Slate: Democrats Can’t Get Angry Because They’ve Become Feminized

This bit of Word Salad from Excitable Jess Zimmerman is as interesting as to how she puts Democrats into a gender role as it is for her calling for them to Get Angry

Why Can’t Democrats Get Angry?
I think it’s because our misogynistic society has pushed them into the same corner women have been forced into. But there’s a way out.

The salient feature of now-seated Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony during the hearing that was intended to assess whether he had committed sexual assault in his youth was, as many have noted, his anger. It was anger that made him lash out inappropriately, anger that contorted his face in a way that made many viewers feel sick. He thought this anger would substitute for integrity, and he was right, or right enough anyway; he didn’t fool everyone, but he did at least shout them down. Meanwhile, the salient feature of Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony was her calm, measured, deferential demeanor, complete with tension-defusing apologies and jokes. I am not the first person to point out how heartbreaking this was to witness: that even while talking about an experience that traumatized her for decades, she obeyed the unwritten cultural injunction that women must manage not only their own feelings but the feelings of everyone around them. This has been laid bare in the past few weeks in America, even as it’s a reply of something we’ve all seen before.

What I haven’t seen discussed, though, is the way these same restrictions have constrained the entire Democratic Party. The left—even the moderate left—is feminized in this country to a degree that I have come to believe actually restricts its avenues for acceptable self-expression.

If they’re feminized, it’s their own fault. And isn’t it a horrible inappropriate gender construct to say something has been feminized? I wouldn’t be surprised if SJWs were assailing Jess for daring to write this

Our weird cultural commitment to the gender binary goes way beyond actual living men and women—if it didn’t, people wouldn’t freak out so badly when someone declines to choose. Masculinity and femininity are concepts we layer on top of everything from people to pens to political parties. Sometimes there’s a middle ground, but often we seem lost without our familiar patterns; it’s the confused hetero doofus asking a gay couple “which one’s the woman,” except for the entire world. Take any opposed things—Democrats and Republicans, cats and dogs, even the sun and the moon—and you’ll find one of them associated with physical strength, action, and domineering behavior, and the other associated with emotion, reticence, and calm. That’s not just descriptive; it’s prescriptive, and proscriptive too. If we could judge the moon for yelling, we would.

So, Democrats are all just pajama boys, even the women?

The feminization of the party also restricts how much anger, outrage, and general disgruntlement Democrats are “allowed” to express; they are the party that has to be fair, that has to maintain its commitment to the principles of equality and reasonableness. Somehow, at the same time, every trivial emotion of the right is valorized….

It hasn’t been the Republicans out in the streets getting angry and violent.

The problem with misogyny in this country goes beyond the oppression of women—although that alone should be a reason to shatter the patriarchy where it stands. It’s also the oppression of anything seen as feminine: those who show “weakness,” which is defined in our patriarchal system as anything outside the two acceptable masculine modes of brutish violence and cold indifference. Even cisgender men suffer when they are not able to convincingly perform this twisted vision of manliness.

Seee? Misogyny also applies to whatever they want it to apply to, including the gamma-male Dem voters. The rest is just as nutty as the above. It would normally be hard to take seriously, but, these people are violently serious.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

26 Responses to “Slate: Democrats Can’t Get Angry Because They’ve Become Feminized”

  1. Dana says:

    Any party whose primary male cohort are homosexuals is going to have this problem.

    Normal men have been voting heavily Republican for decades now.

  2. xtron says:

    common….code pink and the “ladies” of BLM express their anger openly and loudly, and expect to be respected and honored for it.
    yet, when a white male expressed his just and righteous anger, he is vilifies and berated an “petty and angry”.
    hypocracy in the extreme here

  3. formwiz says:

    It was anger that made him lash out inappropriately, anger that contorted his face in a way that made many viewers feel sick. He thought this anger would substitute for integrity, and he was right, or right enough anyway; he didn’t fool everyone, but he did at least shout them down.

    Dr Crazy wasn’t slandered by the other side. At least, not until she opened her mouth.

    it’s the confused hetero doofus asking a gay couple “which one’s the woman”

    Hate to tell you, sweets, but it usually breaks down that way.

  4. Rod grant says:

    Off topic after UN change
    Dem’s r playing wack-a-mole
    Trump – BATTLESHIP!
    Rest of world – WTF!!!
    Yes U.S. we understand now

  5. Jethro says:

    It’s an interesting point. GOPhers are the party of white nationalism, cruelty to women and children, bigoty, misogyny, greed, force, discrimination, bullying, ridicule and mockery.

    Dems are the party of caring and equality.

    • david7134 says:

      Now look at jeff,saying stupid troll things in a pathetic attempt to make people upset. That is all this guy has, pathetic.

    • Nighthawk says:


      Oh hell, you were serious?

    • formwiz says:


      Take a look at the Demo leadership in Congress.

      How many Demos have been proven sex offenders?

      Who’s the party of lynching, hates white women, was in the pocket of Wall Street, Waco ring a bell?, set-asides, and outright violence and willful disobedience to the rule of law?

      Didn’t Mommy ever teach you that, when you point a finger at someone, 4 more point back at you?

    • Mangoldielocks says:

      His name is probably Chop Sui Meng Chao reporting directly from Tianamen Square.

      HATE and FEAR mongering are all leftists know. Everything that represents the right is hateful and everyone must be fear mongered into hating them as well.

      Their 2018 and 2020 platform is:

      1. White men suck
      2. White men blow
      3. White men are racist
      4. White men are mysoginists
      5. White men cant jump
      6. White men are greedy
      7. White men are bullies
      8. White men like to mock stuff
      9. White men should be castrated
      10. White men should be killed. We have become the 20th century Jews.
      11. The constitution sucks and should be changed
      12. The Supreme court should be packed with justices that will rule in favor of Hating and killing White men.
      13. The ovens should be built in the Midwest so all those white people can see their buddiest roasting.
      14. White men are all guilty until proven equal. We want a new amendment that makes this the new law.
      15. And finally. White men are a virus that should be destroyed from this planet. The ovens will ensure this is done humanely. After all we can kill babies by the millions, it would be much easier and more fun to kill WHITE MEN.

  6. Jl says:

    Exactly. He’s reduced to name-calling and labeling, commom tactics when one can’t argue facts.

  7. Jl says:


  8. Jethro says:

    “Democrats work to help people that need help. That other party, they work for people who don’t need help. That’s all there is to it.” — Harry S Truman

    The NuCons consider caring, compassion and helping to be feminine traits; and greed, bullying, threats, belligerence, bombast and selfishness to be manly. To a NuCon, tRump exemplifies manliness. Sad.

    Things haven’t changed much since Truman’s days.

    • liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      Democrats working to help people who need help.

    • formwiz says:

      Harry Truman said a lot of things, most of which were not repeatable in polite society. He supported segregation and his idea of caring was welfare. He also said he worked for the government – his job was supposed to be working for the people.

      Let’s look at caring and compassion. Waco, lynching, Antifa, BLM, slander, smear, serial rape, murder. Yeah the Demos know all about caring and compassion. Not a year goes by when at least one isn’t investigated for it.

      You want selfish? Name a Democrat who went into politics a poor man and left office the same way.

      Waving Harry Truman’s underwear doesn’t change the fact that Eric Holder, Kerosene Maxine, and the Hildabeast are all advocating mob violence.

      And all little Jeffery can do is cry.

      PS I guess we’re not Con Men any more.

      • Jethro says:

        Nope, still Con Men… led by a Con Man who revels in cruelty. Hatred and cruelty is what binds the Con Men – in fact, it’s all you have.

        Trump’s only true skill is the con; his only fundamental belief is that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men, and his only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. It is that cruelty, and the delight it brings them, that binds his most ardent supporters to him, in shared scorn for those they hate and fear: immigrants, black voters, feminists, and treasonous white men who empathize with any of those who would steal their birthright. The president’s ability to execute that cruelty through word and deed makes them euphoric. It makes them feel good, it makes them feel proud, it makes them feel happy, it makes them feel united. And as long as he makes them feel that way, they will let him get away with anything, no matter what it costs them.

        White male tRump supporters feel they’re losing their advantage and privilege and it scares them.

        • formwiz says:

          And what Left-wing psychotic wrote that?

          I notice no link, so I wonder if this is more of your drivel passed off as some sort of analysis.

          BTW 3 out of 8 blacks support Trump, according to all the polls.

          treasonous white men

          Are you admitting you’re allied with a pack of traitors? Once again, you need to actually read the Constitution.

  9. Jl says:

    As I saw elsewhere- Democrats used to be the party of the working man, now they’re the party of the screaming woman.

    • Jethro says:

      White working class men left the Dems when the Dems starting supporting civil rights.

      The GOP has become the party of conservative Caucasian Christians, and they hate everyone else and delight in torturing others. Period. tRump is the embodiment of their desires and hopes. The KKK, neoNazis and white nationalists/supremacists backed the right horse.

  10. formwiz says:

    When did the Demos ever support civil rights? The Civil Rights Acts all passed on Republican votes, usually 90+% (you can look it up, sweetie).

    And you are right about one thing. The Rs have been the party of conservative Caucasian Christians. Before that, it was the Demos.

    About 100 years ago. When Woody Wilson was Preezy, the guy who said of Birth Of A Nation, “my only regret is that it is all so terribly true” and was quoted in the movie.

    It was under Wilson, it was un-American to be black, Catholic, or Jewish, and the Klan aped Woody’s sentiments. As late as WWII, the democrats made kissy-face with the segregationists and Harry Truman, whiom Jeffery thinks was so wonderful, only allowed the Armed forces to include segregated black units in larger white divisions.

    The Republican party that enacted the Civil rights Acts has indeed become the party of conservative Caucasian Christians, as they have rejected the concepts of hate and segregation so closely allied with BLM and Antifa.

    Obviously, you know as much history as you do economics, science, or politics. Christ Almighty, pick up a book some day.

    • Jethro says:

      In June 1963 President John F. Kennedy proposed the most comprehensive civil rights legislation to date, saying the United States “will not be fully free until all of its citizens are free.”

      The Senate voted 73-27 in favor of the bill, and President Johnson signed it into law on July 2, 1964. “It is an important gain, but I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come…”

      An event that outraged many Americans occurred on March 7, 1965, when peaceful participants in a Selma to Montgomery march for voting rights were met by Alabama state troopers who attacked them with nightsticks, tear gas and whips after they refused to turn back. Some protesters were severely beaten and bloodied, and others ran for their lives. The incident was captured on national television.

      In the wake of the shocking incident, Johnson called for comprehensive voting rights legislation. In a speech to a joint session of Congress on March 15, 1965, the president outlined the devious ways in which election officials denied African-American citizens the vote.

      The voting rights bill was passed in the U.S. Senate by a 77-19 vote on May 26, 1965. After debating the bill for more than a month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 333-85 on July 9.

      In 1964 and 1965 the Dems controlled the Senate with 64 to 68 member majorities. Liberal Republicans joined the votes, and Conservative (Southern) Dems opposed.

      This is why LBJ said “It is an important gain, but I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come…”

      Parts of the Voting Rights Act were declared unconstitutional in 2013 by the 5 Conservatives on the Supreme Courts. Several state legislatures (e.g., AL, AZ, TX, NC, OH) passed laws making it more difficult to vote.

      • gitarcarver says:

        There was a Civil Rights Bill proposed during the Eisenhower administration. Joe Kennedy, Father of JFK, sent out the word that he wanted his son to make the Civil Rights bill as president so it would be seen as something the Democrats did. So the Democrats did not support the Eisenhower administration’s bill, denying blacks and minorities their rights simply for political gain.

        Such are the lack of “principles” that the Democrat have in that area.

        Parts of the Voting Rights Act were declared unconstitutional in 2013 by the 5 Conservatives on the Supreme Courts.

        Your point being?

        Several state legislatures (e.g., AL, AZ, TX, NC, OH) passed laws making it more difficult to vote.

        Several states passed laws making it more difficult for ineligible voters not to vote is what you meant to say.

        Your whole point is that the Democrats historically don’t care about Civil Rights, don’t care about the Constitution, and support fraud at the ballot box.

      • formwiz says:

        Democrats rejected Jack Kennedy’s bill and LBJ had to submit a new one in ’64, co-sponsored by Mike Mansfield and Everett Dirksen (Conservative Republican). 80% of Republicans in both Hoses voted for it, 30% of Democrats.

        Those who marched at Selma were Republicans in large part, the state troopers Demos. Voting Rights passed with 30 of 32 Rs voting for it (only 2 Conservatives?, sure). And not all who voted against it were Conservatives, J Wacko Fulbright, f’rinstance

        And the parts declared unconstitutional were so done by 2 Liberals.

        This stuff is easily verified, so try just once to get the facts right.

        Or just get the facts.

Pirate's Cove