Democrats can’t mock masculinity and expect men to vote for them



Democrats are making a full-court press to woo men back to the party, with the New York Times recently reporting that donors are considering a $20 million effort to connect with the more “privileged” sex. The plan apparently includes studying the “syntax, language, and content that gains attention and virality in [male] spaces.”

It’s good that the party finally realized that alienating half the electorate is an unwise political strategy. Kamala Harris lost the male vote to President Donald Trump in 2024 by 10 points. The president won 60% of the white male vote, along with 54% of the Hispanic male vote and 21% of the black male vote. Those results are unsustainable.

A party beholden to feminists who think traditional masculinity is toxic will never prioritize the needs of the average American male.

But I have news for donors that will save them from wasting time and money: A party can’t do meaningful outreach to people they resent.

That may sound like a harsh assessment of the left’s relationship to men, but it’s true. What’s also true is that the problems Democrats have with messaging to men are primarily ideological, not rhetorical. That’s because the modern Democratic Party has a broad coalition of voters who hate any expression of traditional masculinity. This includes both liberal and radical feminists, LGBTQ+ activists who want to change the definitions of “male” and “female” altogether, and self-flagellating male “allies” who feel duty-bound to rid themselves publicly of their “toxic masculinity.”

The party’s inability to reach men is a structural — not syntactical — problem.

Men in previous generations, including the white majority, had a home in the Democratic Party. At that time, Democrats campaigned on bread-and-butter issues, such as jobs and education. They still talk about those issues today, but they occupy a much different space within the left’s business model.

Issues like the economy, health care, and even race could be viewed as “expenses” Democrats are willing to pay in order to sell their preferred “products”: abortion, all things related to LGBTQ+ Pride, and climate change.

In fact, progressives are so invested in “transgender rights” that they are willing to throw women under the bus to do so. That’s why Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said he would support boys who identify as girls competing against natal females in sports. Any man watching the left dump its commitment to second-wave feminism in favor of first-wave “theminism” would be a fool to think Democrats would be loyal to him.

RELATED: From feminism to ‘theminism’: Nancy Mace faces liberal fury in Congress

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images. Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Imageseditsharetrending_up

The modern left prioritizes “marginalized” identities more than anything, which makes straight white Christian males apex oppressors in the left’s intersectional “Hunger Games.” This warped worldview puts Democrats in a bind. They want to win back men, but at the same time, they don’t want to upset the coalition of “oppressed” groups who look to them for protection from the “orange menace” currently in the White House — especially since some of the men they’re courting voted for Trump in 2024.

No one on the left wants to be blamed for bringing in a new batch of men into the party whose land acknowledgments are some version of, “My ancestors were settlers, and I don’t apologize for the country they’ve built.”

The truth is, the party whose symbol is a donkey is only interested in male “mules” — men willing to leverage their male “privilege” on behalf of the feminists, abortionists, and Pride activists who hold all the sway on the modern left. That means a black Christian man who is solidly pro-life has no space in the modern Democratic Party, while a white male feminist wearing a shirt with the slogan “The future is female” is a useful ally.

Men can sense the resentment, and many won’t be swayed by effete influencers who binge Joe Rogan interviews and practice their “bro” lingo in the mirror. A political movement can’t spend decades telling men that their very nature is problematic and then act surprised when the people they’ve been chastising defect in large numbers.

The irony is that when these efforts fail to produce the results the party desires, progressive pundits will respond 95% of the time with the type of preachy scolding from the same bitter “cat ladies” who drove men away from the left in the first place.

This is why any attempts to win young men back to the left will ultimately fail without a major change in the party’s priorities. A party beholden to feminists who think traditional masculinity is toxic will never prioritize the needs of the average American male.

Disney Ditches Lilo And Stitch’s Core Message Of ‘Ohana’ For The Sake Of Feminism

This new interpretation of the 2002 cult film has a brand-new ending that changes the story's message.

Young Men Aren’t Slacking Off. They’re Being Boxed Out By Cheap Replacements

You will have nothing – not a house, wife, children, well-paid job, or the respect of those for whom you’ve sacrificed – and you will be happy

What happens when you tell a philosopher ‘No’



We need more philosophers to resign from their university posts.

Graham Parsons, a philosophy professor at West Point, resigned from his tenured position in protest. Good for him. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded bluntly: “You will not be missed.” The question is, what exactly was Parsons’ “principled stand” — and should others follow his lead? I think they should, though not necessarily for the reasons one might expect. If more professors who insist on injecting gender ideology into the curriculum refused to teach, we might finally begin to salvage the American university.

Professors like Parsons saw themselves as soldiers in the struggle for social justice, fighting racism and oppression. Now they’re being asked to face an uncomfortable reality.

So, why did Parsons quit? In his own words: “I cannot tolerate these changes, which prevent me from doing my job responsibly. I am ashamed to be associated with the academy in its current form.” He accuses West Point of “failing to provide an adequate education for the cadets” under current leadership. That’s a serious charge. Parsons blames policies linked to Trump and Hegseth for undermining what he views as essential to a proper military education.

But what does he actually mean by “adequate education”? What does he believe West Point no longer teaches? That’s the real question — and one worth examining closely.

Parsons explains his position in the New York Times: “Whatever you think about various controversial ideas — Mr. Hegseth’s memo cited critical race theory and gender ideology — students should engage with them and debate their merits rather than be told they are too dangerous even to be contemplated.”

There it is. Parsons frames the issue as a crackdown on academic freedom, where professors no longer have permission to address controversial topics or challenge prevailing orthodoxy. Educators, he argues, must now parrot the government’s message and abandon real critical inquiry. He adds that “uncritically asserting that [America] is ‘the most powerful force for good in human history’ is not something an educator does.”

But Parsons isn’t just teaching anywhere — he’s at West Point. His objection isn’t a minor complaint about classroom nuance. It amounts to a rejection of teaching American greatness and a defense of gender theory and critical race theory as serious intellectual frameworks. He calls the academy “uncritical,” but what he really objects to is any attempt to affirm America’s moral legacy. In practice, Parsons sees the affirmation of the United States as inherently disqualifying.

The result? Criticizing CRT gets framed as dogma, while embracing it becomes the default. Rather than weigh arguments, educators must now accept gender ideology and race theory as truth — and sideline any defense of the country’s founding principles.

Parsons does offer specific examples of the curriculum changes he opposes. He claims West Point interpreted directives from Trump and Hegseth not just as a rejection of critical race theory and intersectionality, but as a broader ban on using race and gender as organizing principles in the curriculum.

RELATED: Pride over preparedness: How LGBTQ+ activism is weakening our forces

Cunaplus_M.Faba via iStock/Getty Images

Parsons says department heads ordered a review of syllabi and forced faculty to revise them. “West Point scrapped two history courses — ‘Topics in Gender History’ and ‘Race, Ethnicity, Nation’ — and an English course, ‘Power and Difference,’” he writes. The academy eliminated the sociology major and shut down a black history project. Department leaders also told professors to remove readings by James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, and other minority authors.

He then describes how these directives affected his own classroom. “One of my supervisors ordered professors to get rid of readings on white supremacy in Western ethical theory and feminist approaches to ethics in ‘Philosophy and Ethical Reasoning,’ a course I direct that is required for all cadets,” Parsons writes. He even claims the West Point debate team was barred from arguing certain positions in an upcoming competition.

These details offer a clearer picture of his true grievance. Parsons didn’t resign over routine administrative changes. He stepped down because he could no longer teach what he believes: that white supremacy and feminist critiques of ethics are essential to understanding just war theory — a subject he has written about. He wants to use critical theory to criticize America, but he won’t subject critical theory itself to scrutiny.

Parsons demands that others question everything — except the assumptions behind his own beliefs. He’s like Descartes, but with highly selective skepticism.

In one of his articles, Parsons writes, “War theorists should be much more concerned with the gender and war literature and find common ground with feminists who have treated the problem of the political standing of soldiers as a philosophical priority.” This isn’t a neutral invitation to critical inquiry — it’s ideological advocacy. Parsons seems to think his view is correct and wants his students to adopt it. He’s not interested in weighing all perspectives; he’s advancing a particular dogma.

West Point, by contrast, has begun restoring a classical standard of education. Instructors are expected to equip students to identify flawed arguments and refute them. Professors must demonstrate why certain ideas fall short — and train cadets to do the same.

Parsons wants us to believe he resigned because he could no longer teach students how to think critically. He suggests the academy is censoring dissent. On the surface, that sounds like a position many academics might support. But his resignation tells a different story. It wasn’t about open inquiry — it was about losing the ability to promote his ideology without challenge.

Let me explain what it’s like to be a conservative inside a university. I’ve been told to revise my curriculum to fit a “decolonized” version of philosophy. At Arizona State University, I was the only professor who spoke up and said that crossed the line. Where were my leftist colleagues who now applaud Graham Parsons? Where were all the philosophers who claim to care about examining every perspective? For the past two decades, philosophy departments have resembled Socratic dialogues where only one voice gets to speak.

In truth, most professors only raise objections when institutional changes threaten their own deeply held beliefs. When administrators impose leftist ideology in the classroom, faculty members who share that ideology rarely object. They don’t see it as dogma — they see it as truth. They call it justice, a necessary correction to history. But when directives come from a conservative administration, they suddenly call it censorship and resign in protest.

This creates a profound dilemma for professors like Parsons. They saw themselves as soldiers in the struggle for social justice, fighting racism and oppression. Now they’re being asked to face an uncomfortable reality: They may have perpetuated the very racial essentialism they once condemned. For years, they operated within a system that marginalized conservatives — just look at the partisan breakdown in university faculties. That mirror reflects something they can’t bear to see.

They became what they claimed to hate.

It is time we restored the American university to the pursuit of truth and wisdom.

Here’s my final prediction: The immediate response from these professors will be to ask, “But who gets to say what is true or wise?” And of course, that’s the most telling response of all.

That’s critical theory talking.

Philosophy professor, know thyself.

The New York Times Wants Mothers To Bow To The Fear Of Regret. Christ Has Something Better

There is no freedom in constantly questioning your existence, wondering if your achievements are good enough by some vague feminist standard.

The Costs and Consequences of Sexual Liberation

Is there anything left to say about the sexual revolution?

The post The Costs and Consequences of Sexual Liberation appeared first on .

Witchcraft, seances, and Lucifer worship: The occultist roots of the feminist movement EXPOSED



Rachel Wilson was born to a Marxist feminist mom and a hard-core conservative, Rush Limbaugh-loving dad. Spoiler alert: It didn’t work out.

Rachel struggled in school but not because she wasn’t smart. On the contrary, she was too smart. By kindergarten she had already figured out that school wasn’t about learning but about obeying rules. When college rolled around, Rachel was so over traditional education that she turned down a full-ride art scholarship.

At 20, she became a mom and felt she had found her calling. But when returning to work at just four weeks postpartum loomed, Rachel realized just how toxic the modern system was.

She began asking questions about how we got to a place where it’s normal for babies to be shipped off to day care and new moms forced to return to work just days after birth.

Her questions landed her deep in feminist literature, where she discovered that the origins of the feminist movement are not what we’ve been told. The story of abused women oppressed by the patriarchy, forced to slave away at the stove and have babies until they perished, is the lie the radical left sells us.

The truth? It’s far more sinister than most realize. Elites, the CIA, and occultists are the ones who shaped women’s liberation — not to free women, but to control society.

On a recent episode of “Normal World,” Rachel joined Dave Landau, ¼ Black Garrett, and Angela Boggs to unpack the dark history of feminism outlined in her book “Occult Feminism: The Secret History of Women's Liberation.”

“There's a whole hidden history to women's liberation that nobody knows about,” says Rachel. For example, most “don't know that there was way higher participation in anti-suffrage groups among women than pro-suffrage groups.”

However, the most shocking revelation Rachel uncovered during her research was that the feminist pioneers were almost all involved in occultism.

“Not a couple, but most of them dabbled in occult practices, whether it's like witchcraft, spiritualism. …There’s an old saying that there was never a suffragette that didn’t sit around the seance table,” she says.

“There was a lot of anti-Christian sentiment within the suffrage movement. They had radical lesbian separatist female pastors in like 1895 helping to rewrite the Bible.”

Their core belief was that “Christianity was invented by the evil patriarchy to control women and force them to be rape slaves.”

“Lucifer was actually a symbol of women's liberation in the 1800s. They openly said Lucifer was the good guy; he was trying to enlighten us and make us free and liberated, and God's actually the bad [guy],” says Rachel, noting that these aren’t her opinions but the real words of the original feminists.

Later, “the CIA pushed [the feminist movement],” not for the sake of women’s freedom but rather for the sake of control.

“We've been lied to about everything at this point,” says Dave.

To hear more about Rachel’s book and the wild origins of the feminist movement, watch the episode above.

Want more 'Normal World'?

To enjoy more whimsical satire, topical sketches, and comedic discussions from comedians Dave Landau and 1/4 Black Garrett, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Statehouse Republicans Work With Democrats To Make Florida Purple Again

The establishment’s revival in Florida threatens Republican victories in the state long-term and Florida’s policy leadership across the country.

Childless Influencers Don’t Know Anything About A Tradwife’s ‘Mental Stimulation’

MAGA influencer Emily Wilson, under the username “emilysavesamerica,” went viral on X last week when she incited a “MAGA Civil War” with a rant attacking right-wing women for “promoting tradwife bullsh-t.” And while her comments were not entirely wrong — posting about sourdough on social media is indeed “cringe” — her claim that “guys want […]