Is the 'HR Lady' Really Ruining Civilization? The Absurdity of "The Great Feminization" Anti-Woman Argument

A Yale-educated conservative is blaming women for the downfall of humanity. I'm calling BS with facts.

The Great Feminization has the Right enthralled and the Left in a tizzy. Reading right-wing opinionator Helen Andrews’ essay and watching her speech to a National Conservatism conference is the ultimate experience of gaslighting (i.e., the effort to tell us that what we know to be true is actually false.) In a calm voice, she lulls her audience into a masterful performance of evenhandedness as she says–literally– “the Great Feminization poses a threat to civilization.”

What she means by “feminization” is that as women have entered the workforce in greater numbers–particularly the fields of education, medicine, and law–these institutions have begun to fail us. According to her, more women in the workforce means more emotional decisions rather than logical ones, which means those organizations and institutions cannot achieve their objectives. Her evidence amounts to “wokeness.” According to her, male CEOs’ hands are tied because “the HR lady” tells them what to do. Literally, she said this:

“Even where women do not hold the top spots, women set the tone in these organizations, such that a male CEO must operate within the limits set by his human resources VP.”

Side comment: I think she must be talking to a whole bunch of whiney-ass CEOs if she believes this. Poor guys. I don’t know any CEOs, male or not, who would be willing to agree that they are so denuded of power, especially by their HR lady (or guy…does she know men work in HR, too?) But seriously, getting back to her argument…

Once making this connection between women’s existence in the workforce and failure, she proceeds to pursue a largely cherry-picked, data-lite argument which asserts that it’s fine to have women in the workforce (she’s personally grateful to be allowed to have pursued a career), but women’s participation has taken away fairness, ethics, and advantaged women at the expense of men.

Thus, her conclusion: the downfall of humanity is nigh.

---

---

---

Just the Facts, Ma’am

As someone who’s spent more than a decade working to understand the gender dimensions of leadership and grown a great appreciation for how effective women and men are leading with their strengths together, I was gobsmacked at how ignorant a woman touting a Yale degree was of the essential facts of our world.

I don’t really understand why her opinion is receiving so much attention, given its departure from reality as documented by numerous studies and many people’s lived experience, but it is. I suppose, in addition to gaslighting vulnerable people, she’s simply telling conservatives what they want to hear and, being a woman, giving the false narrative credibility it doesn’t deserve. Others have written great rebuttals of many of Andrews’ specious conclusions, including how clinging to her arguments makes the right as vulnerable as the left in the gender wars, how she doesn’t seem to really understand how men think (or what they’ve accomplished), and how fact-free her claims are across the board.

Yet, in reading the responses to her theory in articles and comment threads across Substack, I’m also gobsmacked at how little attention is paid to one of her claims that directly contradicts reams of research at the heart of her argument. The research I’m referring to is grounded not in political partisanship but in outright capitalist efforts to make a lot of money, something I thought people in the right wing cared a great deal about, given their business-friendly reputation.

Here was Andrews’ specific quote that runs counter to all the facts I’ve ever seen (emphasis mine):

“The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions.” –H. Andrews

For this quote to be true, the research would have to show two things:

1. There are “female modes of interaction” that are not effective in leadership

2. Leaders of any gender who utilize these modes do not accomplish the goals of their organizations

Let’s tackle them in order.

Female modes of interaction in leading organizations and institutions

I’ve written a lot over the years about the benefits and strengths of feminine leadership styles, to help my clients, who too often suffer the effects of imposter syndrome. Here’s the very short version of what I’ve learned, based on research (see link below to sources).

[If you would like to review the detailed data supporting the statements below, you can click through to the relevant studies on my here and here.]

When gender is taken out of the equation, most people list feminine-coded leadership traits as highly desirable in leadership (Athena Doctrine). Also, women rank higher on all five of the traits that most reliably correlate with leadership effectiveness, which produces results like revenue growth, profitability, and quality (Leadership Circle).

But here’s my primary takeaway from all this research:

The best leaders of any gender, race, ability, personality etc. demonstrate the ability to leverage leadership styles that are stereotypically coded as both female and male–depending on the demands of the situation.

Here’s the wonky version: Women tend to demonstrate more “communal” behaviors than men, such as collaboration, empathy, and compassion. Men, on the other hand, more often default to “agentic” behaviors such as assertiveness, decisiveness, and goal-orientedness. And if you’re a Fire Chief, or a CEO, or a leader of any kind, you’re going to run into situations where all of those leadership behaviors are necessary and effective.

Each situation requires a different kind of leadership. For example, imagine you’re a Fire Chief (woman or man, it doesn’t matter). House on fire? Yell out your orders and get that fire out! Have six months to create a strategic plan? Put together committees, listen to the community, talk to your employees, talk to experts to predict an uncertain future. Synthesize what you hear, and get feedback until you have something that represents a consensus view of all your stakeholders. That’s how you know your strategy aligns with the organization’s needs.

In short, the best leaders are good at being flexible in their leadership style so they can respond most effectively to the myriad of crazy the world will throw at them in the average day, or week, or year. For most leaders in any Sector, this typically boils down to fighting fires via email moments before walking into a strategic planning meeting.

Ms. Andrews insists that workplaces have been changed to suit women’s needs more than men’s. She insists that these changes are driving men away–taking their effective leadership with them–and that the only way for our organizations to succeed is for workplace norms to revert to a male-first standard. She believes that it’s ok for women to be forced to work in a place where their strengths are not welcome, but that it is unfair to ask this of men. She says:

[Workplace feminization] does not look like women outperforming men. It looks like women driving men away by imposing feminine norms on previously male institutions. What man wants to work in a field where his traits are not welcome?

I don’t know what rock she’s been working under. The women I know–and their experiences cross industry, geography, company size, and age–would not recognize the workplace Ms. Andrews speaks of. None report working in environments where their strengths are welcomed, while the men feel put upon. Research supports these women’s experience. According to several studies, feminine-coded traits (e.g., communal) are correlated with the most effective leadership skills, until that leader presents as a woman. When women actually show up as leaders, they have to navigate stereotypical double standards, which require them to demonstrate agentic behaviors without stepping on the land-mind of appearing non-communal.

This balancing act female leaders navigate does not privilege them at all. As any woman in leadership will tell you, being nice (communal) while also driving results (agentic) is demanding and emotionally taxing work. The women who do it reap the rewards and are well-liked, respected, and accomplished. On average, they manage their own emotions (and the emotions of others) better than the men around them. Further, this double standard does not apply to men, because men only have to demonstrate agentic behaviors to be considered good leaders, even though this is proven to be a less effective leadership style overall (i.e., treating every situation, including strategic planning, as though it’s a firefight). Essentially, men are required to achieve less to be considered successful leaders, while women are expected to achieve more.

How does this advantage the women? Is it somehow a privilege to have to work harder for the same recognition (or less, in some cases). No, it is exhausting and unfair. If you think the answer to that question is yes, I suggest you check for who’s been gaslighting you on this point.

So, in sum, there is substantial research that shows that female-coded leadership traits are effective, and that women (and men, though no one seems to be asking this question) are more than capable of leading effectively by deploying a wide range of feminine and masculine-coded leadership styles.

Let’s move on to the second point.

Do workplaces that include a meaningful number of women in leadership achieve results?

The short answer is, “yes.”

To summarize the research, I’m going to crib from my own writing:

Studies have shown that gender diversity and inclusive cultures–welcoming of diverse styles and identities that include both women’s and men’s leadership styles–produce a wide variety of organizational and business benefits, including:

• lower levels of employee turnover

• 59.1% increase in creativity, innovation, and openness.

• 37.9% better assessment of consumer interest and demand

• improved financial performance on eleven different criteria

• 38% more of their revenues

• increase employees’ job satisfaction and commitment to the company

• less discrimination and sexual harassment in inclusive workplace cultures

• fewer instances of fraud

• Resilience during economic downturns and recessions

Organizations where women held at least 30% of board seats outperformed their peers in eleven out of fifteen sectors during the pandemic. This suggests that having women in leadership roles is not just beneficial but crucial for an organization’s success. Women are also generally thought to be more effective than men at leading during times of crisis.

If you’re tempted to look at the data above and say “correlation does not prove causation,” you’d be right. However, when you read into the studies more deeply, you find that it’s not the presence of women alone that leads to positive results. It’s the way organizations that include more women in leadership have evolved their cultures to invite more diverse thinking skills and problem-solving approaches into their decision-making process overall. It’s because these organizations have moved beyond masculine-heavy command and control cultures to a more person-centered and empowered culture that more women are welcome, not because women have stormed the barricades and invaded.

So, basically, it’s the very thing Ms. Andrews decries as ruining our organizations–diverse leadership styles–that research finds makes them more successful. [And if you’re worried about correlation and causation, you should definitely be suspicious of Ms. Andrews’ arguments, which are based almost entirely on such logic.]

I could go on refuting many of the things Ms. Andrews asserts as fact, but who has time for all that? The facts above are enough to dismiss her thesis. But that’s not really what this is about, is it?

While Helen Andrews would have us believe that women will cause the downfall of civilization, the data is more likely to show that women will save the world.

Helen Andrews’ Willful Ignorance Is Not the Real Problem

I have to believe that Ms. Andrews made a conscious choice to ignore the facts above, and many others. I have to believe that anyone who graduated from Yale knows how to conduct a Google search to find accurate information when they stand on a national stage and express their opinions. The fact that she did not do this tells me she has no interest in relating to the lived experience of women in the real world.

So what is she interested in?

The answer is obvious in her climactic statement, “the Great Feminization poses a threat to civilization.”

Ms. Andrews, apparently, believes that the most popular mythological story of Eve is actually true. She believes that despite thousands of years of learning and growing as a species, during which time large numbers of women have shown great abilities to think, lead, and succeed, our significant presence in an organization leads to diminished outcomes. Not just diminished outcomes, but the decline of civilization.

So maybe the organization-level analysis above is too narrow for her purposes. Perhaps there is a civilization-wide threat that the consulting organizations of our capitalist society are overlooking. Maybe on the scale of humanity, there is evil lurking in the womb of women.

Let’s look for data that she may know about that we don’t.

*Looks*

Oops. All I could find was data that says the opposite.

Over two decades ago, groundbreaking research by The World Bank showed for the first time strong correlations between women’s agency and empowerment with measurably positive community health and wealth outcomes. Since then, many other studies have supported this original finding, the most recent stating clearly that when women and girls achieve greater equality, the societies they live in benefit in improved:

• Economic Growth

• Food Security and Agricultural Output

• Education and Wages

• Peace and Stability

This data is very consistent with my own experience working with hundreds of women in business, education, health care, nonprofit, and government who care deeply about making positive changes for their organizations and those that depend on them. More often than not, these women succeed.

Reviewing my own lived experience and overwhelming amounts of data, I am of the opinion that it is Ms. Andrews’ vision that threatens the downfall of civilization. Cutting down women’s power, silencing their voices, and taking away hard-won rights and protections can only have one outcome: a return to the dark ages, where women were property, if not in the letter of the law, in practical terms (for example, say, circa 1950).

Of course, it’s not just Ms. Andrews’ opinion that’s the danger here; it’s all the people (women and men) who are so excited to blame women for all the ills of society that they’re willing to throw their mothers, wives, daughters, and sometimes themselves under the bus to find such simplicity.

---

---

Reimagining Eve

I am one woman. In my lifetime, I have swung from believing we were on the brink of equality for women to growing pessimism. People like Ms. Andrews just drop more weight on the pessimistic scale. But I’m fundamentally a positive person. I have one superpower, which is my imagination.

Crazy talk like Ms. Andrews’ fact-free screed against half of humanity pushes me faster towards my efforts to look the ugly history of gender on this planet in the eye and reimagine it. It’s hard to be powerful when you can’t see what powerful looks like.

So I will keep looking into history for opportunities to reimagine Eve’s story and give us all the opportunity to reimagine that people like Ms. Andrews never had the chance to damn women with the belief that we are the downfall of the human race.

I will keep finding the words from deep in my heart to tell the women I support that their power is good and meaningful and the reason their organizations, communities, and families will succeed.

I will keep looking in the mirror and telling myself that every morning I wake up and work to make the world safer and better for women, I’m contributing to a better world for all of us, men included.

Ms. Andrews’ closed her comments by lamenting that her sons “will never reach their potential if they grow up in a feminized world.” I pity her sons that their mother does not have the belief in her children’s ability to live in equality with others. I am proud that this is a gift I gave to my own sons, and am proud of them for the way they live in equality and mutual support of their own wives. I know it is possible. I’ve lived it. I’ve seen it. This equality is what I want for all our sons and daughters. And for all of us. I won’t give up my efforts to make it possible for as many of us as I can.

Want to talk about it? Bring your thoughts on the above to our next InPower Women Mastermind meeting.

InPowering Powerful Women,

Dana Theus
Executive Coach
InPowerCoaching.com