This is another one of those “bear with me” articles in my on-going effort to push past the symptoms and look at the causes of our societal malaise. It is going to start off sounding like I am a male chauvinist pig. I’m not. At least, I don’t think I am, and I’m actually going somewhere with this, but it takes a few minutes to get there.

Also, I had to decide on whether I was writing an essay (primarily fact-based opinion) or an article (a written work focused on conveying fact-based information on a specific topic, with the aim of making the reader aware of something and keeping them up to date.) I’ve decided to land somewhere in the middle. But I’ll include lots of links to follow up on if you are interested in seeing the bones of the argument.

The Article

There is an article of note making the rounds right now called “The Great Feminization” by conservative writer Helen Andrews. It is a good read, and I recommend it in full. I found it interesting not only because of what she wrote and some to the facts she uses to support her argument, but also because she is glaringly wrong and internally inconsistent on a key point.

The overarching premise of her article is that many of the social ills we are experiencing today, starting with cancel culture and extending through the DEI insanity to the many injustices we are seeing in our legal system can be traced back to a “Feminization” of our Western culture.

She starts by referring to an article that inspired her to look into the issue. The article in question was by J. Stone titled “The Day the Logic Died” from 2019 and examines how Harvard President Larry Summers was drummed out of his job in 2005, ostensibly for making remarks at a conference which had the audacity to suggest that men and women are different, think differently, and have different aptitudes. We’ll gloss over the fact that in addition to catching hell for his remarks, Larry Summers, a Jewish economist, was voted out of Harvard for a number of other reasons, including criticizing wild-haired negro Cornel West, and shady financial shenanigans involving his friend and fellow Jew and Harvard academic Andrei Shleifer. For Andrews, and Stone, it was how Summers got canned that mattered: “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.” Simply stated, everything that Summers said in the remarks which got him into hot-water was consistent with main stream science and supportable with facts. It didn’t matter. Feelings got hurt.

Andrews goes on to say: “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 Great Feminization Thesis hold that: “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.” We will circle back to that in moment, as this is where I think she is wrong, and where her argument jumps the rails of logic later in the article.

It is important to note that she is using the term “Feminization” and not “Feminism”. Feminism is defined as the belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests. Feminization is the shifting of a society, a culture, and its institutions away from more traditional patriarchal structures, attributes, and methodology, to more feminine characteristics, control, and expressions by women and men who have forsaken their masculinity. Feminism may or may not lead to some degree of Feminization. But Feminization is Feminism on estrogen supplements, sacrificing all reason and logic to the gods of emotion and catharsis.

The Scary Numbers

The facts and figures used by Andrews to support her argument gave me pause. We think of the “feminization” of our society as beginning a long time ago, for example with the first woman to attend law school in 1869, or the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court in 1880, or the first female Supreme Court Justice in 1981, in reality it is a matter of critical mass. She cites several “tipping points” when women wrested control of institutions and key sectors of society previously dominated by men, for example:

…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 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…wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition.”

Now we are nearing the heart of the matter. You can see, I’m sure, why this precipitous rise in Wokeness will undermine and eventually destroy a thriving civilization: knocking out the supporting columns and destroying the foundations of any edifice invites collapse.

Individuals vs Groups

She also makes an important distinction between individuals and groups, then highlights one of the difference between women and men, as groups. Again I will quote her at length, as I think she says this very well. This is a key point we will come back to in a moment:

“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. [ In other words, women created and favor cancel culture.]

“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.”

Author Name

She references another article that further elaborates these points, here. Andrews goes on to share a fairly common theory that men developed group dynamics optimized for war, while women developed group dynamics optimized for protecting their offspring:

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.“

In The Real World

This reminds me of two personal incidents you may be able to relate to that serve as examples of the above. Regarding the “peace is restored after disputes are settled” among males, I recall a fight in middle school. I don’t remember what it was about- probably something trivial in hindsight- but I do remember a good set-to which ended abruptly with a clean shot to my jaw, knocking me on my ass. I sat there gathering my wits for a moment, then stood back up, reached out, and shook the other fellow’s hand. “Good punch” I said. And that settled it. We went on about our day. Whatever the issue had been, it was resolved.

The second incident is more recent. During the years of “mostly peaceful protests” I visited a long-time friend and her husband who had moved to a distant liberal enclave for her husband’s work. At one point, my friend and I were sitting discussing the state of things, and I made my political affiliations known. Unbeknownst to me, after moving to this liberal bastion of bullshit, she had taken a “hard left” in her views. But as the evening progressed, I felt we’d sorted through our differences and all was good. After I left, she ghosted me for years until I finally managed to get a hold of her. She made it clear that my inability to drink the same liberal kool-aid as her was unacceptable, and no amount of discussion would change that. As Andrews said, there would be “no clear terminus.”

“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 Great Feminization
Helen Andrews

Andrews then elaborates on how current trends, extended by the increasing Feminization, will impact our society for the worse. She also tries to anticipate the Woke counter argument that says: if our society is fundamentally a meritocracy, and women have achieved dominance and majority representation in the institutions that shape our society, does this not demonstrate women’s ability to out-compete men?

What She Misses

Her answer to this question is correct, but it also underscores one of the fundamental flaws in her reasoning, as she misses the implication of her words. She says, “Feminization is not an organic result of women out-competing men. It is an artificial result of social engineering, and if we take our thumb off the scale it will collapse within a generation.”

This statement is key, and runs contrary to her earlier assertion that “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…”. If it is “an artificial result of social engineering”, then it is being instigated and directed by an underlying social ideology. That ideology is Marxism with the ultimate goal of establishing a communist state, pure and simple, and as much as Marxism and Communism are primarily Jewish ideologies, it is being driven by Jews focused on destroying the foundational underpinnings of the Western world. Artificial engineering implies an agenda. Marxists want to throw the baby, our culture, out with the dirty bath water, captialism. That includes the acknowledged differences between men and women, and the role of men, as men, in our society.

I won’t go on at length here about how they have done and continue to do this. I have written several blog entries over the years looking specifically at the Jewish Frankfurt School and it’s impact on academia and our society (see entries for June 13, 2023, June 25, 2023), as well as the backwash from Soviet propaganda efforts (May 18, 2023) to weaken Western society, the fallout from which, rather like a nuclear bomb, continues to subvert and mutate our culture. Modern Feminism is an offshoot of this propaganda effort.

Again, Feminism is not the same as Feminization, per se, but the latter does require the former. And if we look at a cursory roster of some of Feminism’s leading lights, a pattern emerges:

• Emma Goldman- early 20^th century anarchist and feminist- Jewess
• Betty Friedan- feminist and 1^st president of the National Organization for Women- Jewess
• Gloria Steinem- activist, feminist, founder of Ms. Magazine- Jewess
• Angela Davis- avowed Marxist feminist- Negress
• Gloria Jean Watkins aka bell hooks- queer feminist writer- Negress
• Corretta Scott King- Negress
• Maya Angelou- Marxist writer- Negress
• Ruther Bader Ginsberg- Supreme Court Justice- Jewess

And so on. A look at the history of the Feminization of American society is to explore a who’s-who of American Jews and their black lackeys. This is where the non-organic, ideological underpinnings of Feminization comes from. The history of the Western world is predominately the history of Western White Men. Feminization is simply another tool by which the usual bacillus of cultural destruction, anti-White Jewish ideology, can achieve its end. Most of those who are the beneficiaries of this assault do not realize that they, too, are simply a means to that end. More information on the damage feminization can cause is found in this article.

As explored in the Soviet propaganda post referenced above, the emasculation of society is but another step toward its destruction. I am hammering on the Jewish nature of Feminization for a reason: this is precisely where most conservative journalists fall short. They identify the problem, but never dig any deeper to find its underlying cause. It is not enough to say “It is an artificial result of social engineering” without also asking who is doing the engineering, and why. I call on all journalists and writers to do better. If you are going to show us the weeds, let us see the roots, or nothing is going to change and the weeds will spread in the cracks, eventually fracturing the stones of our foundation.

Conclusion

Now, for clarification:

I’m not saying there is no place for Feminism, or even a degree of Feminization. Men left to their own devices tend to do poorly. The key difference, however, between what is being done to our society by emasculating our culture with cleverly concealed Marxism and National Socialism is that the National Socialists acknowledges and incorporates the natural world order. There are differences between men and women and the types of societies they create. They have different aptitudes and approach problem solving differently. Denying the role of men in our society is to destroy the world they have created.

This is not to say women cannot choose non-traditional roles, and excel at them. As Andrews says at the beginning, there is a difference between the aptitudes of the individual and the group. National Socialism recognizes this, and its Worldview, being fundamentally meritocratic, encourages exceptionalism. Grounded in natural law, how could it do otherwise? But it also recognizes, values, and supports the more traditional roles of each gender and the contributions they have made since time immemorial to shape the world we now live in. All politics may be local, but civilization is a group effort.

I have a daughter who is striving to become a diplomat, working to set public policy and hoping to make the world a better place for all. Frankly, she’s smarter than I am and will do amazing things. I have another daughter who is likely to be a homemaker, and a darn good one at that. She’s fantastic with kids. I respect each equally. Both are living the life they choose to live to the best of the their ability, on their own merits, and are doing so honestly.

As a father, who could ask for more? In a National Socialist world, we would expect nothing less.

Amerika Erwache!

SUBSCRIBE TO THIS BLOG
(It’s free, and mostly painless)