The “Eeyore Effect”

— And The “Ted Baxter Effect” —

Look, I love women. I can’t tell you how much I love women. I admire them, respect them, and find them astonishingly attractive on every level: physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual. They are spectacular! 

However, when they’re ridiculous, they’re just a whole lot funnier than men, when men are being ridiculous… and when men are being ridiculous, they’re really funny.

Here’s when women really make me laugh: it’s when they take themselves so extremely seriously that they do their level best to imitate men. Public women in America are some of the funniest women around because of the voices they affect. They’re so terrified of the “s” word — “shrill” — that they go to extraordinary lengths to shape their voices to sound as low as possible, like the voices of men.

Below is a picture I drew showing how I “see” a man’s voice:

Men's Voices
A Man’s Voice

Some ups and downs around an average line, generally in a lower register. Not a great range. Men don’t do a lot of high highs, but they will do a bunch of low lows, around less of a dynamic range than women.

Here’s how I “see” a woman’s voice:

A woman's voice
A Woman’s voice

This is an entirely different voice, as everyone knows. However, did you ever notice how much more expressive women’s voices are? They go way up, and back down. They swoop and dive and leap and plunge and rise and fall, they travel all over a vast and colorful dynamic range that makes listening to them a thoroughgoing delight.

Here’s a picture of how I “see” a conversation between a man and a woman:

Conversation between a man and a woman
Picture of a normal conversation between a man and a woman.


The woman’s graph is on top, while the man’s is on the bottom. The guy starts down low and mostly stays there. The woman starts up high, stays there, and does all the ups and downs described above. Rarely does the woman get down into the man’s range, or the man up into the woman’s range.

However, public women are thoroughly obsessed with not sounding shrill, ’cause let’s face it, “shrill” sounds kind of silly, and young, and immature and … unserious. You can hear the vocal training that public women have undergone to bring their voices down, down, down, so as to avoid the dreaded shrill.

Remember, for example, when Hillary Clinton was just starting out running for office so many years ago? She used to make speeches like a woman, and she really did sound funny, because trying to say deep, important things while swooping and diving vocally just doesn’t seem to work.(1)

It’s obvious that after just a few speeches, someone took Hillary aside and said, “Ummmm… this just ain’t gonna work, we’re getting you some voice coaching … pronto!”

I confess, I don’t know exactly why the normal woman’s voice doesn’t work for oration, but listen sometime to YouTube videos of some great orators: King, Churchill, Hitler, Van der Jagt, Keyes. They begin a kind of a vocal drone, very steady, within a very limited dynamic range, then they rise and rise, their tempo becoming faster and faster, as they carry their audience up with the increasing emotion, cadence and tempo of their presentation.

Women’s natural vocal presentation doesn’t do any of that, so intensity comes through less easily. Hence, they do what Hillary does now. Here’s a picture of how Hillary speaks now:

Hillary's vocal style now
Hillary’s vocal style now

First, she drops down low, then she goes up to the  average line… then quickly chops off any further swooping up into the higher registers. It makes for a stunted dynamic range that keeps women in this unnatural sounding low, low range. When she tries to become impassioned, she ends up only bellowing, and a woman bellowing is truly funny.

Why? Simple: she sounds as though she’s trying desperately to be just like a man. And if she’s trying to be just like a man, then she’s implying — this feminist’s feminist, of all people — that being like a woman … is somehow inadequate.

Here’s the real end result: women who do this end up sounding like no one more than Eeyore. Listen to Hillary speak normally — not while trying to orate — and if you don’t hear Eeyore, then you’re not paying attention. Hence: “The Eeyore Effect.”

I’m not referring to the meaning of what Eeyore says — he’s a perpetual downer — I mean Eeyore’s vocal presentation. It’s monotonous, affectless, emotionless, unnaturally serious, and entirely lacking in dynamic range, in expressiveness, in the ups and downs that make listening to real women just delightful.

Hillary’s not the only one, just the most prominent. Some other prominent ones are Barbara Mikulski, Democrat Senator of Maryland. Also: Audie Cornish of National Public Radio — Audie’s in second place for Funniest Voice in America. A local (to me) Eeyore is Angela Dias of WTIC radio. Also very funny to listen to. Also, the very funny Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. Talk about someone who takes herself really seriously!

The above-mentioned left-wing women are not the only ones to have adopted The Eeyore Effect. The woman on the right who seems also to have adopted “The Eeyore Effect” is: Megyn Kelly. I can’t think of another right-wing woman who has done it though.

I’ve also identified “The Ted Baxter” effect. Because the other person these low-register bellowers sound like is Ted Baxter, the ridiculous, pompous, buffoonish, baritone-voiced, fictional anchorman played by Ted Knight in various sitcoms throughout the ’70’s and ’80’s.

When these women who take themselves so seriously try to inject intensity into their artificially-lowered voices, they sound even more like Ted Baxter than like Eeyore. It’s a safe bet that they sound practically not at all like … themselves.

Rachel Maddow, Barbara Mikulski and Angela Dias are today’s Ted Baxters.

Who could possibly have known that the thoroughly unrealistic Ted Baxter was really a caricature not of male anchormen, but of female media and political personalities!

It’s instructive that these feminist’s feminists felt it necessary to imitate men, rather than to educate the population in another way to speak seriously in public. It demonstrates the cowardice, the fakery and the intellectual unseriousness of feminism and the left. It’s a constant auditory reminder of the sheer dishonesty of feminism.

One final note about The Eeyore Effect: It’s useful to remember why these public women become Eeyores. It’s because they take themselves so seriously that they believe they need to drop their voices way, way, way down in order to be taken seriously. If you think of Hillary as “Eeyore Clinton,” “Ted Baxter Clinton” it becomes a whole lot more tolerable to listen to her pompous buffoonery.

— xPraetorius


(1) It can’t be ruled out also that Hillary sounded funny as much because of what she said, as how she said it. Here was the flagrantly carpet-bagging New York State Senate candidate, who pretended to be a lifelong Yankees fan; the pink-dressed, non-cookie baking feminist’s feminist who owed the entirety of her fame and success to her husband’s career. She was the one who “accidentally” turned a $1,000 investment into $1,000,000. I think that Hillary has always secretly known that she herself is not a serious person. That she herself is nothing more than an expensively-handled, coddled, pampered and managed … fraud.



3 thoughts on “The “Eeyore Effect”

  1. Hmm, interesting. There is a voice range for women that is very calm and gentle, but it’s incredibly hard to maintain. You cannot imitate the tones of men and you have to try and keep the emotion out of your voice. Very difficult.

    You’re quite right about women being really funny, especially when we try to take ourselves so very seriously. To make it extra hilarious, feminists often have no sense of humor at all, so you aren’t supposed to laugh at them, which makes it even harder not to do 😉

  2. Agreed, IB… women attempting to imitate men is just as funny as the other way ’round. Sadly, we’re supposed to take the men-imitators seriously. It is a problem trying to keep the face straight and composed.


    — x

  3. Nearly all of the things you claim is supprisingly precise and that makes me ponder the reason why I had not looked at this in this light before. Your article truly did switch the light on for me personally as far as this topic goes. However at this time there is one particular factor I am not necessarily too comfortable with and while I try to reconcile that with the core idea of the point, let me observe what all the rest of the visitors have to say.Very well done.

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s