JD Vance is the strict daddy that none of us asked for
Vance picks up where Katie Britt's "benevolent sexism" left off, the lie that dangerous men will keep us safe, and why you feel triggered by it all.
Earlier this year I wrote about how when I saw footage from Katie Britt’s now-infamous SOTU address I gasped. Not because it was so strange, but because it was so familiar.
It was like a private scene straight out of my Mormon youth was being broadcast to the entire country.
All the familiar elements were there: the soft lighting, the boring-but-flawless White lady hairstyle. The demure makeup and jewelry that carefully signal conventional femininity. The pleasing, disarming smile. The odd, hyperfeminine speaking style used to address adults in the voice of a kindergarten teacher reading a children’s book (the now famous “fundie voice.”)
Most importantly, there was the heavy-handed emphasis on the maternal and domestic in a speech that is delivered to women, that defies logic by intoning: Yes, I’m a woman who only has the power to address you in this way because I have a role outside the home, and I gain outsized status from this role outside the home—but I’m here to tell you that the home is the only place women really belong.
The gist of Britt’s message, which was aimed squarely at White women, went something like this:
Ladies, yes we know that it feels like things are getting worse for you and your children in this country. We know that you are anxious, that you feel unsafe, and are having a hard time sleeping. We have sent this woman as a messenger to remind you that you have so little power that the best you can hope for is our benevolence and the “soft power” of a woman in her kitchen. That so-called power is, as you can see from this flailing woman on your screen, is just helplessness with carefully applied lipstick.
We are not coming to you with solutions for how we could make things better for you and your children, but a warning that things could get worse if you don’t fall into line behind powerful white men.
Britt was sent from the higher-ups of the male-dominated MAGA GOP that want us to believe that the problems that patriarchy and a male-dominated society have created are so scary that our only recourse is to kneel down and serve that same white patriarchy.
And this week, I got Deja vu again, when we saw JD Vance pick up the message where Britt left off.
This is a slick and cynical trick: patriarchy creates crises and then tries to sell itself as the solution to those crises.
As I wrote about here, it’s a sleight-of-hand that male-dominated organizations, from the Mormon church to political organizations like the GOP (and not only the GOP, but it’s currently CORE to their strategy) have leaned into for a long time.
Are you enjoying MR? Would you like to share it with someone else?
You can support it by becoming a paid subscriber starting at just $4.50 a month right now, or by gifting a sub to someone who you think would love it.
Thank you so much for supporting my work!
And this is exactly the playbook that Vance was playing from in his debate performance. Yes, it felt gaslighting to watch him come across as empathetic and even-tempered with his even tone and his clean-scrubbed boy-scout looks and the piercing Republican blue eyes of Jack Donaghy. 1
But what’s crazy-making isn’t just that he’s lying, it’s that we know that it often works. The same guy who is best-known for his greatest hits of woman-hating, smallest-man-in-the-world comments puts on a Barbie-pink tie and smile and tries to play it all off like he just cares about women so much.
If it feels chilling, it’s because it is indeed creepy AF. As a fact-check/reality check, here are a few of his woman-hating greatest hits: He suggested that people (read: women) without children are not just “cat ladies” but possibly sociopathic and deranged, said that it was merely “inconvenient” for 12-year old child rape victims to be forced to give birth, and agreed that the reason post-menopausal women exist is to perform unpaid labor for men by doing childcare for them.
Then he stands in front of a camera with his parted hair and with his nicest family-man voice says:
“The cultural pressure on young families, and especially young women, I think, makes it really hard for people to choose the family model they want.” As though his party’s abortion bans weren’t killing mothers as we speak, and making it impossible to choose a “family model.” And meanwhile, his party’s Project 2025 plan would cut off no-fault divorce, cut off funding for affordable birth control and replace it with messages to “get married,” and make IVF illegal.
But okay, JD!
Oh yeah, and then he outright lied and said that he doesn’t support a national abortion ban, when that has transparently been his party’s end game all along.
And! One of his most callous and heinous lies is that “school shootings are a fact of life” while collecting money from the NRA. And if standing by while American school children die is not an anti-child, anti-family policy, I don’t know what is.
Tim Walz seemed thrown off by the gaslighting and the lies, and you know what? Maybe he’s not really used to a guy with parted hair in a suit lying to try to get you to betray yourself to do what he wants. What a gift!
Tim Walz maybe isn’t accustomed to the gaslighting duplicity of “benevolent” sexism and patriarchy. But I am. And all women are.
And those who come from patriarchal religions have had extra doses. So if, like me, you felt especially triggered by Vance’s performance, it’s probably because it’s so familiar—and you know how it works. Because this particular kind of manipulation has worked on you at some point or several points in your life.
So-called “benevolent patriarchy” or benevolent sexism, is a set of patronizing attitudes that are seemingly positive—or presented as positive and “nice”—yet reinforce women’s subordinate status. A key component is the myth of protective paternalism—chivalrous beliefs that men, and only men, can provide safety for women. (Never mind that 99% of violence toward women and children, including political violence, is perpetrated by men! Your abusers are really your protectors, ladies!)
Benevolent sexism also relies on the myth of heterosexual “complementary” gender roles—women and men have complementary traits and roles. But. Those roles associated with women are low in status and power.
Thus, white women have been conditioned to believe that we must maintain access and good favor with white men in order to survive. We must perform for white patriarchal males to stay safe—our basic sense of security is linked to being a “good girl” who is “likable” according to the rules of white patriarchy.2
Feminist Bethany Webster calls this the archetype of the “strict daddy” which I like because it sounds more hot and kinky.
But also because it speaks to the metaphor of women following the rules of a cold and likely deranged paternal figure to earn safety, approval, status, and to be “good enough,” but those things never come. (No offense to actual dads, like mine, who pointed out the BS of gender inequity from the time I was a kid).
This is why both Britt and Vance’s messages are pointed so squarely at White women, and their sense of safety. And dangit it often works, because these beliefs are old and deep and in our culture everywhere.
Benevolent sexism sometimes feels “better” because it’s not as nasty as good old “hostile sexism” which is Trump’s brand, and often Vance’s, too. I think that’s part of the reason Vance feels particularly triggering to some of us, because he’s worn the hostile mask so proudly and then donned the smarmy “benevolent” mask so easily. It feels creepy. It feels abusive.
My smart friend Shauna pointed out that part of the reason benevolent sexism works so well is because it’s assumed in our culture that men have unearned authority. In patriarchal cultures like the Mormon church, men have unearned authority through the “priesthood” which only men are allowed to hold (my never-Mormon partner likes to jokingly call it the “penis-hood.”) This allows male leaders to withhold basic equities to women, such as holding their own baby while it’s blessed by men, or allow female leaders to sit at the front of the church on the “stand” where male leaders sit.
The priesthood allows men to get “revelations” from god, and thus it’s not their fault if god doesn’t want women to sit at the front of the church or give them the priesthood. They keep asking the male god, but he’s just not ready yet (talk about a withholding strict daddy!).
In our larger patriarchal culture men get to call on the unearned authority that’s just good old white male supremacy. Vance gets to lie into a camera with a smile while his female counterparts never could—because men, especially white men, “know what’s best.”
When I watched Vance I felt triggered, but I was also reminded of the time when the myth of “benevolent sexism” came crashing down for me.
I was in the middle of a divorce and still had one foot in the Mormon church. I had been unhappy enough in my marriage that one day I left and walked out the door of my nice, safe apartment in New York City’s Upper West Side, and into a seedy hotel. I couch-surfed and cheap-hoteled my way through the city with a suitcase for the next few months while I tried to secure safe housing that I could afford.
In the midst of this ordeal, I met with a church leader in my local New York congregation, because he wanted to know how I was doing. I had known this man for years, he was my age, he and his wife had eaten dinner in my home.
When we met in an office inside the church he smiled warmly and crossed his legs in his pinstripe suit, his mid-30’s thinning hair carefully combed. At the end of our short chat, he asked if I had paid a full tithe—if I had been paying a full 10% of my income to the church—so that I could get access to the Mormon temple (temples are special buildings separate from ordinary churches that Mormons believe are extra sacred and confer extra blessings). I explained that all my discretionary income was just going toward securing safe housing while I tried to hold down my full-time job.
He smiled that warm, knowing smile. He leaned forward and looked at me with something like kindness in his eyes. “Let’s get you caught up on that tithing,” he said. “Come back and talk to me when you’re paid up,” he said, as he folded up the slip of paper he had on his lap for a temple recommend, and tucked it away into his pocket.
If he saw the flames that started to come out of my face, he responded with the self-satisfied expression of “Oh honey, don’t worry, strict daddy knows best! Even when in crisis, giving men your money is really more important than your personal safety, sweetie!” while he ushered me out the door with an implied pat on the head.
And you know what? I’m grateful for that interaction, because I walked out that door with a trail of flames behind me, and a hearty FUCK OFF to benevolent patriarchy, and I never looked back.
I’m sure Vance’s performance worked on some voters. But others see the manipulation and feel sickened by it. And every time the mask slips, America moves closer to saying a hearty fuck off to its strict daddies.
If this newsletter is meaningful to you, it would mean a lot if you gave it a like and a comment, or shared it with someone that you know.
Thank you so much for supporting our work!
We are offering a special 10% off annual memberships right now, giving you access to every post, every event, every time, for only $4.50 a month.
Further reading:
Sidenote: There’s something about Vance that looks distinctly Mormon. Like, I’m not saying he’s like Mitt Romney at all, but they kinda look alike. Like if Vance photoshopped himself into the family photo he could pass as an extra son. That’s probably what he’s going for, actually.
Ex. the only women sexist Jordan Peterson likes are “agreeable women.”
"Patriarchy creates crises and then tries to sell itself as the solution to those crises." This is the most horrifying kind of gaslighting that way too many of us can't see through -- thanks for making it so clear!
When I was in high school, I was a "teen leader" for a Catholic youth conference (this one, actually: https://steubenvilleconferences.com/). We had a week of "training" before the conference, and at the beginning of the week, the boys started cleaning up the girls' plates after lunch, as an act of service. The next day, we tried to clean up their plates, as a return act of service. Guess what? Women are not allowed to clean up after men as an act of service! When men clean up after women, it is a gift, and by trying to return it in kind, we were told, we were throwing it back in their faces and being ungrateful. We were welcome to find a way to show Christ's love to the boys, but it had to be something else.
In other words, women cleaning up after men is normal, and men cleaning up after women is a sacrifice. All those boys had to do was throw a bunch of paper plates in the trash and they were godly, but if we'd done it, that would have been saying the quiet part out loud.
I don't even remember what we did to *show Christ's love* to those boys, but they cleaned up our plates every single day, and even then, without being able to put it into words, it was so gross how proud they were of themselves for doing such a terrible feminine chore, and how much they were praised for it, and how terrible the leaders made us girls feel for trying to clean up after them.