Helen Andrews has reignited the discussion around what she refers to as the “great womanizer” concept. This theory posits that as women increasingly populate various institutions, these organizations begin to take on different—often unfavorable—characteristics. While I agree with much of her perspective, there are some crucial aspects that still need to be addressed.
Let’s break down her main argument.
The psychological feminization of these systems predates their numerical feminization. Those in power allowed this shift to happen.
Great Feminization Theory
There are inherent behavioral differences between men and women. Men, on average, typically focus on rules and concepts of justice, whereas women are more inclined towards fostering relationships and building consensus.
As Andrews points out, women tend to ask, “How can I ensure everyone feels safe?” while men are more likely to ask, “What are the rules and what is considered just?”
A relatable analogy is that mothers often want their children to be happy, while fathers usually emphasize good behavior.
The “great feminization” theory makes two primary claims:
- When women hold a majority in any organization—be it a professional setting, academia, or government—the priorities of that organization begin to skew more feminine.
- The phenomenon labeled as “wokeness” represents the systematic establishment of these priorities.
Andrews concludes that if this awakening stems from demographic shifts rather than ideological beliefs, it won’t simply fade away or be countered effectively.
This observation is significant but incomplete.
Key Takeaway #1: It’s Not Just About Being Awake—It’s About Totalitarianism
Those who think the awakening started in 2020 are, frankly, mistaken. The concept of wokeness is merely a rehashed ideology that has been around for decades—often labeled as communism, socialism, or political correctness. Ultimately, the specifics of the label don’t matter; it’s the underlying message that counts.
These ideologies make grand promises: eradicating poverty, abolishing discrimination, and even eliminating pollution. Phrases like these should raise red flags. They often seek unchecked power to achieve unrealistic goals.
Enormous authority is needed to realize such lofty ambitions, and propaganda plays a key role in convincing people that these outcomes are not only possible, but also morally imperative. Essentially, these ideologies primarily serve those accumulating power while constantly shifting their objectives.
Focusing on where “awakening” begins or ends is somewhat of a distraction; the real concern lies in ambitions for totalitarian rule.
Key Takeaway #2: Great Feminization Is More Than Just Numbers
The issues Andrews identifies don’t commence when the female workforce surpasses 50%; they emerge much earlier. It’s not just a numbers game; understanding the deeper psychological and political implications is crucial.
Take Larry Summers, for example. He was removed as president of Harvard in 2006 after making remarks on gender differences in aptitude, at a time when Harvard did not even have a female majority.
His comments garnered support from several prominent women who recognized the research backing him, but these voices were overshadowed by others who claimed to feel distressed by his remarks.
A decision was made to prioritize these emotional responses over the pursuit of truth or the integrity of the organization itself. That was a pivotal moment.
Key Point #3: Decisions Made by Certain Individuals Matter
Treating emotional responses and feminization as automatic demographic changes allows decision-makers to sidestep confusion. The organizational shifts didn’t just happen; they were actively chosen. The culture began rewarding dissatisfaction and punishing conflicting opinions while reworking the definition of success to hinge on emotional displays.
Generalizations can obscure two critical truths:
First, while men and women are often different on average, there’s significant individual variability. Some women may be more analytical than many men, and conversely, some men can be more emotional than many women.
Second—more importantly—human behavior isn’t preordained; maturity involves emotional regulation. Healthy societies expect adult individuals to manage their reactions instead of throwing tantrums or insisting on organizational changes based on their feelings.
Yale Moment
A relevant instance is the 2015 Halloween costume controversy at Yale, where a faculty member advised students to remain composed about their costume choices. The reaction from students was explosive, demanding that Yale prioritize emotional comfort over academic freedom.
Notably, Yale didn’t have a female majority, which illustrates that feminization alone can’t fully justify such behavior.
What we actually witnessed was a rejection of disciplinary standards. “Please give us peace of mind,” the students argued, dismissing the professor’s assertion that “other people have rights too.”
Simply dismantling the patriarchy doesn’t usher in liberation and justice; it can result in a scenario where, metaphorically speaking, a toddler takes charge.
Sexual Revolution and Power
The psychological feminization of institutions came before the numeric uptick in female representation, and it was those in positions of power who enabled this change.
New labor pools have emerged, allowing elite men to reshape workplace rules that benefit them while sidelining their lower-ranking male counterparts. Universities established institutional frameworks for addressing grievances. The ideology surrounding contraception detached sex from accountability, allowing men access without enduring paternal responsibilities.
Women weren’t the sole agents of these shifts; many men collaborated and reaped rewards as well.
Key Point #4: Identity Politics as a Power Grab
Every wave of identity politics repeats a familiar script: feeling takes the place of reason, destruction supersedes persuasion, and grievances replace evidence.
The message is clear: “We are oppressed. You owe us.”
This isn’t a moral argument; it’s fundamentally about power.
Andrews has made a valuable contribution by illuminating serious concerns arising in female-dominated workplaces and organizations. However, we need to look beyond mere demographics. We must assertively say, “It doesn’t matter how offended you are; you must still act responsibly.”
Such expectations benefit both men and women. The sustainability of civilized society and free institutions relies on this principle.
