There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
I was asked by a friend to write something about what’s going on with leftist white women aged 18-44 these days. Everyone has seen the videos of these women using violence against federal law enforcement as they go about their duties removing violent criminals who should not be inside the USA. In this post, I’ll go over a few recent articles that talk about this problem, and identify the cause of it. I really hope this will help you.
Earlier this week, Kevin Downey Jr. wrote about what he calls “affluent white liberal women,” or AWFLs, pegging them as the biggest internal threat to America… well-off women with pronouns in their bios and too much time on their hands. He described them as attention-seeking harpies who push extreme gender ideology, drag their kids to medicalized gender clinics, and parade them at sexualized drag shows labeled as “family-friendly.” These are the same people, he argued, who want to defund the police, defend criminals no matter how violent or foreign, and censor anyone who steps out of line with their diversity-and-inclusion gospel.
In fact, recent polling from Cygnal supports his thesis in a significant way. According to the poll, around 24% of Americans overall think criminal action, including violence, is acceptable to stop federal immigration enforcement.
[…]But drill down to white liberal women ages 18 to 44, and that number explodes to 61%.
The poll helps to illustrate the general trend behind the specific videos of these women getting violent with the police. Far from being one or two cases, this is actually what 61% of white leftist women ages 18 to 44 agree with. Regular readers will know about the slide of young women into the radical, extremist left, because I’ve blogged about the surveys showing a worldwide trend of young women becoming more leftist. But it’s useful to have the up to date numbers.
It’s also significant that most of these women are extremely unhappy:
Turns out they’re miserable. The 2024 American Family Survey found that 37% of conservative women and 28% of moderate women between 18 and 40 reported being “completely satisfied” with their lives. For liberal women in the same age group, that figure collapses to just 12%. Liberal women are almost three times more likely than conservative women to experience loneliness multiple times a week, 29% compared to 11%.
This article from The Federalist by Joshua Slocum entitled “Why Leftist White Women Are Leading Domestic Terrorism In Minnesota” is exactly right in identifying the root cause:
At least 60 years of mainstreamed feminism has put American culture under the stiletto heel of entitled and exploitative women.
[…]How did so many leftist American women decide that young foreign men who jump the border are innocent victims in need of their maternal protection, instead of the American girls and young women entitled to be shielded from these men?
The answer appears to be Cluster B personality disorders. These are deep, ingrained characteristics. Those with such disorders are fundamentally narcissistic, emotionally unstable, and often disconnected from reality.
[…]This is what we’re seeing in these female leftist “protestors.” Cluster B personalities are all about dysregulated emotions (usually rage or suicidal despair) and twisting reality into its opposite.
And Joshua Slocum actually proposes a solution to this problem. What’s the solution? We hold women accountable for their bad choices, instead of blaming the results of their bad choices on men.
He writes:
First, we must enact swift and proportionate consequences. For too long, leftist agitators, especially women, have been given the hands-off treatment. Too many of these videos show cops wasting time issuing repeated orders to stop the car and get out while the harpies behind the wheel only escalate. Give the order clearly once. If she disobeys, cuff her and put her in the paddy wagon.
[…]Second, we have to reject the “women are wonderful” effect. This is a phenomenon that describes how both men and women have an in-built pro-female bias. We can look at a man and a woman both performing the same bad action, but we’ll excuse the woman while condemning the man.
Ill-tempered women in America have gotten away with disorderly and criminal behavior at high rates because of this bias. They know it, and they use it deliberately. This woman was tailing ICE and interfering with their operation, pulled the “I’m just a mom!” card when she was caught and forced to stop. Don’t fall for it.
By the way, there’s a great recent article from The Federalist about Christians firing a man and paying a woman just over $1 million dollarsfor engaging in the exact same action.
But let us continue with Joshua Slocum:
Finally, men have to go back to telling women “no.” This is the piece of advice most people have the hardest time with. Women hate hearing it. Many men do, too. We’ve been so hypnotized for so long by feminism that simply telling women “no,” and suggesting that a man ever exercise authority over a woman, is read by otherwise reasonable people as “misogyny.”
Nonsense. If women are full adults with as much agency as men, then they must be treated that way. Men have become knock-kneed with fear, even contemplating telling women “no.” It’s not an unreasonable worry. In my counseling practice, male clients have told me that simply holding female underlings to the same standards as males has resulted in complaints to HR that the men are “aggressive” with women.
Men, I’m afraid we’re going to have to do it anyway. They’re going to call us misogynists. They’re going to tell us we have “an aggressive tone” with women. This is merely the same toddler distraction behavior that ends up exploding in these absurd and dangerous street performances.
Men are not going to get through this without the accusations, and we have to accept that as the price we pay for helping put civil society back in order. The women will be fine. Sooner or later, the stroppy toddler cries it out and starts behaving sanely again.
If you want a long-form explanation for what the underlying cause of this mental illness is, you should check out this article from Aporia Magazine, entitled “Sterile Polygamy”. In one line, white leftist women are going crazy because they have adopted a dating strategy that leaves them with no commitment, no children, and no long-term love relationships.
Here’s the important part:
At the 2018 peak, 28% of men under 30 reported no sex in the past year, compared to 18% of women.
On dating apps, women’s average match rate is 31%; men’s is 2.6% — a 12-fold difference. The most desirable men receive overwhelming attention while the majority receive almost nothing.
[…]The data is stark. Analysis of dating app behavior shows that women like about 14% of male profiles, whereas men like 46% of female profiles. The result is that a small percentage of men receive the vast majority of female attention. The top 10% of men get over half of all likes. The bottom 50% of men get about 5%.
[…]High-status men benefit from polygyny. Women may even prefer to share a high-status man over exclusive access to a low-status one.
[…]If you designed a system to maximize sexual access for high-status men while maintaining the pretense of monogamy, you couldn’t do better than the one we’ve built by accident.
[…]We’ve invented something different: effective polygamy without children. High-status men cycle through partners, but nobody reproduces. Why? Because reproduction requires the lock-in that marriage provides. Serial dating offers [high-status] men all the benefits of access with none of the costs of commitment. And women, waiting for commitment from [high-status] men who have no incentive to provide it, delay childbearing until it’s too late.
So, will we get any leadership on this from within the Christian community or the conservative community? I don’t see any reason why we should expect to. Our leaders are still harping about “Andrew Tate” and ignoring all of the real underlying problems caused by feminist laws, policies and indoctrination.
When I listen to Christian and conservative leaders, they seem to think that they can expect good men to date and marry 40-year-old single-mother feminists who have spent their 20s chasing the bad boys and becoming less and less attractive as wives. And these leaders have no interest in reforming injustices no-fault divorce, false accusations, biased domestic violence laws, paternity fraud, single mother welfare, etc. They can’t even name them! So, they’re just going to keep on insisting on a woman’s “right” to protection and provision from any man that she decides to settle for. When she is “ready”.
That’s not working. It will never work. We need a new strategy.
I have never cared for former Harvard University President Larry Summers’ economics or his role as a Treasury official in blocking Brooksley Born from regulating dark derivatives, but I have always thought Summers got a raw deal when Harvard’s female faculty cancelled him as president for expressing a truth. The women couldn’t wait to get a male, even a Jewish one.
Andrews writes that the feminist attack on Summers changed the way she viewed the world. She saw it as the birth of “wokeness, an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.” Females emote and males reason. A concentration of females leads to emotion regardless of fact prevailing over reason and analysis. This is the symbol of our era. Facts no longer matter. The feminization of society has destroyed the influence of facts.
Andrews reports that law schools became majority female in 2016, with dire consequences for law. Journalism became majority female in 2018, with the consequence that emotional commitments have replaced objective reporting, or what little of it that had survived liberal bias.
“Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023. Women are not yet a majority of the managers in America but they might be soon, as they are now 46 percent. So the timing fits. Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions tipped demographically from majority male to majority female.
“The substance fits, too. Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values.”
Andrews sees a problematic future. “If wokeness really is the result of the Great Feminization, then the eruption of insanity in 2020 was just a small taste of what the future holds. Imagine what will happen as the remaining men age out of these society-shaping professions and the younger, more feminized generations take full control.” We are already living in a world where “in-group consensus can suppress unpopular facts.”
In 2019, I read an article about Larry Summers and Harvard that changed the way I look at the world. The author, writing under the pseudonym “J. Stone,” argued that the day Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard University marked a turning point in our culture. The entire “woke” era could be extrapolated from that moment, from the details of how Summers was cancelled and, most of all, who did the cancelling: women.
The basic facts of the Summers case were familiar to me. On January 14, 2005, at a conference on “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce,” Larry Summers gave a talk that was supposed to be off the record. In it, he said that female underrepresentation in hard sciences was partly due to “different availability of aptitude at the high end” as well as taste differences between men and women “not attributable to socialization.” Some female professors in attendance were offended and sent his remarks to a reporter, in defiance of the off-the-record rule. The ensuing scandal led to a no-confidence vote by the Harvard faculty and, eventually, Summers’s resignation.
The essay argued that it wasn’t just that women had cancelled the president of Harvard; it was that they’d cancelled him in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather than logical arguments. “When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,” said Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT. Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another, and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time. Experts chimed in to declare that everything Summers had said about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria.
This cancellation was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field. That is the Great Feminization thesis, which the same author later elaborated upon at book length: Everything you think of as “wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.
The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It really did unlock the secrets of the era we are living in. Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently. How did I not see it before?
Possibly because, like most people, I think of feminization as something that happened in the past before I was born. When we think about women in the legal profession, for example, we think of the first woman to attend law school (1869), the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court (1880), or the first female Supreme Court Justice (1981).
A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.
“The New York Times staff became majority female in 2018.”
The same trajectory can be seen in many professions: a pioneering generation of women in the 1960s and ’70s; increasing female representation through the 1980s and ’90s; and gender parity finally arriving, at least in the younger cohorts, in the 2010s or 2020s. In 1974, only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff became majority female in 2018 and today the female share is 55 percent.
Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023. Women are not yet a majority of the managers in America but they might be soon, as they are now 46 percent. So the timing fits. Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions tipped demographically from majority male to majority female.
The substance fits, too. Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.
The most relevant differences are not about individuals but about groups. In my experience, individuals are unique and you come across outliers who defy stereotypes every day, but groups of men and women display consistent differences. Which makes sense, if you think about it statistically. A random woman might be taller than a random man, but a group of ten random women is very unlikely to have an average height greater than that of a group of ten men. The larger the group of people, the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages.
Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.
Bari Weiss, in her letter of resignation from TheNew York Times, described how colleagues referred to her in internal Slack messages as a racist, a Nazi, and a bigot and—this is the most feminine part—“colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.” Weiss once asked a colleague at the Times opinion desk to get coffee with her. This journalist, a biracial woman who wrote frequently about race, refused to meet. This was a failure to meet the standards of basic professionalism, obviously. It was also very feminine.
Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women, and wokeness was in many ways a society-wide failure to compartmentalize. Traditionally, an individual doctor might have opinions on the political issues of the day but he would regard it as his professional duty to keep those opinions out of the examination room. Now that medicine has become more feminized, doctors wear pins and lanyards expressing views on controversial issues from gay rights to Gaza. They even bring the credibility of their profession to bear on political fads, as when doctors said Black Lives Matter protests could continue in violation of Covid lockdowns because racism was a public health emergency.
One book that helped me put the pieces together was Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes by psychology professor Joyce Benenson. She theorizes that men developed group dynamics optimized for war, while women developed group dynamics optimized for protecting their offspring. These habits, formed in the mists of prehistory, explain why experimenters in a modern psychology lab, in a study that Benenson cites, observed that a group of men given a task will “jockey for talking time, disagree loudly,” and then “cheerfully relay a solution to the experimenter.” A group of women given the same task will “politely inquire about one another’s personal backgrounds and relationships … accompanied by much eye contact, smiling, and turn-taking,” and pay “little attention to the task that the experimenter presented.”
The point of war is to settle disputes between two tribes, but it works only if peace is restored after the dispute is settled. Men therefore developed methods for reconciling with opponents and learning to live in peace with people they were fighting yesterday. Females, even in primate species, are slower to reconcile than males. That is because women’s conflicts were traditionally within the tribe over scarce resources, to be resolved not by open conflict but by covert competition with rivals, with no clear terminus.
All of these observations matched my observations of wokeness, but soon the happy thrill of discovering a new theory eventually gave way to a sinking feeling. If wokeness really is the result of the Great Feminization, then the eruption of insanity in 2020 was just a small taste of what the future holds. Imagine what will happen as the remaining men age out of these society-shaping professions and the younger, more feminized generations take full control.
The threat posed by wokeness can be large or small depending on the industry. It’s sad that English departments are all feminized now, but most people’s daily lives are unaffected by it. Other fields matter more. You might not be a journalist, but you live in a country where what gets written in The New York Times determines what is publicly accepted as the truth. If the Times becomes a place where in-group consensus can suppress unpopular facts (more so than it already does), that affects every citizen.
“The rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female.”
The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tugs at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.
A feminized legal system might resemble the Title IX courts for sexual assault on college campuses established in 2011 under President Obama. These proceedings were governed by written rules and so technically could be said to operate under the rule of law. But they lacked many of the safeguards that our legal system holds sacred, such as the right to confront your accuser, the right to know what crime you are accused of, and the fundamental concept that guilt should depend on objective circumstances knowable by both parties, not in how one party feels about an act in retrospect. These protections were abolished because the people who made these rules sympathized with the accusers, who were mostly women, and not with the accused, who were mostly men.
These two approaches to the law clashed vividly in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. The masculine position was that, if Christine Blasey Ford can’t provide any concrete evidence that she and Kavanaugh were ever in the same room together, her accusations of rape cannot be allowed to ruin his life. The feminine position was that her self-evident emotional response was itself a kind of credibility that the Senate committee must respect.
If the legal profession becomes majority female, I expect to see the ethos of Title IX tribunals and the Kavanaugh hearings spread. Judges will bend the rules for favored groups and enforce them rigorously on disfavored groups, as already occurs to a worrying extent. It was possible to believe back in 1970 that introducing women into the legal profession in large numbers would have only a minor effect. That belief is no longer sustainable. The changes will be massive.
Oddly enough, both sides of the political spectrum agree on what those changes will be. The only disagreement is over whether they will be a good thing or a bad thing. Dahlia Lithwick opens her book Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America with a scene from the Supreme Court in 2016 during oral arguments over a Texas abortion law. The three female justices, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, “ignored the formal time limits, talking exuberantly over their male colleagues.” Lithwick celebrated this as “an explosion of bottled-up judicial girl power” that “afforded America a glimpse of what genuine gender parity or near parity might have meant for future women in powerful American legal institutions.”
Lithwick lauds women for their irreverent attitude to the law’s formalities, which, after all, originated in an era of oppression and white supremacy. “The American legal system was fundamentally a machine built to privilege propertied white men,” Lithwick writes. “But it’s the only thing going, and you work with what you have.” Those who view the law as a patriarchal relic can be expected to treat it instrumentally. If that ethos comes to prevail throughout our legal system, then the trappings will look the same, but a revolution will have occurred.
The Great Feminization is truly unprecedented. Other civilizations have given women the vote, granted them property rights, or let them inherit the thrones of empires. No civilization in human history has ever experimented with letting women control so many vital institutions of our society, from political parties to universities to our largest businesses. Even where women do not hold the top spots, women set the tone in these organizations, such that a male CEO must operate within the limits set by his human resources VP. We assume that these institutions will continue to function under these completely novel circumstances. But what are our grounds for that assumption?
The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?
If the Great Feminization poses a threat to civilization, the question becomes whether there is anything we can do about it. The answer depends on why you think it occurred in the first place. There are many people who think the Great Feminization is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Women were finally given a chance to compete with men, and it turned out they were just better. That is why there are so many women in our newsrooms, running our political parties, and managing our corporations.
Ross Douthat described this line of thinking in an interview this year with Jonathan Keeperman, a.k.a. “L0m3z,” a right-wing publisher who helped popularize the term “the longhouse” as a metaphor for feminization. “Men are complaining that women are oppressing them. Isn’t the longhouse just a long, male whine about a failure to adequately compete?” Douthat asked. “Maybe you should suck it up and actually compete on the ground that we have in 21st-century America?”
That is what feminists think happened, but they are wrong. Feminization is not an organic result of women outcompeting men. It is 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 in order to keep their numbers up.
It is 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.
“Anti-discrimination law requires that every workplace be feminized.”
Anti-discrimination law requires that every workplace be feminized. A landmark case in 1991 found that pinup posters on the walls of a shipyard constituted a hostile environment for women, and that principle has grown to encompass many forms of masculine conduct. Dozens of Silicon Valley companies have been hit with lawsuits alleging “frat boy culture” or “toxic bro culture,” and a law firm specializing in these suits brags of settlements ranging from $450,000 to $8 million.
Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that feels like a fraternity house, but men can’t sue when their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten. Naturally employers err on the side of making the office softer. So if women are thriving more in the modern workplace, is that really because they are outcompeting men? Or is it because the rules have been changed to favor them?
A lot can be inferred from the way that feminization tends to increase over time. Once institutions reach a 50–50 split, they tend to blow past gender parity and become more and more female. Since 2016, law schools have gotten a little bit more female every year; in 2024, they were 56 percent female. Psychology, once a predominantly male field, is now overwhelmingly female, with 75 percent of psychology doctorates going to women. Institutions seem to have a tipping point, after which they become more and more feminized.
That does not look like women outperforming men. It looks like women driving men away by imposing feminine norms on previously male institutions. What man wants to work in a field where his traits are not welcome? What self-respecting male graduate student would pursue a career in academia when his peers will ostracize him for stating his disagreements too bluntly or espousing a controversial opinion?
In September, I gave a speech at the National Conservatism conference along the lines of the essay above. I was apprehensive about putting forward the Great Feminization thesis in such a public forum. It is still controversial, even in conservative circles, to say that there are too many women in a given field or that women in large numbers can transform institutions beyond recognition in ways that make them cease to function well. I made sure to express my argument in the most neutral way possible. To my surprise, the response was overwhelming. Within a few weeks, the video of the speech had gotten over 100,000 views on YouTube and become one of the most viewed speeches in the history of the National Conservatism conference.
It is good that people are receptive to the argument, because our window to do something about the Great Feminization is closing. There are leading indicators and lagging indicators of feminization, and we are currently at the in-between stage when law schools are majority female but the federal bench is still majority male. In a few decades, the gender shift will have reached its natural conclusion. Many people think wokeness is over, slain by the vibe shift, but if wokeness is the result of demographic feminization, then it will never be over as long as the demographics remain unchanged.
As a woman myself, I am grateful for the opportunities I have had to pursue a career in writing and editing. Thankfully, I don’t think solving the feminization problem requires us to shut any doors in women’s faces. We simply have to restore fair rules. Right now we have a nominally meritocratic system in which it is illegal for women to lose. Let’s make hiring meritocratic in substance and not just name, and we will see how it shakes out. Make it legal to have a masculine office culture again. Remove the HR lady’s veto power. I think people will be surprised to discover how much of our current feminization is attributable to institutional changes like the advent of HR, which were brought about by legal changes and which legal changes can reverse.
Because, after all, I am not just a woman. I am also someone with a lot of disagreeable opinions, who will find it hard to flourish if society becomes more conflict-averse and consensus-driven. I am the mother of sons, who will never reach their full potential if they have to grow up in a feminized world. I am—we all are—dependent on institutions like the legal system, scientific research, and democratic politics that support the American way of life, and we will all suffer if they cease to perform the tasks they were designed to do.
Helen Andrews is the author of Boomers: The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster.
For hundreds of years, men dominated the major institutions in western society, but over the past several decades there has been an unprecedented shift. Today, leftist women either dominate or are on their way to dominating most of our major institutions. As a result, the way that things get done has been totally turned upside down. Even our largest corporations are now making consensus-driven decisions that are based on emotion rather than on facts. If you insist on disagreeing with the consensus, you may find yourself being “canceled”. Defending the narratives that the group has established and protecting the feelings of favored individuals have become far more important goals than getting to the truth.
A few days ago, a conservative woman named Helen Andrews published an article that is taking the Internet by storm. In that article, she equates the feminization of our society with the rise of “wokeness”…
Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.
Andrews is a woman, and she is certainly not suggesting that women are bad.
But she is pointing out that things have gotten way out of balance.
When I was growing up, I never thought about the political views of my doctors, and I didn’t really care.
Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women, and wokeness was in many ways a society-wide failure to compartmentalize. Traditionally, an individual doctor might have opinions on the political issues of the day but he would regard it as his professional duty to keep those opinions out of the examination room. Now that medicine has become more feminized, doctors wear pins and lanyards expressing views on controversial issues from gay rights to Gaza. They even bring the credibility of their profession to bear on political fads, as when doctors said Black Lives Matter protests could continue in violation of Covid lockdowns because racism was a public health emergency.
Compartmentalization is a good thing.
If I hurt my arm and go to see a doctor, I don’t want to hear what he thinks about gay rights.
I just want him to fix my arm.
Unfortunately, we live at a time where most people feel like they have to signal whether they are for or against the liberal consensus that has dominated our society for the past several decades.
The reason why the left hates Donald Trump so much is because he has become the embodiment of the backlash to “wokeness”, and that is also the reason why many conservatives love him so much.
Donald Trump is not polite, and he is not afraid to express controversial views that are in direct opposition to the “woke” narratives that our major institutions have been pushing.
Many conservatives think that “wokeness” has been defeated now that Trump is in the White House, but the truth is that once Trump is gone the millions of “HR ladies” that dominate our major institutions will still be there.
On average, girls in 3rd grade outperform boys in reading and writing by roughly half a grade level. By the end of 8th grade, girls are almost a full grade ahead. That’s according to a 2018 study from Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis that tracked assessments from 10,000 districts across the nation.
Normal female behavior is encouraged in our public schools, while normal male behavior is frowned upon.
So a lot of boys end up deeply hating school.
At one time boys could at least look forward to participating in organized sports after school, but now participation in such sports by boys is “declining rapidly”…
Youth sport participation among boys in the United States has been declining rapidly over the past ten years. The cancellation of sports seasons during the unscientific and draconian COVID lockdowns has only exacerbated this devastating trend.
According to a survey conducted earlier this year by The Sports & Fitness Industry Association, the percentage of boys who regularly competed in sports dropped by nine points over the past decade—while the participation rate for girls, while still less than boys, has increased slightly.
In high school, the achievement gap between boys and girls is even larger…
Girls, in addition to being more likely to take advanced courses in high school, tend to earn higher grade point averages than boys in high school. In one statewide study of public high school students, 51 percent of graduating female students earned a high school GPA above 3.0, compared to 36 percent of male students. Girls were 1.9 times more likely to be in the top 5 percent of graduating GPAs, and boys were 1.6 times more likely to be in the bottom 5 percent of GPAs.
Of course it doesn’t end there.
At this point, young women are far more likely to get a college degree than young men are…
In 1972, the year Title IX was passed to promote gender equality in higher education, men earned 56.4 percent of all bachelor’s degrees, while women earned 43.6 percent—a 13-point gap. By 2019, there was a 15-point difference—in the other direction, with women earning about 58 percent of all bachelor’s degrees. The pandemic accelerated that trend: from 2019 to 2020, male first-time college enrollment dropped by 5.1 percent, compared to less than 1 percent for women.
This trend has enormous implications for the future of our society, because college graduates are the future leaders of our society.
In other words, they are the people that are going to run our major institutions in the future.
In her excellent article, Helen Andrews was particularly concerned about what this is going to mean for our legal system…
The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tugs at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.
I very much agree with her.
It won’t be too long before our legal system is completely and utterly dominated by liberal women…
A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.
Once liberal women have achieved a stranglehold over our legal system, what will our society look like?
That is not something that I am eager to imagine.
As Andrews has correctly pointed out, even now our anti-discrimination laws essentially require “that every workplace be feminized”…
Anti-discrimination law requires that every workplace be feminized. A landmark case in 1991 found that pinup posters on the walls of a shipyard constituted a hostile environment for women, and that principle has grown to encompass many forms of masculine conduct. Dozens of Silicon Valley companies have been hit with lawsuits alleging “frat boy culture” or “toxic bro culture,” and a law firm specializing in these suits brags of settlements ranging from $450,000 to $8 million.
Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that feels like a fraternity house, but men can’t sue when their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten. Naturally employers err on the side of making the office softer. So if women are thriving more in the modern workplace, is that really because they are outcompeting men? Or is it because the rules have been changed to favor them?
You aren’t going to get sued if you don’t hire enough men or if your workplace does not feel welcoming for men.
But if you don’t hire enough women or if your workplace does not feel welcoming for women you could get sued into oblivion.
Sadly, many men feel as though our entire society has become extremely unwelcoming to them at this stage.
Men die “deaths of despair” from suicide, drugs, or alcohol at nearly three times the rate of women. And often, those hit hardest by these trends are working-class, men of color, or both.
One of the reasons why our society is such a mess today is because we have allowed vast hordes of extremely liberal “HR ladies” to run things.
If we stay on the path that we are currently on, the future of our society isn’t going to be bright.
Millions of young males that are being pushed aside by our society are going to end up as addicts, and millions of them will find themselves in prison.
Actually, that has already happened.
Millions upon millions of lives have already been wasted, and millions of young boys will soon be joining their ranks if something is not done.
Unfortunately, the “HR ladies” that are now in control of our major institutions seem to think that things are running just fine.
Did you know that women tend to be further to the left than men? According to surveys, women are more leftist than men on abortion, same-sex marriage, and a host of other policies. I’ll show you a few surveys below. But even more interesting is that there is a link between support for leftist policies, and higher mental illness. Let’s take a look at it.
Forty-four percent of young women counted themselves liberal in 2021, compared to 25 percent of young men, according to Gallup Poll data analyzed by the Survey Center on American Life. The gender gap is the largest recorded in 24 years of polling. The finding culminates years of rising liberalism among women ages 18 to 29, without any increase among their male peers.
That article is a bit old, here’s a new one from this week in The Post Millennial:
In annual surveys over the last few years, data pulled from Monitoring the Future has shown that about a quarter of high school seniors identify as conservative or very conservative. Only 13 percent of the 12th grade boys identify as liberal.
[…]The graph excludes moderate students, but of those high school seniors that do identify politically, around 65 percent of boys were conservative while only around 31 percent of girls identified that way.
I don’t support abortion because I favor the rights of unborn babies over the happiness of adults. I don’t support same-sex marriage because studies show children do better when they are raised by a mother and a father. And I think that’s why most of these men are with me, they follow that same reasoning, and side with the children against the adults.
I thought this part of the article was interesting:
As one Politico analyst put it, “Democrats have a masculinity problem.” Citing trends among black and Latino voters, the analyst pointed out that even in minority communities that have voted majority Democrat, men have been turning to the Republican party at higher rates than women.
Some conservative figures such as Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager (through PragerU) have millions of followers on YouTube, a platform where the users are majority male.
In addition, one of the more popular conservative political podcasts, The Ben Shapiro Show, has an audience that skews overwhelmingly male at 86 percent. The audience also skews younger, 18-44, in comparison to Fox’s former show with Tucker Carlson, 25-54, which skews slightly female at 53 percent.
This is good news. Boys are finding themselves role models who they see as “strong”. And those new role models are conservative. These stronger role models champion truth, and they make moral judgements. Even if it hurts other people’s feelings.
Let’s go on to the second point. These leftist policies are having a bad effect on young women’s mental health.
Feminist web site Evie Magazine reported on the some 2020 findings by Pew Research (left-wing pollster):
A 2020 Pew Research study reveals that over half of white, liberal women have been diagnosed with a mental health condition at some point.
[T]he study, which is titled Pew American Trends Panel: Wave 64, was dated March 2020 — over a year ago.
The study, which examined white liberals, moderates, and conservatives, both male and female, found that conservatives were far less likely to be diagnosed with mental health issues than those who identified as either liberal or even “very liberal.”
[…]White women, ages 18-29, who identified as liberal were given a mental health diagnosis from medical professionals at a rate of 56.3%, as compared to 28.4% in moderates and 27.3% in conservatives.
I found an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal that talked about how one leftist policy concern (global warming alarmism) is tied to higher rates of mental illness.
It says:
A study in 2021 of 16- to 25-year-olds in 10 countries including the U.S. reported that 59% were very or extremely worried about climate change, and 84% were at least moderately worried. Forty-five percent claimed they were so worried that they struggled to function on a daily basis, the definition of an anxiety disorder.
The study found that the mental illness was more common in younger people:
Climate anxiety and dissatisfaction with government responses are widespread in children and young people in countries across the world and impact their daily functioning.
So now we are looking at a direct link between the policies of the left, and the lower mental health of the left. And we know that more women than men are on the left. And we see more mental illness among women. Interesting, isn’t it?
And this has consequences. Leftist women are noticing that men are more conservative than they are, and it’s affecting their dating:
The marriage rate is also declining. Could this decline in marriage be related to the increase in leftist women, and all the related mental illnesses that leftist women have? Does it make sense for a conservative man to enter a relationship where he pays all the costs and bears all the risks, but all the decisions are being made by a leftist woman? It’s dangerous for a man to do that.
Consider that the divorce rate is very high right now, and divorce takes away a man’s money, his access to his kids, and his freedom. Women initiate 69% of divorces. College-educated women – who are especially leftist – initiate 90% of divorces. This high divorce rate cannot be blamed on men, because the divorce rate of lesbians is the highest of all. No man to blame in that situation.
Why would a man sign up to be controlled by feminist institutions, like the divorce courts? Men are not interested in projects where they have to pay for everything, but someone else is making the decisions. Especially if they get blamed when things go wrong.
Facing all of these risks, a man would have to be crazy to even talk to a leftist woman – much less date her. Unfortunately, we aren’t making enough young conservative women for these conservative young men to marry. And so, the marriage rate is declining. Young women today are not as conservative as previous generations.
I know a lot of people today are worried about young men falling under the influence of bad role models. But the surveys show that boys tend to have the right role models, and the right political views. So, we need to work on making young women more conservative.
Have you noticed that people around you are behaving more erratically? These days, you just never know what is going to set someone off. A person may seem relatively normal, but then the moment you express an opinion that they don’t like they totally lose it. It is almost as if the majority of the population is constantly “on edge” emotionally. If you are one of those people, you need to understand that nobody is going to agree with you 100 percent of the time. If I write something that you don’t agree with, that is okay. And if you say something to me that I don’t agree with, that is okay too. A free exchange of ideas is so important in our society, but a lot of people don’t seem to understand this.
Can you remember when it seemed like most of the people living in this country were relatively normal? I realize that this may be hard to believe, but there was a time when our streets were not filled with nuts and you didn’t have to worry that the next person you run into might flip out for no reason at all.
One of the big reasons why everything has gone so haywire is because we simply stopped developing deep relationships with those around us.
Today, our relationships are with our screens. According to the American Psychological Association, U.S. teens spend an average of 4.8 hours a day using social media…
4.8 hours
Average number of hours a day that U.S. teens spend using seven popular social media apps, with YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram accounting for 87% of their social media time. Specifically, 37% of teens say they spend 5 or more hours a day, 14% spend 4 to less than 5 hours a day, 26% spend 2 to less than 4 hours a day, and 23% spend less than 2 hours a day on these three apps.
Study after study has shown that heavy use of social media can lead to depression and a whole host of other emotional issues.
More than 1 in 5 adolescents in the U.S. (5.3 million) had a current, diagnosed mental or behavioral health condition in 2023, according to a new data brief from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).
Among those 5.3 million adolescents, defined as children ages 12-17, anxiety was the most common condition (16.1%), followed by depression (8.4%) and behavior/conduct problems (6.3%). Female adolescents were more likely than male adolescents to be diagnosed with anxiety (20.1% of females compared to 12.3% of males) and were more likely to be diagnosed with depression (10.9% of females compared to 6% of males). However, behavior and conduct problems were nearly twice as likely to occur among male adolescents compared to female adolescents (8.2% of males compared to 4.3% of females).
Wow.
And how many more have undiagnosed conditions?
Many social media communities are breeding grounds for hate. For example, an interactive map that shows the “locations of every Tesla showroom, charging station and the known residences of Department of Government Efficiency employees” is going viral on social media right now…
Elon Musk-hating hackers have doxxed Tesla owners in the United States, releasing an interactive map showing their names, addresses, phone numbers and emails.
The disturbing website, called DOGEQUEST, also provides the locations of every Tesla showroom, charging station and the known residences of Department of Government Efficiency employees.
It even lists FBI Director Kash Patel’s home and uses a symbol of a Molotov cocktail as its cursor.
Needless to say, this map has been put out there in order to get people to take action.
And after they have been fed endless hours of hate-filled propaganda, many of our young people have been perfectly primed to do just that.
Earlier this week, several vehicles were viciously set on fire at a Tesla service center in Las Vegas…
Multiple cars were set on fire at a Tesla service center in Las Vegas Tuesday morning in what authorities described as a targeted attack, and the person responsible is still at large.
A vehicle fire was first reported around 2:45 a.m. at the Tesla Collision Center in the 6000 block of Badura Avenue, near Jones Boulevard and the 215 Beltway, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police said in an email.
“LVMPD Communications received information that an individual had set several vehicles on fire in the parking lot and caused damage to the property,” police wrote.
What you feed into your mind on a regular basis is going to determine how you view the world.
As if coming up with a great baby name wasn’t hard enough.
Newborns can’t even control their own movements, but that isn’t stopping New Jersey hospitals from asking parents for their baby’s preferred pronouns and sexual orientation.
Inspira Health’s “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Questionnaire” requires new parents to “identify” their babies as either “Male, Female, Transgender, Gender Queer,” or “Additional gender category.”
It further asks parents to select the word that best describes their infant: “Lesbian or gay, Straight or heterosexual, Self-described, Questioning/Unsure.”
Needless to say, infants have no idea what pronouns are, and it will be years before they understand anything about “sexual orientation”.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where many feel a need to inject such cultural issues into everything, because those that are on the cutting edge of cultural change are often held up as heroes…
CNN has honored trans-identified influencer Dylan Mulvaney as its “game changer” of the week, with the social media influencer saying he told his mom as a small child that he thought “God made a mistake.”
Video footage shared by the left-leaning media watchdog Media Matters of America shows that CNN recognized Mulvaney as its “game changer” Friday.
California Democrats opened an assembly meeting by reciting a prayer to Beyonce using Beyonce’s lyrics and asking her for strength.
Democrats are making a mockery of God. Sickening.
Are you kidding me?
It is a very dangerous thing to mock God.
Sadly, many of our top scientists are now trying to play God. One company in Texas has announced that it actually plans to bring back the wooly mammoth by 2028…
A biotechnology company whose goal is to bring back the wooly mammoth says its recent small step is big news.
Colossal Biosciences of Texas has said it aims to restore extinct species to the planet. The company made the woolly mammoth one of its first missions, setting a goal of having a mammoth walk the earth in 2028.
Haven’t these people seen the Jurassic Park movies?
Bringing extinct species back from the dead is never a good idea.
Of course it isn’t a good idea to create super-intelligent AI entities that can think for themselves either.
A Swedish AI startup company has created a robot dog named Luna that has a functional digital nervous system capable of learning and adapting like humans and many animals, the company, IntuiCell, said on Wednesday.
In one of the first-use cases of physical agentic AI, which can make decisions and take actions towards specific goals rather than just perform narrow tasks or generate content, the robot dog would be able to learn like a real dog.
Does anyone out there believe that it is a good idea to create ultra-powerful, ultra-intelligent entities that can think millions of times faster than us?
To me, that is one of the most insane things that we could do.
But we are doing it anyway.
Despite all of our advanced technology, it appears that humanity is more unhappy than ever.
Americans fill approximately 6 billion prescriptions each year.
That breaks down to about 19 prescriptions per person.
Just think about that.
And a very large percentage of the pills that we take are for mental or emotional reasons.
Earlier today, I was stunned to learn that use of ADHD medications is rising the fastest among “middle-aged and older women”…
Prescriptions for ADHD medications have been spiking in recent years, with the sharpest increase among middle-aged and older women. They’re also the least likely to misuse the prescription stimulants, a new study finds.
The rise among women ages 35 to 64 has been substantial. At the end of 2022, 1.7 million women in this age group were prescribed stimulants such as Adderall and Ritalin for ADHD, compared to 1.2 million prescriptions in 2019.
We take billions of pills, but has that made our population more stable or less stable?
Needless to say, the answer is obvious.
We are in the midst of the worst mental health crisis that our nation has ever seen, and that is just one element of “the perfect storm” that is now upon us.
Our society really is coming apart at the seams right in front of our eyes.
Unfortunately, most of us still do not want to admit how far we have fallen, and that is not good at all.
Truth2Freedom's Blog 