Can the Rule of Law Survive Women?

[Elderberry]

Powerline 10/18/2025

When I went to law school, the law was a masculine profession. Almost all lawyers were men, and women in my law school class were a small minority who were viewed as pioneers. In the intervening years, the law business has undergone a near-inversion: most law students today are women, and most associates in law firms are women.

Some women, of course, have proved to be great lawyers. I know a number whom I would put in that category. But the general feminization of the legal profession threatens–or promises, take your pick–major cultural changes. This article by Helen Andrews, titled “The Great Feminization,” is intensely interesting. It documents the ways in which our culture has been feminized, and points out the changes–mostly for the worse–that such feminization has entailed.

For now, let’s stick with the law:

    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.

More: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/10/can-the-rule-of-law-survive-women.php

[Elderberry]

 The Great Feminization Helen Andrews

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 entire “woke” era could be extrapolated from that moment, from the details of how Summers was cancelled and, most of all, who did the cancelling: women.

The basic facts of the Summers case were familiar to me. On January 14, 2005, at a conference on “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce,” Larry Summers gave a talk that was supposed to be off the record. In it, he said that female underrepresentation in hard sciences was partly due to “different availability of aptitude at the high end” as well as taste differences between men and women “not attributable to socialization.” Some female professors in attendance were offended and sent his remarks to a reporter, in defiance of the off-the-record rule. The ensuing scandal led to a no-confidence vote by the Harvard faculty and, eventually, Summers’s resignation.

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. Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another, and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time. Experts chimed in to declare that everything Summers had said about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria.

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?

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

[Free Vulcan]

The big problem is that it brings in accusative banshee screeching but not allowing you to respond without more of the same. You are automatically guilty, and a second class citizen in the caste system.

All of which is just a trojan horse to create a bunch of smoke and slip in trojan horse Marxism to get rid of the political opposition.

[Fishrrman]

Heh...
I watched "The Handmaid's Tale" and found myself rooting for the men of Gilead...