Editor's note: This column represents the opinions of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of PJ Media.
As anyone who follows the news may conclude, many constitutional amendments, no matter how well-intentioned, have had questionable impacts on the culture and the economy.
This is true above all, arguably, for the 19th Amendment that granted female suffrage over a century ago.
For numerous reasons, not least of which being the female vote itself, repealing the 19th Amendment would likely prove to be a Sisyphean task.
Nonetheless, the merits of repealing it are worth examining.
The most obvious, lowest-hanging fruit is to look at female voting behavior itself, which is, in a word, abominable. (Obviously, in a country of 350+ million, many women are going to vote rationally and morally — but we’re discussing statistics.)
A strong case could be made that the globo-homo race communism currently gripping the entire Western world would not have been possible without the female vote, at least not at the scale or at the speed that we’ve seen.
From DEI to abortion to COVID masking, the statistics consistently reflect that virtually all of the wildest culture war machinations that Democrats overwhelmingly buttress; in turn, female voters overwhelmingly support Democrats.
Related: Hillary Claims ‘Climate Change’ Killed 500,000 Last Year, ‘Particularly Pregnant Women’
That women gleefully vote against the best interest of Western civilization and even their own interests is so self-evident that it doesn’t really require much exposition.
The more interesting question is why women behave politically and electorally the way they do.
Helen Andrews recently penned a sprawling article, titled “The Great Feminization,” exploring, essentially, the quintessential female psychology, how it manifests in the political sphere, and the reverberating impacts of increasing female domination of every major institution.
(The entire article is worth reading, but here’s a small excerpt.)
Via Compact (emphasis added):
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…
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.
The same trajectory can be seen in many professions: a pioneering generation of women in the 1960s and ’70s; increasing female representation through the 1980s and ’90s; and gender parity finally arriving, at least in the younger cohorts, in the 2010s or 2020s. In 1974, only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff became majority female in 2018 and today the female share is 55 percent.
Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023. Women are not yet a majority of the managers in America but they might be soon, as they are now 46 percent. So the timing fits. Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions tipped demographically from majority male to majority female.
The substance fits, too. Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition*. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite…
Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it.
*Here, I think Andrews hits the nail on the head: “empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition.”
Related: 'Shout Sisters': Feminists Meet in Parks to Scream Together, Rage Against Patriarchy
On the “empathy over rationality” score — what some have termed “suicidal empathy” — consider this apropos diatribe from Emma Watson, in which she enthusiastically endorses trannies using women’s bathrooms not based on anything other than wanting them to feel “included”:
Trans woman: "Do you feel comfortable with me using a female toilet?"
Emma Watson: "Oh my God, of course!"
Trans: "Does that depend on me having had surgery?"
Emma: "No."
Trans: "What would you say to those who have an issue sharing a public bathroom with me?"
Emma: "Oh my goodness, that's another human being... I understand fearing what you don't know... but go learn, speak, look into their eyes... You can't deny their humanity after that. Making people feel excluded is painful and awful."
'Trans woman': "Do you feel comfortable with me using a female toilet?" 🏳️⚧️
— Anti Woke Memes (@AntiWokeMemes) October 23, 2025
Emma Watson: "Oh my God, OF COURSE!"pic.twitter.com/0ZO3GrOCz2
While not wanting anyone to feel “excluded” is not detrimental but rather beneficial in small-scale social settings, where women excel and are inarguably necessary to maintain social functionality — consider what depravity quickly grips all-male societies; see The Lord of the Flies, or just visit your local prison — empathy über alles is no way to run a state.
More to come in terms of the many arguments in favor of repealing the 19th Amendment.
