Unintended Consequence of the Feminisation of Institutions and Companies

"If this is the case, what is the solution?"

You disregarded the "If this is case" clause which may change the meaning of the whole post or may be a figleaf for a bad-faith poster. I've not had enough experience of the OP to know which is the case. OP does have a posting history on other boards, so not likely IMO to be a seagull poster.

It's not unheard of for a hypothesis to be couched in

• [describes putative situation as if proven already]
• Ask if the described situation is true.

I was taught at school to phrase my hypotheses as if they were already the case, often clearly labelled as "null hypothesis" and "alternative hypothesis".

Null hypothesis: giving CatOfHate 💸 catfood will have no effect on the tartar buildup on his teeth.
Alternative hypothesis 1: giving CatOfHate 💸catfood will reduce the tartar buildup on his teeth.
Alternative hypothesis 2: giving CatOfHate 💸catfood will increase the tartar buildup on his teeth..

All stated using words that convey "already true", not words like "might" and "may".

"Recently I have been reading/watching more and more about the relatively recently occurred, imbalance of women in companies and institutions (when in positions of power). This increase and the subsequent culture shift it brings, being what is driving the "woke" culture explosion."
"There has been a definite change towards "wokeness", you only have to see the mess at the NHS or universities."
"If this is the case, what is the solution?"

Women ("when in positions of power') are driving the woke culture explosion. This is causing a mess at eg NHS and universities, and in general. What is the solution? (ie. This is a problem that needs solved.)

Quote it, if it's so clear, because I can't see it in any of his posts.

What Trevor Phillips refers to as "the exam-passing classes", ie. university educated.

The Venn diagram between the exam-passing classes and the privileged class I described is a single circle.

Which blithely ignores the fact that predominantly female professions managed to survive for decades untainted by "wokery" - until wokery wriggled its way into every professional institution under the sun.

Yup.

As for "cancel culture" being a "female thing", the historical ousting of midwifery by male-dominated medicine is surely an extreme example of "cancel culture"?

See also: computing. A computer was someone with mathematical aptitude, often a woman with a maths degree, who sat for eight hours per day turning a set of numeric inputs into a set of numeric outputs according to appropriate formulae. Examples of use cases were turning the recorded outputs from test firings of ordinance into a set of range tables for use by the gunners who would fire said ordinance. By the end of WW2, the US was building field guns faster than the computers could calculate the tables, which were unique to each individual gun.

So the ENIAC was built, and its six programmers, the first six electronic computer programmers ever, were all women.

Women have been forced out of IT. It is well-documented.

Hah! This thread is somehow managing to be quite sexist and prejudiced about women and men at the same time!

To state the obvious - a person has a sex, but they are not defined by their sex. (Repeat for gender identity according to taste).

So given approx 4 billion males and 4 billion females in the world, there is going to be so much individual variation in personalities and attitude amongst people, that any lazy reductive characterization by sex is going to be essentially nonsensical.

How about (see another poster on this) universities do not need a criminal standard of proof to sanction rapist students?

And how about not conflating a man not getting a promotion with "ruining his life"?

One might, possibly, have more respect for arguments about the so-called feminisation of society if they didn't come across as tantrums from people who apparently dislike the idea of men suffering any consequences for their behaviour whatsoever.

Conservative morality teaches that rape is one of the worst things a man can do. These pathetic little boys can't even get that right.

Nope, not interested. You're an MRA, trying to co-opt GC feminists into your absolute bog-standard MRA talking points. You've been red-pilled, own it.

Yes, the OP did actually say that, it is very clear.

@FernandoSoryou make a lot of sweeping assumptions. If I want to understand something I try and look wider and am interested in what people put forward. It makes for understanding. Taking a sledge hammer to comments doesn't move the argument forward. Did you put me down as a MRA? An odd assumtion

This ‘great feminisation’ nonsense is a well known anti-feminist talking point. For a different take on it, read Helen Lewis’s recent long article in the Atlantic which touches on the Helen Andrews article mentioned above. www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/06/conservative-masculinism-misogyny/686939/

Nah, I don't buy it. This is just an MRA fishing for useful idiots. It boils down to 'women can't be trusted to make sensible decisions - look at how they bought into the trans bollocks - therefore they shouldn't be in positions of power in business and bollocks.'

Glad Dentons got a mention. I am still staggered that a company of lawyers thought this was a good idea.

I have asked (subtly), and this is what I was told.

1. They bought the idea that men who identify as women are the most vulnerable people on the planet, and the most likely to be murdered. Once they say the magic words 'I am a woman' (this is my interpretation as to when the transubstantiation occurs), they offend at the same rates that a female does.
2. They bought the idea that agreeing with the list of progressive left causes made them a 'good person' and on the RSOH. Each thing on the list was not considered individually or actually given any thought. Plus the idea that people who don't agree with the omnicause (for want of a better term) are evil/Nazis (again, the lack of thought in arriving at this position was shocking).
3. The 'my lovely trans friend' reason. It should be noted that the friend was female and identified as non-binary.
4. Has a child who identifies as trans or non-binary and fears for their safety.

What a strange, blinkered perspective the author has. Laser-focused on confirming a narrow thesis and ignoring the bigger picture.

"In 2019, I read an article about Larry Summers and Harvard that changed the way I look at the world. The author, writing under the pseudonym “J. Stone,” argued that the day Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard University marked a turning point in our culture."

"The essay argued that it wasn’t just that women had cancelled the president of Harvard; it was that they’d cancelled him in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather than logical arguments. “When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,” said Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT."

Nancy Hopkins's response is risible "snowflake" behaviour of the type we see all the time from Trans Activists and their ilk, eg. Extinction Rebellion. "Triggered" in this instance by the mere utterance of a notion that there might be differences between the sexes.

This is not specifically female behaviour but a stereotypical "drama lama" response evidenced by both men and women. Of a certain class. What Trevor Phillips refers to as "the exam-passing classes", ie. university educated. We are not talking blue collar trade qualifications here.

"This cancellation was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field. That is the Great Feminization thesis, which the same author later elaborated upon at book length: Everything you think of as “wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.

The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It really did unlock the secrets of the era we are living in. 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?"

Equally risible. "Wokeness" is more than "cancel culture".

Her thesis:
a) cancel culture = female thing, therefore "wokeness" = female thing
b) more women in "institutions" -> woke institutions

Which blithely ignores the fact that predominantly female professions managed to survive for decades untainted by "wokery" - until wokery wriggled its way into every professional institution under the sun.

As for "cancel culture" being a "female thing", the historical ousting of midwifery by male-dominated medicine is surely an extreme example of "cancel culture"?

"Psychology, once a predominantly male field, is now overwhelmingly female, with 75 percent of psychology doctorates going to women."

What man wants to work in a field where his traits are not welcome? What self-respecting male graduate student would pursue a career in academia when his peers will ostracize him for stating his disagreements too bluntly or espousing a controversial opinion?"

The "gender imbalance" is even more extreme in the UK:

Tackling gender imbalance in psychology
July 2020 - BPS
https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/tackling-gender-imbalance-psychology

"Eighty per cent of psychology undergraduate students are female and at Russell Group institutions, the proportion is even higher, standing at around 85 per cent. The result is that psychology professions are pervasively female-dominated: 80 per cent of Clinical Psychologists and Educational Psychologists are women."

But . . .

"The gender imbalance also fails to offer women any career-long benefits, with 'a leaky pipeline' effect meaning that only 63 per cent of university psychology lecturers and 33 per cent of psychology professors are female."

Which means that there is still an incentive for ambitious men to qualify as Psychologists.

All Health Professions are now majority female, though still with the most senior positions being occupied by men: the "Glass Escalator" effect with more rapid progression to senior levels for men.

Interesting idea here, that imposition of standards might have driven out men from Health Professions, leaving the door open for women to flood in to replace them, ie. rather than men leaving as a result of more women entering what were once predominantly male professions that also had less regulatory accountability:

American Psychological Association, Committee on Women in Psychology. (2017). The changing gender composition of psychology: Update and expansion of the 1995 task force report.
https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/gender-composition/task-force-report.pdf

"an argument might be advanced that a change in the nature of a field and the imposition of more regulatory standards on any profession may precede the departure of men from that field. That is, it is the changing nature of the profession and the departure of men that enable the entrance of women and not the reverse (Adams, 2008). For example, in the health service provider area, group and interprofessional practice settings are increasingly shaped by third-party reimbursement standards that subordinate psychological expertise to medical expertise and corporate interests. Even in solo practice settings, case conceptualization and the number of visits must adhere to third-party standards. At the same time, tenure track professorial positions in college and university settings appear to be declining in favor of nontenure track positions and part-time employment."

Contemporary Wokery / Political correctness is also "regulatory", as well as being decidedly authoritarian.

"Cancel culture" is exemplified by reporting to employers for breaches of policy and to regulatory bodies for breaches of standards just as much as by "deplatforming", bullying of venues (external or by staff mutiny) and informal methods such as "shunning", etc.

It is also much bigger than "trans activism", which is just one facet. "Counter Wokecraft" barely mentions gender identity ideology. The examples of "wokery" (Critical Social Justice) are focused on US Academia - and anti-racism.

Counter Wokecraft:
A Field Manual for Combatting the Woke in the University and Beyond
Charles Pincourt and James Lindsay, 2021
https://amzn.eu/d/cHiGopY

"Counter Wokecraft: Why I Wrote It and Why You Should Read It"
Charles Pincourt, 2021
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2021/11/26/counter-wokecraft-why-i-wrote-it-and-why-you-should-read-it/

I don't think women invented Political Correctness or "Wokery", which contemporary Cancel Culture is part of. Or that women were responsible for regulation of the Health Industry and Professions.

Or maybe I am wrong and women rule the world but somehow I never noticed!! 😂

The strategies set out in the Dentons document included

• Incremental change: Introduce reforms step by step rather than all at once, to avoid backlash.
• Piggybacking on other causes: Attach trans rights to broader equality, diversity, or anti-discrimination initiatives to normalise them.
• Strategic framing: Use language that resonates positively (e.g., “equality,” “human rights”) and avoid terms that may provoke opposition.
• Youth mobilisation: Position young people as the face of reform efforts, emphasising innocence and urgency to gain public sympathy.

Is it possible that some of these, like the use of positive language about equality and rights and innocence, resonated with [some] women in a specific way, due to women being socialised to 'be kind'?

@FernandoSor this debate needs to happen. Shutting it down is playing right into the TRA playbook. I have been looking at this for ages, I just cannot understand why any woman would 'be kind' resulting in her own safety being compromised.

I don't think many of the reasons posed actually answer this question. There might not be a good, all encompassing answer and it is a bit messy

My grandmother said that women lacked power and so they had to exert their power in the home or with other women. Maybe this explains why women turn against their own sex so easily.

I haven't had any firm views on this but I really support a debate on why it happened and why some women were so easily swayed

This would support my "luxury beliefs + MIFRA (men in frocks' right activist) threat" hypothesis.

I'd also like to mention that IT is only slightly less male-dominated than construction, yet IT is the most TWAW, pronouns on conference badges industry I can think. IT is also highly misogynist.

This would support my "luxury beliefs + MIFRA (men in frocks' right activist)" hypothesis.

It's about four factors:

1. People outsourcing their critical thinking to others, including so-called "EDI consultants" and Stonewall.
2. Organisations are terrified of activist backlash.
3. A privileged class using the display of luxury beliefs to signal class membership to each other.
4. The women of the privileged class aligning thenselves with their class instead of with other women for personal gain, whilst also deferring to men (both the ones in frocks and the other kind) because that's what they are socialised to do and they are probably terrified of doxxing and death threats if they speak out.

Result: The organisation, misinformed by Stonewall, terrified of getting vandalised, and staffed at high level by men and women of the privileged class, enforces these luxury beliefs on their staff, with the carrot being "promotion" and the stick being "getting fired".

The Sandie Peggie and Darlington nurses cases exemplify this.

1. NHS management staff outsources EDI policy making and training to Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, et al., taking their brains out and assuming that what they are told must be correct.
2. The NHS doesn't want to be accused of institutional transphobia and have Bash Back come around to smash the hospital windows in.
3. The privileged class are consultants, with offices they can use to change in, and HR types who don't have to change at shift start and end. They usually have the privilege of monied parents who supported their education, helping them get into med school or whatever degree results in HR professionals. They spent at most a few years sharing changing rooms before getting an office, and may have forgotten what shared changing rooms are like. They may even have never set foot in the changing room at their current hospital so not realise that their are no cubicles. This makes them immune to the risks of sharing a changing room with a man.
4. The HR women and female consultants are more interested in climbing the greasy pole and not getting fired than in supporting junior doctors, midwives, and nurses who have to use the shared changing rooms. They don't want to stand up against the entitled men, especially as having their own office to change in means that they are personally unaffected.

Result: The nurses who find themselves changing alongside an intact man complain and are then victimised (in the Equality Act sense) by NHS HR, colleagues filing bogus fitness to practice complaints, and their own line management.

The privileged women contribute to the workplace culture but they don't do so in isolation. They act in a context of the institution not wanting pink paint, piss, and smashed windows everywhere; and the route to promotion being to play patriarchy's game at the cost of other women's safety and rights.

Not seeing this may be down to a lack of insight and systems analysis, or it may, as other posters have implied, be an example of a variant of the First Rule, where women are blamed for what institutions based on men's management structures and acting in a climate of fear caused by a violent men-in-frocks' rights movement do.

Again, did OP actually say that, or are you inferring a subtextual meaning that may not actually be present?

I can't believe I'm reading this absolute crap straight out of the redpill/incel/MRA playbook on a feminist forum and some posters are actually agreeing with it.

What @DrMorbius actually wants is for women to know their place, which is NOT in the workplace.

Did OP actually say that, or are you inferring a subtextual meaning that may not actually be present?

“Social woker” 😂😂😂

This might be my favourite typo on here ever!

Great points, AprilMizzel .
I agree with hholiday, but I wouldn't point the finger specifically at wealthy men, I think the attraction of gender ideology is that it has put women, and especially feminists 'back in their box', and all men who are sexist, wealthy or not, welcome that.

It's a struggle to understand how such an irrational ideology which makes claims that are so easily disproven, like TWAW, has had such disproportionate influence on so many parts of society - education, religion, the law, medicine, the arts, language itself.

The fact transgenderism has been successful in setting women's rights back by decades suggests that the rocket fuel that propelled it to its otherwise inexplicable position of influence is its misogyny.