Funding for To the Contrary, provided by: This week, Donald Trump makes a new push to get a group of voters he polls poorly with: women.

And two contrasting visions for the future of masculinity.

Hello, I'm Bonnie Erbé.

Welcome to To the Contrary, a discussion of news and social trends from diverse perspectives.

Up first, Trump's push for female voters.

Former President Trump is attempting to shore up support from women voters, particularly in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.

At a rally, Trump stated that women won't be “thinking about abortion” under his leadership, promising “I will be your protector.” This, despite his legal troubles involving women, including being found liable for sexual abuse and many controversial remarks and insults he made against women.

Joining us this week are feminist activist Erin Matson and former communications director for Speaker McCarthy, Brittany Martinez, Errin Haines, editor-at-large for the 19th, and former legal advisor for the Trump White House May Mailman.

Welcome to you all, and thank you for joining us.

Can Trump make a successful pitch toward women voters or should he just hang it up?

Good to be with you, Bonnie, and everyone else here.

So, listen, I think that the former president knows that he needs women as part of the coalition that it's going to take for him to win in November, as he seeks to return to the White House.

He sees that he is not doing well with women, particularly as Vice President Harris continues to make a case to women, framing this election in terms of protecting rights and protecting freedoms and really saying that the former president is the one that has helped to erode those rights and freedoms and could threaten them again if he is sent back to the White House.

Were his remarks at the rally that he is women's protector and that women will stop thinking about abortion if he becomes president again, what kind of women is that going to lure to vote for him?

Yeah, well, I think women don't just vote based on the maximum number of portions that you might be able to have.

And, you know, and I think Trump actually is not campaigning on the issue of abortion at all, being either pro-life or pro-choice.

He really just is hand this issue to the states, which is what he has done.

So I think moving aside from that when you think about the multitude of issues that people, including women, care about economy is first and foremost, and women oftentimes have the burden of budgeting for their family.

This is very difficult in a time where grocery prices are up 27%, gasoline is up 29%.

And for a middle-class family, these costs are 75% of your, how you budget your household.

So these have taken a real impact, a mental emotional impact.

And so you're not thinking as much about abortion when, you know, you're trying to figure out what kind of groceries you can afford.

And I think that's what the message at Trump is trying to get out.

Erin Matson, what do you think he meant by “you won't be thinking about abortion” if hes president?

Because there won't be any?

What he meant by that is that he desperately wants people to stop thinking about abortion.

And though they are not, and that is because Donald Trump fully owns stacking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has been an unmitigated disaster.

He fully owns the recent tragic news that has been shared out of Georgia of two women, Candi Miller and Amber Thurman, who lost their lives to Georgias six-week abortion ban.

He fully owns women in Alabama having their IVF appointments canceled after a state Supreme Court decision declared embryos, you know, people.

So he is in full thrall of anti-abortion leaders and groups who seek to ban all abortion, contraception, IVF.

And so I think this is just another example of him projecting what he hopes will happen.

But it won't.

Well, Bonnie, first of all, I want to go back to sort of the first thing you said, which his statement was “I will protect women at a level we've never seen before.” First of all, I have no idea what that means.

I feel like with a lot of the things the former president says, it's a huge nothing burger, and apparently he's going to protect women at the highest level.

But in the same, you know, sentence he says, “because they've been so miserable.” I don't know about you guys, but I'm pretty happy.

I think that collectively, right, as a group here, we're probably doing pretty good for ourselves these days.

And, you know, he he says that he loves women.

“We love women.” But that's unless you disagree with him.

And he just called a reporter over the weekend who was, you know, was understandably calling him out on the things he needs to be called out on, saying that she's a bimbo.

So, you know, I don't buy it.

I don't know that the electorate buy it.

And that's just my $0.02 on the matter.

And, you know, if I could just add to that, Bonnie, you know, at the 19th, we went into this year saying that gender was on the ballot, that women were going to be the deciders of this election.

And, you know, these two very different versions of masculinity that we saw initially with President Joe Biden and former President Trump were something that was a choice for voters.

And now, with Vice President Kamala Harris in the race, you have an even starker gender contrast that is also pointing to issues of character in the former president's brand of masculinity is, frankly, you know, rubbing a lot of women the wrong way, which I think is why you see this, part of the reason why you see this huge gender gap for him.

Are we consigned for the future that if Trump is doing obviously well, very well with young and older white males?

So if you go after women, are you going to turn off white males and vice versa?

Is there any happy medium there?

I think there is.

This idea of identity politics that people are voting based on their genitals is just not true, right.

All of us want the same thing.

We all want a secure America.

We all want safe communities.

We all want to have enough money to provide for our families or for ourselves.

If you're not married you want these same things.

If you are married, you want these same things.

But I think that to the extent there are gaps.

I think that, especially with women, there is a huge gap between married and unmarried women.

And I think that this is something that, you know, JD Vance has taken a lot of slack for by, you know, by basically encouraging people to get married and have families and have roots in your community.

And I think that the way that he framed that was a joke that didn't land so well.

But I think that really is the message.

When Trump is talking about protection, I see that as right now a lot of people, women included, feel unsafe in their communities.

And one of the things that he wants to provide is and we can call it masculinity, but it is that feeling of safety, that feeling of security, whether that's the border, whether that's supporting the police.

But let me ask you this, May.

Hes so vague about it like at a rally this week, he said to young men you are or when he was with a podcaster, he said, you know, “We're going to make this country great.

You're going to be happy and successful.” Now, what kind of a thing is that for a presidential candidate to say, without any, any idea of how he's going to accomplish that?

I think that what he might be referring to and, of course, you know, this is the campaign trail.

This isn't, legislation, right?

So you're going to speak in grand terms.

But when you look at optimism during the Trump administration, so let's just take small businesses or just the way that people perceive their finances, the unemployment rate, all of these things were good.

So when he says, “I'm going to make things good,” what he's referring to is, were you better off four years ago versus now?

And that's a question that Kamala Harris continually refuses to answer because she can't say, “Yes, you're better now.” It's almost like she agrees that you were better during the Trump years.

Now, do you think we're beyond gender in this country?

I remember in 1986, Ronald Reagan said we're a colorblind society.

Are we a gender-blind society or is gender still a factor?

And I'm thinking, essentially, a discriminatory factor against female candidates at this point.

It's absolutely still a factor.

I mean, listen, if it were not still a factor, maybe we would have already had, you know, a woman leader regardless of party by now.

But in terms of how this country thinks about who should have power, who should be in leadership, who should be equal, whether that's in the workplace, in the home, all kinds of things like, yes, gender is absolutely very much still playing a role.

And, you know, we are neither post-racial or post-gender in this society.

And I think that politics is certainly not immune to that.

And I think it's something that is unfortunately always going to be a part of society.

I wish it wasn't, I'm sure all of us on this panel have experienced some sort of discrimination to some capacity based on this specifically.

And it shouldn't be the case if you're the most qualified person, you're the most qualified person.

That's how I've always felt.

I'm also super proud to be a woman and, you know, Hispanic.

And those are parts of my identity that don't fully define me but are just part of the bigger puzzle, right.

And so I think this will always be a part of society.

And, you know, every day we need to work towards a better future so that it's not.

This election may actually have the largest gender gap ever in the vote where we have, you know, double digit leads for Kamala Harris, where Trump is performing extremely poorly with women.

But we're also seeing something really interesting happening among younger people, that younger women are much more gravitating toward progressive issues and that younger men are becoming more conservative than they have previously.

And so I actually think instead of, you know, moving into a post-gender space, I think in some ways we're almost seeing more polarization between the genders than we had previously, which is an interesting shift.

How do we think Kamala Harris is going to bring the country together as she says she wants to?

Is it possible to bring this country together?

Sometimes it feels like we're on the verge of another civil war.

I think you're seeing, you know, Vice President Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, her vice presidential, Democratic vice presidential nominee, both saying that they want to do that, and that they are going to be a ticket that tries to govern for the entire country, not just for women or just for any one group.

And so talking about, things like freedom and opportunity, focusing on issues like affordability, which are issues that affect the American people, regardless of what your identity is.

That kind of broader message, I think, is a way that they are trying to do that.

But obviously you had, you know, President Joe Biden campaigning very much, on his his presidency being, you know, a battle for the soul of America and wanting to reunify the country.

I think we're seeing that we're still at least as divided as we've ever been, if not more partisan and more divided.

But how does she bring them together?

And, for example, this week I saw on TV a woman in a southern, a Black woman in a southern city being interviewed and saying, you know, “She just doesn't appeal to me.

I'm a Southern Baptist.

She, you know, I don't think we share the same culture or the same heritage.” How does she get beyond that?

I think we're already seeing some of that, Bonnie.

There are a number of Republican who are publicly supporting Kamala Harris, including true blue conservatives, or true red, we should say, true red conservatives like Dick Cheney has come out and said he's going to vote for her.

Liz Cheney, you have a number of, you know, Trump's own former officials, who are, again, deeply committed Republicans backing her.

And so I just want to challenge, too, that this isn't already happening to an extent.

I find Kamala Harris to be extremely divisive, and I don't find her to be somebody who's trying to reach across the aisle.

If anything, I think that the four years of the Biden-Harris has been for courting the progressive wing of the party, more than anything else, I can recall just the image of President Biden giving his MAGA extremist speech at Constitutional Hall in Philadelphia that really called out millions, tens of millions of Americans as threats to democracy.

And I mean, so much to the point, and you said were on the verge of a civil war, like President Trump has now faced two assassination attempts and to just say like, “Oh, well, you know, or things are going to be different when I'm president.” How?

How?

You're currently the vice president.

And just recently, Kamala Harris said that she's going to end the filibuster in order to codify abortion protection.

End filibuster for abortion.

For abortion, but there's no such thing as that.

I mean, once you get rid of the filibuster, it's gone.

It's like, “Okay, I'm gonna end the filibuster for one judge.” Like, no, you're not.

It's gone for everybody.

And that type of norm- breaking behavior that is the threat to our unifying themes of our republic, which is you've got to have agreement from across the aisle.

And by ending the filibuster, we just turn into a very angry, very partisan society.

I think it was a really, really bad proposal that Sinema and Manchin immediately jumped on and said no.

It is not the job of any one presidential candidate, of any one politician to do the work of reunifying us as a country, as a democracy, right?

I mean, that is the work of a democracy.

How are citizens, how are people and communities across this country going to do the work of coming back together, of healing, you know, because that is going to, that's not just something that happens out of Washington.

That's something that happens neighborhood by neighborhood, state by state, and eventually, you know, across the nation.

I completely agree with that.

Yeah, I think that that's what a lot of traditional conservatives are concerned about.

More power with the federal government is because you want local ties, local decision-making, in order to forge those bonds and have understanding, listening and things like that.

All right, from female voters to the bro vote.

But first, let us know what you think.

Please follow me on Twitter @BonnieErbe.

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are appealing to young male voters through contrasting notions of masculinity.

Trump emphasizing strength and toughness has courted male audiences through influencers and podcasters, tapping into themes of traditional masculinity.

Contrastingly, Harris is making her pitch to the so-called bro vote in concert with her running mate Tim Walz and husband Douglas Emhoff.

Together, they are promoting an alternate vision for masculinity, highlighting traits like supportiveness and family values.

So May, which is working better?

Do you think men want to be appealed to through machismo or do they, and some would even say fake machismo?

I recall a question somebody asked him this week, I believe one of the podcasters, if he'd ever gotten into a fist fight, and he gave some half inaudible response, but it sounded like he was saying, “No, I'm not.

I don't do that.” Or something like that.

Is he really as macho as he's trying to pretend to be?

Yeah, I don't know if machoness is necessarily the message here.

I think the message has to be no matter the candidate.

But I think Trump understands this, which is men are lost a little bit right now in our society.

They don't always have a sense of purpose.

And if you look at some of the statistics, there was a study of men who committed suicide.

What are the words that they wrote?

And it was useless.

That they ha no place in society.

And when you look even at colleges right now, the difference in the number of female graduates versus male is greater than before Title IX.

And we created Title IX in order to help women.

So there is this need that men have.

And so I guess when Doug Emhoff says, you know, “You do have a role, you do have a sense of purpose.

It's support.” That's tough because think about if somebody had told that to a woman, “you've got a purpose.

It's support your man.” We would say, “No.

No, I want my own purpose.

I want my own life.” And I think that that's hopefully what Trump is trying to get at, which is we need to focus on the men.

We need to give people sense of purpose.

Machoness is not the purpose.

There has to be something deeper and underlying that.

But I think that that's a real concern that candidates need to tap into.

Okay.

Brittany, your thoughts on.

No, I mean, I think that's a really good question.

And May brings up some excellent points when we're talking about sort of mental health and what that looks like in our society and in this day and age now.

Listen, I'll be honest, you know, in the previous segment when we were talking about sort of some of the, you know, the votes and being able to bring people together, I don't know that the former president has done the best job bringing even Republican voters.

Like we still see the issue of, you know, Nikki Haley voters being barred permanently and him even as of a few weeks ago, saying, “I don't think there were that many of them anyway.

I don't need to reach out to them.” So, yes, I mean, white male voters, women, disenfranchised Republicans, everybody.

Those are votes need to be earned.

And you're right to the point about machismo.

You know, I don't think people should just be getting into little tiffs and fist fights here, right.

So if he's never been in a fist fight, that's fine with me.

But I don't know that that brand of machismo is necessarily what's going to draw people in.

You mentioned the podcasters and those sorts of things.

Those are attractive to a lot of people.

But I also think that falls into the category of celebrities.

And I think Dems have done this more in the past than Republicans is.

You know what?

I'm kind of, it's like cringey to me.

I'm over it.

I don't really care what the what the podcaster has to say.

I don't really care what Oprah has to say.

I care as a just regular, everyday American about being able to, you know, put food on my table and fill up my tank, right.

And so I think those are the messages that's going to help bring in those white male voters or those women or whatever the case may be.

But the bombastic rhetoric, I don't think it's helpful.

Thank you.

Errin Haines, what do you think about the vision of masculinity that Kamala Harris and her VP candidate, with her and her husband, Doug Emhoff, are putting out there?

Is that going to appeal to men to basically be pillars of their community, solid citizens?

You know, be good to their partners.

How is that message playing?

It is kind of an alternative version of what strength can look like, right.

And what masculinity can really look like.

I think that was something that we started to see with, you know, President Joe Biden and his kind of empathetic leadership that showed that was definitely a contrast to former President Trump.

And now you have, yes, the Second Gentleman who could become the First Spouse if Kamala Harris is elected president.

You have Governor Walz talking about issues of fertility.

I mean, that's something that that we haven't necessarily heard, especially, you know, in the era since Dobbs.

I mean, you have a man who was talking about fertility issues.

You have, you know, Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff talking about, you know, blended families and what that means.

And so, you know, having these kinds of conversations, having men kind of weighing in on issues that, you know, traditionally have been kind of relegated to women's issues, makes them everybody's issues.

Well, but he also he also throws in there that he goes turkey hunting.

And I saw him respond to a question this week about what was the most important thing on his mind.

And he said, “It's my gutters.” I think, you know, everybody is concerned about the gutters on their house.

So, you know, trying to normalize himself, be the person that he certainly was before he got into high office.

But may not be anymore.

Are young men buying that do you think?

The reality is, first of all, gutters flooding up in the fall is a really scary issue.

I mean, I've had my basement flood before.

Super scary.

I think that, you know, we're seeing multiple things happening at once.

We're seeing that Trump is trying to appeal to the so-called online manosphere, like more like a men's rights activist movement type of terminology that really does wield language that's kind of simultaneously one of grievance and victimhood, while at the same time proclaiming their superiority.

He's definitely trying to appeal to that lane.

I think what we're seeing is some really refreshing representations of manhood coming from, you know, I just want to underscore what a big deal it is.

If we have a Second Gentleman for the first time in history.

And, you know, Doug Emhoff is not a, is not someone who hasn't had a high-powered career on his own.

And just also a really beautiful scene that we saw at the Democratic Convention with Gus Walz crying in pride over his own father.

I watched that video I think, five times in a row, and I was crying by the time I was done watching.

Do you think, May, that Tim Walzs message about masculinity and a family man and being a pillar of the community and having been a high school coach, will appeal to any young, either undecided men or even conservative men?

I don't, I think if you are looking for just dad, normal dad, you've got it in a slightly younger man, JD Vance right?

Who, whose got young kids and was, you know, Ohio State guy.

Just kind of a, you know, joined the military young, inspired to fight for our country.

I think if you're looking for dad vibes, you don't need you don't need to go Democrat to find those.

Yeah, but a. lot of a lot of people see JD Vance is you know, supremely extreme, if you will.

That might be the case for people who watch traditional media, something like that.

But I think that if you are a young 25 to 35 man, you watch sports, you're not getting your news from TV.

You maybe see a JD Vance tweet every once in a while saying something funny.

But really, I just don't think that you're going to be turned off by something extreme.

And when I do think about the weird, you know, people are talking about “JD Vance is weird.

There's something extreme.” And when I actually try and trace back what they're trying to talk about, is it having families?

Is that the weird thing?

Is it thinking that families are the pillar, the bedrock of our society, that having strong, healthy families is a good thing?

Is that weird?

You know, then all of a sudden, I think as a man, you know, you're even more turned off by traditional media because the whole thing seems like, “Why is everybody saying this word weird?” So no, I don't, I'm not a bro.

But if I was a bro, I don't know if necessarily Tim Walz would be unique, uniquely dadish for me.

Final question to each one of you starting with you, Errin Haines.

Does either candidate have a chance at winning the majority of the demographic in Kamala Harris' case, white men or young white men?

And in Trump's case, young women?

Well, no, I don't I don't necessarily think that that is going to change in terms of which group will support either of those candidates in the majority.

But I think that the goal of each of these candidates is to erode that support, to a certain degree, to try to pick off some of those voters or convince and, you know, in former President Trump's case to you know, if you're not going to vote for him to just, you know, sit it out.

But that, really is the thought that Donald Trump is somehow going to, you know, overwhelmingly win over women voters and close that gender gap or that that Vice President Harris is going to make such inroads with conservative white male voters that she's going to win them over former President Trump.

Neither of those scenarios is likely, but eroding that support, I think is and trying to convince at least some number of those voters, that they would be the better candidate.

I think that's the whole thing.

This is about both candidates are going to try to run down the margins on each side that, you know, Trump is going to try to pick away as many women as he can.

Good luck to him on that.

And Kamala Harris is also going to try to appeal and through her campaign, appeal to more young men.

If you had to put, place a bet though of who would have a greater likelihood of being able to do that, I would probably suggest that it would be the vice president.

However, you know, I don't know that there will be too much one way or another.

It's already going to be a tight race.

And, yeah, they're going to have to work hard to pick up those votes.

That's it for this edition.

Thank you all for your insights.

Please follow me on Twitter or visit our website pbs.org/tothecontrary.

And whether you agree or think to the contrary, see you next week.

Funding for To the Contrary, provided by: