I like this article but this section is a huge miss:

Quote:

---

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. How did I not see it before?

---

Misunderstanding how the woke movement got to this point, as a dominating cultural ethos, as a direct , provable, logical, and intentional derivative of post modernist thought is a gargantuan error.

the timelines don't add up.

or put another way, it doesn't matter if a group holds those beliefs if they don't have any capability or power through which to express them.

men in this country aren't on the whole sympathetic to woke or postmodernism in that form. so the institutions don't look or act like that until they are taken over by people who are. that happens to align with the time when those institutions became majority female.

In other words I think it may be the same phenomenon viewed from a different angle.

relevant:


edit to add that earlier elections were much less close

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

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.

---

Helen is great. She reviews a ton books on Twitter. They're almost always some hilariously obscure topic but really entertaining. Don't want to derail but a couple of examples.

Finally, an English translation of “Dirty Hearts: The History of Shindō Renmei,” about the tens of thousands of Japanese in Brazil who refused to believe they’d lost the war. The group committed hundreds of acts of terrorism against “defeatists” in 1946, including 23 murders. pic.twitter.com/jY4wRW3P69

— Helen Andrews (@herandrews) September 23, 2025

This book about the successful struggle to integrate amusement parks ends with a discordantly sad final chapter, in which “the majority of traditional urban amusement parks closed by the late 1960s and early 1970s.” Some stories from the book: https://t.co/lIdVhLDB46 pic.twitter.com/SVTYgD40tW

— Helen Andrews (@herandrews) September 30, 2023

I like a woman that knows her place.

frenchtoast said:

---

I like a woman that knows her place.

---

Everyone does.

AOC says Republicans are "radicalizing and exploiting young boys" and pushing them towards a "masculinity that requires the domination of others who are poorer, browner, darker, or a different gender than them."pic.twitter.com/UjmiKPSgav

— Joe Rogan Podcast News (@joeroganhq) October 16, 2025

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

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!

---

In the 2130's Kyle Field will be converted into a cricket pitch and will win a national championship.

And what is amazing is that even when women state that they would like their men as "betas", they privately want an "alpha" and will never respect the "beta".

fixer said:

---

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.

---

I think most americans would agree if we could just return to the 1990s they would be 'happy again' but you have to ask yourself why the 1990s? And what kept society progressing as opposed to staying in the idyllic? The reason we're having these conversations now is because America thought it would always be "red white and blue, celebrate the fourth of july, American" but society as a whole clearly had no ability to stop cultural progress in its sweet spot. So now we've overshot it but we can't really articulate why and what exactly we've overshot. Which is part of the reason why we overshot 'the good life' in the first place, we struggled to define what made it so good and what should be valued to preserve it.

And realistically, the answer to dystopianism begins with pulling back the curtain on society nearly 400 years in the making. We are living in a world that is now the full measure of secularism. And to understand secularism you have to go back 1500 years to the age at which christendom won the cultural war over paganism throughout europe. There really is only three eras in the parts of the world that matter - paganism, christendom, and the secularism. Each one takes the presuppositions of the previous era and changes them, but not in a blank slate manner.

For example, Christendom explodes. Pagan kings become baptized into...Christian kings. Still a king. Secularism loves the idea of rights bestowed unto man, but the 30 years war destroyed half of europe and killed over 8 million europeans in the name of christian protestant/catholic infighting. So the survivors basically go, 'we have to erase christianity from government because it just leads us to killing each other.' So humans get rights, but they are wishy washy. Kings can exist, but we don't want them to and they are wishy washy. Rights are bestowed by nondescript creator God or no God at all. All men are created equal (but no reason given to why, which is all men are created in the image of God.)

And early secularism was the enlightenment era. Those ideals are what shaped america's founding fathers. So we are coming undone as a society because society is rejecting the concepts of enlightenment thinkers as progress moves us culturally past enlightment. Enlightment gave way to modernity. Hagel. Marx. Flat secularism. No spiritual world. No God. Just atoms, chemical reactions and class struggle. You are free to do whatever you want, the state is the highest authority, there is no moral authority. Open borders. Freedom to chose whatever vice you want. Blank slatism. .

And so here we are in 2025. Its got huge undercurrents of communists, a larger cohort of just materialist, consumer, secularists. And also open borders of every third worlder who really couldn't give two ****s about enlightenment thinkers.

So I say all that to say this. If you want to fix the dystopian society of america. It really only will happen by Americans, in mass, going back to church and start taking their faith seriously. And I hate to break it to a lot of protestants here but there's a reason protestant churches have the same cultural slide that society does. Their histories are formed in the secular era. They can't escape it.

So if you really want to save america, its future success depends on fighting progressivism, which means fighting modernity which means fighting secularism. But the catch is, you have to return american christendom to an expression of christianity that predates america. Secularism is older than america because america is steeped in secular thought from the framers. Returning to 1776 just gets you stuck on this progressivism conveyor belt that shoots you right back to where we are. You've got to return to something more ancient than secularism.

So the realization is two fold. America was always going to end up this way. Because it is a liberal democracy steeped in secularism and so it will follow as secular culture does. And secondly, it is dystopian. It sucks. There will be war in our childrens life as they fight it out. But guess what, the orthodox church I go to, its never been better. Community has never been tighter in my life and also as deep and meaningful. That is the only thing that is making things like modern feminism just melt away. Or love of the nation state. Or making sin and evil stand out against the backdrop of society. The things we all want in america, are actually just devoutly christian things ordering society.

Everyone needs a clan, open invite for anyone to come taste and see.

Banger

one MEEN Ag said:

---

fixer said:

---

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.

---

I think most americans would agree if we could just return to the 1990s they would be 'happy again' but you have to ask yourself why the 1990s? And what kept society progressing as opposed to staying in the idyllic? The reason we're having these conversations now is because America thought it would always be "red white and blue, celebrate the fourth of july, American" but society as a whole clearly had no ability to stop cultural progress in its sweet spot. So now we've overshot it but we can't really articulate why and what exactly we've overshot. Which is part of the reason why we overshot 'the good life' in the first place, we struggled to define what made it so good and what should be valued to preserve it.

And realistically, the answer to dystopianism begins with pulling back the curtain on society nearly 400 years in the making. We are living in a world that is now the full measure of secularism. And to understand secularism you have to go back 1500 years to the age at which christendom won the cultural war over paganism throughout europe. There really is only three eras in the parts of the world that matter - paganism, christendom, and the secularism. Each one takes the presuppositions of the previous era and changes them, but not in a blank slate manner.

For example, Christendom explodes. Pagan kings become baptized into...Christian kings. Still a king. Secularism loves the idea of rights bestowed unto man, but the 30 years war destroyed half of europe and killed over 8 million europeans in the name of christian protestant/catholic infighting. So the survivors basically go, 'we have to erase christianity from government because it just leads us to killing each other.' So humans get rights, but they are wishy washy. Kings can exist, but we don't want them to and they are wishy washy. Rights are bestowed by nondescript creator God or no God at all. All men are created equal (but no reason given to why, which is all men are created in the image of God.)

And early secularism was the enlightenment era. Those ideals are what shaped america's founding fathers. So we are coming undone as a society because society is rejecting the concepts of enlightenment thinkers as progress moves us culturally past enlightment. Enlightment gave way to modernity. Hagel. Marx. Flat secularism. No spiritual world. No God. Just atoms, chemical reactions and class struggle. You are free to do whatever you want, the state is the highest authority, there is no moral authority. Open borders. Freedom to chose whatever vice you want. Blank slatism. .

And so here we are in 2025. Its got huge undercurrents of communists, a larger cohort of just materialist, consumer, secularists. And also open borders of every third worlder who really couldn't give two ****s about enlightenment thinkers.

So I say all that to say this. If you want to fix the dystopian society of america. It really only will happen by Americans, in mass, going back to church and start taking their faith seriously. And I hate to break it to a lot of protestants here but there's a reason protestant churches have the same cultural slide that society does. Their histories are formed in the secular era. They can't escape it.

So if you really want to save america, its future success depends on fighting progressivism, which means fighting modernity which means fighting secularism. But the catch is, you have to return american christendom to an expression of christianity that predates america. Secularism is older than america because america is steeped in secular thought from the framers. Returning to 1776 just gets you stuck on this progressivism conveyor belt that shoots you right back to where we are. You've got to return to something more ancient than secularism.

So the realization is two fold. America was always going to end up this way. Because it is a liberal democracy steeped in secularism and so it will follow as secular culture does. And secondly, it is dystopian. It sucks. There will be war in our childrens life as they fight it out. But guess what, the orthodox church I go to, its never been better. Community has never been tighter in my life and also as deep and meaningful. That is the only thing that is making things like modern feminism just melt away. Or love of the nation state. Or making sin and evil stand out against the backdrop of society. The things we all want in america, are actually just devoutly christian things ordering society.

Everyone needs a clan, open invite for anyone to come taste and see.

---

SUBSCRIBE

one MEEN Ag said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

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!

---

In the 2130's Kyle Field will be converted into a cricket pitch and will win a national championship.

---

Sanjay's great-great grandson will win it all for us

That is one truly fascinating set of posts. (Both have very incisive insight). I am going to have to think about the claim that its all been doomed to crash since shortly after the construction of St. Peter's and that to fix it requires going back to about the time of Justinian and the construction of Hagia Sophia, to give two physical remnants of those times to picture.

I do agree emphatically as seeing the 1990's as some kind of ideal high water demarcation where it feels like as some sweet spot that was an overshot of the good life to be followed by regression. But what your outline raises is the notion that this was an illusion and just part of what seeing that was destined to unfold beyond it, rather than as it seemed, the threshold of a greater and next era.

That part makes sense because the Pax Romana clearly reads the same way. A sweet spot that was then overshot, and gradual unraveling followed.

What was fascinating was the remark about women and education because in a different context, had been of the mind that the talk of the 19th misses the point that it is the mis-education of women into Lefitsm that is the issue, not their right to vote in the first place. Leftists make terrible voters--- that they are women seemed secondary.

But your two posts here call that assumption into a deeper and more fundamental question for sure. Hmm.

Thanks again. Good stuff and a new perspective I haven't considered.

Going over the article itself again carefully, the chronology seems a little off, but maybe she is still right that it works out to the feminization moment of the institutions. Wokesim seems to have especially begun coinciding with Obama's second term. Almost all the deprovement where the govt and national course became increasigly loathsome seems to time with that. But this may just prove her thesis, and its a coincidence it was after Obamans became more unaccountable than had already been made in the first term. Given her emphasis on the flaky nature of the law of 2011 Title IX courts maybe its more correct to simply peg it to his first term, but to lose the emphasis on his WH admin as the driver rather than the enabler and coincidental? occupant at the time.

This was fascinating:

Quote:

---

The threat posed by wokeness can be large or small depending on the industry. It's sad that English departments are all feminized now, but most people's daily lives are unaffected by it. Other fields matter more. You might not be a journalist, but you live in a country where what gets written in The New York Times determines what is publicly accepted as the truth. If the Times becomes a place where in-group consensus can suppress unpopular facts (more so than it already does), that affects every citizen.

---

Yes, that has already happened. Fortunately that profession is waning in being paid attention and so discredited the next generations dismiss it.

This however has no clear answer and the decline can be seen:

Quote:

---

The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tug at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.

---

Is all the letting off of killers more from this side? It does bring to mind how you routinely see fathers that would act, so maybe the tendency to not eliminate murderers is not coming from the male side.

Then there is points like this:

Quote:

---

All of these observations matched my observations of wokeness, but soon the happy thrill of discovering a new theory eventually gave way to a sinking feeling. 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.

---

It doesn't help with the arguments about Islam on this question and that satirical meme at that rate. It wouldn't take many 2020s and Bidenite tenures to give the future to Islam (or China).

Quote:

---

That is what feminists think happened, but they are wrong. Feminization is not an organic result of women outcompeting men. It is an artificial result of social engineering, and if we take our thumb off the scale it will collapse within a generation.

---

and

Quote:

---

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.

---

This may have an answer forming, for it seems Gen Z is prepared to do away with that social engineering and is very meritocratic intent over just rights, so all GenX has to do is not get in their way.

I see a lot of good here, but I disagree with how far back the clock should turn, or for the reason it should go back that far.

I definitely agree that the decline of society directly coincides with a turning away from Jesus. But that can't solely be explained by the intertwining of Christian and secular principles in the Protestant faith. Otherwise, you'd expect better outcomes for, say, France, Spain, Ireland, Greece, and Russia, yet they've all experienced cultural rot.

Also, the Enlightenment wasn't solely about a secularization of culture. Many of the ideas that spread during that time came from the rejection of church authority infallible. This was helped by access to information at a scale never before experienced in history, due to print, spreading many ideas, both religious and secular. This was something necessary with the scandals and corruption the Catholic Church had experienced. And a lot of the ideas foundational to the Enlightenment had their basis in Christian ideology (such as the scientific method being based on the premise of nature being bound by intelligible laws, which makes no sense to assume from a secular standpoint).

We did not have the problems we had now for centuries. To say we need to return to practice pre-Enlightenment is like saying we need to return to a time before information wasn't filtered and controlled by our church leaders.

What really has ailed us is a complacency of believers, and, yes, a willingness to blend in to the culture of the world rather than stand firm and proclaim the truth. But I can tell you it's not just Orthodox concerned with bucking that trend.

titan said:

---

Going over the article itself again carefully, the chronology seems a little off, but maybe she is still right that it works out to the feminization moment of the institutions. Wokesim seems to have especially begun coinciding with Obama's second term. Almost all the deprovement where the govt and national course became increasigly loathsome seems to time with that. But this may just prove her thesis, and its a coincidence it was after Obamans became more unaccountable than had already been made in the first term. Given her emphasis on the flaky nature of the law of 2011 Title IX courts maybe its more correct to simply peg it to his first term, but to lose the emphasis on his WH admin as the driver rather than the enabler and coincidental? occupant at the time.

This was fascinating:

Quote:

---

The threat posed by wokeness can be large or small depending on the industry. It's sad that English departments are all feminized now, but most people's daily lives are unaffected by it. Other fields matter more. You might not be a journalist, but you live in a country where what gets written in The New York Times determines what is publicly accepted as the truth. If the Times becomes a place where in-group consensus can suppress unpopular facts (more so than it already does), that affects every citizen.

---

Yes, that has already happened. Fortunately that profession is waning in being paid attention and so discredited the next generations dismiss it.

This however has no clear answer and the decline can be seen:

Quote:

---

The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tug at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.

---

Is all the letting off of killers more from this side? It does bring to mind how you routinely see fathers that would act, so maybe the tendency to not eliminate murderers is not coming from the male side.

Then there is points like this:

Quote:

---

All of these observations matched my observations of wokeness, but soon the happy thrill of discovering a new theory eventually gave way to a sinking feeling. 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.

---

It doesn't help with the arguments about Islam on this question and that satirical meme at that rate. It wouldn't take many 2020s and Bidenite tenures to give the future to Islam (or China).

Quote:

---

That is what feminists think happened, but they are wrong. Feminization is not an organic result of women outcompeting men. It is an artificial result of social engineering, and if we take our thumb off the scale it will collapse within a generation.

---

and

Quote:

---

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.

---

This may have an answer forming, for it seems Gen Z is prepared to do away with that social engineering and is very meritocratic intent over just rights, so all GenX has to do is not get in their way.

---

Gen X has never been the problem, we are the most conservative generation. Without us you would have complete Democratic control of everything. If you notice the time when things started to go to crap was the '90s when the Boomers took power and are still doing all they can to hold on to it and the Millennials are their spawn and they outnumber Gen X. That's why we are forgotten and ignored just like our "Silent" parents. Of course there are bad apples in Gen X as well but we are +14 Republican. The perfect Gen X candidate is Ron DeSantis or Rand Paul (which is a great example because his Silent father Ron was right about so much but never got real power and he is version 2.0). Gen X has always been the least emotion driven generation because we are cynical and had to put up with idealistic Boomers as teachers that were obsessed with trying to create the world as they wished it could be instead of dealing with how it actually is. Gen X basically wants to follow the DeSantis model in Florida.

I have great hope for Gen Z and they are natural allies to Gen X because they also grew up in a more cynical time. The key for them is if the women of that generation embrace traditional values or not and of that I'm less confident, the divide of male/female in terms of politics of Gen Z is off the charts compared to any other generation.

BTW there are some great Millennials and Boomers and it's complicated trying to put too much emphasis on generations. The OP here was about feminization which is a clearer topic, the main relevance there is that the Boomers are the ones who really pushed it and implemented it.

titan said:

---

Going over the article itself again carefully, the chronology seems a little off, but maybe she is still right that it works out to the feminization moment of the institutions. Wokesim seems to have especially begun coinciding with Obama's second term. Almost all the deprovement where the govt and national course became increasigly loathsome seems to time with that. But this may just prove her thesis, and its a coincidence it was after Obamans became more unaccountable than had already been made in the first term. Given her emphasis on the flaky nature of the law of 2011 Title IX courts maybe its more correct to simply peg it to his first term, but to lose the emphasis on his WH admin as the driver rather than the enabler and coincidental? occupant at the time.

This was fascinating:

Quote:

---

The threat posed by wokeness can be large or small depending on the industry. It's sad that English departments are all feminized now, but most people's daily lives are unaffected by it. Other fields matter more. You might not be a journalist, but you live in a country where what gets written in The New York Times determines what is publicly accepted as the truth. If the Times becomes a place where in-group consensus can suppress unpopular facts (more so than it already does), that affects every citizen.

---

Yes, that has already happened. Fortunately that profession is waning in being paid attention and so discredited the next generations dismiss it.

This however has no clear answer and the decline can be seen:

Quote:

---

The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tug at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.

---

Is all the letting off of killers more from this side? It does bring to mind how you routinely see fathers that would act, so maybe the tendency to not eliminate murderers is not coming from the male side.

Then there is points like this:

Quote:

---

All of these observations matched my observations of wokeness, but soon the happy thrill of discovering a new theory eventually gave way to a sinking feeling. 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.

---

It doesn't help with the arguments about Islam on this question and that satirical meme at that rate. It wouldn't take many 2020s and Bidenite tenures to give the future to Islam (or China).

Quote:

---

That is what feminists think happened, but they are wrong. Feminization is not an organic result of women outcompeting men. It is an artificial result of social engineering, and if we take our thumb off the scale it will collapse within a generation.

---

and

Quote:

---

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.

---

This may have an answer forming, for it seems Gen Z is prepared to do away with that social engineering and is very meritocratic intent over just rights, so all GenX has to do is not get in their way.

---

This Gen Xer already agrees with them and will support their reordering back to the norm of gender roles.

You're reading history from an enlightenment perspective. Almost everything you say here is from a story told by enlightenment era people. Here's a good quote about it:

Quote:

---

[Here is] modernity's first great attempt to define itself: an 'age of reason' emerging from and overthrowing an 'age of faith'. Behind this definition lay a simple but thoroughly enchanting tale. Once upon a time, it went, Western humanity was the cosseted and incurious ward of Mother Church; during this, the age of faith, culture stagnated, science languished, wars of religion were routinely waged, witches were burned by inquisitors, and Western humanity labored in brutish subjugation to dogma. All was darkness.

Then, in the wake of the 'wars of religion' that had torn Christendom apart, came the full flowing of the Enlightenment and with it the reign of reason and progress. The secular nation-state arose, reduced religion to an establishment of the state and thereby rescued Western humanity from the blood-steeped intolerance of religion.

This is, as I say, a simple and enchanting tale, easily followed and utterly captivating in its explanatory tidiness; its sole defect is that it happens to be false in every identifiable detail.

---

We have had these problems for centuries. You are a fanatic, raging liberal compared to the men who founded this country. You're comparing the problems of 2025 to the baseline of 1990 and saying - boy, there's been a lot of crazy wackadoo change in these last 35 years! But there's been crazy change for a lot longer than that! You just take the changes that happened from, say, 1900-1935 for granted - to you they're totally normal.

The story you were taught about the big bad catholic church being the big bad information censor creating a faith-vs-reason showdown is utter nonsense. If you want to disabuse yourself of such notions, this is a fantastic and entertaining case study. Everything you know about the development of heliocentricism and Galileo is wrong.

https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

aggie93,

Agree entirely. By GenX not get in their way, meant precisely that -- ally with GenZ -- do not try to support what came before -- help get rid of the postmodernism and that era.

Explains public education pretty well.

I think what happened is quite simple.

Women were in the kitchen and keeping house. Men went out to work. Single income. Then the rich moneybags got greedy and saw women as a new labor source. They began to fill their minds with feminism and being "independent". They told them men had a fun life, got to wear nice clothes, bring home money, get promoted, got fancy titles. Bonuses. What did you women get? Dirty dishes. Stinky diapers. So women decided they wanted what men had as it seemed like a lot of fun. But when they actually started working in jobs, they found it wasn't so much fun after all. Endless meetings, corporate backbiting, layoffs for no reason, idiot boss who hates you, pointless TPS reports, annual goals, performance evaluations. Not really fun. So they did what all women do - complain. They complained that men had it easier, that women got $0.71 for every $1 a man got. Rich moneybag men even bribed big universities like Harvard to publish slanted "studies" to prove it. Corporations did not want to be slandered as female-unfriendly so they bent over and made life easier for women.

More and more feminization. HR was anyway under women. Now they got marketing under women too, and then sales. Lately it has been engineering with unprecedented promotions of women over men.

The whiner always gets the reward.

rocky the dog said:

---

---

But does she, "Look at me, I'm a Boss-b*tch, hear me roar!" also pay for dinner as well?

Well, does she?!!!!

Tom Fox said:

---

titan said:

---

Going over the article itself again carefully, the chronology seems a little off, but maybe she is still right that it works out to the feminization moment of the institutions. Wokesim seems to have especially begun coinciding with Obama's second term. Almost all the deprovement where the govt and national course became increasigly loathsome seems to time with that. But this may just prove her thesis, and its a coincidence it was after Obamans became more unaccountable than had already been made in the first term. Given her emphasis on the flaky nature of the law of 2011 Title IX courts maybe its more correct to simply peg it to his first term, but to lose the emphasis on his WH admin as the driver rather than the enabler and coincidental? occupant at the time.

This was fascinating:

Quote:

---

The threat posed by wokeness can be large or small depending on the industry. It's sad that English departments are all feminized now, but most people's daily lives are unaffected by it. Other fields matter more. You might not be a journalist, but you live in a country where what gets written in The New York Times determines what is publicly accepted as the truth. If the Times becomes a place where in-group consensus can suppress unpopular facts (more so than it already does), that affects every citizen.

---

Yes, that has already happened. Fortunately that profession is waning in being paid attention and so discredited the next generations dismiss it.

This however has no clear answer and the decline can be seen:

Quote:

---

The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tug at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.

---

Is all the letting off of killers more from this side? It does bring to mind how you routinely see fathers that would act, so maybe the tendency to not eliminate murderers is not coming from the male side.

Then there is points like this:

Quote:

---

All of these observations matched my observations of wokeness, but soon the happy thrill of discovering a new theory eventually gave way to a sinking feeling. 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.

---

It doesn't help with the arguments about Islam on this question and that satirical meme at that rate. It wouldn't take many 2020s and Bidenite tenures to give the future to Islam (or China).

Quote:

---

That is what feminists think happened, but they are wrong. Feminization is not an organic result of women outcompeting men. It is an artificial result of social engineering, and if we take our thumb off the scale it will collapse within a generation.

---

and

Quote:

---

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.

---

This may have an answer forming, for it seems Gen Z is prepared to do away with that social engineering and is very meritocratic intent over just rights, so all GenX has to do is not get in their way.

---

This Gen Xer already agrees with them and will support their reordering back to the norm of gender roles.

---

It's cute how Gen-Z doesn't know that the feminist movement really took off with the Boomers in the '60s and '70s, which just led to the slope that got us to where we are today.

Gen-X weren't even around, or, at most, kids, when "I can bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan" was really taking off.

So, no, younger generations, you can't blame Gen-X for something that, again, started with the Boomers.

infinity ag said:

---

I think what happened is quite simple.

Women were in the kitchen and keeping house. Men went out to work. Single income. Then the rich moneybags got greedy and saw women as a new labor source. They began to fill their minds with feminism and being "independent". They told them men had a fun life, got to wear nice clothes, bring home money, get promoted, got fancy titles. Bonuses. What did you women get? Dirty dishes. Stinky diapers. So women decided they wanted what men had as it seemed like a lot of fun. But when they actually started working in jobs, they found it wasn't so much fun after all. Endless meetings, corporate backbiting, layoffs for no reason, idiot boss who hates you, pointless TPS reports, annual goals, performance evaluations. Not really fun. So they did what all women do - complain. They complained that men had it easier, that women got $0.71 for every $1 a man got. Rich moneybag men even bribed big universities like Harvard to publish slanted "studies" to prove it. Corporations did not want to be slandered as female-unfriendly so they bent over and made life easier for women.

More and more feminization. HR was anyway under women. Now they got marketing under women too, and then sales. Lately it has been engineering with unprecedented promotions of women over men.

The whiner always gets the reward.

---

Even this narrative is too modern. Subsistence farming or a trade was the norm for a long time. Everyone in the household had purpose and unity of it (parents to children, working to survive or caring for the home and hearth - economia).

The Industrial Revolution came along and sucked men out of the home, while using technology to shorten women's work at home (vacuum instead of broom, dishwasher, fridge, etc.). That shortens women's work and deprives them of roles for children to grow into and learn as part of the family. Mothers are baby sitters until kids go to school and yeah that's the life they hate. But consider that they don't believe their children's education something worthwhile, but something to hand off because of public schooling.

So they're bored at home, dependent on a husband for income and protection. Along comes a demon (most early feminists believed in and participated in the occult, btw) saying they should have what men do, they need their rights and equality, as if people are individuals rather than being part of a network of human connections! So naturally sex, murdering children, and basic demonic sacrifice becomes part and parcel of it while attempting to usurp what previously was man's domain.

Owlagdad said:

---

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.

---

If you say this, but ignore at the same time, girls were being fed hormones in the form of birth control, then you are ignoring a large piece of the puzzle.

Boys and girls were both receiving mind altering drugs in the form of adderall and birth control from young ages, making the whole population more in the middle. Why are women in their 30s and 40s all on anxiety medicine now? because they were hormonally manipulated into not having feelings through out their formative years via testosterone. SO now that they are off BC because they are having babies/reaching perimenopause, they are dealing with actually having their own personalities again. This has had sociological implications for both genders IMO.


Women are being made into a scapegoat for a problem that is far more complicated than just "women working = bad". This article has some merit, but it also is wierdly sexist in a way that I don't think it needs to be in order to prove a point.

Tom Fox said:

---

titan said:

---

Going over the article itself again carefully, the chronology seems a little off, but maybe she is still right that it works out to the feminization moment of the institutions. Wokesim seems to have especially begun coinciding with Obama's second term. Almost all the deprovement where the govt and national course became increasigly loathsome seems to time with that. But this may just prove her thesis, and its a coincidence it was after Obamans became more unaccountable than had already been made in the first term. Given her emphasis on the flaky nature of the law of 2011 Title IX courts maybe its more correct to simply peg it to his first term, but to lose the emphasis on his WH admin as the driver rather than the enabler and coincidental? occupant at the time.

This was fascinating:

Quote:

---

The threat posed by wokeness can be large or small depending on the industry. It's sad that English departments are all feminized now, but most people's daily lives are unaffected by it. Other fields matter more. You might not be a journalist, but you live in a country where what gets written in The New York Times determines what is publicly accepted as the truth. If the Times becomes a place where in-group consensus can suppress unpopular facts (more so than it already does), that affects every citizen.

---

Yes, that has already happened. Fortunately that profession is waning in being paid attention and so discredited the next generations dismiss it.

This however has no clear answer and the decline can be seen:

Quote:

---

The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tug at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.

---

Is all the letting off of killers more from this side? It does bring to mind how you routinely see fathers that would act, so maybe the tendency to not eliminate murderers is not coming from the male side.

Then there is points like this:

Quote:

---

All of these observations matched my observations of wokeness, but soon the happy thrill of discovering a new theory eventually gave way to a sinking feeling. 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.

---

It doesn't help with the arguments about Islam on this question and that satirical meme at that rate. It wouldn't take many 2020s and Bidenite tenures to give the future to Islam (or China).

Quote:

---

That is what feminists think happened, but they are wrong. Feminization is not an organic result of women outcompeting men. It is an artificial result of social engineering, and if we take our thumb off the scale it will collapse within a generation.

---

and

Quote:

---

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.

---

This may have an answer forming, for it seems Gen Z is prepared to do away with that social engineering and is very meritocratic intent over just rights, so all GenX has to do is not get in their way.

---

This Gen Xer already agrees with them and will support their reordering back to the norm of gender roles.

---

Concur as that is how many GenX feel --- absolutely no use for the immediately prior trajectory. The reordering you mention she described as just taking the hand off the scales, the foot of fthe pedal -- the artificial invovlement by the govt and legal.

It also wouldn't hurt to get rid of this whole HR dominance and the associated resume system in favor of return to apprenticeships and internal succession more.

It's not women working = bad.

It's women and men are different. Women and men socialize and problem solve differently. Therefore when you take things that were a century ago purely masculine spaces and feminize them, they're going to change.

The question is if those changes are desirable or functional. Early evidence points to "no".

I agree with a lot of the article, but I think it could have been written in a better way.

I'm also positing that men have become more feminine (and women more masculine) as a result of what has happened in the way kids were raised once birth control and adderall became prevalent in society.

It has become a small pet peeve of mine that we pretend that women were all stay at home moms in any recent past. That's simply not true. "Homemaker" has always been a privilege of the upper middle class and beyond. Women have been nurses, teachers, laundrywomen, factory workers, nannies, cooks, maids, seamstresses, etc in the lower middle class and below forever. What changed was the opportunity to be more than just that. It's hard to think "more opportunity = bad"

You just listed a bunch of traditionally female roles in a conversation about a bunch of traditionally male roles. (I use "traditionally" somewhat facetiously here).

Also very 19th/20th century coded. The world existed before that.

Until the late 1800s in the US primary school teachers were majority male. Now male schoolteachers effectively no longer exist. Has that been bad or good for society?

Relevant

"Conservatives want to go back to the time before the previous war. (Whatever that war may be.)"
-- my Pastoral Theology Prof, on why he was a Traditionalist and not a Conservative

— Fr Joseph Huneycutt (@Orthodixie) October 17, 2025

I'm aware, but my point was that there are a lot of people in this thread say "women should go back to being SAHMs" when women have always had jobs. Many of those jobs listed menial labor/blue collar. Is there no place for women in a white collar environment? no benefit?

There has to be a way to not fall off the horse on the other side.

Zobel said:

---

It's not women working = bad.

It's women and men are different. Women and men socialize and problem solve differently. Therefore when you take things that were a century ago purely masculine spaces and feminize them, they're going to change.

The question is if those changes are desirable or functional. Early evidence points to "no".

---

Hmm. Maybe there is a middle answer? Ditch co-ed work spaces. Let both work in context where they socialize and problem solve as best do. Maybe get the best of both?

I was thinking mostly industrial revolution tbh. Triangle shirtwaist fire type stuff.

That's the point of the article. We don't know the answer because "benefit" is determined by real competition on meritocracy. We haven't tried that. Instead we've regulated and sued male spaces into oblivion, one by one, and the outcomes suck.