Unintended Consequence of the Feminisation of Institutions and Companies

[DrMorbius]

Is there an unintended consequence of the feminisation of institutions and companies?
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.
Where there is a high proportion of women in high positions (and HR), for example; NHS, academia, parts of the public sector, media, we can see a shift in the culture and the way all of these institutions operate. 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?

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".

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.

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.

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.

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

I mean, how does this explain Canada?

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 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.

Operation Human Shield.

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

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.

Other shit-hot female lawyers upholding the rule of law include: Anya Palmer, Harriet Wistrich, Akua Reindorf, and Allison Bailey.

It's been mainly women taking legal action to defend sex-based rights on both sides of the Atlantic.

Thank you for adding those admirable women's names

So I have wondered if this way of trying to gain dominance is particularly effective in this day and age, and I think it is.
Outright aggression isn't the most relevant in most institutions today. Even bullying is frowned upon .

But passive aggressive mean girl tactics can be devastatingly effective in a modern workplace. It does sometimes seem like they are almost designed to enable that behavior.

Trust me when I say that I've seen men be passive-aggressive, bully, and use subtextual behaviour too, against me. Never underestimate the ability of a man to outright ignore a question that he doesn't want to answer. The workplace is a hellscape for autistic people.

I’m not sure, I think theres an element of it yes, I hate that but I think women are more likely to work from a position of trying to foster co-operation and make space for different types of people. The problem is they see it as being kind but actually it’s often just lying. I think a lot of women try to make themselves “smaller” and when they get to go on a crusade it makes them feel like it’s ok to be “big”. Some of the nastiest and most stupid takes I’ve heard on the rape of Israeli women have come from other women tbh. It’s disappointing.

Something went wrong, I’m not sure it’s ever really been fashionable to be an old fashioned feminist who’s solely concerned by the wellbeing of women above and beyond anything else. See the people being so understanding about child rape in Afghanistan. I see a lot of women trying to avoid sounding racist whilst throwing children under the bus. The truth suffers. The trans thing is not so different, some have identified transwomen as a minority and therefore they must be suffering from oppression, the idea that abuse could be coming from them is automatically dismissed. Look at whats said about gc women, it must be bigotry rather than just a very string grip on reality.

I think we’ve elevated victimhood to a form of social capital and theres a reflected glory in being in the “victims” corner. Weirdly keeps happening with rapists. Unless they are a middle aged white man ofcourse.

You might not be that far from OP's position, except you think this is a good thing while OP thinks it's bad.

You've said you think having more women in leadership positions is part of a cultural shift towards fairness and inclusion (albeit you think a small one). And is it fair to say that you see supporting trans rights as being part and parcel of fairness and inclusion? And are you an outlier in your views amongst senior women?

I think that a key aspect is a lack of diversity of thought and demonising those who have different ideas.

When you have people in a workplace with a specific set of values - especially something as rigid and self-righteous as TRSOH and that version of EDI where it's great that everyone looks different, but they should all think the same - when new people are hired, they pick the ones who agree with that stance. Over time, diversity of thought reduces, and those who disagree are cowed by this environment. The employment tribunals demonstrate what speaking up means. We have all seen the bullying that stepping out of line results in, documented by tribunal tweets.

It is women, some of whom are in very feminised workplaces (e.g. nursing), who are initiating most of the tribunals.

Absolutely. It's just not as simple as more women = more 'woke'.

It would be interesting to know why some women (and indeed men) do stand up, while others unthinkingly follow 'be kind', and why others are true believers. You find all thee of these in each sex.

My own & my daughter's experience with women in positions of power is they are just as cut throat than men in terms of work place abuses & even more so because they have to 'prove' they are to ascend the ladder so the idea they are 'kinder' in terms of 'woke' implementation would need to be evidenced in research. 'Feels' just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

Corporations & large institutions notoriously embraced 'woke culture' because they thought it helped their bottom line & branding by appealing to the younger generation's patronage not for 'kindness'.

I think you will find with what ever trends/moral values are in the cultural sphere will be reflected in large organisations for reasons of $. So don't worry yourself, 'masculinisation' still reigns supreme.

Trans people ARE PART OF the patriachy.

Trans identities cannot exist unless you accept a background context where certain mental characteristics are seen as belonging to one sex or the other. You literally cannot believe trans identities are real unless you believe this, because without this framework there are no trans identities. Trans identities are the pressure valve that allows patriachy to accomodate the reality that humans are not the sexist chariactures we are supposed to be while leaving the overall sexist framework in place.

Oh, and FYI, the phrase "moral panic" is one of those phrases that tries to imply a specific argument without doing the heavy lifting of actually making it. Better to make the point you want to make directly - what "moral panic" do you think you see?

Fascinating to see how far Feminism and Women's Rights on Mumsnet has come, that the OP can post such misogynistic tripe and find fertile ground for it.

I think you must be reading a different thread to me.

Though I do find the different expressions of power allowed to men and women within patriarchy very interesting.

The key Feminist insight, as ever, is not "Woman good, Man bad!" it is "Do women behave like this because they want to, or because society doesn't accept behaviour/styles of interaction from women that it does accept from men?"

But insults aside, which bits do you think are wrong and why?

That institutions with male dominated leadership may tend
to prioritise male values and priorities?

That institutions with more women in leadership would do at least some things differently? (Kind of follow from the above)

That women when polled tend to be more pro-trans rights, more left-wing, more likely to support speech suppression on harm grounds than men?

That female-leader-heavy sectors have tended to be amongst the most pro trans rights?

That a large number of the most prominent decision makers who institutionalised gender ideology have been women?