JD Vance and the weird lie that sexist men will protect women
Vance's "benevolent" sexism is triggering because it's the oldest trick in the book, ICYMI. Also!: an invitation to a live chat event for all things Mormon Wives.
This week I wrote about feeling triggered by JD Vance because his recent creepy pivot from good old hostile sexism to smiling “benevolent sexism” feels so familiar to most women. (Ladies, yes I’m actively stripping women and girls of their basic rights and imperiling their lives, but I do it because I care!!).
It reminded me of Katie Britt’s bizarre SOTU performance, in which she argued from her proper place (her kitchen) that the problems that patriarchy has created are so scary that our only recourse is to kneel down and serve that same patriarchy.
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 patriarchal religious systems to political organizations like the GOP (and not only the GOP, but it’s currently core to their current strategy) have leaned into for a long time.
And this is exactly the playbook that Vance was playing from in his debate performance. It felt gaslighting to watch the would-be VP and election denier come across as empathetic and polite with his clean-scrubbed boy-scout looks and the piercing Republican blue eyes of Jack Donaghy, whilst lying about how he’s dismantling women’s rights and making forced birth the law of the land.
If it feels chilling, it’s because it is indeed creepy. 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 “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 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 cutting off the right to family planning. 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!
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. All women are.
And those of us who come from high-demand patriarchal religions have had extra doses. So if, like me, you felt especially triggered by Vance’s performance, it’s probably 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, women (especially white women) have been conditioned to believe that we must maintain access and good favor with white men in order to survive. Our basic sense of security is linked to being a “good girl” who is “likable” according to the rules of white patriarchy.
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 paternal patron to earn safety, approval, status, and to be “good enough,” but those things never come. (No offense to the actual dads who point out the BS of gender inequity.)
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.
But when the manipulation shows, it can backfire. Harris still has the edge over Trump with women voters in general, but the gender gap among Gen Z voters is a mile wide, with young women saying they’re going to vote for Harris by 30 points.
I’m sure Vance’s performance worked on some voters. But others see the manipulation and feel sickened by it. Every time the mask slips, more women are giving a hard pass to America’s strict daddies.
You can read the original piece in its entirety here:
JD Vance is the strict daddy that none of us asked for
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.
MATRIARCHY REPORT is written by Lane Anderson and Allison Lichter.
Lane Anderson is a writer, journalist, and Clinical Associate Professor at NYU who has won fellowships and many SPJ awards for her writing on inequality and family social issues. She has an MFA from Columbia University. She was raised in Utah and lives in New York City with her partner and young daughter.
Allison Lichter is associate dean at the Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York. She has been a writer, producer and editor for radio and print, covering the arts, politics, and the workplace. She was born and raised in Queens, and lives in Brooklyn with her partner and daughter.
I love your question about when I really understood benevolent patriarchy -- I have so many memories of male bosses who would be supportive of me professionally while also frequently comparing me to their daughters. So the message was clear: I would always be a dependent subordinate.
Yes. It is really creepy! And so, so many are taught, and taught, and taught again, and again, to switch off their inbuilt creepy detectors from such a young age and beyond.