Unintended Consequence of the Feminisation of Institutions and Companies

I think the article's authors mistook university grievance procedures for criminal trials there. They aren't the same and can legitimately operate on different standards of proof, just as civil court actions, workplace grievance policies, and employment tribunals can operate on lesser standards of proof than criminal trials rightly have to.

To give someone a criminal record, you must be sure beyond reasonable doubt because a criminal record is a big deal. You can reasonably use preponderance of evidence in other circumstances, and indeed there's an argument that you should use preponderance of evidence in cases where the complainant and accused will have to be in the same place (work, lectures) in future.

The authors of that article never met me, then. I'm happy to have stand-up rows in the office.

Operation Human Shield.

I think you'll find that Stonewall has a lot more to do with it than women in the boardroom does.

In the BBC, women were doing most of the fighting back. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5530420-fascinating-article-about-the-failure-and-complicity-of-the-bbc-regarding-transactivism

I'll remind you that women are not responsible for what men do. Women are not reaponsible for men barging into our spaces.

I agree with you OP, the impact of feminisation on University teaching and administrative departments in countries such as the UK, USA, Canada and Australia has been significant. Same with corporations where it’s been coupled with the inexorable rise of HR departments.

I’ve listened to some fascinating podcasts on this very subject.

I just think this is another way of demonising women going to work.

I mean, how does this explain Canada?

I do find the characterization as either "feminine" or "masculine" as (at best) suspect, and if ascribed to women and men (alone) respectively then plainly wrong much of the time.

to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female.
They clearly haven't encountered Naomi Cunningham😏

Emotional response in the place of rational argument is a feature of the trans side, not the GC side - it's always about souls and feelings and being kind and comfort and preference, whereas we, being reasonable and conspicuously law abiding women, are satisfied for the law to protect our human rights and nothing less, while granting transpeople their human rights, and nothing more.

Wouldn't see this at my university where the female senior managers are quite openly vicious and hostile. Never heard them give a compliment and any dissent is quashed.

I'm not sure how much it's possible to identify any trends until we can remove the insane levels of threats, intimidation and bullying that accompany the enforcement of trans ideology on the public.
As @Ereshkigalangcleg points out upthread - all of the tribunals hearing cases showcase a parade of bullying managers and colleagues demanding the careers of anyone speaking out for even the most basic of rights - like the right to undress without a random man watching you (voyeurism).

Are women more scared than men of losing their job? Is it more effective to bully women rather than men? We are seeing both sexes taking cases although to date it's more women than men?

It's an interesting question but until the right to free speech is once again allowed and people are sanctioned for bullying and threatening their colleagues, I'm not sure how we can identify any accurate "trends".

Nor do I, hence disagreeing with you.

Why would I do that? I don't agree with many observations people make about womanhood. I don't ask to see their genitalia before I decide if I think their opinion is stupid or not.

What’s also hilarious is that if this male poster popped on a dress you’d be falling over yourself to agree with whatever dull brainfart about his “womanhood” he came out with.

I actually think women like rigid rules and fairness , which has come out in the weaponisation of woke.i think purity spirals are an example. Although I think men come on here to try and start them off.

Then you won’t be made to look like a complete fool when your “private” work WhatsApp chats are read out in a court and published in the media while your sexist male colleagues get off scot free 🤷‍♀️

Feel free to be “nice” to them, just don’t discriminate against women who want single sex spaces in line with the law 🤷‍♀️

The US education system(s) doens't priotise critical thinking and their poltical arena does like to run on emotions - so Joe Public doens't realise both parties screw them.

But I do agree the use of emotions to try and stifle rational arguments and facts has been tried in the UK. I do think that was a game plan in the west exported from US shores.

However I don't think it's to do with femization of workplaces - I think that blaming group who likely suffered most by the polices and with least power to speak out/most easily silenced rather than group who benefited most.

Sure, or I could just continue to enjoy working in a happy workplace where women, trans people, and minorities all have good progression opportunities and are treated with respect by their colleagues and leave you all to continue your moral panic and protection of women, by suggesting that we're not fit for leadership because we might be nice to trans people. That will really show the patriarchy!

Here is another quote from that article. It's US-based, obviously, but I wonder if anyone sees parallels in the treatment of GC women in the UK?

"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 tugs at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.
A feminized legal system might resemble the Title IX courts for sexual assault on college campuses established in 2011 under President Obama. These proceedings were governed by written rules and so technically could be said to operate under the rule of law. But they lacked many of the safeguards that our legal system holds sacred, such as the right to confront your accuser, the right to know what crime you are accused of, and the fundamental concept that guilt should depend on objective circumstances knowable by both parties, not in how one party feels about an act in retrospect. These protections were abolished because the people who made these rules sympathized with the accusers, who were mostly women, and not with the accused, who were mostly men.
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.
"

I don't think the two are in any way connected.

Maybe reflect on that @ImImmortalNowBabyDoll

I'm aware that when women enter a profession in any numbers what happens is the status and wages of said profession go down.

I'm also aware that any men in said profession are more likely to be managers. Remember a stat heard radio years ago 80% of social workers are women but 80% of social woker mangers are men - no idea if true now but see similar in teaching.

I think woke stuff been imported from US - and had US money often backing it.

As Heggettypeg eloquently puts in it woke activists use modern be kind guff often target at women and girls and old fashion sexism to flourish.

I think the OP is advancing the theory that is described in this magazine article:

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

"Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies. "

Funnily enough, it’s always the hapless bekind women who are beclowning themselves in the media while being cross examined in these tribunals, only very rarely the sexist men involved.

This.