Helen Andrews might not have fully demonstrated her thesis that women are at the centre or the cause of civilisational collapse, but much of what she asserts about the general difference between female and male moral thinking and decision-making makes sense and is observable. The script of this video is below.

Do you want to put it into a single sentence? You could say that feminisation equals wokeness. Everything you could think of as wokeness is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminisation.

Think about all the things that wokeness means – evaluating empathy over rationality; safety over risk; conformity and cohesion over competition and hierarchy – all those things are privileging the feminine over the masculine.

So if you ever wondered why wokeness appeared out of nowhere when it did, that is my hypothesis, that all the institutions that began admitting women in the 1970s eventually got enough women that they were able to reorient them.

For example, women are consistently less supportive of free speech than men. Surveys asking which is more important: protecting free speech or preserving an inclusive society, approximately two-thirds of men say free speech and approximately two-thirds of women say an inclusive society. In moral reasoning, the traditional way of phrasing the difference between men and women is to say that women have an ethics of caring and men have an ethics of justice.

In making a moral judgment, men will ask what are the rules and what are the facts? Women tend to be more interested in context and relationships. So, let’s apply that to wokeness. When James Damore wrote the famous, or should I say notorious, memo for Google arguing that female underrepresentation in hard sciences might not be the result of bias and prejudice, no one even attempted to argue that he was wrong on facts. The reason that he was fired was because of the things he had written might make his female co-workers feel bad.

Or consider the Kavanaugh hearings. The masculine position was to say that maybe something happened to you, but if you do not have evidence, then we cannot allow you to ruin a man’s life and career over it. The feminine position was to say, how can you talk about rules of evidence? Can’t you see she’s crying?

Now, to be clear, many women were revolted by the way the Kavanaugh hearings played out. In fact, the very best book on the Kavanaugh hearings was written by two women, Molly Hemingway and Carrie Severino. But a political system in which men predominate will tend to operate according to the rules of fact and objectivity, and one in which women predominate will tend to operate by the rules of emotions and subjective facts even if there are individual men and women who fall on the opposite side of those camps.