John Halsey Wood Jr. from Wake Forest University wrote an interesting substack on the recent election, exploring how traditional gender dynamics influenced the 2024 presidential election, noting that “Masculinity [was] indicted by association.”  He goes on to offer his hypothesis: “The political differences between men and women in the ’24 election stem from the different social proclivities of men and women.”  Wood agrees there is agreement concerning men and women in our cultural narrative, but significant disagreement between good or bad. 

Wood astutely points out the differences between male and female in course of the election cycle.   The differences, “suggest that men tend to be more outward-directed and women tend to be more inward-directed.  The masculine ethos tends to emphasize mission, defiance, and action, while the feminine ethos tends to emphasize consensus-building, relational connection and joy.  Women are centripetal and men are centrifugal, and somehow, together they keep the plants in alignment.”  The differences seem to be in our souls, having penetrated deep into our “cultural imagination.”  The differences can lead to a conflict between, what Wood refers to as the, “mission and manor,” that is, being either outward or inward orientation.

Wood believes the Trump campaign “felt more masculine” while Harris campaign “felt more feminine.”  “Harris’s campaign foregrounded the feminine consensus-building impulse by her appeal to joy.  Trump’s power lay in his appeal to difference, his willingness to buck the system, drain the swamp, and his repudiation of established political mores.”  Wood points out the  gender differences in the supporters of both candidates, especially the extreme ones.  “When Trump lost, his most extreme supporters went out and rioted….Trump provided them with a sense of mission even in defeat.”   However, “when Harris lost, her most extreme supporters stayed in and took self-care days.”  

Anthony Bradley, in response to this article, offers the following, “Wood cautions against oversimplifying these dynamics, emphasizing that while gendered differences are real, they are not inherently good or bad.  Instead, they reflect complementary approaches that, when balanced, can enrich social and political life. For instance, men’s outward focus on leadership and mission pairs with women’s inward emphasis on relational cohesion to create a fuller picture of human engagement.”

Wood gives an example from his marriage.  He reflects how his wife tells him to turn left out of the driveway, even though it is familiar to him.  He muses, “If I tell her to turn left it’s because I am conveying information.  If she tells me to turn left it’s because she is building consensus.  She’s maintaining contact.  Directions are a means to that end…….If I don’t know where I am going when I exist the driveway, as the proverb goes, any road will get me there.  She’s there to make sure we arrive together.”

What is  interesting to me, is the response of my wife and myself, as we watched both of the candidates giving their “stump” speeches.  My wife saw too much feminine inwardness, while I respected Trump for his strength, looking for more humility and  compassion.  My wife and I are committed to the complementarity model, with the husband as the head and the wife as the very necessary helpmate.  It seems the election revealed deeper societal patterns rooted in historical and cultural perceptions of masculinity and femininity.  

I believe one of the most effective model in the day to come will be our marriages.  I will be tested for my part in marriage.  I heed the words of I Peter 3:7 “Husbands must give honor to your wives.  Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life.”