Trump’s Masculine Foreign Policy and the U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

The Context

In June 2017 President Donald Trump announced that the United States would cease all participation in the 2016 Paris Agreement, an agreement signed by 195 countries with a commitment to collectively address and fight climate change. Each member is required to plan and report regularly on its “nationally determined contributions” to mitigate global warming.

A signatory’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is prohibited within the first three years of the agreement, so the U.S. will not officially be removed from the Paris Agreement until 2020, but President Trump has made it clear that the U.S. will not participate now or later in this agreement. His reasoning for withdrawal is that it is in the best interest of American businesses and workers, a traditionally Republican motivation which he cites for many of his policy decisions. (In fact, the economy is not improving with his help, it’s getting worse.)

In 3 years, Trump has pulled out of six different international treaties and agreements including the Paris Agreement, significantly cut back two, and severely challenged two more. Many news sources are claiming he has abandoned some of the most fundamental international relationships that the U.S. has. Trump has claimed he is acting for the self-interest of America. Is this the real reason?   

Because of our robust two-party system, much of the policy decisions made by each new president can be interpreted as a small part of the larger bipartisan battle that has characterized American politics. The presidency is passed back and forth frequently between the parties, and the new president pushes the agenda of their party that was not prioritized previously.   

Thus, Trump’s policy actions could simply be a strong Republican response to eight years of Democrat decision-making under the Obama administration. However, there are several additional social science facts that reveal a deeper explanation of Trump’s policy decisions and by extension the current state of the American two-party system. The Paris Agreement is a case study revealing that Trump’s broader policy approach is one rooted in anti-feminine hyper-masculinity.

The Social Science Facts

Although results in social science cannot be proven as fact, the following “facts” are simply evidence and conclusions based on statistical analysis of that evidence, which are highly likely to be correct.

Fact #1: Political issues are gendered. Research suggests that women and men have different policy preferences. Women typically care more about health care, general public health, education, welfare, and stricter gun control than men. Experiments and surveys have been conducted to come to this conclusion.

Fact #2: Climate change is a feminine issue. Studies indicate that climate change is an issue believed more and addressed more by women. More women are in support of action to prevent global warming than men, and conservative white men are more likely to deny that climate change is happening than anyone else.

Fact #3: Women tend to identify and align more with the Democratic party than men. The Democratic party tends to house more issue positions favored by women, which might explain why more women align with the Democratic party than the Republican party. Thus, the Democratic party and its issue interests tend to be characterized as more feminine.  

Fact #4: “Agency” is considered masculine, while “communion” is considered feminine. Gender psychology research has found that men are more likely to act for self-enhancement and self-assertion, focusing on self and separation. Such actions have been termed more broadly as actions of “agency”. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to act in cooperation with others, focusing on others and connection and being termed as actions of “communion”.   

Fact #5: The effects of gender and party affiliation on policy preference are difficult to disentangle. Much of the difference in policy preference between men and women can be explained by the difference in policy preference and actions between the Republican and Democratic parties. This means that some might dismiss the reality of a gender gap and attribute any difference to bipartisanism, suggesting that if you cannot isolate gender as more influential than party affiliation then you cannot conclude that party is not the more significant factor. However, because women and feminine issues do tend to align more with the Democratic party, and even Republican women trend significantly more liberal than Republican men, we cannot conclude that gender is not the most significant factor either. Although we may not be able to isolate the effects of each, we can confidently say that all political issues are both gendered and partisan and cannot simply be one or the other. Thus, gender persists as a significant factor in determining policy preference and subsequently party policy agendas.

The Gendered Two-Party System

Although the policy actions of Trump may seem to be pushing the Republican agenda, the fracturing of the Republican party in response to his actions as well as the facts detailed above lead me to conclude that the Republican agenda cannot be the only explanation. Trump has been characterized as a hyper-masculine “macho man” that is constantly demeaning and discrediting women and femininity as superficial, weak, and lesser. He constantly flaunts his aggressive tactics and ability to stomp on the weaker party to get his way. He is expressing hyper-masculine traits through his policy decisions by abandoning things associated with any type of feminine trait: climate change, international cooperation or “communion”, global concern, concern about health, Democratic party priorities. Instead he has chosen the more masculine path of “agency” through isolationist policy to “make America great again” and glorifying the American dream of self-made economic opportunity.

The inherently gendered nature of political issue alignment with each party invite the association of Trump’s policy action, particularly his foreign policy, with a hyper-masculine agenda that is intertwined with the Republican agenda. The next question we should ask is this; is Trump an outlier causing this association or has this always been the case? I would speculate that Trump is an exaggerated caricature of the foundational gendered motivation fueling the American two-party system and resulting policy decisions.

Gender Socialization: Threatening the Lives of Female Athletes

Gender Socialization: Threatening the Lives of Female Athletes

By Lawrence Tuttle

23 November 2019

            Mary Cain was an Olympic-qualified runner at age seventeen. In 2013, she accomplished her all-time dream of working for Nike’s Oregon Project, the world’s best track and field team. Alberto Salazar—the head coach—was Cain’s idol and role model. He became her personal trainer and she did everything within her power to follow his instructions and make him proud. At the beginning of her training, Cain felt like she had reached the climax of her career. After a short six years on the team, however, this athletic prodigy faced devastating effects when forced to follow Salazar’s increasingly strict body size requirements. In order to retain her standing on the team, she was relentlessly pressured to get “thinner and thinner and thinner.” After multiple years of this rigorous training, which was often based on a male development timeline, her body reached critical condition, coming close to developing osteoporosis and infertility. After these debilitating consequences (and doping charges held against Salazar), she realized that she had to publicize her experiences with the team. Shortly after speaking out, the Oregon Project was dissolved, and Nike underwent extensive investigations regarding the treatment of all their athletes.

            Cain’s abhorrent experience is unfortunately quite common. Also referenced in the story was the experience of Gracie Gold, an Olympic figure skater. Similar to Cain, her mental health dropped to the point of suicide due to the inhumane size demands placed upon her. Because she felt like her self-worth was attached to meeting these expectations, she developed suicidal levels of depression. Fortunately, she also spoke out before it was too late. These stories reflect a type of pressure that permeates athletic sports and many facets of the public sphere: gender socialization.

(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/opinion/nike-running-mary-cain.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage)

What is gender socialization?          

            The concept of gender socialization is when masculinity and femininity are defined under certain terms with two key players: agents and targets. The agents are those actively or passively informing society about what it means to be masculine or feminine. Targets are the recipients of these definitions who are expected to conform to them. In the case of Cain, Salazar and Nike were active agents deliberately pushing her (the target) to get thinner and thinner to achieve their definition of what a feminine athlete should look like. Another athlete, Olympic distance runner Kara Goucher, expressed that “after being cooked meager meals by an assistant coach, she often had to eat more in the privacy of her condo room.” These athletes did their best to conform to the expected body mass, but it was physically unattainable. For Cain, this meant losing recognition from Salazar and her status within the Oregon Project. These women exemplify how strict adherence to gender socialization standards can be harmful to realize.

            Standards like these develop from more general gender stereotypes. From Cain and Gold’s stories, one of these stereotypes for women is extreme thinness. The video Tough Guise addresses the limiting set of stereotypes that males are socially compelled to conform to or be ostracized. Characteristics include, but are not limited to, aggression, intimidation, physicality, power, muscularity, and athleticism. These gender constructs explain in part the rationale behind Salazar and Nike’s actions toward their athletes.

What are “real” sex differences?

            While some of these gender stereotypes are created through agents of socialization, others stem from actual differences between males and females, as explained in the work of Wade and Feree. “Real” differences are those that can be measured cross-culturally and biologically. The number of “real” biological differences between men and women are few, but they can have detrimental consequences if intentionally ignored. In the example of Cain and Gold, “women and girls are being forced to meet athletic standards that are based on how men and boys develop.” The toxic implications for women include decreased bone density, poor mental health, loss of menstrual period, increased risk of osteoporosis, and even suicidality. This occurs because Cain and other female athletes cannot physically fit this impractical mold without serious health consequences. It is not just a matter of intense training and dedicated effort; there are legitimate physical differences that make standards like those set by Salazar impossible and destructive for ambitious athletes.  

            Consequences of ignoring “real” sex differences can result in experiences like those of Cain and Gold. They push themselves to unnatural levels that are physically unrealistic to meet and damage their bodies in doing so. Holding to such expectations can be destructive for all athletes, and by extension, members of society when it causes agents to disregard “real” sex differences.

Democrats are obsessed with electability in 2020—but women candidates shouldn’t be worried.

A historic number of women are running for president in 2020, with five current women candidates and one who has dropped out of the race. Actually, a historic number of people are running in the Democratic primary, with seventeen current candidates and ten who have dropped out of the race.

While there are numerous issues that Democrats will consider when voting, almost all Democrats are concerned with electability—they want a candidate who can beat Trump more than they want a candidate that has similar issue positions. So, what does it mean to be electable?

What is electability?

A simple definition of electability is how likely a candidate is to win an election. In other words, which candidate can get enough voters to win? While electability is a big concern for Democrats, there is not a firm way to measure electability before the election actually happens. After the election, electability can be measured through the candidates vote share—how much did he or she win or lose by?

Measuring electability before the election is squishier, though. Head-to-head polls are often cited in electability arguments. According to averages of national polls, Democratic voters prefer the top Democratic candidates over Trump.

But a year out from the general election is a long time, and people shouldn’t put much stock in them. They mostly reflect name recognition rather than substantive support, though partisan polarization may make early polls more accurate as voting patterns become more predictable.

Even though early polls may not be accurate, electability in the general election still matters to people voting in primaries. Voters tend to be strategic when they cast their ballot. They’ll consider policy positions, but they’ll also consider if they think that the candidate can win or not.

What makes a candidate electable?

A candidate is electable when they are able to gain the support of a majority of voters. This means that there is more than one way to be electable. It is usually assumed that being electable means winning back the white, working-class voters in the Midwest who voted for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016, but that ignores other key blocks of voters. Maximizing turnout among minorities could boost a candidate’s chances in the general election even if Democrats fail to win back white, working-class Midwesterners.

According to researchers, there are a few characteristics that make a candidate more electable. First, partisanship is a huge deal. It is well established that partisanship is the most important factor in vote choice.

Second, moderate candidates who narrowly win nominations do better on Election Day than more extreme candidates who narrowly win nominations. This means that a moderate candidate would do better than an extreme one if the two candidates were similar in every other way.

Does gender influence electability?

Well, according to some scholars, no. Women tend to win elections at the same rate as men do, suggesting that gender does not have a large impact on the chances of a women candidate winning.

But if men and women truly had equal footing in elections, we would expect Congress to be roughly half men and half women, which is not the case. In reality, women make up only 24 percent of Congress.

So why aren’t there more women in elected office? Voters still hold policy stereotypes about women candidates. When women candidates are seen as competent on stereotypically male issues, like the economy, voters think that they are more electable. On the other hand, when women are seen as competent on stereotypically female issues, like childcare, voters don’t think of them as more electable.

Women are also more likely than men to start their political careers at the local level. If women candidates at the local level characterize themselves with feminine stereotypes, they may be more likely to lose the election and never climb the political ladder.

This means that feminine women candidates get filtered out at the local level, and masculine women candidates are more likely to run for political office at the national level. Only a small percentage of women—those who portray themselves as masculine—make it to the national stage.

Voters don’t universally use stereotypes about women when making their vote choice, though. They are more likely to use stereotypes when the campaign reminds them to. In other words, when campaigns rely on feminine stereotypes, like being gentle or nurturing, voters are more likely to consider those stereotypes when casting a ballot, hurting the woman’s electoral chances.

Overall, it seems like voters don’t care if a candidate is a biological male or a biological female. They care if the candidate portrays stereotypically masculine or stereotypically feminine qualities.    

What does this mean for the women running for president in 2020?

As long as the women candidates are seen as competent on a wide variety of issues, including the economy, they probably won’t be punished electorally for focusing on stereotypically female issues. It’s doubtful that the women candidates are seen as incompetent given how often they talk about healthcare and economic reform.

The danger for the women candidates comes in how they portray themselves to the electorate. If they rely on feminine stereotypes, they may get punished electorally. Most of the women running for president—Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, and Gabbard—hold national office, and in order to get to those offices, they would have portrayed themselves masculine in the first place.

The women running for president shouldn’t worry about how their gender affects their electability. Democratic voters are very concerned about beating Donald Trump, but most of the Democratic candidates have a reasonable argument for why they are electable, whether that be mobilizing minority voters or winning back white voters in the Midwest.

Citizenship: The Lasting Impact of Coverture

On November 14, 2019, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled that an American-born woman named Hoda Muthana was not a United States citizen. Her situation is unique, as her citizenship is being debated on multiple grounds. Her father entered the country as a foreign diplomat, and the current policy holds that the children of foreign diplomats are one of the few exceptions to the general rule that infants born in American soil are considered American citizens. Hoda was born shortly after her father was discharged from his diplomatic post in 1994, but the United States government states that it applied diplomatic immunity to him and his family until early in 1995. The most recent case was decided with the lens that the judge in question could not contradict the government's position that Mr. Muthana's diplomatic immunity extended until after Hoda was born, even though the government has previously given Hoda a passport and acted in other ways that would indicate she has citizen status.

The question of Hoda's citizenship is complicated by the reason for this appeal- after dropping out of college in 2014, she used her tuition funds to travel to Syria and become an active participant in promoting ISIS ideology and encouraged terrorist acts in her online activity. She married an ISIS fighter, who has since been killed, and now has a two-year-old son. Today Hoda is living in an increasingly volatile environment in a refugee camp. She has expressed a desire to return home and her parents have been pursuing legal approval for months, but the combination of diplomatic legality, a young child, a lack of safety, and ideological conflicts have complicated the case immeasurably. Yet even with many factors being considered in this case and Hoda's story, there is a greater context to this situation; women have a complicated history with citizenship rights, state identity, and the balance between loyalty to a country and loyalty to a spouse and personal ideology. Only in this greater framework can Hoda's case be understood and resolved.

(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/14/us/hoda-muthana-isis-citizenship.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)

Gendered Citizenship Law

In 1789 the United States Constitution was ratified, using terms such as "persons," "people," and "electors" so that it could refer to both men and women without women being considered full citizens of the fledgling country. Grounded in English common law, the laws and Constitution of America were written with an implicit belief in the principle of coverture. Coverture is a word summarizing generations of gendered history, which asserts that during marriage a husband's authority and legal identity covers and absorbs his wife's. Coverture has been the justification for gender inequality in law throughout time. Due in part to coverture, women were prevented from voting in elections, owning property, signing contracts, working, and were at the mercy of their spouse. This belief that a woman's political and legal identity was connected to that of her husband has been woven into the fabric of law from long before the Constitution was written. Over time, some overt aspects of coverture have faded or been altered in the legal sphere. Women in the United States have voted since 1920, have been promised equitable wages since the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and have had the right to divorce based on mutual consent starting in 1969.

Aspects of coverture still pervade our society, especially concerning the citizenship of women. Only in the last decade have women begun to have access to independent citizenship, meaning citizenship without the attached risk of marital expatriation and naturalization. Due to coverture's claim that a woman's loyalty to her spouse transcended her connection to the state, once married a woman became a citizen of her husband's country. The 1907 Expatriation Act codified this belief and it only began to be addressed in the legal realm in 1922 with the passage of the Cable Act.

For Hoda, the historically interconnected relationship between marital loyalty and state loyalty plays a significant role in her plea to return to the United States. In 1921 and even later, her marriage to an ISIS soldier would automatically invalidate her American citizenship, assuming that she was a citizen to begin with. The cultural association between a woman and her husband in the sphere of political ideology and state loyalty has a powerful influence.

(https://nationalwomenshistoryalliance.org/resources/womens-rights-movement/detailed-timeline/)

Repatriation

To be considered for repatriation, one must fulfill three requirements. The individual must be a U.S. citizen or a dependent of a U.S. citizen. They must be identified by the Department of State as returning to the United States from a foreign country because of destitution, illness, war, the threat of war, invasion, or similar situation. Finally, the individual must be without available resources for living expenses.

Hoda Muthana is certainly facing the extreme circumstances mentioned as the second requirement, and her reliance first on ISIS and now on a refugee camp illustrate that she has no access to resources of her own for living expenses. It is the question of her citizenship that delays repatriation. The New York Times interviewed her alongside another woman seeking repatriation as a dual American/Canadian citizen named Kimberly Polman. Although Polman's citizenship is not in question, she too is still living in a refugee camp with Muthana. These are two women with different backgrounds, similar citizenship, who made the same choice to commit to, support, and participate in ISIS activities- and they are not alone. The New York Times commented that "nearly all the American men captured in battle have been repatriated, but it is unclear why some of the American women and their children- at least 13 known to The Times- have not been." Perhaps there is more at play here than loyalty to an extremist group in regaining citizenship- for these women, not only their past choices but the choices of the past as a whole create barriers between them and a safe return to the country of their birth.

(https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/orr/repatriation_guide_section_4_accused_criminals_final_1.pdf)

(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/islamic-state-american-women.html?auth=login-email&login=email&module=inline)

Why women's sports will disappear

Can we find a balance between gender identity and biological physical capabilities?

By Rebecca Cass
20 November 2019

In June this year, three high school cisgender female-females who identify as female-track athletes filed a complaint in Connecticut against allowing transgender female students to compete. Transgender female-males who identify as female-athletes have been competing in female events in track for the last two years, and have been consistently winning, displacing cisgender female athletes who do not have the same physical abilities. Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood took first and second place in 2017 and 2018 events in the girls’ state championships. “Their victories amount to taking 15 girls state championship titles and more than 40 opportunities to participate in higher-level competition from female track athletes in the last three years.”

An unfair advantage

It is no secret that the male sex has a physical advantage over the female sex. And with the growing acceptance of the LGBTQ lifestyle in society, more men and women are living as the gender they identify as, regardless of their sex. The catch is that when a man or woman identifies as the opposite gender their biology does not change to match that identity. So, when a male identifies as a female, she doesnot suddenly lose the physical traits that come along with being a male-she is still stronger, taller, and faster than the average female.

“Hormone therapy does not eliminate all the performance advantages of a prior male physiology.”

This gives transgender females an obvious advantage when competing in female events. However, in recent years states have become more inclusive of transgender student athletes, although most require rigorous processes before they can compete. Some states require “transgender girls to undergo one year of hormone treatment in order to compete with other girls” because “they have seen ‘tremendous variation among individuals in strength, size, musculature, and ability.’” But not everyone is supportive of this inclusion. They argue that no matter what gender a student identifies as, they should only compete with those of the same biological sex due to their physical abilities.

The argument comes down to whether transgender athletes should be allowed to compete with whichever gender they identify with or forced to compete with only those of their biological sex. If the former, should they be required to undergo treatment to make themselves more physically similar to that gender? Some say the treatment helps level the playing field, so to speak, as some research has shown that hormonal therapy works, but others disagree; no matter how much treatment a body goes through, biology, and the strengths and weaknesses that come with it, remain.

Goodbye female sports

So where does this leave future female athletics? If hormone therapy does not eliminate the advantage transgender females have over cisgender females, is there reason in requiring it at all? Twenty-five states currently have laws surrounding transgender athletes that are discriminatory, but none have banned them from competing.

Thus, transgender females will compete in female sports even though physically they are more similar to males. Beth Stelzer, a biologically female athlete stated, “If biological men are allowed to compete in women’s sports, there will be men’s sports, there will be co-ed sports, but there will no longer be women’s sports.” In agreement, JimHimes (D-Conn.) said, “It’s quite possible that if transgender women grow to dominate a particular team or sport, it could force out cisgender women.” Transgender females want to compete with cisgender females but there is no competition at all-biology tells us that. Without a fair competition, cisgender females will simply stop participating.

Title IX versus The Equality Act

After years of fighting for equal rights, Title IX removed sex discrimination in education and school sports in 1972. However, due to the physical inequalities between cis- and transgender females, some believe that work might be lost if transgender females can compete with cisgender females. One purpose behind Title IX was to give females the ability to compete, and to do so fairly. Today it seems that cisgender female athletes are at a disadvantage on all sides, finding no protection in Title IX, because those they feel are causing the disadvantage…are also female.

"We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it's demoralizing,"­-SelinaSoule, Glastonbury High School Junior

The Equality Act passed in May this year provides protection and prevents discrimination against any person based on their gender identify. A transgender female athlete cannot be barred from participating in the sport.

And so it seems that the rights protected in Title IX are in conflict with those protected in the Equality Act. Based on the Equality Act, schools cannot ban transgender females from competing in female sports, but by not doing so, they discriminate against the female sex, violating Title IX.

Two sides of the same coin

Transgender female athletes find themselves at a gendered crossroad: they identify as a female and as an athlete but have the physical abilities of a male. Their gender identity is intersecting with their sex-determined biological abilities as an athlete. One cannot completely remove physical traits of their biological sex  no matter what gender they identify with. 

"It would be fundamentally unjust and contrary to applicable state and federal law to preclude a student from participation on a gender specific sports team that is consistent with the public gender identity of that student for all other purposes.” -Connecticut Schools Athletic Policy

A person cannot be expected to live a life of a person they don’t identify with, so why would transgender females compete in male sports? Science is unable to tell us whether a trans- person can completely change their physical characteristics. Therefore, athletes, coaches, and congressmen alike are coming to the conclusion that with transgender females’ heightened athletic ability, if they are allowed to compete in female sports, cisgender females will no longer do so. In the end, cisgender female sports will disappear.