Donald Trump and Billy Bush on the set of Access Hollywood.
I’m a misogynist. I’m a black man who likes to think of himself as a feminist. I’m a progressive. I’m gay. Hopefully, I’m a relatively decent guy; I certainly mean well. Still, I’m also a misogynist.
How could I not be? I’ve spent my entire life in a society that, by every imaginable measure, devalues and dismisses women. It’s the case for politics: In the nearly 230-year history of the US Senate, we have elected just 50 women to serve; nearly half of that number are in office now. It’s the case for wages: Women still make roughly 80 cents on the dollar that’s paid to men. It’s the case for families: “Single mother” remains a casual, if coded, slur in a great many minds, shorthand for a jezebel who’s damned her offspring by failing to get and keep a man. It’s even the case for our diversions—in sports stadiums and movie theaters and museum galleries and comedy clubs, and on and drearily on it goes.
We’ve gone so far as to organize our gods around misogyny. The evangelical South’s support for Roy Moore has drawn shocked, breathless comment. But the white South’s Christian faith has always been malleable, bending to accommodate the power of white men.
As Christine Leigh Heyrman lays out in Southern Cross, her study of the Bible Belt’s origin story, women and young single men initially dominated evangelical Christianity in Revolutionary-era America with a doctrine that rejected slavery. But these upstart congregations struggled to gain a mass following in the South, because their power structure threatened to undermine a society built around married white men—the lords of the South’s women, children, and enslaved workers. So by the early 1800s, Southern Baptists had stripped women and black people of all decision-making roles. Once the new faith tradition had aligned itself with a white-supremacist patriarchy, it flourished.
Our national history is full of such stories. America is rooted in misogyny, and thus so am I. I have spent most of my adult life trying to acknowledge these facts and correct the way they shape my own behavior.
It has been said that we’re living through a reckoning with sexual harassment on the job. One powerful man after another has been outed as a predator, and my own workplaces have not been spared. This reckoning with sex as a tool of male power has also generated questions about complicity: Who watched and did nothing? Who enabled such bold behavior? When the morning-show anchor turned his office into a dungeon, somebody surely noticed. Certainly, each of these men had active accomplices in management, and those people must be held accountable.
But if we’re honest, the complicity is broader. The dudes flashing their dicks at co-workers and forcing their tongues into people’s mouths are physically acting out the power structure in which they know they live. All of us who are male-identified need to ask ourselves: What role do we play in creating that structure?
We don’t have to be Billy Bush to be part of the problem (though I have let more vile objectification of women pass without challenge than I care to recall). I often think the most damaging way in which men are complicit in patriarchy is by receiving our many privileges as normal. For years, I comfortably accepted the starkly gendered division of caretaking labor in my family, allowing me a freedom of movement that my female cousins did not have. I recall managing teams in which I thoughtlessly rewarded male entitlement, while allowing equally ambitious but less aggressive women on the team to linger in support roles. Learning to undo rather than reinforce gender hierarchies is a permanent project.
As is often the case, I only made contact with the problem when I felt how much I’ve also been hurt by a society built to diminish women.
Masculinity operates like whiteness: It demands control over any space it enters. It plants itself in the center and shoves anything coded as feminine to the edges. In a man’s world, decisive is better than deliberate. Bold is strong; cautious consideration is weak. Reflection invites regret, and that’s weak, too. Ditto collectivity—the rugged individual only joins a group in which he can be the reigning hero. And he keeps his emotions in check. Better to strike out in rage than sit in your sadness. I spent far too many years accepting these falsities as obvious truths, wearing them like a straitjacket around my own humanity.
And just as these ideas confine the minds and hearts of men, they corrode public life. They are at least part of the reason that we have an economy organized around greed, a culture that frames collectivity as a threat to individuality, and a politics that approaches nuanced problems with rigid yes/no debates.
I know that many important organizations are asking you to donate today, but this year especially, The Nation needs your support.
Over the course of 2025, the Trump administration has presided over a government designed to chill activism and dissent.
The Nation experienced its efforts to destroy press freedom firsthand in September, when Vice President JD Vance attacked our magazine. Vance was following Donald Trump’s lead—waging war on the media through a series of lawsuits against publications and broadcasters, all intended to intimidate those speaking truth to power.
The Nation will never yield to these menacing currents. We have survived for 160 years and we will continue challenging new forms of intimidation, just as we refused to bow to McCarthyism seven decades ago. But in this frightening media environment, we’re relying on you to help us fund journalism that effectively challenges Trump’s crude authoritarianism.
For today only, a generous donor is matching all gifts to The Nation up to $25,000. If we hit our goal this Giving Tuesday, that’s $50,000 for journalism with a sense of urgency.
With your support, we’ll continue to publish investigations that expose the administration’s corruption, analysis that sounds the alarm on AI’s unregulated capture of the military, and profiles of the inspiring stories of people who successfully take on the ICE terror machine.
We’ll also introduce you to the new faces and ideas in this progressive moment, just like we did with New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. We will always believe that a more just tomorrow is in our power today.
Please, don’t miss this chance to double your impact. Donate to The Nation today.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editor and publisher, The Nation
Donald Trump is many things—a white supremacist, a crony capitalist, a fluent liar. We likely will be living with the consequences of all those traits for a long time. But the blunt force of Trump’s destructive impulse is drawn most powerfully from his gender identity: He is also a man’s man.
Progressives wrestled with representational politics in 2016. We fought mightily over what, if anything, the fact of Hillary Clinton’s gender should have meant for voters. Trump’s voters were clear what his gender meant for them. It meant a reassertion of patriarchy. It was morning in America for the white man: Grab ’em by the pussy and give a rebel yell.
And so now we face a reckoning. Let it be more than a coming to terms with sexual harassment. Yes, let’s bring the abusers to justice. But let us also consider the many ways in which we’ve organized ourselves around misogyny—in our workplaces, in our families, and as individuals. Maybe then we can mount a movement larger than Democrats and Republicans, and start talking seriously instead about things like peace, justice, and equity.
Kai WrightTwitterKai Wright is editor and host of WNYC’s narrative unit, and a columnist for The Nation.