly important for men—and women—to stop spreading this dangerous concept that men and women can never be truly platonic friends. I’ve always found it off-putting that women would force their boyfriends to unfollow all the female users on Instagram (I’m aware that they’re usually referring to Instagram models, but I seldom see this distinction made) or ban them from hanging out with female friends (because it’s deemed micro-cheating). The further we drive men and women into these opposite corners of romantic interest, the bigger the hole we dig for ourselves, trapping us in these backward gender roles.

4B and misandry

This polarization between Gen Z men and women creates a dangerous political environment where both groups become increasingly intolerant of each other. Some men have confessed that they fake their political party preference to maintain their position in the dating world, as this one Tiktok user likens “being a straight white dude that likes Trump but is only into Liberal women” to “being in the closet.” (Tangentially, there is also a lot to be said about this weird romantic preference that conservative men have for liberal women because of a perverted desire to control them.) On the other hand, women are resorting to cutting men entirely from their lives. For the chronically online, the term “4B” has long been circulating within many feminist spaces. The four B’s stand for 비섹스 (no sex), 비출산 (no giving birth), 비연애 (no dating), and 비혼 (no marriage), and originates from South Korea’s extremist feminist movement that started in protest against the revenge porn and spycam epidemic. Among these active voices of protest, for example, is a Twitter account (@KM__arch) dedicated to posting about the discrimination women face in both online and physical spaces. Most recently, Dongduk University, a women’s university, started admitting male students without informing or obtaining consent from their female students. A Jongam police officer told the women protesting that “동덕여대 학생분들 나중에 애도 낳아야 하고,” or “Dongduk Women’s University students will have to have children later,” degrading the women to their biological facets and using that as a justification for allowing a co-educational space that was created for only women. South Korea remains a very conservative country and is also facing societal extinction, with the birth rate at 0.78 being the lowest in the world. Thus, there is a growing concern around feminist attitudes within South Korean society as it may worsen the birth rate even further, along with the existing toxic work culture that is already making it hard for couples to settle down, buy a home, and raise a child.

Over the past couple of months, the 4B movement expanded from a small-scale, extremist feminist cause in South Korea to a popular mindset now adopted in the U.S. Back in May of this year, I asked a Korean-American friend whether he had heard about the 4B movement, to which he (and his mother) responded no. Many skeptics at the time claimed that the 4B movement's scale and impact were massively exaggerated in English-speaking media channels, as it failed to make big waves in its home country. However, while social awareness of the 4B movement may have been overly emphasized, the beliefs it fights against have been fermenting in many American right-wing communities. The idea that the worth of a woman is tied to her childbearing abilities is commonly used to justify the unequal treatment of men and women and the subjection of women to sexual harassment. Notably, JD Vance labeled Democrat women as “childless cat ladies,” as an attempt to devalue them based on the fact that they don’t participate in motherhood. Elon Musk, a deadbeat father of 12 children and a vocal proponent of pronatalism on Twitter, posted “Fine Taylor … you win … I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life,” a creepy threat to impregnate Taylor Swift after she endorsed Kamala Harris’s campaign. As a result of this endless assault over their biological identities, women are now receptive to the idea of swearing men completely out of their lives. Google search results show that queries for “4B” have skyrocketed by 450% the day after the 2024 election results, while the phrase “your body, my choice” has become a chant among many Trump voters.

It is unsurprising to me that the 4B movement picked up so much traction in the U.S., because these extremist feminist sentiments were already well-established in online spaces. Tiktok influencers like Drew Afualo (@drewafualo) have amassed millions of followers fighting against misogynists online, often using their vitriol against them. In response to fatphobic and misogynist comments against women in general, or even her specifically, Drew would expose the face behind these accounts and make fun of their appearances or how they have no girlfriends. Her behavior was welcomed by a lot of women as they felt protected by Drew, seeing that her actions usually resulted in the original user removing their videos or deleting themself from the platform. However, the harsh adversarial nature of her language defending against these online male attackers has also sparked some controversy, as people have called out the hypocrisy in her behavior for using the same bullying tactics that the men use against her. This begs the question: can misandry be excusable in the face of misogyny?

There are numerous parallels between the feminist struggle and the race war between blacks and whites in America. Does reverse racism exist? Merriam-Webster’s definition of racism defines it as “the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another.” Therefore, many posit no to this question, as white people are not systemically oppressed by black people. Meanwhile, others say yes, by a more generic definition such as that put forth by Wikipedia, defining racism as being prejudiced against someone based on race or ethnicity. However, even if we semantically argue that black people can be racist to white people, it shouldn’t invalidate their anger, frustration, and even hate, as a natural human response to the centuries of slavery and institutionalized racism.

In the same line, does misandry exist? Many feminists would argue that acts of misandry are merely retaliation against acts of misogyny. Women don’t inherently despise or disrespect men; it is because of the prolonged abuse and discrimination due to their gender that they extend hatred to all men. Moreover, the majority of feminists are not misandrists. They don’t wish to strip men of basic human rights or deprive them of opportunities because they were born men; they only want to be afforded the same rights and opportunities. Unfortunately, because of the wide reach feminist content has online, it eventually lands on the virtual feeds of men who are illiterate and tone-deaf. This results in the common reply “not all men,” which sounds strikingly similar to “all lives matter.” To say that “not all men” act or believe a certain way, in response to a woman sharing a personal story of gender discrimination, is minimizing her experiences without suggesting any helpful solutions to address the root problem.

Even if some feminists are misandrists, can we blame them? For as long as the Internet existed, rape and sexual abuse jokes have been hailed as “dark humor” by tons of men. On the other hand, about 1 in 5 women in the U.S. report completed or attempted rape at some point in their lifetime. Suddenly, men are taking real offense to online misandrist comments and blaming the radicalization of feminists for the alienation of young men in this election. It’s as if centuries of historical oppression and decades of verbal sexual assault couldn’t justify misandry, but “I hate all men” jokes in recent years that constitute a small portion of online spaces could justify misogyny. In conclusion, the short answer to the question that I first posed earlier is yes, misandry is excusable in the face of misogyny. While such scathing generalizations will surely exacerbate the tensions between men and women, ultimately, we should assume that most men have the same amount of empathy and understanding that women have afforded them throughout hundreds of years of mistreatment.

The last question we have to ask is, will the 4B movement succeed at overturning this tide of rising misogynism in the U.S.? On October 24, 1975, ninety percent of the women in Iceland went on a strike, protesting against wage discrepancy, unfair employment practices, and above all, the lack of appreciation for women’s indispensable work in society. They attended a rally in Reykjavik, the capital, and withdrew completely from work, housework, and child-bearing for a day. This “Day Off,” coined by the Redstockings women’s group, was inspired by the U.N. declaring 1975 International Women’s Year and driven by the abysmal fact that Icelandic women were paid almost half of male wages. Iceland, a country with only 220,000 people, felt the tangible side effects of this strike, with fish factories—mainly operated by women—closing for the day and sausages—bought as snacks for the children whose fathers had to bring to work—selling out. The protest was an outstanding success: Iceland's parliament passed a law guaranteeing equal rights the following year, and the government welcomed the first democratically elected female president in the world just five years later in 1980.

At first, the total withdrawal of women from society in Iceland’s “Day Off” strike sound similar to the tenets of the 4B movement. Although I’m tempted to extrapolate the achievements of Icelandic women to the potential capabilities of the American-adopted 4B movement, I think that would be an idealistic fantasy. For one, the motivations are different: women in Iceland were paid wages far lower than men, while women in the U.S. are closing the professional gender gap. The movements are alike in demolishing traditional gender roles and biological essentialism ideals, but the 4B movement centers on extracting oneself out of participating in sex and romance, rather than household duties and careers. Thus, the 4B movement—in the context of the U.S.—tends to be viewed through a more misandrist lens, as male incels interpret women’s desire to set personal boundaries as an attack on their birthright. There are also logistical differences that set the two movements apart: the “Women’s Day Off” spans, well, a day, whereas rejecting dating, sex, childbirth, and marriage, is an attitude that spans a lifetime. Also, the U.S. has almost a thousand times more people than Iceland, rendering the probability that the 4B movement has a tangible impact on the overall population close to zero.

Nonetheless, many argue that perpetuating hateful speech towards and total rejection of men is counterproductive to the feminist movement. “When they go low, we go high” as Michelle Obama famously said. If we stoop to the lowness of misogynists, then we risk jeopardizing the credibility of our campaign and allow them to see us as equally spiteful beings who discriminate based on gender. However, believing the opposite—that peaceful and passive protest against a longstanding oppressive regime—will work is just as naïve. Women also should not be expected to bear the full emotional burden of educating men, which would further reinforce the double standards that women need to be the patient and indulgent ones in tough and nuanced conversations. Also, no matter how much feminist advocacy charity work women do, the unfortunate truth is that some men will only listen to men. Therefore, we should call upon allied men to be more vocal in deconstructing their misogynist paradigms, so that they will eventually become more receptive to listening to women. It will take time, but we can teach empathy.

Trump and Project 2025

When I see women who spent countless hours fighting their husbands and boyfriends on their abortion rights or educating their brothers and sons against the toxic red-pill content they consume, just to see Trump declared as the winner in this election, I feel their indignance and exhaustion. Women’s posts about how they’re on their way to the polls to cancel out their husbands’ votes might be viewed as a lighthearted trend, but I can’t help feeling terrible for the women who are trapped in relationships where fighting for their rights is a losing game. And hearing your male friends say that abortion wasn’t that important of an issue in this election, while you’re reading about another 18-year-old pregnant girl dying because the doctors refused an abortion due to the state’s legislature, must feel so alienating and hopeless. It’s one thing to have done your research to determine that electing Trump wouldn’t directly flip individual state policies on abortion, but it’s another to have been blissfully ignorant of abortion rights in general and feel privileged enough to vote based on a different issue. After all, the Trump-appointed judges on the Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade, although they had previously said they would uphold it as precedent. Furthermore, even though Trump verbally opposes a national abortion ban, leaving the decision up to the states paves the way for a nationwide abortion ban to override individual state policies via the supremacy clause. Even if Trump doesn’t initiate an attack on female reproductive rights himself, certainly having a president with strong ties to other powerful government officials who oppose female reproductive freedom does not bode well for women in the future.

For example, Project 2025 outlines many proposals directly on the abortion front, including withdrawing the abortion pill mifepristone from the market and reviving a 19th-century law, the Comstock Act, to ban any abortion medications, equipment, or materials from being sent through the U.S. Postal Service. The impact of this would be disastrous as nearly two-thirds of all abortions provided by clinicians are medication abortions, and the vast majority of them use the combined regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol. Although Trump has explicitly said that “[he] knows nothing about Project 2025” on Truth Social, I find that a bit hard to believe, considering how well-integrated he is within the Republican party and among his former government coworkers. For one, Project 2025 is written by a group of former Trump advisers. Kevin Roberts, the Heritage Foundation’s president who oversaw the drafting of Project 2025, has a close relationship with JD Vance, who wrote the foreword of Roberts’ book. In the past week, Trump has appointed Stephen Miller, who was in a Project 2025 recruitment video, as deputy chief of staff for policy, and Tom Homan, a key contributor to Project 2025 as part of the Heritage Foundation, as his “border czar” to carry out mass deportations. So, while he has dodged public self-incrimination of involvement in Project 2025, the odds of his cabinet not pursuing any of its proposals are looking more and more slim. Once the executive branch starts filling up with Trump loyalists, there could be catastrophic effects on women’s reproductive rights, especially with the lack of checks and balances in the Republican-majority Supreme Court and Congress.

Additionally, Project 2025 is set against the backdrop of many strong evangelical Christian ideals, such as suggesting that the Department of Health and Human Services should "maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family.” The conversation around female reproductive rights therefore extends to that of gay and trans rights, as those are also heavily opposed by the traditional Christian faith. For example, Project 2025 threatens to sue schools that protect the rights of trans students or retract Medicaid funding from hospitals if they provide gender-affirming medical care to trans adolescents. Now, with Supreme Court precedents upholding the rights of women and queer couples in danger of being repealed, we may see our government slowly chip away at the separation between church and state. In 1965, Griswald v. Connecticut was a groundbreaking case that created an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, allowing married couples to have access to birth control. Subsequent rulings, namely the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, continued to decriminalize access to birth control and abortion and protect women’s privacy. Then, in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas ruled that states could not put people in prison for being gay, and in 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges legalized gay marriage across all states. All these aforementioned court cases were built on top of the implied right to privacy set in the Griswald v. Connecticut court ruling. In 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it left the door open to all the precedent rulings to be revisited, quote: “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswald, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Right now, six out of nine Supreme Court justices lean Republican, already representing a conservative majority. As more far-right conservatives are appointed to the Supreme Court by Trump, with lifelong appointments at that, there will be ample time to revisit all these court precedents.

To be clear, do I think that if more people had been outspoken about abortion rights it could have overturned the results of this election? Probably not. The reality is that the majority of voters were able to overlook gender issues because they are privileged enough to look the other way. On the flip side, many women even support these traditional gender norms that limit their freedom. There’s the glamorization of tradwife culture which has brainwashed many young impressionable women. For example, this woman went viral for attributing the inability to achieve her tradwife dream to the economy forcing her to obtain a college degree and get a job. She makes the bold statement that “[she] would go back to the 1950s in a second, just so [she] wouldn’t have to deal this shit,” where this “shit” refers to her dreadful life as a single working woman in a progressive country. The appeal of having multiple children and being a stay-at-home mom busy with household chores all day fits like a perfect puzzle piece into the manosphere beliefs that women should be subjugated to restrictive roles in society. Protonatalism also explains why people support limiting access to abortion pills and birth control, because it opposes their desire to revitalize population growth, even if it is at the expense of the mother’s life. So even though, in hindsight, those conversations around female reproductive rights may not have affected the electoral college count, it doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be had in the first place. There are many insidious ways in which men (and women!) are being influenced by red-pill content creators. Even if you don’t directly consume that content, there’s a big likelihood that someone you know in your life does. Therefore, it is crucial to continuously dismantle these detrimental patriarchal ideals and not minimize the issues of gender when it comes to politics. We can’t let these election results, as discouraging as they are, mislead us to think that women’s rights, gay rights, and trans rights are not important.

Next: Money is the root of all evil