Zone1 The Great Feminization-by Helen Andrews

[martybegan]

What "focus" and "intent" would that be?

Well in the law field giving up objectivity and facts for empathy and consensus.

We saw it with the college tribunals the past decade ignoring due process when it came to investigating sexual issues on campuses.

 

[Zincwarrior]

She is making valid points, despite your opinion otherwise.

No they are not points, they are based on support, and she has no education or expertise or even an argument to make them.

Your reaction to it just emphasizes some of her points.

Thats your reply? Cute. Which law firm, law school, or legal governmental organization has been "feminized" and whats the difference?

 

[martybegan]

No they are not points, they are based on support, and she has no education or expertise or even an argument to make them.


Thats your reply? Cute. Which law firm, law school, or legal governmental organization has been "feminized" and whats the difference?

She has an opinion, and you dismiss it because you don't like it.

And example is what happened to college inquiries into sexual conduct the past decade. Due process removed, fairness removed, the right to defend yourself removed.

 

[Mac-7]

I read the article in NYT. It was laughable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/23/opinion/helen-andrews-feminization-compact.html

Now we get it, but of course its wrong. Women have been working since time immemorial. You are worried you can't compete on an even playing field. Got it.

I think its a lot more than that

And I predict that sooner or later lib women will regret their decision to wear the pants

 

[Zincwarrior]

Well in the law field giving up objectivity and facts for empathy and consensus.

Cite where. Thats a law firm that will be out of business in about thirty seven minutes.

We saw it with the college tribunals the past decade ignoring due process when it came to investigating sexual issues on campuses.

College tribunals are not legal.

 

[martybegan]

Cite where. Thats a law firm that will be out of business in about thirty seven minutes.


College tribunals are not legal.

It's described in the article.

They are legal proceedings, just not done by the government.

 

[Zincwarrior]

And example is what happened to college inquiries into sexual conduct the past decade. Due process removed, fairness removed, the right to defend yourself removed.

1. They are NOT legal proceedings. Indeed private institutions need no proceedings.
2. You have not linked these proceedings to "feminization." Further, there is no consensus in these things, else there would not be hearings.

This is your argument, that harassers are facing repercussions. As you like to say about the women and abortion - if you are worried, keep your pants zipped. Problem solved.

 

[martybegan]

1. They are NOT legal proceedings. Indeed private institutions need no proceedings.
2. You have not linked these proceedings to "feminization." Further, there is no consensus in these things, else there would not be hearings.

This is your argument, that harassers are facing repercussions. As you like to say about the women and abortion - if you are worried, keep your pants zipped. Problem solved.

I have so, since the tilting of the favor goes towards the "victims" which as usually women. And I am not talking about rape and actual sexual assault, so don't bring that trope up. This is about drunk random hookups that one side can decide was "Wrong" after the fact and use it to ruin someone's life.

This isn't harassment we are talking about.

So women can't make sexual decisions themselves again? How Victorian of you.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is an article currently making its way around the right leaning web. The gist of the article is that as women become the majority in certain professions and institutions, the way those professions and institutions function changes, and not for the better. The author sees wokeism not as socialist, but inherently feminine.

The Great Feminization

Some of the bigger points.

There is a reason that most CEOs and the highly financially successful are men in this era of non discrimination and pro-woman mentality. Men are wired differently than women and generally process information and address problems differently.

In my opinion, there will always be outstanding exceptions, but overall I think men are better suited for certain roles than are women. God made us different genders with different aptitude, instincts, abilities.

Men are supposed to be head of the household, and blessed are those families, especially the children, in which a godly, responsible, loving father is at the helm of that family even when he is working most of the time and mom does most of the home management. When that is the norm--again there will always be exceptions in the human condition-- neighborhoods and communities are always more prosperous, safer, more stable, more aesthetically satisfying for all.

The femininization of America and the rest of the free world in my opinion is part of the deep state intent to destroy our culture as we know it and make it into something easier for them to manipulate and eventually entirely control.

 

[citygator]

If every leader is an HR person, companies would fail due to not being able to get anything done.

I know you’re trying to be silly but maybe try a different company. My HR support is fantastic and if they weren’t, id get a new HR person… just like Tom Cruise:

 

[Zincwarrior]

The femininization of America and the rest of the free world in my opinion is part of the deep state intent to destroy our culture as we know it and make it into something easier for them to manipulate and eventually entirely control.

Still trying to see good examples of what has actually been "feminized."

 

[Foxfyre]

Still trying to see good examples of what has actually been "feminized."

You didn't read the OP?

 

[Zincwarrior]

You didn't read the OP?

Yep. Its wrong and I refuted her example.

 

[Foxfyre]

The essential OP theory is that when women take over, things become bad. Ok. Women didn't invent the gulag, concentration camps, World War I, World War II, child brides, rape as public policy, burning at the stake, etc.

Non sequitur to the premise of the OP. Whataboutisms are frowned on in formal debate and not useful in analyzing and evaluating a concept that has zero to do with the events/situations in your post.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yep. Its wrong and I refuted her example.

No you didn't. Changing the subject is not refutation of a concept, idea, premise.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No you didn't. Changing the subject is not refutation of a concept, idea, premise.

She cited the legal profession but provided no example. She ranted about HR. She has no worthwhile position cited. Whats yours? What has been taken over by feminization?

 

[Foxfyre]

She cited the legal profession but provided no example. She ranted about HR. She has no worthwhile position cited. Whats yours? What has been taken over by feminization?

I made my point in my post. Refute it if you can.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I made my point in my post. Refute it if you can.

Nah, you did nothing. No one has cited a "feminized" entity. Its stupid and its incel at its highest by old farts worried about being replaced because they might have to compete on a level playing field.


This makes the point much better than I can articulate.:

The Right’s New Grand Unified Theory: Blame Women for Everything

Helen Andrews’s latest screed is short on rational facts, long on mushy feelings of misogyny.

www.thebulwark.com

LET’S NOT MINCE WORDS: This a grotesquely misogynistic screed. The inevitable rejoinder, of course, is that such a charge is not a rebuttal: Facts don’t care about your feelings, and if you’re a woman who says that Andrews’s narrative is noxious instead of asking whether it’s true, you’re actually proving her point. But are there actual truths in this thesis? Well, there is certainly evidence that sex differences in human psychology and behavior, whether due to socialization, biology, or both, are real and affect social interactions. Andrews’s account of those differences, however, is a crude caricature, data-free except for a mention of “one survey [which] 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.”

Attorney and blogger Ivana Greco traced this factoid (only with “inclusive,” not “cohesive”) to a 2019 Knight Foundation survey of college students on issues related to free expression. But as it turns out, this huge gender gap was not replicated in the foundation’s subsequent annual surveys. By 2022, the overall percentage of students who said that an inclusive society was “extremely important” had plummeted from 69 percent to 41 percent, evidently with no significant gender difference; similar shares of men and women, about six out of ten, said it was more important to “allow students to be exposed to all types of speech even if they may find it offensive or biased” than to protect them from offensive speech. The 2024 survey did find that female students were more likely than their male peers to say that hate speech should not be protected by the First Amendment (57 percent vs. 46 percent); but that 11-point gender gap was down from 28 points in the 2019 survey. Did the change represent an actual shift in opinions or was the 2019 gender gulf a fluke? Hard to say.

Andrews also invokes a study mentioned by psychologist Joyce Benenson in her 2014 book Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes: A group of men assigned to a problem-solving task in a laboratory experiment will “jockey for talking time, disagree loudly,” and then report a solution—while women will engage in polite chit-chat about personal stuff, smile a lot, and pay “little attention to the task.” This sounded so implausible that I got the book and tracked down the references. It turns out that the studies, which Andrews sets in “a modern psychology lab,” date back to . . . the early 1950s. (What’s more, of the three footnoted sources I checked out, two made no mention of the participants’ sex, and one passingly mentioned mixed male/female groups.)

This doesn’t mean that the patterns Andrews alleges have no basis in reality whatsoever. But it’s instructive to compare her piece with a just-published article by another source she cites: psychologist Cory Clark, currently a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania (and a member of the “heterodox” academic subculture). Clark’s article raises somewhat similar points about the possible negative effects of women’s greater tendency toward harm aversion and preference for equity over other values. However, it does so in a nuanced and thoughtful way, while also pointing out the positives and arguing that good institutions should incorporate both male and female strengths. One may question some of the generalizations, but Clark, at least, acknowledges that the differences she discusses are often minor and that the question of nature vs. nurture is far from settled.

Women on average do tend to be less competitive and more risk-averse than men, very possibly at least in part due to biology. (On the other hand, some studies have found the gap reversed in matrilineal ethnic subcultures in India and China, where women have high levels of autonomy and power.) Women also tend to score higher on empathy, at least on self-reports; but such differences are also mediated by large overlap. Thus, in one large 2018 study of “empathizing” vs. “systemizing” (analytical) personality types, 43 percent of women and 25 percent of men were classified as “empathizers,” 44 percent of men and 27 percent of women as “systemizers,” and the rest as “balanced.”

How this plays out in practice is extremely situation- and culture-specific. It’s worth noting that a management style associated with “feminine” cooperation and consensus-seeking has long been the norm in extremely male-dominated Japanese corporations. The idea that “wokeness” is simply the inevitable fate of female-run organizations ignores the plain fact that there were plenty of female-run organizations before the 2010s—including women’s colleges, which, historically, were extremely far removed from the norms and values of modern academic progressivism.

 

[martybegan]

Nah, you did nothing. No one has cited a "feminized" entity. Its stupid and its incel at its highest by old farts worried about being replaced because they might have to compete on a level playing field.

As the article states, the playing field isn't level, the playing field is being skewed towards women.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nah, you did nothing. No one has cited a "feminized" entity. Its stupid and its incel at its highest by old farts worried about being replaced because they might have to compete on a level playing field.

So you can't refute it and won't even try. I get it. I understand those who approve of the feminization of America--it is one of the M.O.s of the left these days. But the fact remains, God made us humans with two genders, male and female, each with its own primary attributes.

To understand and appreciate that gives us the best chance for maximum happiness.

To deny that or to try to change the ingrained nature of humankind is not helpful, constructive and plays right into the hands of the worst of the left.