If you want to know why Pierre Poilievre ditched his trademark suit and glasses for a more Miami Vice-inspired vibe, look no further than his dismal polling numbers with Canadian women. Yes, he enjoys a commanding lead over Justin Trudeau’s Liberals among young men, Albertans and those without a post-secondary education. But when it comes to women, polls consistently put him well behind both the Liberals and Jagmeet Singh’s NDP. If he can’t lose that gap, it’s going to cost him an election the Conservatives should probably win.
As the Globe and Mail reported, pollster Quito Maggi’s December 2022 data showed the Liberals with a 12-point lead among women over Poilievre’s Conservatives, a gap that widened to 40 points among 18- to 34-year-olds. A few months later, the Angus Reid Institute came out with its own polling showing that women preferred Trudeau to Poilievre by nearly 20 points. As Angus Reid Institute CEO Shachi Kurl said in an op-ed, “that’s half the electorate, folks.” Or, as NDP strategist Karl Bélanger told the Globe and Mail, “In 20 years in politics I have never seen a gender gap like the one we have now.”
And while there’s a clear temptation among some Conservatives to ascribe this gap entirely to Trudeau’s good looks — the sexism and irony here should both be obvious — there’s obviously much more at play. First and foremost, there’s the fact that one of Trudeau’s signature moments as prime minister came when he announced a gender-balanced cabinet. It’s not quite on the level of his dad’s “just watch me” line, but his now-famous quip that he did it “because it’s 2015” helped cement his reputation as a self-described feminist.
That wasn’t just virtue signalling, either, much as conservative politicians and pundits at the time tried to pretend otherwise. The critiques that Trudeau had abandoned merit for representation were really just confessions by said critics that they didn’t believe women could be as qualified as men. It’s also worth noting only 12 of the 39 ministers in Stephen Harper’s cabinet after the 2011 election were women, with none of them occupying senior roles like finance, defence or foreign affairs. Those posts are all occupied by women in the Trudeau government today.
And yet, those criticisms (and confessions) haven’t gone away. After Joe Biden congratulated Trudeau for his gender-balanced cabinet, and Conservative MPs in the House of Commons very conspicuously refused to clap, Poilievre’s director of communications Sarah Fischer fell on the grenade. “Imagine being a woman in Trudeau’s cabinet,” she tweeted, “and not knowing if it was merit or gender that got you there.”
Fischer wasn’t done. In an attempt to clarify her initial statement, she tweeted: “I find it patronizing, insulting and demeaning when Trudeau expects a pat on the back or a standing ovation for placing women in his cabinet to fill a quota. Women can compete on merit.” That they already do, and already had in his cabinet, didn’t seem to occur to her. Neither did the fact that her statement essentially implies former prime minister Harper only thought 12 women in his caucus were able to compete on merit with the likes of Jason Kenney, Tony Clement and Joe Oliver.
Trudeau’s enduring popularity among women isn’t just a function of his cabinet, though. It’s also about the approach to issues his government chooses to prioritize, from climate change (which has traditionally shown a huge gender split) and gun control. Even on COVID-19, there’s an obvious gender divide between his pro-social attitude towards vaccines and safety and conspicuous attention to the “she-cession” and Poilievre’s freedom-oriented, small-government message.
If Poilievre wants to do something to blunt Trudeau’s advantage here, he should start by listening to people like Marjory LeBreton. As the consummate Conservative insider and former senator told the Globe and Mail, “I think people generally, but women in particular, are so tired of the vitriol and the anger. They are not looking for someone to hype up the rhetoric and point out all that is wrong. They want solutions.”
So far, at least, he doesn’t seem to be taking that advice. His solutions, such as they are, tend to revolve around blaming the prime minister for all of this country’s ails and ills and promising that everything will improve when he’s replaced. That’s why the style makeover (one that includes the sudden presence of his wife at press events) was the only move his team could make to improve his favourability among women. It might impress his more ardent (some might say obsessive) online fans, but it’s not going to do much to move the needle among those who aren’t already convinced.
Instead, he’ll almost certainly double down on his existing advantage among men. Witness his willingness to pose with someone wearing a “straight pride” shirt at the Calgary Stampede, a decision that plays far better among men than women. Or listen to his speeches about housing, ones that talk about the plight of 35-year-olds who have to take their dates home to their mom’s basement — and clearly wink at the incel community in the process. That’s a community, by the way, that he seemed to quietly court in the past by using controversial tags buried in his YouTube videos.
So rest assured, as divided as the electorate is now, it could easily get worse by the time the next election arrives. What we need are political leaders who try to bridge divides and close rifts. What we seem to have, unfortunately, are ones on both side who’d rather double down on them instead.
- Max Fawcett
- Lead Columnist
- @maxfawcett
Keep reading
Bringing his wife along won't
Bringing his wife along won't help because he says his wife thinks he looks better without his glasses (he doesn't actually) and he has to keep her ("the wife") happy first and foremost. The net effect is negative because you feel sorry for her because she doesn't look comfortable at all, rather somewhat coerced. But his base base who give new meaning to the word will be further impressed because hey, she's clearly "a babe," thumbs up there Pierre.
And what in HELL are you talking about Max when you say the conservatives actually SHOULD win the election? This isn't the usual back and forth BS here where there's a basic parity between opposing sides so people vacillate between the two over time because they CAN, and like to exercise choice and all.
Take that quiet panic you probably feel right now like all reasonable Albertans and magnify it tenfold if the convoy party gets any more traction....
Presumably, P.P.'s (big yawn)
Presumably, P.P.'s (big yawn) lateral cosmetic move, which CBC National News (Pierre called the CBC the "biased propaganda arm of the Liberal Party.") did a segment on P.P. last night showcasing the gentler, kinder, new look Pierre. I can't help but wonder if the no glasses look is meant to enhance the chances of his "let's bring it home" slogan being drilled deep into people's heads to the extent they feel compelled to go out and vote for him. Personally, I am offended by the man, his party, and his feckless "policies", actions, speeches, and press interactions. Frankly, Canada cannot afford him in a position of any more power than he currently occupies.
Precisely, and laugh emojis
Precisely, and laugh emojis for "lateral cosmetic move."
And the "biased propaganda arm of the Liberal Party?" FFS. I didn't hear that because I mute and/or fast forward him immediately. But, again, WAY TOO FAR.
It will be a battle of the
It will be a battle of the sexes because these guys are uber-male, as in fifties old white guy male, "Proud Boys" male, Harper's "boys in short pants" male, also poster boys for the protracted anti-feminist backlash that started in the sixties, organized by powerful, patient, and politically aggressive American Christians, ultimately bent on denying women reproductive freedom. Which they have now been surprisingly successful in doing, but as usual have gone too far.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/07/24/how-gretchen-whitmer-made-...?
Decent article, not a good
Decent article, not a good finale. We don't need political leaders who try to bridge divides and close rifts. We need political leaders who enact good policies that help people. And often, that requires not worrying too much about bridging divides and closing rifts.
The whole "Getting to Yes" school of negotiation basically assumes that interests are not real, or that if real, they are at least never fundamentally opposed, and so if you can just find out what the real reasons are deep down behind side A apparently wanting to screw side B and vice versa, you can come to some accommodation where they both get what they want. Unfortunately, that is false. Economically, the reality is that our whole economic system is based on the idea of the drivers of investment not understanding the meaning of the word "enough"--they are SUPPOSED to want it all, and they do. There is no limit where they say, "Well, ONE island/huge yacht/giant mansion/private jet is enough". So the wealthy classes don't want a certain amount, they want the whole pie, whatever its size. And the non-wealthy want a place to live and to not starve, which implies getting some of the pie. This is an irreducible conflict.
And socially, the alt-right want complete social control. They have a particular model of what kind of people are the right kind of people, what kinds of social existence are the right kinds of social existence, what kinds of religion are the right kinds of religion, and the problem is not that it is a loathsome model (although it is), the problem is that for the model to be secure it requires making it officially clear that other kinds of people are the WRONG kinds of people. They cannot compromise on this. Heck, the people they oppose already ARE the compromise. The idea that we can live and let live, that all people (both them and others) could be valued, is precisely what they can't allow. There can be no bridging the divide with this kind of thinking, it has to be crushed.
We already have leaders who try to bridge divides and close rifts; Trudeau is just that kind of guy. The best moments he's ever had have all been when he kind of forgot about that and just did actual things that were actually good. The same is true of Biden in the states.
All I can do is echo the
All I can do is echo the importance of what you just articulated by copying a key paragraph of your's that is totally worth reading and contemplating again. My fear Rufus, is that you have again "nailed it" and I also fear that most of Canada has no clue what is actually brewing. Ontario cannot simply sleepwalk through another election like they did while handing Doug Ford a majority fairly recently.
"And socially, the alt-right want complete social control. They have a particular model of what kind of people are the right kind of people, what kinds of social existence are the right kinds of social existence, what kinds of religion are the right kinds of religion, and the problem is not that it is a loathsome model (although it is), the problem is that for the model to be secure it requires making it officially clear that other kinds of people are the WRONG kinds of people. They cannot compromise on this. Heck, the people they oppose already ARE the compromise. The idea that we can live and let live, that all people (both them and others) could be valued, is precisely what they can't allow. There can be no bridging the divide with this kind of thinking, it has to be crushed." quote from Rufus Polson (see full comment above).
So they basically got sucked
So they basically got sucked into the same kind of identity politics that they've used to divide and redivide and subdivide the "everyone else"?
How do you bridge a divide
How do you bridge a divide when one says men are inherently sexist, violent and misogynistic?
Or one that calls any form of men trying to establish any boundary within their lives as toxic masculinity?
Well what is positive masculinity?
I'm truly curious on your perspective. How do you include men while simultaneously casting them as a villain?
I find it interesting the
I find it interesting the purpose of the article is placing a higher importance on Pierre Poilievre to improve his numbers with men, but puts zero accountability on Trudeau to improve his polling numbers with men.
It's as if to say the only reason men would be attracted to a conservative message is because they are sexist and hate women. But that's merely just a wink.
The reason young men especially are abandoning progressive causes has to do with how progressivism has behaved in the last 6 years+
YouTuber shoeonhead put it perfectly
Be a man.
Be told you're the primary problem with modern culture.
Be drawn to people who don't tell you that message.
Have people wonder why you left.
There are parts to Andrew Tate's modeling of masculinity that I do think is troubling for a pluralistic society. However, his essential message to men is if you work on improving yourself than there's nothing wrong with establishing boundaries as it relates to romantic relationships, economic goals, and civic engagement.
Incels for the most part do not hate women, the reason evolutionary psychology has exploded in popularity in the last three years is because of how social media and dating apps have negatively affected romantic relationships in the last 10 years. Now the men who are in the comment sections of those videos likely have suffered through horrific experiences either in school or romantic relationships and are wrongly taking out their anger by insinuating most women enjoy being promiscuous.
But something that is very real with plenty of anecdotal data to backup is female hypergamy. Women who have high standards on the ideal man they want to date, especially as it relates to income.
The average working age partnered man in the US makes $54,000 a year, the average working age unpartnered man makes $37,000 a year. Now there is the argument that there's most internal and external pressures to perform economically while in relationship, but it could be that women only choose the winners.
In income gap between partnered and unpartnered women is only $7,000 a year.
This is what's driving the political divide especially for younger men. Younger men think younger women having unrealistic expectations of them (like earn 6 figures before you're 40, something only about 15% of men ever do) and they see that institutions are promoting female empowerment while not seeing their struggles as being acknowledged.
It's never been more expensive to attempt to own a house, own a vehicle, and raise a family. And on top of those struggles, men are falling behind in education, men are more likely to commit suicide, men are more likely to go to prison longer for the same crime, men are more likely to die on the job, men are more likely to become drug addicts, men are more likely to be homeless.
To me it's a lie to say Poilievre is feeding off of anger, he's trying to make anger productive, "turning hurt into hope" is more than just a slogan. Trudeau is trying to tell men their anger is misplaced and unjustified. Just eat the bugs is essentially his strategy. Poilievre has a better strategy.
Comments