Hugh Marks, ABC CEO, demonstrates here that the government-funded ABC is hopelessly and unapologetically in the control of the rabid Marxist left and that a responsible, fair-dealing government would withhold funding until the ABC is reorganised to fulfil its charter to cater to all sections of the Australian community.
The future of the ABC should be at the top of the list of priorities of parties wishing to govern Australia. There is much work to be done on this.
Helen Andrews’ article in Compact’s online magazine exploded on the internet in October 2025. Commentaries and interviews with Andrews followed rapidly. I will post links following this post. It is curious that, for the first time, I recently came across this quote from George Orwell’s 1984:
“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”
Coincidentally, I recently found this shocking demonstration of the fundamental difference between male and female moral and political thinking HERE.
How many of us have had to give up talking to a screaming, overwrought female, as here with this poor man?
*****
The Great Feminization
Helen Andrews, COMPACT, 16 October 2025
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?
Possibly because, like most people, I think of feminization as something that happened in the past before I was born. When we think about women in the legal profession, for example, we think of the first woman to attend law school (1869), the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court (1880), or the first female Supreme Court Justice (1981).
A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.
Daily Insight – The ABC vs. One Nation: A New Level of Desperation
Laura How
“Feminism has always been a force for good and equality.” Is that really true? In this conversation with retired Professor Janice Fiamengo, we examine feminism’s actual origins, its pervasive influence on modern relationships, and why so many men and women are waking up to a very different reality than what we’ve been told.
Professor Janice Fiamengo, creator of The Fiamengo Files video series and author of Sons of Feminism, joins me for an unflinching look at how feminist ideology has shaped our attitudes toward men, marriage, and family life. From classrooms teaching children that men are the problem, to therapy rooms filled with women who’ve been taught to fear and distrust their husbands, we explore how these ideas have taken root and what the cost has been to both sexes.
This conversation challenges the narrative that feminism’s only critics are those who hate women or want to deny them opportunities. Instead, we examine the historical record, question why certain perspectives have been suppressed, and ask what happens to societies that tell men they don’t matter.
Janice Fiamengo Oct 16, 2025
Multiple surveys (see, for example, with thanks to James Nuzzo, here, here, here, here, here and here) suggest that when women hold power, they pursue typically feminine preferences and policies. Female-led institutions become more oriented to social justice than objective truth. Feelings matter above facts, context above law, and victimhood above expertise.
Protecting and promoting the allegedly vulnerable—through censorship, shaming, coercion, or lawbreaking/lawfare—becomes a greater priority than excellence or impartiality. Truth-tellers find themselves cancelled, Nobel prize winners reduced to tears, laws and policies applied unequally, white men accused and vilified, criminals cossetted, mental illnesses affirmed, and destructive policies embraced. No one who has paid attention over the past 20 years can be surprised by the findings.
Moreover, our ability to discuss this feminine revolution in values is hampered by the very logic of the revolution, as I will show. Both women and men, deeply disinclined to “harm” women, fail to confront the problem adequately.
Two discussions of the subject—an essay by two social psychologists at Quillette and, more recently, a conference speech by a feisty conservative woman—draw a line under the seeming inevitability of the west’s collapse. Even faced with that alarming prospect, most pundits cannot bear to imagine an alternative to the female-led assault on our core institutions.
Cheering on Women’s Empowerment
A 2022 article in Quillette, “Sex and the Academy,” provides a stark illustration of my thesis. The subtitle rules out the very conclusion the data supports, with the authors emphasizing that “The inclusion of women in higher education is a great achievement for Western liberal societies. How is this changing academic culture?”
The “great achievement,” as it turns out, will almost certainly be a lethal one.
The article was written by two academics, Cory Clark and Bo Winegard, both PhDs in social psychology. Winegard, a male scholar, had an unfortunate run-in with academic orthodoxy that led to his loss of employment; Clark, a female scholar, has a secure academic position. Both authors express enthusiasm for the takeover of academia by women even as they point out its damaging consequences. Neither one advocates any form of resistance, no matter how mild, to feminine academia’s assault on truth.