All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 28, 2025 - Lionel Nation
16:30
The Feminization of Society: Are Our Institutions Rewiring Themselves for Collapse?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We have been hearing, and I've been hearing a lot about the feminization of our society, of our culture.
And it's a fascinating subject.
And I would like to present, but I think, I guess you could call it a sociological argument, maybe perhaps, or a position, that is often observed, but rarely confronted with any serious scholarly rigor or vigor for that matter.
And it concerns a concept that many people have considered one of the major revolutions of our era.
And as others have suggested, if you look at the various revolutions that have occurred involving things of science and moon lendings and social media explosions and the collapse, if you will, of the Soviet Union, AI, you name it.
You just go through every, because every single day there's another form of cataclysmic changes, but there stands a kind of a maybe a tad quieter, but equally, if not more, consequential, a transformation, a transmogrification that many people consider to be this wave of feminization, you know, this movement,
this revolution.
And unlike political revolutions, this one arrived kind of interestingly without banners and slogans.
And it emerged in a way that one could say is demographically.
It altered institutions from within.
I mean, it's huge.
And it, I guess in simple terms, it refers to the sharp increase of women across the multiple professions, law, medicine, academia, journalism, governance, corporate management, name it.
And the significance of it rests not merely in symbolism, but in what amounts to scale.
Now, historically, it seems that there were always the occasional, if not the rare, women of influence.
You know, there were queens and ruled and merchants thrived and a few scholars, you know, gained prominence.
But never until now have women held a sustained institutional power across most elite domains simultaneously.
And today, legislatures around the world are one-third female.
In America's largest city, the police commissioner is a woman.
God, right?
Law schools are majority female.
Medical schools are majority female.
Women earn most bachelor degrees and most doctorates.
They constitute 40, 46, almost 50% of managers nationwide.
And they form the majority of the white-collar workforce.
This didn't conclude in the 1970s.
It accelerated in the last decade.
Why?
Interesting.
Professions share a consistent pattern.
A lone pioneering cohort emerged during the 1970s.
A gradual rise followed through the 80s and then a notable presence formed through the 90s, reaching the 20 to 30% level.
Maybe they report or read by 2000.
And then from roughly the early 2000s, 2010, whatever, to the present, the line steepened and near parity was achieved.
Psychology is one of those most striking examples.
25 years ago, it is reported that psychology was 70% male.
Today, today, the incoming generation of psychologists is only about 20% male.
Why?
Look at publishing.
Publishing is now close to 80% female.
Male readership of literary fiction has declined markedly, though the instincts of the publishing industry have not.
That, one could argue in clinical terms, my friend, is not some form of cultural decline.
It's a demographic response.
Industries produce what their dominant demographic prefers.
So certain fields and certain areas and certain groups resist feminization.
Math, for example, and engineering retain what is called a male predominance.
Yet, across the institutional spectrum and spectra, the pattern still remains.
Any field, any field of endeavor or an academe that can be feminized typically will be.
The midpoint of gender parity may not be equilibrium, but some form of transition.
That observation leads to a more delicate question.
Does demographic feminization become substantive feminization?
Meaning this, when institutions become majority female, do they begin to operate according to characteristically feminine cognitive and moral frameworks?
Think about that.
And this question brings, of course, us to the issue of psychology.
You know, a long-standing distinction in moral reasoning classifies two primary approaches.
Ethics of justice, ethics of caring.
The male orientation, we're told, tends to evaluate facts and rules and outcomes and consistency.
And the female orientation tends to weigh relationships and context and feelings and cohesion, right?
One is not superior to the other.
They're different, but they are not identical.
Survey after survey, test after test, reveal a clear pattern.
When presented with the choice between protecting free speech or preserving an inclusive environment, two-thirds of men choose free speech, while two-thirds of women choose inclusivity.
This is not ideological preference, but predictable response distribution.
And when demographic patterns cross a certain threshold, institutions begin to reflect these instincts.
It goes like this.
When this happens, a critical question has to be examined, has to be looked at, has to be reviewed with a calm and a kind of a clinical sobriety.
Can a profession become majority female?
Listen carefully.
Can a profession become majority female without altering its underlying norms?
Are there enough women committed to the legacy standards of intellectual confrontation and scientific challenge or procedural rigor to maintain those standards once they become a statistical minority within their own demographic?
Of course, there are many.
That is, that is not disputed.
But is there a sufficient number to sustain the institutional culture when the demographic momentum becomes pushing in a different direction?
If an academic department becomes, let's say, 70%, 80%, whatever, female, does it continue rewarding dissent and hypothesis testing?
Or does it slowly incentivize agreement and emotional caution and philosophical caretaking?
Now, these are not moral judgments, but predictive models of institutional behavior.
Now, the question, my friend, is simply this.
The question is not what women are capable of.
That's not it.
The question is what institutions tend to become when the majority holds a specific moral sensibility.
Now, institutions mirror aggregate temperament, okay?
They respond to patterns.
Law enforcement becomes sensitive instead of strict.
Academia becomes protective instead of daring, brusque, you know, revolutionary.
Journalism becomes therapeutic instead of investigative.
See where I'm going?
And litigation culture slowly begins to treat hurt feelings as legal claims.
Again, not maliciously, but institutionally.
You see where I'm going with this?
And by the way, I am not in any way the author of this.
This has been propounded and suggested for decades, especially now.
Professional environments are shaped by legal incentives.
And here, the data speak clearly.
Anti-discrimination law places structural pressures on outcomes.
For example, low female representation invites investigation and litigation and what amounts to reputational risk.
Human resources departments, HR, they operate as internal regulators, ensuring language and conflict are softened to avoid conflict and liability.
And over time, institutional culture aligns with the safest, the safest psychological climate, which often aligns with traditionally feminine modes of interaction.
Confrontation, oh, no, no, no.
Confrontation is discouraged.
Judgment is softened.
Language becomes cautious.
It is not ideology.
It's, in essence, risk management.
And what we're talking about right now is something interesting.
I don't think anybody, maybe some are, but I don't think people are proposing prohibition or exclusion.
That's not it.
But people are suggesting neutrality.
You know, the proper question really is not whether women belong in any profession.
That's not it.
No, Clearly they do.
But the question is whether we, society, are artificially applying external pressure that, in essence, accelerates feminization beyond what individual preference or aptitude would naturally produce.
If the scale is tilted, let it be leveled.
If society prefers more balance, Let it emerge from genuine preference and performance, not this mandated compliance.
Remove the legal incentives.
Remove statistical targets.
Then, then observe the outcome, the institutional outcome.
The great feminization, by the way, which is not, I know this sounds like I'm speaking of this negatively, and I guess if not watch carefully, but the great feminization stands as one of the structural revolutions we've seen in our modern age.
I mean, it was, remember, it goes into the same category as we used to say, PC and DEI and ESG and the like.
And like all cultural changes and revolutions, it requires study, not reaction, because the consequences are not yet settled.
A society like ours must be very careful to protect a number of assets to survive.
We have to maintain truth.
We have to be vigilant of truth.
We have to be also aware of borders and limitations and innovation and process.
And we also have to always represent and appreciate intellectual independence.
If institutions, no matter what it is, college, educational media, whatever you want, if institutions drift away from these guideposts, these anchors, not abruptly, but gradually, they don't collapse at first.
They soften and they become gentle in ways that make strength, in essence, inconvenient and then unwelcome and then obsolete.
This is very interesting.
Watch what's happening.
This argument, by the way, isn't clinical.
It's not condemning.
And by the way, again, I'm not the author of this.
This has been proposed on many, many levels by a variety of brave and bright individuals.
But demographic trends must be really examined clinically and dispassionately because institutions do not merely reflect culture.
They create it.
They shape minds and they train instincts and they define, in essence, what a civilization considers virtuous.
And the great feminization is not merely a shift in representation.
It is a neurological phase.
Think about this, in the evolution of the social organism.
You know, we have to study it, not fear it.
We have to examine it.
Please don't glamorize it.
And above all, we have to really understand it and understand that power is never symbolic.
Once acquired, once power is acquired, it guides the machine.
So this is something which I want you to think about very, very carefully.
It's a fascinating subject because we are seeing, and I heard this recently, a friend of mine who was in the world of comedy writing, he found that Perhaps that might have been because of his own male perspective, but the world of comedy, its edginess, its anger, its baudiness, its rather interestingly, this artistic concupiscence.
All of that changed as more and more women, the feminization of comedy, took this over, and all of a sudden, the sensibilities that were appreciated before were gone.
Think about this very carefully.
Please like this video.
Think about what I'm saying.
Subscribe to the channel.
▲
Export Selection