MAGA's Wounded Masculinity

The Cult of Trump is rooted in fascism's gender anxieties

Klaus Theweleit’s groundbreaking work, Male Fantasies, published in two volumes in 1977 and 1978, remains a seminal exploration of the psycho-sexual architecture of early 20th-century German fascism.

Theweleit’s book offers a psychohistorical analysis of the Freikorps, paramilitary terrorist groups that roamed Germany in the aftermath of World War I aiming to violently suppress communists (who were attempting to seize power in various places in the chaotic aftermath of Imperial Germany’s collapse in 1918) and that would evolve into the shock troops and advance guard of Adolph Hitler’s national socialist movement. Using the Freikorps as his historical launchpad, Theweleit’s book develops a more general account of the mindset of the “soldier male” — a figure Theweleit says is defined by a terror of libidinal and social fluidity, a desire for iron-fisted control over his corporeal self and the world around him, and a violent repudiation of anything associated with the feminine. Women in this view were a threat to masculine virtue, which meant they needed to kept strictly segregated from male spaces and life, and engaged only in a modality of firm and absolute subordination.

Theweleit’s central contention is that fascism, far from being a mere political program, is the political expression of a deeply rooted male subjectivation. The “soldier males” of the Freikorps, Theweleit argues, were men who, due to a combination of social, historical, and psychological factors, were unable to form a stable sense of self. Traumatized by the Fronterlebnis of the War, humiliated by its politically catastrophic conclusion, and returning to a rapidly changing society where traditional gender roles were in flux, these men found themselves incapable of achieving a stable egoic integration. They recoiled from the perceived disintegration of the traditional order, clinging to fantasies of absolute control and rigidly policed boundaries. Theirs was a Manichean world, defined by a stark dichotomy between the “hard” armored male body and the “soft,” threatening, and ultimately annihilating force of the feminine.

This “feminine,” it must be stressed, is less about biological women than it is about a principle of undifferentiation: emotionality, sexual openness, and the blurring of social roles. The soldier male, in Theweleit’s reading, fears anything that threatens to dissolve the integument of the self. In this symbolic economy, women become the vessels of this threat, embodying chaos, irrationality, and the abyss of dissolution. The Freikorps narratives, as Theweleit meticulously documents, are replete with images of women as floods, tidal waves, and castrating monsters — chthonic forces poised to overwhelm the fragile male ego.

To counter this perceived threat, the soldier male constructs a carapace, both literal and figurative. He molds his body into a weapon, a fortress, through violence and a draconian regime of self-discipline. He seeks to transform himself into a machine, impervious to feeling and change. This internal battle is then projected onto the external world, resulting in a political aesthetic of totalitarian order: hierarchy, discipline, and the ruthless suppression of dissent.

The Freikorps’s violent misogyny, therefore, was not merely an expression of sexual frustration or a desire for domination, but a desperate attempt to maintain a fragile sense of self. The annihilation of the feminine became a necessary act of self-preservation, finding its political expression in the crushing of leftist movements, the persecution of “degenerate” elements, and the pursuit of a mythic, purified national body.

From the Freikorps to the Manosphere

Theweleit’s analysis, though rooted in a specific historical conjuncture, offers a powerful framework for understanding the enduring appeal of fascist and proto-fascist ideologies. The figure of the soldier male, with his characteristic anxieties, defensivenesses, and violent impulses, continues to haunt the contemporary political landscape. And it is here that we can begin to draw a correlation with the contemporary manosphere and its fascination with Donald Trump.

The manosphere, a nebulous constellation of online forums, blogs, and communities, is united by a shared animus towards feminism, a nostalgic yearning for “traditional masculinity,” and a resentment born of a perceived “emasculation” of men in contemporary society. While its adherents do not constitute a monolithic bloc, a significant subset of this digital subculture echoes the core anxieties and defenses of Theweleit’s “soldier male.”

Figures within the manosphere, such as Andrew Tate, exemplify this archetype. Tate, currently under indictment in Romania for keeping a bevy of women as sexual slaves, and banned from numerous social media platforms for his unabashed misogyny and promotion of violence against women, has constructed a persona of hyper-masculine dominance. His pronouncements on female subservience, the necessity of male control, and the inherent weakness of women, mirror the soldier male’s rigid division of the sexes and his terror of female autonomy. (He also recently got a warm ringside greeting from UFC President and prominent Donald Trump supporter Dana White.)

Similarly, the “pick-up artist” (PUA) subculture, with its elaborate techniques for manipulating and “conquering” women, reveals a similar dynamic. Figures like Roosh V, who advocated for the legalization of rape on private property, exemplify the Theweleit’s characterization of the damaged male’s desire to exert absolute control over female bodies, reducing them to objects to be conquered and possessed. This reflects a deep-seated anxiety about female agency and a need to deny women their own subjectivity.

This context illuminates the manosphere’s support for Donald Trump. For many within these circles, Trump embodies a potent antidote to the perceived “emasculation” of men. He is seen as a figure of strength, decisiveness, and unapologetic masculinity. His rhetoric, characterized by aggression, dominance, and a dismissal of emotional vulnerability, resonates with the manosphere’s longing for a return to a more muscular, “traditional” masculinity. Beta males longing to be perceived as alpha in particular were besotted by Trump’s “bad ass” bravado after nearly being assassinated in the summer of 2024.

Further solidifying his Theweleitan appeal to the manosphere, Trump’s own relationship with women is famously marked by objectification, sexual boasting, sexual abuse, and a tendency to demean and dismiss female critics. His “alpha male” posturing provides a model for those in the manosphere who feel marginalized and disempowered. In Trump, they see a leader who is unafraid to assert his will, to “speak his mind,” and to reject the constraints of what they perceive as a suffocating “political correctness.” For those with small dick energy, Trump is the big dick they’ve always been wanted.

The manosphere’s worship of Trump does reveal the enduring power of certain masculinist fantasies, rooted in a fear of fluidity and a longing for absolute control, to shape political allegiances. Trump’s political rhetoric often taps into the same anxieties about the erosion of boundaries and the loss of control that haunted the Freikorps. His emphasis on national sovereignty, border security, and the repudiation of multiculturalism proposes to restore a rigid sense of order and to defend against the perceived threat of a fluid, interconnected world. This resonates with the manosphere’s fear of a changing social landscape where traditional gender roles and hierarchies are increasingly destabilized. The psychosexual underpinnings of authoritarian masculinity thus rest on the desire for a restored and restabilized social order. The attraction to Trump within these circles speaks to a yearning for a world where male dominance is axiomatic, and where the male anxieties that Theweleit so brilliantly illuminated can be safely repressed.