The recent longhousing from the young republicans leaked texts (mean words = worst thing ever to happen) makes this article timely.

https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/

Great quote:

Quote:

---

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.

---

The summary is that what we think of as "woke" - things like cancel culture etc - is really not a political movement but simply a result of institutions (law schools, medical schools, college instructors, the media, and managers in companies) becoming majority female. Canceling is just a female way of reacting to people you don't like.

This is the result of decades of social engineering, not actual benefit. And our institutions are the worse for it.

Nm

Started with teachers being told NOT to let little Johnny answer the question, because Suzy was getting self-conscious and the reason she wasnt any good at math was because Johnny always beat her to the punch. So, we let Johhny waste away, fed him meds and told him to be super sensitive to the needs of all females.

Zobel said:

---

The recent longhousing from the young republicans leaked texts (mean words = worst thing ever to happen) makes this article timely.

https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/

Great quote:

Quote:

---

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.

---

The summary is that what we think of as "woke" - things like cancel culture etc - is really not a political movement but simply a result of institutions (law schools, medical schools, college instructors, the media, and managers in companies) becoming majority female. Canceling is just a female way of reacting to people you don't like.

This is the result of decades of social engineering, not actual benefit. And our institutions are the worse for it.

---

I disagree with this conclusion. Woke & cancel culture have little to do with good manners and being more accommodating to women in the work place and academia.

It does fit many of the observed conditions as an explanation and it seems to be reflected by basic observations of human sociology. The emergence of a cultural gynocracy mirrors many of the group dynamics of female dominated groups on a smaller scale. The danger is the smothering caretaker.dominating public action. We will be oppressed for our own good and so those who are doing it can feel more satisfied with themselves. Hyper-empathy.

I think you might have misread the post.

Masculinity has been demonized.

And responsible are MEN (not women).

Zobel said:

---

I think you might have misread the post.

---

How to combat the problem?

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.

So just hand wave it away? Typical woman answer.

Zobel said:

---

The recent longhousing from the young republicans leaked texts (mean words = worst thing ever to happen) makes this article timely.

https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/

Great quote:

Quote:

---

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.

---

The summary is that what we think of as "woke" - things like cancel culture etc - is really not a political movement but simply a result of institutions (law schools, medical schools, college instructors, the media, and managers in companies) becoming majority female. Canceling is just a female way of reacting to people you don't like.

This is the result of decades of social engineering, not actual benefit. And our institutions are the worse for it.

---

Why can't they sue?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

How to combat the problem?

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.

So just hand wave it away? Typical woman answer.

---

How did you get that from that quote?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The recent longhousing from the young republicans leaked texts (mean words = worst thing ever to happen) makes this article timely.

https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/

Great quote:

Quote:

---

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.

---

The summary is that what we think of as "woke" - things like cancel culture etc - is really not a political movement but simply a result of institutions (law schools, medical schools, college instructors, the media, and managers in companies) becoming majority female. Canceling is just a female way of reacting to people you don't like.

This is the result of decades of social engineering, not actual benefit. And our institutions are the worse for it.

---

Why can't they sue?

---

Under what grounds? The term hostile work environment is a legal concept. Passive aggressive overly peaceful work environment isn't.

But to go to the roots here, there is a push for women into men's work spaces that are high paying and high prestige (doctor, lawyer, professional, professor, etc). But not a successful push of women into non high paying, non high prestige and very hard work (manual labor, skilled trades). Neither is there a successful push for men into majority women roles because men don't want that crap in their life. Men don't want to be in mainly nurturing, lower risk lower pay roles generally.

So there isn't a 'sue because the job and work environment is too soft' because men just quit or don't apply for those jobs in the first place. This whole concept is founded under the presumption that A) women should be in these high paying roles and B) giving them fair access in the corporate world requires unfair gender rewards along the way. Reality hits that work sucks, corporations can be soul sucking but these laws give teeth to women to change the corporate world from the position of victims lawsuits and HR's internal policies.

video of the speech referenced in the article, for those so inclined

To go even deeper here this the crux of the declining birth rate. Women chose to compete against men for jobs within a system that rewards women and not men at every turn. From K-12 education to college entrance to job searching and job retention. Women then identify with their job over having a kid/kids or more kids.

This on a societial level creates a feedback loop that the price of everything reflects two incomes buying it. So now a woman has to work unless you take a huge reduction in quality of life.

There is only one metric that tracks with increasing birth rate. Reducing education access for women.

There is one huge metric that tracks with divorce. Job loss. Women also will not marry a man that makes less than them. So as women make more, they get more picky about who they marry.

So women get easier access to the material world in exchange for fewer kids. Men get access to more competition in the material world and less access to women as they are denied societal access to income drivers at every turn.

There is no stopping this train as it drives over the cliff until america is allowed to dwindle in population until enough conservatives reproduce and enough liberals die off that we can rebound birth rate or americans get supplanted by immigrants and there is no america anymore.

Guess which answer is coming.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

How to combat the problem?

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.

So just hand wave it away? Typical woman answer.

---

How did you get that from that quote?

---

It's ideological that won't happen in this climate.

Zobel said:

---

I think you might have misread the post.

---

I guess so. But the paragraph below argues that "woke" and cancel culture aren't political movements, just a result of feminization from more women entering the workforce and academia. I think that's hogwash. Woke & cancel culture are Marxist in nature and sprung up decades after the "feminization" of institutions.

Quote:

---

The summary is that what we think of as "woke" - things like cancel culture etc - is really not a political movement but simply a result of institutions (law schools, medical schools, college instructors, the media, and managers in companies) becoming majority female. Canceling is just a female way of reacting to people you don't like.

---

Is there another meaning to the above paragraph that I'm not getting?

I think their jokes were tasteless and disgusting. They should have known better and they should be dismissed. Fine.

I am still waiting, however, for where they were calling for their political opponents to be murdered......

We hold our own accountable. The left doesn't.

You have a city councilwoman in Norman, OK who is still in her seat after literally telling her political critics to commit suicide. And you have the Democrat AG in Virginia who STILL has the endorsement of the Democrat party.

We are not the same. At all.

Corporations wanted more women. Corp America basically turned marketing and HR over to them. Neither are better off. Just look at the string of branding mistakes made on feels (not analytics) and HR has become the workplace castration engine.

marxism "sprung up" a century before woke and cancel culture.

you should read the article, as it points out that the feminization of institutions didn't happen decades ago. it happened at precisely the same time period as the woke stuff happened.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

---

Interestingly enough, thinking about what makes a frat house anyway? Beer drinking (after work in this scenario). Lewd comments. Perpetual sexual conquest? (great band name by the way).

One of the biggest gray areas about modern corporate life is how they approach dating and intersex interactions in the work place. It happens, a lot and it causes a lot of legal problems for the business. So corporate demands a lot of access to your personal life to make sure it keeps 'compliance'. Its a huge chilling effect on all parties. The lawyers really do ruin everything.

Can't have an office party because someone always gets fired for doing something stupid. Can't have happy hour because someone's going to again, say something stupid.

I really think they should clamp down on corporate responsibility for maintaining a 'harassment free' workplace. Removal of harassment heavy? sure. But does anyone have any allegiance to any coworkers nowadays? Hiring, firing, and corporate approved fraternization, and even sales practices has basically all but killed the culture of comradery with the people you spend your days with.

The longhouse goes very deep and there will be a lot of pearl clutching trying to remove it.

Zobel said:

---

marxism "sprung up" a century before woke and cancel culture.

you should read the article, as it points out that the feminization of institutions didn't happen decades ago. it happened at precisely the same time period as the woke stuff happened.

---

This simply isn't the case. The workplace has been "feminized" since the 90's if not earlier. Woke & cancel culture came along about 10 years ago. Feminizing the workplace is the result of women reaching parity with men in terms of overall numbers a long time ago. The climate couldn't remain like a frat house, obviously. Accommodations for women increased as they became a larger part of the workforce.

you haven't read the article, so you are ignorant of its contents.

you're dug in. i like that about you.

Zobel said:

---

you haven't read the article, so you are ignorant of its contents.

you're dug in. i like that about you.

---

I'm not ignorant of the conclusion.

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

I think their jokes were tasteless and disgusting. They should have known better and they should be dismissed. Fine.

I am still waiting, however, for where they were calling for their political opponents to be murdered......

We hold our own accountable. The left doesn't.

You have a city councilwoman in Norman, OK who is still in her seat after literally telling her political critics to commit suicide. And you have the Democrat AG in Virginia who STILL has the endorsement of the Democrat party.

We are not the same. At all.

---

What does it even mean to be accountable? Can I see your entire text message history to make sure you are 'held accountable?' to whom anyway? and for what? and for how long? If you want to hold people accountable to a struggle session lets see you go first.

This is really just a part of technological tyranny by the way. You wanna know how much freer society was before everyone had a microphone and camera in their pocket? Or a perpetual record of what was said?

30 years ago you said something stupid, did something stupid or lewd it just died right there. You had to be there. Nowadays people's lives get turned upside down over the idea of getting caught on camera being goofy on the dance floor, singing along to an inappropriate song, saying something that is not completely PC at all points in time.

Quote:

---

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.

---

This is the scariest part of the article and I agree for the most part. But this really is just the Left doing what they do. Emotion over logic and pandering to women who found a convenient target (Kavanaugh) for any bad encounter they'd ever had with a man. These women excuse the same behavior from liberal men which further makes the author's point here.

19th Amendment and its consequences

it isn't "the left" doing what they do. it's women. now, if your answer is that "the modern left" is basically women, demographically speaking you're not wrong. that is one conclusion to draw from the article.

Zobel said:

---

it isn't "the left" doing what they do. it's women. now, if your answer is that "the modern left" is basically women, demographically speaking you're not wrong. that is one conclusion to draw from the article.

---

Fair point.

Zobel said:

---

The recent longhousing from the young republicans leaked texts (mean words = worst thing ever to happen) makes this article timely.

https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/

Great quote:

Quote:

---

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.

---

The summary is that what we think of as "woke" - things like cancel culture etc - is really not a political movement but simply a result of institutions (law schools, medical schools, college instructors, the media, and managers in companies) becoming majority female. Canceling is just a female way of reacting to people you don't like.

This is the result of decades of social engineering, not actual benefit. And our institutions are the worse for it.

---

Hmm you make some great points. I think you are right.

We allowed institutions to be feminized and they brought in female rules and sensibilities and drove those places into the ground. Now they are doing it to corporations too.

Ban women from government!

Interesting OP and I think you're right.

Based mom Christina Hoff Summers had a great book called the War On Boys thats main idea is that, since a majority of teachers are female, boys (rowdy, gnarly, rough and tumble) are treated as defective girls (people pleasing, patient, quiet) and one of the reasons they have been left behind in the education system.

Zobel said:

---

video of the speech referenced in the article, for those so inclined

---

TBH, Never in a million years would I have pegged a woman who looks like that as a conservative. I would have assumed she was a subaru driving, vegan tree hugging feminist. Reminder that you cannot ALWAYS judge a book by it's cover as there are always rare exceptions.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

To go even deeper here this the crux of the declining birth rate. Women chose to compete against men for jobs within a system that rewards women and not men at every turn. From K-12 education to college entrance to job searching and job retention. Women then identify with their job over having a kid/kids or more kids.

This on a societial level creates a feedback loop that the price of everything reflects two incomes buying it. So now a woman has to work unless you take a huge reduction in quality of life.

There is only one metric that tracks with increasing birth rate. Reducing education access for women.

There is one huge metric that tracks with divorce. Job loss. Women also will not marry a man that makes less than them. So as women make more, they get more picky about who they marry.

So women get easier access to the material world in exchange for fewer kids. Men get access to more competition in the material world and less access to women as they are denied societal access to income drivers at every turn.

There is no stopping this train as it drives over the cliff until america is allowed to dwindle in population until enough conservatives reproduce and enough liberals die off that we can rebound birth rate or americans get supplanted by immigrants and there is no america anymore.

Guess which answer is coming.

---

Come on Ags, let's win the big one before society completely collapses!

one MEEN Ag said:

---

To go even deeper here this the crux of the declining birth rate. Women chose to compete against men for jobs within a system that rewards women and not men at every turn. From K-12 education to college entrance to job searching and job retention. Women then identify with their job over having a kid/kids or more kids.

This on a societial level creates a feedback loop that the price of everything reflects two incomes buying it. So now a woman has to work unless you take a huge reduction in quality of life.

There is only one metric that tracks with increasing birth rate. Reducing education access for women.

There is one huge metric that tracks with divorce. Job loss. Women also will not marry a man that makes less than them. So as women make more, they get more picky about who they marry.

So women get easier access to the material world in exchange for fewer kids. Men get access to more competition in the material world and less access to women as they are denied societal access to income drivers at every turn.

There is no stopping this train as it drives over the cliff until america is allowed to dwindle in population until enough conservatives reproduce and enough liberals die off that we can rebound birth rate or americans get supplanted by immigrants and there is no america anymore.

Guess which answer is coming.

---

Great post. I agree with your analysis.

But our leaders will do something stupid as they have done for decades. They will say we don't have enough people in America and open it up for Middle Eastern men as they are reproducing like rats. They will get into the jobs that are high urgency. Good for the short term and problem solved. Really? No... these crazies will try to implement Shariah law in following decades because that is just what they do. Watch UK for more details.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

To go even deeper here this the crux of the declining birth rate. Women chose to compete against men for jobs within a system that rewards women and not men at every turn. From K-12 education to college entrance to job searching and job retention. Women then identify with their job over having a kid/kids or more kids.

This on a societial level creates a feedback loop that the price of everything reflects two incomes buying it. So now a woman has to work unless you take a huge reduction in quality of life.

There is only one metric that tracks with increasing birth rate. Reducing education access for women.

There is one huge metric that tracks with divorce. Job loss. Women also will not marry a man that makes less than them. So as women make more, they get more picky about who they marry.

So women get easier access to the material world in exchange for fewer kids. Men get access to more competition in the material world and less access to women as they are denied societal access to income drivers at every turn.

There is no stopping this train as it drives over the cliff until america is allowed to dwindle in population until enough conservatives reproduce and enough liberals die off that we can rebound birth rate or americans get supplanted by immigrants and there is no america anymore.

Guess which answer is coming.

---

Truly great post. Thank you for taking the time. This is a fresh perspective although dystopian.