What exactly is “awakening”? It often reveals itself in the form of transgender themes appearing in children’s cartoons. Some view this as a form of anti-white racism ingrained in legislation. Consider, for instance, the city of San Francisco deciding that Algebra 1 won’t be available to public school students until ninth grade as part of equity initiatives. There are also instances of men being allowed in women’s locker rooms and women entering traditionally male-dominated fields such as the military and the Boy Scouts. “What you regard as ‘awakening’ is simply a manifestation of demographic shifts favoring feminization,” suggests commentator Helen Andrews, referencing a paper by a pseudonymous author known as “J. Stone.”
Andrews believes this theory offers remarkable explanations for the current societal landscape. She states that “awakening” isn’t just a new ideological movement or a reaction to disillusionment; instead, it reflects a pattern of typically feminine behaviors being integrated into areas where women were previously underrepresented. Many have found Andrews’ points compelling—this perspective definitely bears reiterating.
What might this “female behavior pattern” encompass? Initially, it can be described as a kind of costly empathy, fostering cooperation and promoting social harmony, while also considering others’ emotional states. Interestingly, studies show that women tend to be more neurotic than men, which means they’re more inclined to experience negative emotions like anxiety or anger when facing perceived threats. These traits can be quite advantageous in certain scenarios—think about how critical it is to react when danger is near. However, in fields like academia and journalism, where the goal should be to seek out truth, this sensitivity may not be as valuable.
Andrews points out the example of Larry Summers, Harvard’s former president, who resigned in 2006 after facing a vote of no confidence from faculty. This was largely due to him stating an unpopular truth during a conference focused on diversifying science and engineering roles. His comments suggested that women weren’t the only group underrepresented in specific sectors—others, including Catholics and Jews, faced similar disparities. Summing it up, he proposed the “differential availability of aptitude” hypothesis, implying that only a select few excel at certain roles, making diversity in those positions less likely.
The conversation around gender disparities in professions typically favors traits associated with strong commitments, which historically have seen more married men than married women willing to devote the necessary time and energy. Summers calls this the “strong jobs hypothesis,” suggesting a complex interplay between industry demands and inherent differences that might result in such outcomes.
However, not everyone agreed with or appreciated Summers’ findings. A female professor in attendance at his talk felt so offended she shared his comments with the media, leading to public outrage. Many women who objected to his remarks focused more on emotional reactions than the actual logic behind his statements. In fact, one such professor remarked about the physical distress she felt during his speech.
Andrews notes that this backlash mirrors similar responses faced by others who dared to present controversial views, often being branded as carrying out thought crimes simply for stating factual disparities. For instance, Nancy Hopkins, involved in the backlash against Summers, argued that the presentation of the findings was off-putting, despite acknowledging that some women thrive in demanding jobs.
There are always exceptions within groups, as Andrews herself seems to navigate her work without being driven primarily by the need to please others. If societal norms continue to prioritize feelings over the pursuit of truth, it raises questions about the future of various professions. Andrews suggests that to address these issues, we should reconsider anti-discrimination laws.
“Our current system seems meritocratic on paper but often prevents genuine competition,” she argues, indicating that existing civil rights laws favor some groups while disadvantaging others. The disparities we observe, she adds, might not always point to unfair discrimination but rather reflect differences in interests or abilities.
