By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Douglas Wilson, a prominent religious leader, proposes repealing the Nineteenth Amendment and voting by household, reflecting a broader “masculinist” movement gaining traction within the American right. This movement, fueled by a sense of lost male status and amplified by social media influencers and policy advocates, seeks to reassert traditional gender roles and male primacy. While some adherents engage in inflammatory rhetoric, others advance policy goals like dismantling anti-discrimination laws and incentivizing male breadwinners, aiming to reshape societal structures based on traditional gender hierarchies.
Read the original article here
It seems there’s a growing movement, particularly within certain segments of the American right, that harbors a rather alarming desire to silence women. This isn’t just about disagreeing with feminist viewpoints; it’s a deeper, more virulent form of misogyny that seems to be acting as a surprisingly strong unifying force. At its core, this ideology often expresses a profound insecurity and immaturity, projecting blame onto women for perceived societal shifts and even for men’s own shortcomings.
The core of this sentiment revolves around a desire for women to revert to a subservient role, to be quiet and less involved in public life. There are individuals who openly suggest revoking fundamental rights, like the right to vote for women, advocating for a return to a patriarchal system where decisions are made by male heads of households. This idea isn’t just a fringe fantasy; it’s being articulated by figures connected to influential conservative circles and even finding its way into prayer services at high levels of government, suggesting a disturbing mainstreaming of these views.
This push to reassert male primacy, often termed “masculinism,” isn’t confined to religious contexts. While some proponents draw on religious interpretations of male “headship,” secular versions are also prevalent, particularly in online spaces. These platforms often thrive on anti-woman rhetoric, making it profitable to tell men they are the oppressed sex. This grift, while financially motivated for some, has tapped into a genuine vein of discontent among a segment of the male population.
What’s particularly concerning is how this ideology has become a bedrock for the modern American right, bridging divides on other political issues. Factions with differing views on economics or foreign policy can find common ground in their shared opposition to feminism and a desire for a return to traditional gender roles. This shared grievance, rooted in a perceived loss of male status, has become a more powerful unifier than many other policy positions. It’s a potent narrative that resonates with those who feel left behind or disrespected by societal changes.
The roots of this anger are often framed as a reaction to broader societal shifts, including demographic changes. However, the specific targeting of women suggests a more pointed frustration: the idea that women’s advancements have come at the expense of men’s status. This perspective fuels a narrative where women are seen as inherently naive, overly emotional, and prone to left-leaning viewpoints, thus posing a threat to what these men perceive as a more sensible, masculine-led order.
This disdain for empathy often leads to the conclusion that women’s political participation is a problem. The logic suggests that women’s natural inclination towards compassion and concern for feelings leads them to support policies that are, in this view, detrimental to the nation. The gender split in voting patterns is thus not seen as a reflection of differing priorities, but as a problem to be solved by reducing women’s influence.
At the more extreme end of this spectrum, the rhetoric becomes chillingly authoritarian, drawing parallels to oppressive regimes. Suggestions of “breeding gulags” and the confinement of women to “mines” illustrate a radical vision that seeks not just to silence women, but to fundamentally control their lives and bodies. This is a vision that intertwines with other prejudices, often targeting not only women but also other marginalized groups who are seen as challenging the established, patriarchal order.
The idea that women should be quiet, or that their political voice is inherently problematic, is not just a theoretical position for some. There are concrete policy proposals being discussed and advocated for, such as limiting women’s roles in the military or even questioning the constitutionality of women’s suffrage. While these ideas are often dismissed by mainstream conservatives as hyperbolic, the individuals espousing them are often deeply connected to influential policy organizations.
The “male loneliness epidemic” is frequently cited by these groups, yet it’s often framed in a way that blames women for not being submissive enough. The reality, however, seems to be that as women gain more autonomy and realize their own worth, they are less inclined to settle for partners who demean them or seek to control them. The men who champion these silencing ideologies are often those who lack the social or economic standing to command respect, leading them to embrace a belief system that elevates their perceived victimhood and offers a scapegoat for their frustrations.
Ultimately, this virulent form of misogyny appears to be more than just a fringe obsession. It has become a significant ideological force, providing a sense of identity and purpose for a segment of the American right. It offers simple, albeit deeply flawed, answers to complex societal changes and provides a rallying point for those who feel their place in the world has been diminished. The desire for women to be quiet is, in this context, not just about volume, but about power, control, and the denial of equality.