Re: "The Great Feminization"

I like women.  Honestly.  

Well, at least most women.  But just as about ten percent of men are so obnoxious that I wouldn't be shed a tear if they got turned to clouds of glowing gas, from my observations at least ten percent of women are in that same category.

I've been lucky to only run into a few such women in my life, and they are absolutely ghastly.  They're almost always angry, never satisfied and seemingly never happy.  And as far as I've been able to determine, they blame men.  

They may have good reasons.  And if these nasty women were nicer I'd love to listen to their stories for an hour or so.

Helen Andrews wrote an excellent article on this, titled "The Great Feminization," and I've used it as a starting point for the post below.
===

In 2005 Larry Summers was president of Harvard University, and gave a talk at a conference on “Diversifying the science and engineering workforce.”

The "diversity" addressed at this conference was "We need more women in science and engineering."  Really?  Most women I've met hate that discipline, and sneer at engineers.  Most women think engineering is boring, definitely not cool or exciting, eh?  But I digress:  

Summers didn't argue with the goal of the Hahvahd conference, but noted that part of the explanation for why there were fewer females than males in hard sciences--a topic cleverly couched as "under-representation," thus predetermining the conclusion--could be “different availability of aptitude at the high end, as well as taste differences between men and women.”

As you surely guessed, some female professors in the audience were outraged, and demanded he resign as president of Hahvahd.  That led to a vote by the "woke" faculty condemning Summers, who eventually resigned.  Angry women and woke beta males on Hahvahd's faculty forced Summers out. 

Summers is apparently the first victim of the "cancel culture," in which screaming snowflakes--some of 'em male--realized they could force people to resign, or their employers to fire 'em.

It was a turning point in American culture. 

Cancel culture is what women do whenever there are enough of them in any organization or field.  Everything you think of as “wokeness” is feminization in action.

"Woke" is not a new ideology, but simply the application of feminine behavior applied to institutions that have lots of women.  For example, in 1974 only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female.  By 2018 the staff at the Times was majority female.

In 2016 law schools became majority female.  In 2023 women comprised a majority of "associates" at law firms. 

When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court only 5 percent of U.S. judges were female.  Today 33 percent of the judges in America are.  And staggeringly, tellingly: 63 percent of the judges appointed by Biden. 

Medical schools became majority female in 2019--the same year women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide.  Two years ago women became a majority of college professors (though the Ivies were majority female years earlier). 

46 percent of managers in the U.S. are female--rising every day.

What happens when institutions tip from majority-male to majority-female?  Several vital things change.  Feminists claim the changes are good--but IF the goal is a thriving country and economy we're beginning to see that most of the changes are actually bad.

Not surprisingly, most female managers prioritize female traits, methods and goals over competence and efficiency.  Empathy is prized over rationality.

Female judges are far more inclined to release young carjackers and muggers with only a warning: empathy over rationality.

Consider something as seemingly crucial to science as freedom of speech:  Researchers examining the effects of feminization on academia found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, while 59 percent of women said the opposite.  (Admittedly the "cohesive society" choice was far too vague.)  But new discoveries in science are made by people who aren't afraid to reject the consensus.

Of course most males are similarly reluctant to buck the consensus, but female group dynamics penalize disagreement much more strongly.  "Group discussions" are used to reinforce consensus.  The communists recognized this as a powerful tool, and "struggle sessions" were usually led by women.  

Of course LOTS of men use feminine tactics, particularly in academia and medicine, as when doctors like Fauci said public gatherings were forbidden, but wokie doctors said mass protests by Black Lives Matter could continue--obviously violating "Doctor Science's" orders--because "racism is a public health emergency."

Turns out Fauci was a lying POS, but the other docs didn't know that.  They just let emotion override what Fauci ordered (ostensibly to keep people safe) because they were afraid to buck the perceived consensus.  Hmmm...

Andrews writes "The insanity of 2020 was just a taste of what the future holds.  Imagine what will happen as the remaining men age out of society-shaping professions and younger, more feminized generations take full control." 

Of course depending on the particular field, the threat to functioning society posed by wokeness can be almost unnoticeable.  For example, university English departments are almost totally feminized now, but that only affects very few people.  But in other fields the effect can be huge:  We live in a country where what's printed in The New York Times determines what most Americans think is truth.  If the female majority at the Times doesn't like certain facts, and hides them, that affects political outcomes.

The field that frightens Andrews most is the law.  Most Americans don't realize how much our society depend on a legal system that enforces laws and locks up bad people.  But most women tend to want NOT to punish truly bad criminals--most of whom have sympathetic excuses to explain why society forced them to commit violent crimes.  

And sure enough, as more females have been appointed to lifetime positions as judges in the last 30 years, crime has increased (though in many Democrat-ruled cities and states the statistics are rigged by making more crimes misdemeanors instead of felonies).

The rule of law means following the rules even when they produce a result that tugs at your heartstrings.

Liberal judges already bend the rules for groups favored by liberals, while enforcing them rigorously on disfavored groups.  Andrews believes that as more female judges are appointed (by Democrat or socialist presidents), this will become more widespread.  She concludes, "The changes will be massive."

Oddly, both sides of the political spectrum agree on what those changes will be. The disagreement is over whether those changes will be good or bad. 

Feminists and liberal women praise female judges for their irreverent attitude to the law’s formalities, which, they quickly note, originated in an era of oppression and white supremacy.  Rather than debate whether a given law is flawed by the makeup of society when it was passed, they automatically reject enforcing it.  Much easier.  Consensus, citizen.  At least the feminist consensus.

Those who view the law as a tool of "the white patriarchy" can be expected to treat it with hostility.  

Other civilizations have given women the vote, granted them property rights, or let them inherit the thrones of empires.  But the wave of total feminization the U.S. is experiencing is unprecedented.  No civilization in human history has ever experimented with letting women control so many vital institutions of the society--political parties, universities, the courts, our largest companies.  Even where women don't hold the top spots, they set the tone in these organizations, such that a male CEO must operate within the limits set by his human resources VP.

Everyone just assumes all these institutions will continue to function under the new rules.  But is that assumption correct?

The problem isn't that women are less talented than men.  Instead it's that female modes of interaction don't seem well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions.  Andrews speculates that if this unprecedented experiment fatally weakens one of our vital institutions, it will probably be too late to recover. 

Most feminists think the Great Feminization is a totally natural process, but it's not.  Instead,  "woke" politicians pandering for female votes passed laws that forced companies to hire women for at least half of all management positions or be fined billions of dollars.  Feminists claim this gave women a chance to compete with men (which they've had for decades)--and that women turned out to be better at running things.

Leftists (including some "wokie" males) mock MAGA males about failing to adequately compete.  My take (not Andrews's) is different:  The reason males outnumber females as CEOs and top managers has been that historically, most women have preferred raising a family to the "corporate rat-race."  But after Dem politicians passed laws forcing companies to have at least half of top positions filled by women, or be sued by the government (which has infinite taxpayer funds) and fined tens of millions of dollars, CEOs and boards quickly realized it was "obey or die."  They couldn't prevail against the Democrat-rammed LAW, and that was the end of it.

Andrews seems to agree:

Feminization is not an organic result of women out-competing men. [Instead] it's an artificial result of social engineering, and if we take our thumb off the scale it will collapse within a generation.

The most obvious thumb on the scale is anti-discrimination law. It is illegal to employ too few women at your company. If women are underrepresented, especially in your higher management, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen. As a result, employers give women jobs and promotions they would not otherwise have gotten simply to keep from being sued. 

It's totally rational for them to do this, because the consequences for failing to do so can be dire. Texaco, Goldman Sachs, Novartis, and Coca-Cola are among the companies that have paid nine-figure settlements in response to lawsuits alleging bias against women in hiring and promotions. No manager wants to be the person who cost his company $200 million in a gender-discrimination lawsuit. 

Once institutions reach a 50–50 split, they tend to become increasingly female.  Since 2016, law schools have gotten a little bit more female every year; in 2024, they were 56 percent female. Psychology was once a predominantly male field.  Today 75 percent of psychology doctorates go to women.  

Leftists claim this is just women out-competing men, but what man wants to work in a field where his traits are not welcome? What self-respecting male grad-student would pursue a career in academia when his peers will cancel him for stating his disagreements too bluntly or espousing a controversial opinion? 

Helen Andrews's article might be a tough read for some women.  But this isn't about all women, just women with the mindset of woke feminism and Girlpower Marxism.  And predictably, these are the women being hired as CEOs of corporations, university presidents, movie studios and academic department heads.  They put feminist methods and activism above all.

Feminism was and is based on the idea that men are (and always will be) wrong, and thus that all companies and institutions not already run by women must be forced to hire female CEOs, who will then rebuild their institutions according to feminist Marxist principles.

When you reject all practices that have a proven track record of success, you'd better have a better replacement extremely well thought out or else you're likely to end with disaster.  It's like young blacks rejecting studying and reading because they claim it's "acting white."  

So what practices do the "wokie" marxist feminists propose to replace current practices, eh?

Slogans.  "Cancel culture."  Demonstrations.  Ironically, for a group that professes to hate male strength with a white-hot passion, they LOVE to use the tools of force--as long as they're the ones using it.  

And of course they don't think it's force to "cancel" someone.  It's just "concensus."  Ahhh of course, comrade.

Most feminist protesters seem to hate capitalism itself, apparently viewing it as the creation of the eeevil Patriarchy.  Advancing a capitalist company, or teaching the benefits of capitalism, is regarded as Acting Male, and of course we can't have that.  (Although feminists do seem to love Apple, Fakebook and Google.) 

So feminists keep taking functioning institutions and...changing them.  And when you change every foundational aspect of a functioning institution--or a multi-billion-dollar movie franchise--the odds of that institution continuing to function well get longer.

Fortunately for feminists, it's almost impossible to blame failures on wokie Marxist policies, because some companies will fail for reasons having nothing to do with management.  Technology can make a company's product obsolete.  Consumer tastes can change.  So it's really hard to know...except in one field:  The military.

Obozo fired top generals and promoted "woke" replacements.  They allowed trannies in the military, allowed 'em to dress as women and ordered the armed forces to pay for sex-change surgeries.  The woke Navy even ran a recruiting ad featuring a guy in drag.  And as a result, recruiting dropped like a rock, even after the armed forces removed all fitness requirements for recruits. 

The utterly predictable result was that large numbers of fit, strong, patriotic males decided not to join.  None of the services made their recruiting quotas under obozo or bribem.  Trump reversed most of those policies (though leftist judges blocked him from removing trannies from the military), and the result was that all the forces met their recruiting numbers nine months into the fiscal year.  Nice.

The Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media mostly ignored that story, for obvious reasons.

The old saying is "There's safety in numbers."  It  was another way of saying the side with more supporters almost always wins.  So once women (and beta males, who are a essentially female) reach 51% of the staff and management, women will run the thing, and eventually destroy it.

Reason: No dissent can ever be openly expressed, because in female societies that's considered confrontational and rude.

Like Democrats, women will vote to support the feminist goal, regardless of the chances of disaster.

And that's what we see everywhere today:  The hot buzzword is concensus.  "Buy-in."

We keep seeing this in corporate decisions.  To show how *totally* woke they are, members of corporate boards hire female executives, who hire female managers, who hire female-run ad agencies.  This is certainly good if you're selling female hygiene products.  But if you're selling a beer mainly consumed by men?  Not so much.

This is how the disastrous decision by one female exec at Anheuser-Busch led to creating a marketing campaign for the company's top-selling beer, using an obvious tranny as the representative.  The move cost Bud Light a billion or so in sales, and the loss of about five times that in market cap.

And that's trivial compared to decisions made to allow tranny males in the armed forces, or ordering Medicaid to pay for sex-change operations for minors.

The military chiefs of staff are appointed by the president.  When a president appoints a female to head a branch of the armed forces, the effect isn't good: fitness standards are lowered or waived so the branch can enlist more women.  Tranny officers--in female uniforms and full makeup--are promoted over warfighters.  Ad campaigns are approved featuring service members in full drag.

What's the utterly predictable result?  Male recruitment falls dramatically.  Of course if our military could win wars based on which side wins the beauty pageant, fine.  Unfortunately...

The problem is, feminism demands that women despise everything considered male or masculine.  They see men as the enemy, so every institution must be torn down and rebuilt on feminist and frankly Marxist principles.

Finally Andrews turns to the feminist claim that women have just naturally out-competed men to take over all institutions, fair and square.  That's nonsense: "Woke" Democrat politicians, whose only goal was endless re-election, rammed through laws to ensure women were appointed to top positions in every field, or else the men running those institutions would be either sued or canceled.  Once those laws were rammed through, leftist judges gleefully made any dissent ruinously expensive, either through fines of hundreds of millions of dollars, or men being fired as CEOs.

Male CEOs and board members got the message fast: If you wanna keep your job, promote women.  So while it's easy to blame bitchy feminists, it's more accurate to blame liberal Democrat pols who voted to pass these laws forcing companies and the military to install women in top positions.

Read Andrews' excellent article.

Source.

https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/