Summary of Helen Andrews’ “The Great Feminization”

(Compact Magazine, Oct 2025)

In her essay “The Great Feminization”, Helen Andrews advances a bold thesis: the phenomenon often described as “wokeness” is not primarily an ideological shift, but the result of the demographic feminisation of major institutions. 

Key arguments

1. Institutional tipping-points matter

   Andrews notes that a range of professions recently tipped from majority male to majority female: e.g., law schools became majority women in 2016, the staff of New York Times became majority female in 2018. She argues that the timing of “woke”-culture coincides with these demographic shifts. 

2. Behavioural norms change with feminisation

   The essay characterises “female group dynamics” as favouring consensus, empathy, relational influence rather than overt conflict. She contrasts this with what she labels “male group dynamics” — hierarchical, conflict-oriented, direct. For Andrews, when institutions shift toward the former dynamic en masse, its goals and culture shift too. 

3. Implications for the rule of law, journalism and academia

   Andrews warns that institutions like the legal profession, journalism and academia, when significantly feminised, may lose features once associated with their mission: adversarial process, pursuit of objective truth, tolerance for unpopular views. She writes: “The rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female.” 

4. Causation vs competition debate

   She rejects the idea that women simply ‘out-competed’ men; instead she argues feminisation is driven by legal/regulatory shifts (such as anti-discrimination laws), changed culture and changed norms — not purely meritocratic competition. 

Why it’s worth reading

Andrews’ essay provides a provocative, structural lens on cultural change. For anyone analysing organisational risk, governance or institutional performance (areas we’re deeply familiar with), the “demographic regime change” argument is a useful addition to the usual frameworks of policy, power, and ideology. It invites us to ask: when the staff mix changes, what happens to process, culture and unintended consequences?

Points for critical reflection

• The thesis depends heavily on broad gender-group generalisations (which Andrews acknowledges). Empirical validation is partial and contested.

• The directionality (feminisation → institutional decline) is asserted rather than fully demonstrated; alternate explanations (technological change, globalisation, etc) may also matter.

• For our focus area, the essay raises the question: how do gendered organisational cultures affect the design and operation of risk-assessment systems (such as those in family law, policing, etc)?

Relevance to our work

Given our interest in institutional reform, risk frameworks and gender bias in family-law systems, the Great Feminization thesis suggests another dimension to investigate: how the gender composition of institutions (legal, policing, family-violence services) might shape not just outcomes, but the design of risk assessment, the selection of tools, and the culture of decision-making. For example: Are risk-assessment instruments calibrated assuming particular relational dynamics that reflect majority gender group norms? Do organisational incentives change when gender composition shifts?

In closing

We should recognise “The Great Feminization” as an important, though contested, contribution to understanding institutional change. Andrews does not argue women are inferior, but that the traits statistically associated with current female-majority institutions may conflict with the goals of certain institutions (e.g., legal adversarialism, open dissent). Its value for your reform agenda lies in adding a structural variable: gender composition of institutions.

Acknowledgement: Many thanks to Helen Andrews and Compact Magazine for this essay and its stimulating framework.