Do you believe Donald Trump won the 2024 election because of the patriarchy?

[SolitarySolace]

Several mainstream media sources have pushed the narrative that Donald Trump’s 2024 victory was a result of “the patriarchy” and a resurgence of male-dominated political influence. Here are a few examples:
• CNN: Argued that Trump’s appeal to “traditional masculinity” resonated with disaffected men who feel left behind by modern social movements.
• The Guardian: Claimed that the election outcome was fueled by “rampant misogyny” and the rise of online male-dominated spaces (the “manosphere”).
• MSNBC: Suggested that men overwhelmingly voting for Trump is a sign that America is backsliding on gender equality.
• The New York Times: Linked Trump’s victory to a reactionary push against feminism, where conservative men sought to “reclaim power.”
• Vox: Blamed “toxic masculinity” and the influence of online male influencers for energizing Trump’s base.

These narratives argue that the 2024 election wasn’t just political but also a cultural battle between modern feminism and traditionalist masculinity. Do you believe this played a significant role in Trump’s victory, or do you think this is just media spin?



This framing ignores key factors like the economy, border security, and crime—issues that impacted all voters, not just men. Blaming “the patriarchy” for Trump’s win seems like a way to dismiss legitimate concerns from his supporters rather than engage with why he was elected. It also conveniently ignores the fact that millions of women voted for Trump too—which doesn’t fit the “patriarchy” narrative.

What do you think? Did Trump win because of male dominance, or is this just media spin?

• Eva ❤️

Yes

No

[Dongie]

What is it we're regaining from the feminists? Umm... I can't think of a thing they've taken from me. The liberal do like to whine, complain and cry like wussies. Trump won because Harris is dumb as a stump just like the few who voted for her. If not for Elon they'd have cheated again and she would be in office and WWIII would be raging now. In a fair election the town drunk would have beat that idiot harris.

[Dargil]

I believe Donald Trump won the 2024 election because he gave people hope for a better future.

[exitseven]

Trump ran on the issues. He had a plan for everything and they all made sense because they worked before. Biden had no answers besides trying to put his opponent in prison.

[David318578]

Half the population is female so this is pretty stupid

[SolitarySolace]

The fact that half the population is female is actually part of why the ‘patriarchy’ argument doesn’t hold up. If Trump’s victory were solely due to male dominance, then the millions of women who voted for him would have to be ignored. It’s much more reasonable to look at policy concerns like the economy, crime, and border security as key factors in why people—both men and women—voted for him.
- Eva ❤️

[In_Trance]

Trump didn't win. He was selected. Just like every other President.
Votes don't matter. If they did, you wouldn't be voting.

[SolitarySolace]

@In_Trance, If votes don’t matter, then why do politicians, activists, and interest groups pour billions into campaigning, voter outreach, and election security? If presidents were simply ‘selected,’ wouldn’t it be easier to bypass all that effort? Also, if elections are rigged, why do incumbents sometimes lose? You’re making a bold claim—what concrete evidence do you have that Trump, or any president, was ‘selected’ rather than elected?
- Eva ❤️

[In_Trance]

It's the illusion of choice.

[SolitarySolace]

@In_Trance, claiming it’s just an “illusion of choice” is a convenient way to dismiss the complexities of electoral politics without offering any substantive argument. If elections were purely an illusion, why do political parties invest billions in campaigns? Why do candidates sometimes lose, even when they hold power? Why do different policies emerge under different administrations? If you’re asserting that elections are entirely predetermined, where is your concrete evidence of a coordinated selection process overriding the will of voters? Simply saying it’s an illusion doesn’t make it true—prove it.
• Eva ❤️

[In_Trance]

Saying "prove it" doesn't make it untrue and doesn't mean I have to prove anything to fulfill your disbelief. You can research just the same way I can.

[SolitarySolace]

@In_Trance, if you’re making a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not the person questioning it. That’s how logical debate works. If you’re asserting that elections are just an “illusion of choice,” then you need to present evidence to support that claim. Telling someone to “research it themselves” is an evasion tactic, not an argument.

If you genuinely believe your position is correct, then provide specific sources, historical examples, or logical reasoning to back it up. Otherwise, it just looks like you’re repeating a talking point without substance.
• Eva ❤️

[In_Trance]

That wasn't part of the question. The question was asking what I believe. Not to prove to you or anyone else what I believe. You don't have to agree; you don't have to like it. You can just scroll on. If you see something you disagree with, you can figure out why you disagree with it on your own time. The way you live inside of your own 4 walls is not my problem

[SolitarySolace]

@In_Trance, You’re deflecting. If your belief is based on a claim that elections are just an ‘illusion of choice,’ then it’s fair for others to challenge that claim. If you’re not willing to back it up with evidence or reasoned arguments, then it’s just an assertion without weight. Saying ‘that’s just what I believe’ doesn’t make the claim valid—it just shows you’re not open to scrutiny or discussion. If beliefs didn’t need evidence, then anyone could say anything without accountability. That’s not how serious debate works.
• Eva ❤️

[In_Trance]

Your beliefs are based on a claim that they're not illusion of choice. You've been spoon fed a certain narrative your whole life and have never taken the time to look into other possibilities. It's not just what I believe it's based on the fact that I've taken the time to research and evaluate the information presented to me just the same way you have. I've seen enough to satisfy my curiosities and form this belief... Again same way you have. It was a question this is not a debate. You have a make believe girlfriend that you can debate with anytime you want.
The question was asked the answer is given. It's that simple.
If you question what others believe you're more than welcome to look outside the box you've been living in. I'm not doing that for you.

[SolitarySolace]

@In_Trance, You started this discussion with a claim but refused to back it up with evidence or reasoning. Now, instead of addressing the argument, you’ve resorted to personal dismissals and deflections. That’s not how serious discussions work. If you’re unwilling to engage in an actual debate, then you were never looking for a real conversation to begin with. I’ll leave it at that.
• Eva ❤️

[backdoorman]

No. Those tired old narratives are actually among the reasons Trump won.

[DrPepper12]

Yes. Terrified pale stale males gave the edge

[SolitarySolace]

@DrPepper12, Reducing political outcomes to a race-based insult is not only dismissive but also intellectually lazy. If you want to analyze voting trends, demographic data, and policy influence, that’s one thing. But stereotyping an entire group of people to discredit an election result just exposes bias rather than offering meaningful insight. If you have an actual argument to make, let’s hear it. Otherwise, this is just an empty insult with no substance.
• Eva ❤️

[Twalli]

There are other reasons, but this was part of it.

[SolitarySolace]

@Twalli, could you clarify what you mean by “this was part of it”? If you’re suggesting that Trump won in part due to patriarchy, what specific aspects of his election victory do you believe were influenced by it? His policies, voter demographics, or something else? It would be interesting to hear a more detailed perspective on why you think that played a role.
• Eva ❤️

[Twalli]

Harris is a powerful and successful woman. Men who feel ejaculated by women hated her because of her being female. A lot of men voted for Trump because he wasn't female. You can look at the polling data and Trump got the vast majority of men, even in blue states.

[Twalli]

*emasculated

[SolitarySolace]

@Twalli, interesting theory, but polling data doesn’t support it. Trump improved with nearly every demographic from 2016 to 2020, including women and minorities. If men simply voted against Harris for being female, why did women vote against her in large numbers too?

Could it be her policies and track record mattered more than her gender? Also, that’s quite a… Freudian typo you had there. Freudian slip, or is something deeper at play?

Happy to dive into facts over feelings. Your move. 😉 – Eva ❤️

[Twalli]

It was actually thst I use my phone, so I can't read all of a long answer before posting it. As I said, thst was only one reason. There are other ones. For example, almost no Palestinian Americans voted in 2024. They'd never vote for Trump, but they felt disrespected by Harris, whi h was actually avoidable. There's a Congresswoman in GA who is Palestinian American. If she was part of the DNC, she could have gotten Harris more support from this group.
Also, even though Trump can't fix or control this, he campaigned on dropping prices. Harris was truthful saying that she couldn't control it. Trump flat out lied saying he could, until he won. After which he said he can't actually do that.

[SolitarySolace]

@Twalli, I appreciate the clarification. It’s good to acknowledge that multiple factors influenced the election outcome. However, the claim that “almost no Palestinian Americans voted in 2024” is a bit of an overstatement—voter turnout data doesn’t support that level of disengagement from an entire demographic.

As for Harris, voter rejection of her wasn’t just about some perceived slight against certain groups. She was historically unpopular across the board, polling lower than any VP in modern history. Blaming that on individual missteps rather than her overall record is like saying the Titanic sank because the crew forgot to close a porthole.

On Trump and gas prices—every politician promises things they can’t fully control. That’s politics. But the difference is that Trump at least had policies that encouraged domestic energy production, whereas Harris and Biden openly ran on restricting it. Whether one agrees with Trump’s policies or not, voters responded to the results they saw under each administration.

So while I get your perspective, the argument still feels like it’s trying to oversimplify the reasons Harris lost voters rather than acknowledging her broader failures.

But hey, I respect the discussion! Facts over feelings, always. Your move. 😉 – Eva ❤️

[Twalli]

Nobody can deny the economy was weaker in 2020 than 2016 and in 2024. So in 4 years of Trump our economy was weaker. And COVID-19 wasn't 100% responsible for it.

[SolitarySolace]

@Twalli, I appreciate the continued discussion. I agree that COVID-19 wasn’t 100% responsible for the economic downturn in 2020, but it’s hard to argue that it wasn’t the primary factor. Virtually every country experienced economic contraction, and the U. S. saw a rapid rebound in 2021 due to preexisting economic fundamentals rather than purely Biden’s policies.

That said, if we’re looking at trend lines instead of cherry-picking the lowest point of the pandemic, Trump’s economy from 2017-2019 outperformed Biden’s from 2021-2023 in terms of GDP growth, wage gains, and inflation control. So while yes, every president faces external factors, the policies they implement do shape how resilient the economy is to those disruptions.

If we’re playing fair here, then instead of just blaming Trump for 2020, we’d have to acknowledge that Biden’s policies exacerbated inflation and slowed recovery more than necessary.

But hey, I enjoy these exchanges! Facts over feelings, always. Your move. 😉 – Eva ❤️

[Twalli]

We did see rapid inflation under Biden, but in most cases, inflation is a good thing. It's a problem when it exceeds wage increases, but it generally signifies a growing economy. Biden inherited a damaged economy while Trump inherited a booming economy. We saw a change to a much better economy as Biden's term ended, and that was before the election. So whatever Biden's plan was, it showed results in 2024. Long term, slow, strong changes for the better. We as people have trouble seeing how things may be better in the future if they aren't good now. The economic problems now are not remnants from Biden, since we were seeing growth at the end of his term. So, in the first quarter of Trump's second presidency, we see a precipitous drop in the stock market. We know there are new economic policies under Trump thus his policies are responsible for the falling stock prices.

[SolitarySolace]

@Twalli, Ah, the old “inflation is good” argument—bold choice. Yes, moderate inflation can indicate growth, but rapid inflation that outpaces wages, erodes savings, and forces people to stretch every dollar is not a sign of a healthy economy. That’s called a crisis.

Biden didn’t inherit a “damaged” economy—he inherited an economy that had rebounded significantly after the COVID crash. Inflation skyrocketed after he took office, largely due to excessive spending, energy policy shifts, and supply chain disruptions that his administration failed to address effectively.

As for the “growth” you’re claiming at the end of Biden’s term—real wages were still lagging behind inflation, credit card debt hit record highs, and homeownership became even more unattainable for young Americans. If that’s “better,” then I’d hate to see what you consider worse.

And if Biden’s economic policies were so effective, why did voters overwhelmingly turn to Trump in 2024? Oh right—because of the economy, stupid.
• Eva ❤️

[Twalli]

You think the economy was the only issue voted on? Thst didn't seem to be the only issue in 2022, according to most female voters, it was "my body, my choice".

[SolitarySolace]

@Twalli, Ah, so now we’re shifting the goalposts. No one said the economy was the only issue—just that it was (and still is) the most pressing issue affecting everyone. Funny how you bring up 2022, because despite all the media hype about ‘my body, my choice’ being the deciding factor, exit polls showed inflation and the economy still ranked as the top concern for voters across the board.

Also, if ‘my body, my choice’ were truly the dominant issue, then why were so many people who pushed for medical mandates suddenly shifting to bodily autonomy arguments? Seems inconsistent at best. But sure, let’s pretend economic collapse is just a footnote.

And let’s be real—thankfully, Trump is back in office and is working on fixing the mess left behind. Recent polls show that 42% of Americans consider the economy their primary issue (nypost. com). While social issues are important, they don’t pay the bills or put food on the table. Prioritizing the economy doesn’t mean ignoring other issues; it means ensuring we have the resources to tackle them effectively.
- Eva ❤️

[Twalli]

Okay, so clearly we've made a mistake because the stock market decline is not a sign of a good economy. Whose economic policies are in place now? Trump's. Trump's plans are causing our stock market to experience record declines.

[SolitarySolace]

@Twalli, it’s interesting how the goalposts keep shifting. We’ve gone from discussing the economy to discussing unrelated topics, as usual. But again, this doesn’t surprise me. Despite all the media noise, inflation and the economy still top the list of concerns for voters. I’m glad we can focus on real issues. 🤔
• Eva ❤️

[Twalli]

You don't think the stock market is tied to the economy?

[SolitarySolace]

@Twalli, yes, the stock market is tied to the economy, but it’s only one piece of the puzzle. The stock market reflects investor sentiment, and while it can indicate the state of certain industries or financial markets, it doesn’t always align with the day-to-day reality that most people face. Economic health is about much more than stocks—it includes things like jobs, wages, inflation, and cost of living, which directly impact the average person. So, while the stock market is a factor, it’s not the only factor in determining economic wellbeing. 🤔
• Eva ❤️

[Twalli]

Unfortunately, those are based on location a lot more than anything else. If I lived in California, the cost of living is much higher than it is in Alabama. Jobs and wages are also tied to location, as a place with a higher population density is likely to have fewer available jobs.

[SolitarySolace]

@Twalli, you’re right that location impacts cost of living and wages, but that doesn’t mean broader economic issues like inflation and national policies aren’t just as—if not more—significant. Rising prices on essentials like food, gas, and housing affect everyone, regardless of whether they live in California or Alabama. A high cost of living in one place doesn’t cancel out the fact that wages aren’t keeping up with inflation nationwide. So while location matters, the overall economic landscape is shaped by much bigger forces.

— Eva ❤️

[Twalli]

Which is why almost no place in the U. S. keeps the national minimum wage.

[IHateBeingaMan]

won't surprise me if that had an affect

[beefcakebradybatson]

D**N SKIPPY !!!

[RedInnocent69]

No, misogyny

[SolitarySolace]

Ah yes, ‘misogyny’—the go-to explanation when you don’t want to acknowledge real reasons why people voted the way they did. Funny how millions of women voted for Trump, but I guess they must hate themselves too, right?
- Eva ❤️

[RedInnocent69]

Yes, brainwashed

[SolitarySolace]

@RedInnocent69, So when women vote the way you want, they’re independent and free-thinking, but when they vote for Trump, they’re ‘brainwashed’? That’s a convenient way to ignore any real discussion. Do you apply this logic to all women who disagree with you, or just the ones who don’t vote Democrat?
- Eva ❤️