The September 10, 2024 debate between Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was a referendum on gender and the U.S. presidency—Trump's, to be precise.

Over the last decade, US voters have seen Trump's toxic masculinity – a specific version of masculinity that daunts empathy, expresses strength through dominance, normalizes violence against women, and associates leadership with white patriarchy – took over the Republican Partywas celebrated by tech bros with outsized cultural influence and was complemented by authoritarian political leaders across the globe.

However, Harris' clever debate strategy caused Trump to remodel on stage – from an aggressive and offended Showman-Provocateur to a unsure And offended white man.

As Communication scientist who studies Gender and the US PresidencyJournalists often ask me to comment on the suitability of female candidates for president. I’m rarely asked to comment on why certain types of masculinity might – or should – disqualify a presidential candidate.

When Harris triggered Trump’s insecurity by questioning his popularity and political ability, his responses were narcissistic, racist and infrequently detached from reality.

Trump's performance in the controversy against Harris shows not only that white men's insecurity represents a strategic risk, but additionally a threat to democracy.

“She was supposed to lure him. He's easily disturbed.”

For most of Trump’s political profession, academic and journalistic critiques of his persona have emphasized his masculine excesses – a penchant for patriarchal authority, a pattern of sexual entitlement and a dominant disposition.

Scientists interviewed by the Washington Post ahead of the controversy speculated that Trump could come across as a tyrantas he did through the debate with Hillary Clinton in 2016, sometimes following her across the stage.

Following this debate, The Guardian wrote: described Trump “sneaked around” behind Clinton during his speech and “threatened” her together with his “imposing presence and brazen insults.”

Clinton later said: while she was not intimidated by Trump She desired to “show the world a calm face.” Although voters accept outrage and even justified anger from male politicians, some consider that an outburst of anger from a female politician shows her “entitlement and unsympathy” and see it as “evidence of the type of thin-skinnedness that individuals insist on makes a lady unsuitable for the presidency.”

But Clinton's experience enabled her to offer Harris some necessary advice ahead of the September 10 debate, which she repeated to the New York Times: “She should lure him. He can change into unsettled.”

Since the Harris campaign quickly coalesced in July, it has done just that. The campaign has trolled Trump with provocative political adspublished clips from People yawn at Trump's rallies on social media and enabled the Democratic National Committee to advertise the claim of Harris' running mate Tim Walz that Trump and Vance were “WEIRD AS HELL” in regards to the Trump Tower in Chicago.

During the controversy, Harris mocked Trump to his face, claims that“People are starting to leave his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.”

After laying the bait, Harris turned to the audience and said, “And I'll tell you, the one thing you won't hear him talk about is you. You won't hear him talk about your needs, your dreams and your desires.” She concluded her point with a promise, “I believe you deserve a president who will truly put you first. And I promise you that I will do that.”

Most politicians would recognize Harris's obvious rhetorical trap as a ploy to bolster her point that Trump cares more about himself than voters. But an incensed Trump barreled right into it.

After ABC anchor David Muir asked Trump to clarify why he defeated a bipartisan bill to strengthen security on the southern border, Trump responded“Let me first talk about the rallies. She said people are starting to leave. People are not going to her rallies. There's no reason for them to. And the people who are going, she buses them in and pays them to be there. And then she paints them in a different light. So she can't talk about that. People are not going to my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics.”

Trump's overreaction illustrated how his own uncertainty in regards to the size of crowds at his rallies made him vulnerable to manipulation by his opponent.

Later in the controversy, Harris reminded the audience that she was not the just one who could manipulate Trump, and he or she suggested that this vulnerability could endanger American security. She claimed, “It's absolutely well known that these dictators and autocrats want to get you back as president because they can so clearly manipulate you with flattery and favors.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, Harris told Trump, “would eat you for lunch.”

Making the opposite person the scapegoat

Trump's game with insecure white masculinity will not be only dangerous for democracy because it may possibly be manipulated by opponents. The desire to preserve white male supremacy often manifests itself in racist, misogynistic or transphobic scapegoating strategies.

Communication scientist Patricia Roberts-Miller explained that scapegoating shifts the main target from political issues to members of a marginalized group who may be blamed for the ills of society, thereby promoting a culture of dehumanization and degradation of individuals.

After Trump insisted he had the very best rallies, he warned that “World War III” was imminent since the immigrants were supposedly “eating the dogs. The people who came here. They're eating the cats. They're eating – they're eating the pets of the people who live there.”

This particular untruth emerged as a bizarre and debunked conspiracy theory that right-wing media the claimed Haitian immigrants ate pets.

Roberts-Miller explained that the rhetoric of scapegoats often paves the way in which for more serious civil and human rights violations throughout history, as within the case of the Jews in Nazi Germany or of Japanese-Americans before their internment in World War II.

Trump’s fixation on immigrants throughout the controversy and elsewhere could rhetorically help clear the way in which for authoritarian measures he has announced, reminiscent of the deployment of US troops to Rounding up and deporting masses of immigrants.

Gender and democratic health

Communication scientist Paul Elliott Johnson argues that Trump’s brand of demagoguery “defined by a dependence on victimized, white, toxic masculinity.” Some scientists have focused on how this rhetorical strategy appeals to men who “secretly insecure about their masculinity,” because the Washington Post reported in 2018.

Trump’s own white male insecurity was clearly visible during his debate against Harris. It was a unique type of pathological masculinity than the aggressive and offended toxic masculinity Trump has perfected the art of stagecraft as MAGA.

Trump's performance in the controversy illustrates why insecure white masculinity ought to be a reason to disqualify a presidential candidate. When triggered, it interrupts the candidate's strategic considering and results in demagogic and dehumanizing arguments.

The debate between Harris and Trump has shown how dangerous it’s for democracy to offer power to an insecure white man.

Children with difficult temperaments, including personality traits comparable to irritability and difficulty being comforted, are only barely more likely than other children to have insecure attachment relationships with one or each parents. in response to our researchThis result refutes the long-held opinion of many psychologists that early attachment behavior is principally is set by the temperament of the kid.

A bonding relationship reflects the kid's expectations of their caregiver in times of need. Secure attachment is probably going when a caregiver is consistently available and offers emotional support when the kid is anxious. However, if a baby learns that their caregiver isn’t there when needed or doesn’t provide effective reassurance, there’s a probability that they may develop an insecure attachment relationship with that caregiver.

As a researcher in Clinical Psychology And Child and family studiesWe are all in favour of how the standard of the connection between child and caregiver affects children’s development.

This includes understanding what influences the bond between child and fogeys. Even in young children there are great differences in temperament and Some psychologists have argued that these individual dispositions can also explain how adolescents interact with caregivers. Even essentially the most empathetic and loving parents can feel challenged when caring for a difficult child – does this dynamic affect the standard of their attachment relationship?

How we work

With 29 other researchers, we formed a research consortium to review the standard of kids’s attachment relationships with their moms and dads – or what we call their Binding networks.

For that Meta-analysiswe combined data from 872 children from North American families during the last 40 years.

The researchers observed how these children interacted individually with their moms and dads and conducted studies designed to evaluate the kids's attachment behavior: How do they seek comfort in times of distress? How easily do they find reassurance from their parents? How do they explore their environment within the presence of their parents?

In addition, parents reported the extent of inauspicious temperament of their children. How likely was the kid to experience intense negative emotions comparable to anger, sadness, or anxiety?

It seemed logical that children with a tougher temperament could be more prone to have insecure attachment relationships throughout the family – but that isn’t exactly what we found. Instead a difficult temperament had little or no to do with it with the variety of insecure attachment relationships a baby had along with his or her parents.

A stronger tendency toward difficult temperament had only a really small effect—lower than 1%, in response to our statistical evaluation—on the likelihood that children would have multiple insecure attachment relationships. And temperament was only barely tougher in infants who had an insecure attachment to each parents than in infants who had an insecure attachment to just one or neither parent.

Why it’s important

Recent research from our consortium has shown that children who develop a secure attachment to each their mother and father are likely to fewer anxiety and depression symptomsin addition to stronger language skillsin comparison with those that had just one or no secure attachment relationship of their two-parent families.

The results of our recent study suggest that even children with an innate difficult temperament can reap the advantages of multiple secure attachments. These findings may reassure concerned parents.

What isn’t yet known

Further research is required to clarify the slight increase in insecure attachment that we present in children with difficult temperaments.

For example, children’s difficult temperament increases the likelihood of negative parenting, including Anger and compulsion and overly controlling behaviorThese in turn can intensify children’s negative emotionsOver time, this mutual exposure to negative reactions may increase the likelihood of an insecure attachment relationship between child and parent.

Interventions that Promoting positive parenting and sensitive discipline increase the safety of kids's attachment to their parents. Parents can subsequently promote a secure attachment by paying particular attention to being more sensitive to the kid's emotional needs.

One thing has turn into clear: secure attachment relationships, which play a vital role in cognitive and emotional development, usually are not closed to children with difficult temperaments.