Fighting for Their Manhood: Masculinity and Contentious Political Discussions

Given the important place of political discussion in our conceptions of democracy, the well-established gap in political discussion between men and women is consequential. This paper argues that the gap in behavior between men and women is less driven by sex than by gender, specifically the link between masculinity and acceptance of contentious political discussions. Using data from a national probability sample of US adults and the Canadian Election Study, I show that the gap in political discussion is driven by men who assert a traditionally masculine gender identity in self-placement scales, and that the gap extends not to all political discussions but is limited to discussions that are expected to be contentious. The Canadian Election Study data shows the links between these behaviors and personality traits and shows that asserted masculinity among men structures reported contentious political conversations even controlling for traits like extraversion and agreeableness. These findings give support to a model of technical masculinities, in which men try and display their gender identity by engaging in contentious interactions in male-coded subjects, including politics. The results speak directly to the increased incivility of political discourse, as men respond to changes in the gendering of social and economic hierarchies by becoming more rhetorically (and politically) combative. It also helps to explain some of the avenues that lead men (and especially young men) towards greater extremism and radicalisation.