The Erosion of Truth in Feminized Institutions Human beings developed the scientific process to observe reality and uncover fundamental truths about the universe. However, the increasing feminization of academia has, in some cases, shifted its priorities, with social equity taking precedence over truth. A study titled *“Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors”* asked professors whether they prioritized scientific truth or social equity when the two appeared to conflict. According to the study, 66.4% of male professors chose truth, compared with 43% of female professors—a 23.4-point gap. This suggests that some individuals are willing to set aside truth in favor of ideology. The study also found that professors feared social sanctions for expressing their empirical beliefs, while younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty members were more likely to oppose controversial scholarship. Psychology faculty are reportedly 56% women and 44% men. Based on the study’s figures, approximately 53.3% of professors would rank truth first. Women account for roughly 71–75% of newly awarded psychology doctorates. If the field reaches 73% women, only about 49.3% of psychologists would rank truth first. The broader implications are significant. As academic institutions increasingly prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion, research and data may be ignored when they conflict with political goals. Science influences education, medicine, human resources, therapy, the media, and nearly every other field concerned with human behavior. These studies shape legislation, psychological diagnoses, corporate policies, pharmaceutical prescriptions, and popular advice. Truth is not necessarily losing to lies. Rather, as institutions become increasingly feminized, they may gradually stop valuing truth itself.
The Value of Truth in Science Humanity developed the scientific process to observe the universe and uncover its fundamental truths. However, the increasing feminization of academia has, in some fields, shifted emphasis from truth toward social equity. As a result, certain areas of science appear less focused on understanding how the world works and more focused on reshaping it according to political ideals. A study titled *“Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors”* asked professors whether they prioritized scientific truth or social-equity goals when the two appeared to conflict. According to the study, 66.4% of male professors chose truth, compared with 43% of female professors—a 23-point gap. This suggests that some academics would knowingly place ideology above truth. The study also found that nearly all professors feared social sanctions for expressing their empirical beliefs. Researchers observed that younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty members were more likely to oppose controversial scholarship. Psychology faculty are currently approximately 56% women and 44% men. Based on the study’s figures, an estimated 53.3% of professors rank truth first. Women also receive roughly 71–75% of newly awarded psychology doctorates. If women eventually comprise 73% of the field, only about 49.3% of psychologists would rank truth first. The broader implications are significant. As women’s representation in scientific and academic institutions increases through both natural trends and affirmative-action policies such as DEI, research and data may be disregarded when they conflict with political goals. Psychology influences education, medicine, human resources, therapy, media, and other institutions concerned with human behavior. These fields shape legislation, psychological diagnoses, corporate policies, pharmaceutical prescriptions, and popular advice. Truth is not necessarily losing to lies. Rather, as institutions become increasingly feminized, they may gradually stop valuing truth itself.
The Erosion of Truth in Feminized Institutions Human beings developed the scientific process to observe reality and uncover fundamental truths about the universe. However, the increasing feminization of academia has, in some cases, shifted its priorities, with social equity taking precedence over truth. A study titled *“Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors”* asked professors whether they prioritized scientific truth or social equity when the two appeared to conflict. According to the study, 66.4% of male professors chose truth, compared with 43% of female professors—a 23.4-point gap. This suggests that some individuals are willing to set aside truth in favor of ideology. The study also found that professors feared social sanctions for expressing their empirical beliefs, while younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty members were more likely to oppose controversial scholarship. Psychology faculty are reportedly 56% women and 44% men. Based on the study’s figures, approximately 53.3% of professors would rank truth first. Women account for roughly 71–75% of newly awarded psychology doctorates. If the field reaches 73% women, only about 49.3% of psychologists would rank truth first. The broader implications are significant. As academic institutions increasingly prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion, research and data may be ignored when they conflict with political goals. Science influences education, medicine, human resources, therapy, the media, and nearly every other field concerned with human behavior. These studies shape legislation, psychological diagnoses, corporate policies, pharmaceutical prescriptions, and popular advice. Truth is not necessarily losing to lies. Rather, as institutions become increasingly feminized, they may gradually stop valuing truth itself.
The Sweetened Lie I once dated a girl who said she’d go along with “2+2=5” if someone truly believed it—she wouldn’t correct them if it might upset them. In her mind, sharing a delusion was safer than truth and conflict. This mirrors what’s happening in the West: we’re losing the capacity to seek truth. Two forces may play roles: declining testosterone among young men and the feminization of institutions. Testosterone is linked to assertiveness and resistance to social pressure, and research suggests it can reduce short-term deception and conformity to group norms. Testosterone has also fallen in men across wealthy nations since the late twentieth century, making pressure easier to accept. Meanwhile, healthcare, universities, media, and other institutions are increasingly female-dominated. Critics argue that female-led cultures may prize consensus and harmony, making dissent costlier. Combined with less internal resistance, external penalties for resisting pressure can produce enforced conformity. Jung warned that failing to integrate the “masculine” side of the psyche can lead to rigidity and ideological capture. Arendt noted that totalitarianism doesn’t require belief in lies—only behavior that acts as if one believes. My ex embodied that dynamic. Nietzsche argued strength is tolerating truth, while the weak require truth diluted and sweetened. The first step is personal: refuse to participate. Accept the cost of nonconformity, build physical strength to support mental strength, and above all, refuse to tell the lie.
The Great Feminization, Measured Seventy-two percent of men under thirty hold a positive view of women; among women under thirty, 50% (a 22-point gap). Among women under twenty-five, the share is 35% (a 37-point gap). Where the manosphere and “toxic masculinity” dominate headlines, the data points elsewhere: young women increasingly sort men into the enemy column. The class divide is sharp. Among working-class young women, 61% view men positively; among professional-class women, 36%—a 25-point gap tied to exposure to universities, HR departments, media organizations, and NGOs. The pattern runs through institutional conditioning. Helen Andrews argued this in 2020: between 2015 and 2020 many Western institutions became majority-female, including the New York Times newsroom (2018), law schools (2016), medical schools and the college-educated workforce (2019). Affirmative-action mandates, discrimination settlements, and diversity requirements helped drive the shift. As institutions changed, so did missions: justice increasingly focused on protecting “oppressed” minorities; newsrooms shifted from reporting toward narrative enforcement; universities moved from arguing to “safe spaces.” The result is a “daycare governance model”: infants to be protected (the oppressed), caregivers to provide protection (the allies), and predators to be removed (the dissenters). Research shows the same frame in speech: FIRE’s 2026 college speech rankings found women less tolerant than men across ideologies, including less tolerance for their allies. A woman entering kindergarten in 2005 has spent twenty years inside this system—she didn’t invent it, she inherited it. The 35% figure suggests sorting into victim, ally, and predator, with no grey zones. Working-class women, less conditioned by these pipelines, still view men positively (61–36). None of this is entirely new; Gustave Le Bon described the mechanism in 1895.
How Feminism Turned Government Into a Daycare For decades, we heard “the future is female.” That future is here—if not in the way people expected. The slogan surfaced in the 1970s among feminist and lesbian activists, resurfaced in 2015 after designer Rachel Burks rediscovered a 1975 photo, and then spread through merchandise and mainstream politics. By 2016 it was used by Hillary Clinton supporters; after her loss, Clinton embraced it. But the real story isn’t the phrase—it’s the institutional shift. Helen Andrews, in “The Great Feminization,” notes that feminism is often framed as progress through votes, universities, or jobs. Yet the decisive tipping point came later, especially from 2015 to 2020, when whole institutions began turning female. The numbers show it: in 1974, women were 10% of New York Times reporters; now they’re about 55%. The Atlantic’s editorial staff shifted from 53% male in 2013 to 36% male in 2024. This reaches beyond journalism: medical schools became majority-female in 2019; women formed the majority of the college-educated workforce that year, became a majority of college instructors by 2023, and now make up about 46% of managers. This isn’t just individuals moving into male-coded fields. It’s institutions changing with their demographics—shifting preferences, priorities, and norms. In many ways, feminism has already won access; now the question is what happens when institutions are increasingly shaped by women. We haven’t studied this before. We’re the experiment.
Z izjemno inteligentnim sodelavcem sva se pred dnevi pogovarjala o feminizaciji šolstva. Tema, ki jo večina raje obide, ker je občutljiva in ker nihče noče biti tisti, ki bo rekel, da je cesar gol. Kaj to v resnici pomeni? Da v šolstvu že dolgo prevladuje ženska večina, ki ni več le številčna, ampak tudi kulturna. Prevladuje ženski pristop: empatičen, negovalen, pogovoren, varen do te mere, da postane brezobličen. Moška energija – direktna, zahtevna, tekmovalna, včasih tudi fizično prisotna – pa je postala sumljiva, skoraj prepovedana. Že v izhodišču se motijo tisti, ki ponavljajo, da med moškimi in ženskami ni znatnih razlik. Razlike so ogromne in celo merljive ter dokazljive – v osebnostnih lastnostih, v odzivanju na stres, v potrebi po strukturi in izzivu. Ni problem v tem, da bi bile učiteljice slabe. Veliko jih je odličnih. Problem je neravnovesje. Ko moška energija izgine, šola izgubi polovico spektra. Postane preveč varna, preveč podporna na način, ki fante pogosto pusti ravnodušne ali aktivno odtujene. Fantje potrebujejo meje, ki ne popustijo ob prvem joku, potrebujejo izziv in včasih tudi fizično prisotnost, ki jih umiri, ne pa v nedogled "povej mi, kako se počutiš". Moški, ki še nismo okuženi s feminizirano miselnostjo oz. že kar feminiziranim genom (in nas je iz leta v leto manj), imamo vgrajeno neposrednost, odločnost in odpor do nesmislov. Nismo agreeable. Ne gledamo skozi filter "kaj bodo rekli" in "ali sem sledil sleherni točki pravilnika". Papir prenese vse, resničnost pa ne. Konkretno: v osnovni šoli so fantje divjali, se pretepali, razbijali razred. Sodelavec je enega od njih, ko se nikakor ni umiril, prijel, trdno držal in počakal, da se je umiril. Po petnajstih minutah je bil otrok miren, dihal normalno in bil pripravljen na pogovor. Počutil se je varnega, ker je naletel na moč, ki ni popustila. Socialna delavka, ki je to videla, je takoj izstrelila: “To je skrajno nestrokovno!” Seveda. On je tvegal lastno kožo, šel mimo protokolov in možnih obtožb, da bi otroka dejansko ustavil. In ga je. Samo z enim prijemom je rešil situacijo in otroka. Ona bi raje sklicala še en sestanek (oz. 100 njih), napisala še eno poročilo, počakala na naslednji izpad, morda celo na poškodovanega sošolca, se v učiteljevem imenu še opravičila staršem in potem ob popolnem razpadu situacije mirno izjavila: “Naredila sem vse, kar so me učili na fakulteti in sledila ustaljeni proceduri.” To ni strokovnost. To je strahopetnost, preoblečena v brezkrajne postopke. In fantje plačujejo najvišjo ceno za to strokovnost – generacijo za generacijo. Ženske se dostikrat sprašujejo, čemu tako malo moških v šolstvu (12 odstotkov v OŠ in cca. 30 v SŠ - številka se že desetletja ne spreminja). Odgovor je ta, da moški pač ne moremo samo gledati, se v nedogled pogovarjati, se morda celo opravičevati staršem in poslušati, kako je zgolj večni pogovor, mediacija ipd. rešitev. Iz OŠ sem po hitrem postopku odšel tako sam, kot tudi omenjeni sodelavec. #Feminization #Education #GenderBalance
