The Submissive Men – Why Right-Leaning Men Loooove to Be Led

And why these kind of men are inherently anti-democratic.

When we talk about submissive behavior, the focus almost always falls on women — women who are expected to cater to men, respond to their needs, put themselves second, and submit to male authority. According to a chorus of internet “cultural and political commentators” (and it’s a disgrace to even call them that), this kind of submission is natural and virtuous and constitutes the proper way a heterosexual relationship should function. In their eyes, a “good woman” always puts her man first, while the man sets the agenda, makes the decisions, and handles everything outside the narrowly defined “feminine” sphere: housekeeping, caregiving, and perhaps a part-time job.

The recent resurgence of this rhetoric is rooted in anxiety. Anxiety about the growing presence of women in previously male-dominated spaces, anxiety about the complexity of modern life, and about the perceived loss of male (and often white male) status. But it also has deep historical roots. It’s a lingering relic of Christian tradition, in which a woman was never regarded as a whole and independent being, but rather as an extension of a man. Her independence is discouraged or even fundamentally denied. The man leads, because he is seen as the natural and God-ordained authority, while the woman serves as supporter, caregiver, and helper.

But here’s the twist I’ve observed over the past few years: while these men preach submission for women, they themselves engage in a form of submission - a deep emotional loyalty to dominant male leaders, especially those who promise to fight their battles for them. In their hunger for strength, order, and control, they reveal something peculiar: men, too, long to be led. Their calls for “traditional values” often mask their own yearning for authority - not just to wield power, but to surrender to it in the presence of a figure they believe can restore meaning and structure to their lives.

Longing for that male authority figure.

I believe this male yearning for authority becomes most visible in times of crisis - like the one we are currently enduring. Whether you're young, middle-aged, or older, we all feel the ground shifting. Housing and healthy food have become nearly unaffordable. Incomes stagnate while the wealth of the world’s billionaires has ballooned. The economy is not “economing,” and the erosion of community contributes to growing isolation and record levels of loneliness. Things are not as they once were - and certainly not as they should be.

In times like these, people search not only for a remedy, but for a vision - a sense of where to go, and who should lead them there. Whereas democratic socialists argue that the people themselves - organizing, advocating, and demanding a seat at the table - should shape the direction of society, many on the conservative and far-right seek a strongman: someone who can fix it all, restore order, and bring them back to a time when things were… well, supposedly “great”.

Right-wing - and increasingly, mainstream conservative - leaders position themselves as saviors. They promise to deliver, to restore wholeness, and to re-establish a familiar social hierarchy with (white) men at the top and everyone else below. This rhetoric resonates especially with people who hold strong conservative values — values like loyalty, authority, purity, and tradition. As philosopher Philipp Hübl outlines in Die aufgeregte Gesellschaft, those who lean conservative tend to be more sensitive to perceived threats, disorder, and moral decay. They often see strict hierarchies as necessary, and believe the role of the state is to preserve order, enforce norms, and protect cultural identity.

Now, isn’t that odd? The very same men who claim to be leaders - who advocate for “traditional” roles where men lead the household and set the rules - are often the first to eagerly delegate their political agency to authoritarian figures. Rather than building communal structures where everyone’s voice is heard, they prefer to be led - to hand over power to someone they see as strong enough to bring order, meaning, and simplicity back into a world that no longer revolves around them.

The submissive man is at odds with real democracy.

Delegating one’s political agency to someone else goes against the core of real democratic participation - not the limited version of democracy we see today, where people are simply politely asked to vote every four or five years. This kind of democracy falls short of what true democracy should be. As Grace Blakeley argues in her book Vulture Capitalism, real democracy - which she equates with democratic socialism - is a “[…] project of collective liberation, which would allow workers to take control over production and citizens to take control over government” (p. 270). History shows us that blind faith in government - particularly in systems where the balance of power is skewed in favor of the wealthy - is rarely a promising path to improve the living conditions of ordinary people. Trump’s presidency perfectly reveals how populist language and appeals to a submissive, authoritarian right-leaning men can serve as a smokescreen for protecting elite power.