Bespoke translation by yours truly. Original article [A] by Danisch
Update 2024-12-10: Added another translation (Cattiness in research), original [A] also by Danisch
And why it looks to be irreversible.
Behavioral scientists investigated the matter:
The Feminisation of Academia, Explained By Behavioural Scientists Bo Winegard and Cory Clark
(Preservetube)
A bit tedious because she's reading through the research findings quite drily, but neutrally and without judging them.
I'll summarize it as follows:
Science does not work with women (anymore) as soon as the share of women is high enough that they influence or even dominate behavior. Because women are social automata and thus moral automata, so ultimately they direct the herd behavior and the social order. And these evolutionary behaviors are incompatible with science, they are mutually exclusive.
What is important to me there is a certain aspect: The share of women. Especially because they love - the fallacy of anecdotal evidence - pointing out individually successful women like Grace Hopper or the Nobel laureate Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard and thus ignore the herd behavior of women.
Not only are there dumb men and smart women - the problem appears to be at a completely different level.
It is my suspicion, and this presentation supports it, that women - if they are intellectually capable individually - are only good at science in an environment that is hostile to women. In a men-dominated environment. And I know women who say that they feel more comfortable as the sole woman among men than among women. Because, judging by the findings of these behavioral scientists, men think and work much more scientifically. It probably doesn't have to do as much with the individual capabilities, but with the behavior of the group. Men are fundamentally geared towards competition, lone-wolf-ism, and rationality (I remind you of my many articles on the operational modes of the brain). But if the share of women reaches a crucial threshold, it becomes a feminine herd behavior in which the social rules and "morals" (which I consider to be nothing but a social behavior or its control system that is evolutionarily optimized for survival) are more important than science and knowledge, conformity is more important than knowledge.
And precisely that would explain my observations from the 70s, 80s, 90s, namely that women can be quite good scientists - as long as they work alone among men, in a "misogynistic" environment, and thus have no choice but to act like men whom they compete against.
In the moment in which enough women congregate to kickstart herd mechanisms and social behaviors, science is over, because the social thing excludes science.
And this is precisely the origin of the problem. Through women's quotas and the feminization of science, in which women are already the majority in many subjects, they transformed science into a social thing, a tribe economy. And destroyed it in the process.
In the moment in which an environment is no longer perceived by women as men-dominated and misogynistic, they stop being scientific and pivot towards this social and moral stuff.
And that could explain why all women who have achieved anything in science that I can think of now were "alone amongst men", had to persevere against men, and did not have a herd of women backing them.
It is not men who oppress women or denigrate them. It is women who do that. This is why the output will be much worse the more feminist a joint is.
I just had this article [coincidentally also translated by me and published here at A&N] about a feminist group chat in which I listened in, and in which they demanded that men are supposed to discuss amongst themselves and criticize each other on how they treat women, which seemed so absurd to me because they demanded that men act like women. But this is precisely the issue. As soon as enough women congregate, they do this social and moral scheme, and then everything breaks down - other than paternal care, which is what nature created this for. And this is precisely why nothing works in academia anymore.
And then they call men "toxic" - even though a university of 100% men is completely scientific, but one with 50% or even just 30% women no longer is.
So who is "toxic"?
A reader tells me about his wife.
On the article about the feminization of universities:
It's pretty much the same thing that has been reported to me from women's companies/startups. And what women told me as the reason why they don't want to work in women-only or women-dominated departments.
But this is interesting because I witnessed the opposite case as well, namely in the postal and package delivery industry, where it somehow naturally progresses so that distribution centers are exclusively operated and led by women and that works very well (except for the problem that they fail to find any drivers [in Germany] because the Germans don't want to work anymore and the migrants would do the job per se, but don't want to have a woman boss).
But: These are not innovative, competitive activities, but the opposite, very monotonous, homogeneous activities in which the social structure is dominating and not running into competition, and the organization itself is set in stone from outside, so it is pure operations. Feminization arrived by the means of typical women's activities like sorting mail and packages or identifying unreadable signatures and typing in zip codes on special keyboards. In such manual and monotonous activities, women are much better, and thus they conquered first these lower and then, through careers, the management functions, and they do good work there - but those are homogeneous, unchanging, monotonous tasks, and following a predetermined organizational order, so a pure operational activity. And - as far as I have heard from them - they feel quite good doing it. And, so that you don't become a nutcase and end up always doing the same task, they also have a rotation of tasks. So you do two hours of this, then two hours of something different, then the next thing for two hours, so using this rotation you have a certain "equality" and a quasi-given social order that is only to be followed and implemented.
What could be related to this is the fact that many administrative jobs are dominated by women and "work" that way, while men are better in competitor situations and in constant re-organizations and hierarchies like research and the laboratory.
Update 2024-12-10: Added another translation (Cattiness in research), original [A] also by Danisch
How - and why - feminization destroyed the universities
And why it looks to be irreversible.
Behavioral scientists investigated the matter:
The Feminisation of Academia, Explained By Behavioural Scientists Bo Winegard and Cory Clark
A bit tedious because she's reading through the research findings quite drily, but neutrally and without judging them.
I'll summarize it as follows:
Science does not work with women (anymore) as soon as the share of women is high enough that they influence or even dominate behavior. Because women are social automata and thus moral automata, so ultimately they direct the herd behavior and the social order. And these evolutionary behaviors are incompatible with science, they are mutually exclusive.
What is important to me there is a certain aspect: The share of women. Especially because they love - the fallacy of anecdotal evidence - pointing out individually successful women like Grace Hopper or the Nobel laureate Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard and thus ignore the herd behavior of women.
Not only are there dumb men and smart women - the problem appears to be at a completely different level.
It is my suspicion, and this presentation supports it, that women - if they are intellectually capable individually - are only good at science in an environment that is hostile to women. In a men-dominated environment. And I know women who say that they feel more comfortable as the sole woman among men than among women. Because, judging by the findings of these behavioral scientists, men think and work much more scientifically. It probably doesn't have to do as much with the individual capabilities, but with the behavior of the group. Men are fundamentally geared towards competition, lone-wolf-ism, and rationality (I remind you of my many articles on the operational modes of the brain). But if the share of women reaches a crucial threshold, it becomes a feminine herd behavior in which the social rules and "morals" (which I consider to be nothing but a social behavior or its control system that is evolutionarily optimized for survival) are more important than science and knowledge, conformity is more important than knowledge.
And precisely that would explain my observations from the 70s, 80s, 90s, namely that women can be quite good scientists - as long as they work alone among men, in a "misogynistic" environment, and thus have no choice but to act like men whom they compete against.
In the moment in which enough women congregate to kickstart herd mechanisms and social behaviors, science is over, because the social thing excludes science.
And this is precisely the origin of the problem. Through women's quotas and the feminization of science, in which women are already the majority in many subjects, they transformed science into a social thing, a tribe economy. And destroyed it in the process.
In the moment in which an environment is no longer perceived by women as men-dominated and misogynistic, they stop being scientific and pivot towards this social and moral stuff.
And that could explain why all women who have achieved anything in science that I can think of now were "alone amongst men", had to persevere against men, and did not have a herd of women backing them.
It is not men who oppress women or denigrate them. It is women who do that. This is why the output will be much worse the more feminist a joint is.
I just had this article [coincidentally also translated by me and published here at A&N] about a feminist group chat in which I listened in, and in which they demanded that men are supposed to discuss amongst themselves and criticize each other on how they treat women, which seemed so absurd to me because they demanded that men act like women. But this is precisely the issue. As soon as enough women congregate, they do this social and moral scheme, and then everything breaks down - other than paternal care, which is what nature created this for. And this is precisely why nothing works in academia anymore.
And then they call men "toxic" - even though a university of 100% men is completely scientific, but one with 50% or even just 30% women no longer is.
So who is "toxic"?
Cattiness in research
A reader tells me about his wife.
On the article about the feminization of universities:
Hello Hadmut,
on your article "How - and why - feminization destroyed the universities" here's a small individual case that supports your thesis:
My wife is working at [censored] in a laboratory that is 100% staffed and run by women.
And even the lab management is subservient to a pure women's hierarchy up to the top management of the institute. On top of that, of course, also a completely female human resource department.
And the entire thing is sinking in pure chaos. From the actual lab work to administrative matters, it's pure chaos. Contradictory tasks, extremely low class discussions, almost zero pragmatism, cattiness, the scientific output is disastrously low, social skills are lacking.
Actually, all of that shouldn't be possible. After all, it's the women's utopia!
No male ego is disturbing paradise, no masculine strive for quality is suppressing female self-actualization.
But still, a complete disaster. You might want to ask what the reason could be.
My woman is the only one having a very positive success there, and why? Because she has classically male-connotated traits. Ambition, pragmatism, competence, common sense (praise be to my wife!).
By the way, it is precisely those teams with female employees and managers that are the reason why I, myself being a [academic subject] have left this natural science swamp years ago and now found a comfortable life in management. With the famous Danisch words: You go have fun with your own shit!
Best wishes from
It's pretty much the same thing that has been reported to me from women's companies/startups. And what women told me as the reason why they don't want to work in women-only or women-dominated departments.
But this is interesting because I witnessed the opposite case as well, namely in the postal and package delivery industry, where it somehow naturally progresses so that distribution centers are exclusively operated and led by women and that works very well (except for the problem that they fail to find any drivers [in Germany] because the Germans don't want to work anymore and the migrants would do the job per se, but don't want to have a woman boss).
But: These are not innovative, competitive activities, but the opposite, very monotonous, homogeneous activities in which the social structure is dominating and not running into competition, and the organization itself is set in stone from outside, so it is pure operations. Feminization arrived by the means of typical women's activities like sorting mail and packages or identifying unreadable signatures and typing in zip codes on special keyboards. In such manual and monotonous activities, women are much better, and thus they conquered first these lower and then, through careers, the management functions, and they do good work there - but those are homogeneous, unchanging, monotonous tasks, and following a predetermined organizational order, so a pure operational activity. And - as far as I have heard from them - they feel quite good doing it. And, so that you don't become a nutcase and end up always doing the same task, they also have a rotation of tasks. So you do two hours of this, then two hours of something different, then the next thing for two hours, so using this rotation you have a certain "equality" and a quasi-given social order that is only to be followed and implemented.
What could be related to this is the fact that many administrative jobs are dominated by women and "work" that way, while men are better in competitor situations and in constant re-organizations and hierarchies like research and the laboratory.
Last edited:
