Posted On: Saturday - May 9th 2026 7:23PM MST
In Topics: Political Correctness Feminism Pundits ctrl-left Female Stupidity
I don't mean THAT kind of domination. "Beat me, whip me, make me write bad checks" was the funny line some friend used to keep saying... well, I mean it was funny THEN! The headline here was getting too long, but I mean domination of workplaces, universities, all the institutions that half a century ago were still filled with a majority of men. That's what Helen Andrews means.
Peak Stupidity has railed on the great pundit Steve Sailer for thinking Wokeness has been just some fad. Who has making a great effort to squash it all lately? That'd be the current President. Otherwise, wokeness wasn't going to just fade away to oblivion like hula hoops, pet rocks, or My Space, and it will certainly reappear or, better way to put it, BE revived, if we don't strike it through the heart with a stake.
Wokeness didn't start as a fad either. It has grown over the last half century, or I can at least claim 4 decades, first in its more mild form as Political Correctness, but having ramped up to Wokeness during this century. Peak Stupidity has never claimed as a fact that there were all-hands planning meetings and such for this Cultural Revolution 2.0 - what it has become, basically - other than knowing about the Frankfurt School and the like. Mostly, IMO, there are people, in this case Communists, Globalists, whatever, who think alike and push the same agenda somewhat independently.
Wait, who is this Helen Andrews? I first heard her name a few years back as a pundit who said some very nice things about Steve Sailer. She's a fine Conservative pundit* with some integrity and a good head on her shoulders. It's probably been a couple of months since I first watched her discuss her theory of the origin of Wokeness.
Miss** Andrews's theory is pretty simple. Women don't act, work, and think like men, so since they've become dominant, in numbers and otherwise, in various fields of endeavor slowly in some and very quickly in others, these places of employment and other positions in society have changed for the worse. As she puts it, "Wokeness is fundamentally female, as it prioritizes "empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition." That sounds pretty mild, but it's not. Any reader who has worked in a big organization with a serious HR department would have seen this.
I will say that, had a man come out with this theory (and probably many, many men have understood this), even at a Conservative event, I'm not sure he'd get this great a reception. It's an "Only Nixon could go to China" type thing, because Helen Andrews is a woman herself.
I've watched the first 2 of the 3 videos featured here today, and I'll order them from shortest to longest, as they come close to doubling each time. It's pleasant to listen to Helen Andrews, and she's a change from the young cleavage displaying women youtube pundits who distract us from whatever they might be talking about.
Back yet? Yeah, so I'll include my opinion on this theory before the videos, or else the reader may never get to this. Peak Stupidity has long maintained that Wokeness has been pushed - again, not necessarily all via precise planning - on America and the "West" for obvious reasons of cultural ruination. The people behind it, and the useful non-idiots who run this Cultural Revolution WANT to ruin nations. it's not just some boner about which we can explain to them how they've been making some terrible mistakes here.
Call them Communists, whatever, and I will, but either way, these Communists understand at some level that Feminism is a powerful way to ruin the nuclear family. They've been very successful at implementing it and achieving that result. Is the BLT-G+ business, the hard-core anti-White programme, and all the rest of what we call Wokeness just another weapon to go along with Feminism to attain these ends? Or, is it just that the female domination of formerly male endeavors results in support for all these things, because women like to be "inclusive" and caring... of weirdos and anyone NOT normal... well, the reasons that Miss Andrews theorizes very convincingly? In other words, this theory says Feminism has had an unintended affect of changing what was just Political Correctness or even normality into Wokeness due to this pervasiveness of female
Or WAS it unintended? Did these Communists plan out carefully that, besides direct ruination of the nuclear family, the dominance of women in professions would cause this Cultural Rev 2.0? Nah, I just don't see them, or really anybody, being that smart and conspiratorial, that is, both of these together.
What I can see is an interplay between the theory of Wokeness origins Peak Stupidity has supported and that of Miss Andrews. Feminism has been pushed on us for half a century, and the Wokeness has been pushed for somewhat less time by the same crowd. It's a synergism for the the Commies that the preponderance of women in these positions, a result of Feminism, now means Wokeness can spread quickly and be pushed by the useful female idiots with more power than women have ever had before. If this theory is correct, until Feminism is destroyed, something I don't see happening very quickly, it'll be much more difficult to destroy Wokeness. Boys, we're in a tight spot!
After all that, I never really addressed the basic premise of Miss Andrews' theory, that Wokeness is "fundamentally female". Is that the case?
That Cultural Revolution 1.0, the big 'un, in mid-1960s to mid-1970s China was very top-down, from Chairman Mao himself. Some aspects of Feminism had been forced on Chinese Society by the Communists mainly for the one goal of getting more work out of the poor peons, though I guess the same family destruction was a goal too. Were the women the worst instigators of the Red Guard terror and the whole mess? There is something Orwell wrote in 1984 about this sort of thing...
I'll have to think about this more. Or, WWSSS?
* Just a little more biography from wiki:
Andrews is a former senior editor at The American Conservative and the former managing editor of the Washington Examiner. While working at First Things, Andrews began writing Boomers, a book with the thesis that members of the "Baby Boomer" generation harmed American culture. The book chooses as its six examples Steve Jobs, Aaron Sorkin, Jeffrey Sachs, Camille Paglia, Al Sharpton, and Sonia Sotomayor.** The www has let me down on whether she is married or not.
From 2012-2017 she was a think tank researcher at Center for Independent Studies in Australia. She also won a Sydney Award in 2018 for her essay "Shame Storm" which explored online dynamics and cancel culture through a personal lens.
In January 2025 Commonplace magazine announced that they had brought Helen on as "our new features editor." Commonplace is a magazine launched by American Compass and is focused on right-of-center political, economic and cultural issues.
Comments:
Moderator
Saturday - May 16th 2026 4:06AM MST
PS: I'm glad to see you writing here, Dieter. (I ready your more recent comment too.) Though I don't use X, I guess I understand how it works, so does this mean Helen Andrews has officially "LIKED" your tweets, or can you tell she's read them?
Or maybe she generally likes the same tweets that you do? I do get the thrill of interacting with some people who may be very influential. One never knows - maybe one thing you wrote could be picked up as an idea and discussed by someone with that kind of visibility.
It's. a shame that Jordan Peterson, Noah Carl (I only know the latter name via iSteve) and such have to "wait" for a woman to state what they've been saying for years.. Or, did Miss Andrews "go viral" due to a certain speech at that Conservative conference, and that was what it took?
Or maybe she generally likes the same tweets that you do? I do get the thrill of interacting with some people who may be very influential. One never knows - maybe one thing you wrote could be picked up as an idea and discussed by someone with that kind of visibility.
It's. a shame that Jordan Peterson, Noah Carl (I only know the latter name via iSteve) and such have to "wait" for a woman to state what they've been saying for years.. Or, did Miss Andrews "go viral" due to a certain speech at that Conservative conference, and that was what it took?
Dieter Kief
Thursday - May 14th 2026 2:34AM MST
PS
Jordan B. Peterson said what Ms. Andrews says - as did Noah Carl in fine essays before her. - Peterson knew that he would not be able to make a huge difference and was constantly on the lookout for - -Helen Andrews, you might say - the great ambassador of this insight-complex!
Btw. - -she reads and likes my X-posts at times and no - -not those about her. I like her a lot!
This is key Helen Andrews in mod's words: "As she puts it, "Wokeness is fundamentally female, as it prioritizes "empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition." That sounds pretty mild, but it's not. Any reader who has worked in a big organization with a serious HR department would have seen this."
"Wokeness is fundamentally female, as it prioritizes "empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition." - You can't overestimate these insights and/ or: Distinctions. - The EU is the institution ranking highest on the Andrews-scale - then comes the UN and several European governments.
Jordan B. Peterson said what Ms. Andrews says - as did Noah Carl in fine essays before her. - Peterson knew that he would not be able to make a huge difference and was constantly on the lookout for - -Helen Andrews, you might say - the great ambassador of this insight-complex!
Btw. - -she reads and likes my X-posts at times and no - -not those about her. I like her a lot!
This is key Helen Andrews in mod's words: "As she puts it, "Wokeness is fundamentally female, as it prioritizes "empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition." That sounds pretty mild, but it's not. Any reader who has worked in a big organization with a serious HR department would have seen this."
"Wokeness is fundamentally female, as it prioritizes "empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition." - You can't overestimate these insights and/ or: Distinctions. - The EU is the institution ranking highest on the Andrews-scale - then comes the UN and several European governments.
Moderator
Sunday - May 10th 2026 7:02AM MST
PS: Good morning, and thanks for the Lifeboat Ethics philosophy discussion, Alarmist, I've heard the term and gotten the gist of it, but this is very good - I'll look up Mr. Hardin later one.
There was some picture floating around of 5 or 6 Defence (got the spelling right) Secretaries, or whatever their offices are called there, of Western Euro countries who were all women. This is not at all right.
There was some picture floating around of 5 or 6 Defence (got the spelling right) Secretaries, or whatever their offices are called there, of Western Euro countries who were all women. This is not at all right.
The Alarmist
Sunday - May 10th 2026 6:39AM MST
PS
Being hard-wired to be nurturing and empathetic über alles, most women fail the test of lifeboat ethics when it is most necessary. That is why the Western world needs far fewer women in positions of power these days, and yet here we are, ready to march into Russia on the orders of the likes of Ursala bin Lyin and Kooky Kallas. OMG, did America dodge a bullet in not making HRC #45. As for #47, Susie Wiles seems to be a big part of the problem, and changing out Justice Barbie and Security Barbie were necessary first steps, though being under the influence of Bibi Nutjobyahoo shows that there is another malign influence operating its dark arts in the world.
++++
From the wiji entry for Garrett Hardin on Lifeboat Ethics:
In 1974, Hardin published two articles describing his view of "lifeboat ethics" in Psychology Today and BioScience. At the time, based on per-capita gross national product, Hardin asserted that approximately two-thirds of the world's population was "desperately poor" and the remaining one-third was "comparatively rich" before launching his metaphor of each rich country being in a full lifeboat, while poor countries were in "much more crowded lifeboats"; he described emigration as a continuous process where "the poor fall out of their lifeboats and swim for a while in the water outside, hoping to be admitted to a rich lifeboat, or in some other way to benefit from the 'goodies' on board" before asking what the rich lifeboat should do.
To make the metaphor more concrete, Hardin adds the lifeboat's capacity (60), current status (50 on board, and 100 swimmers), and proposes three potential solutions:
All 100 swimmers are brought on board, swamping the boat and leading to all dying, which Hardin calls "complete justice, complete catastrophe".
10 of the 100 swimmers are selected to be brought on board. Hardin asserts the reduction in safety factor to zero will be paid for dearly "sooner or later", and asks "which ten do we let in?"
Admit none of the swimmers, ensuring the survival of those already on board, "though we shall have to be on our guard against boarding parties."
Other issues which can be raised include:
How do you choose who the ten seats go to?
Can you let ten more on without losing the boat to the frantic effort of the remaining 90 swimmers trying to board?
Is it acceptable to deny an obviously dying passenger food and water to save it for others with a better chance to make it?
Is it acceptable to jettison the dying passenger (knowing they will die within minutes) to make room for someone else?
If food is low:
is cannibalism of corpses acceptable after they die?
is it acceptable, if it is certain they are going to die in a day or two, to murder them to preserve resources or to let someone on the boat?
is it acceptable, if it is certain they are going to die in a day or two, to murder them in order to commit cannibalism of their corpse where this will allow the survivors to survive for several additional weeks?
The third point regarding low supply of food had happened in reality before. A British court, in the ruling of R v Dudley and Stephens, ruled that necessity is not a defense of murder.
Hardin uses lifeboat ethics to question policies such as foreign aid, immigration, and food banks.
++++
🕉
Being hard-wired to be nurturing and empathetic über alles, most women fail the test of lifeboat ethics when it is most necessary. That is why the Western world needs far fewer women in positions of power these days, and yet here we are, ready to march into Russia on the orders of the likes of Ursala bin Lyin and Kooky Kallas. OMG, did America dodge a bullet in not making HRC #45. As for #47, Susie Wiles seems to be a big part of the problem, and changing out Justice Barbie and Security Barbie were necessary first steps, though being under the influence of Bibi Nutjobyahoo shows that there is another malign influence operating its dark arts in the world.
++++
From the wiji entry for Garrett Hardin on Lifeboat Ethics:
In 1974, Hardin published two articles describing his view of "lifeboat ethics" in Psychology Today and BioScience. At the time, based on per-capita gross national product, Hardin asserted that approximately two-thirds of the world's population was "desperately poor" and the remaining one-third was "comparatively rich" before launching his metaphor of each rich country being in a full lifeboat, while poor countries were in "much more crowded lifeboats"; he described emigration as a continuous process where "the poor fall out of their lifeboats and swim for a while in the water outside, hoping to be admitted to a rich lifeboat, or in some other way to benefit from the 'goodies' on board" before asking what the rich lifeboat should do.
To make the metaphor more concrete, Hardin adds the lifeboat's capacity (60), current status (50 on board, and 100 swimmers), and proposes three potential solutions:
All 100 swimmers are brought on board, swamping the boat and leading to all dying, which Hardin calls "complete justice, complete catastrophe".
10 of the 100 swimmers are selected to be brought on board. Hardin asserts the reduction in safety factor to zero will be paid for dearly "sooner or later", and asks "which ten do we let in?"
Admit none of the swimmers, ensuring the survival of those already on board, "though we shall have to be on our guard against boarding parties."
Other issues which can be raised include:
How do you choose who the ten seats go to?
Can you let ten more on without losing the boat to the frantic effort of the remaining 90 swimmers trying to board?
Is it acceptable to deny an obviously dying passenger food and water to save it for others with a better chance to make it?
Is it acceptable to jettison the dying passenger (knowing they will die within minutes) to make room for someone else?
If food is low:
is cannibalism of corpses acceptable after they die?
is it acceptable, if it is certain they are going to die in a day or two, to murder them to preserve resources or to let someone on the boat?
is it acceptable, if it is certain they are going to die in a day or two, to murder them in order to commit cannibalism of their corpse where this will allow the survivors to survive for several additional weeks?
The third point regarding low supply of food had happened in reality before. A British court, in the ruling of R v Dudley and Stephens, ruled that necessity is not a defense of murder.
Hardin uses lifeboat ethics to question policies such as foreign aid, immigration, and food banks.
++++
🕉
She seems to look into my tweets from time to time. I was the most read Helen Andrews promoter in Germany for some time though.
What she (and Noah Carl, Jordan B. Peterson and others before her) did discover is huge and will be worked on for decades ot come.
Nobody found her formula - - wich is a major step in understanding our social situation: These words should be carved in gold:
"Wokeness is fundamentally female, as it prioritizes
1) "empathy over rationality,
2) safety over risk,
3) cohesion over competition."
And I add: Women are prone to censorship - which cuts into all three of these main fields!