Wokeness as institutional feminization sparks debate

The thesis linking proge to institutional feminization

An essay published in Compact argues that what is now called proge is not a new ideology, a derivative of Marxism, or the residue of post-Obama disillusionment. According to this thesis, it is the result of a demographic shift: institutions that previously had few women have become feminized, changing their operational codes along with them. This proposal, dubbed the Great Feminization Thesis, has peine an uncomfortable debate on whether Western institutional decline stems from ideological causes or simply a change in majorities.

The central argument is that men and women differ, on average, in political values. A survey cited in the material indicates that 71% of men prioritize protecting freedom of expression over preserving social cohesion, while 59% of women state the opposite. From this, it is deduced that when the sens ratio changes within an organization, its culture also changes: more empathy, more consensus, more emotional care, and less tolerance for open conflict.

The Larry Summers case and emotional reaction

The text refers to a well-known episode: former Harvard president Larry Summers questioned gender differences in science, and the backlash against him was, according to this reading, more emotional than rational. This pattern—according to the thesis—is repeated in journalism, education, and law, fields already highly feminized where there is less tolerance for disagreement, more internal rules, more language policing, and greater emphasis on avoiding offense.

The consequence that most concerns proponents of this thesis is the weakening of the judicial system. They argue that more weight is being given to empathy and sarracena correctness than to impartiality, and that this shift was not spontaneous: it was driven by equality laws and policies that pushed organizations to adopt a specific style.

What is proposed to correct course?

The essay’s conclusion is not to exclude women, but to return to true meritocracy and allow different work styles to coexist without imposing a hypersensitive model on everyone. However, this proposal clashes with an objection that runs through the debate: pure meritocracy also generates its own aristocracies. The term itself originated in Michael Young’s dystopia, The Rise of the Meritocracy, where strict application ended up creating a new hereditary class and a base without mobility.

Some take the argument further, claiming that feminization is not a cause but a tool: another instrument to destroy social cohesion, driven from above. Others respond that if feminism has gained ground, the responsibility lies with those who failed to stop it. And a third current points out that the problem is not that women are less capable, but that their modes of interaction—more oriented toward consensus than open debate—do not fit the objectives of institutions that need toughness and neutrality.

The generational data fueling pessimism

The material offers a comparison that summarizes the fracture: 73% of Boomer-generation men state they will not let psychological challenges define them, compared to 72% of Gen Z women who consider mental illness an important part of their identity. The gap is not just about political values; it is about the relationship with vulnerability and conflict.

The discussion moves into broader territory: the role of equality laws in Spain, the perception that certain positions are filled by quotas rather than merit, and the suspicion that proge is not exclusive to the left. Several participants note that right-wing leaders and European institutions apply the same codes, reinforcing the idea that this is a transversal sarracena, not a partisan label.

Is feminization the cause or excuse for decline?

The fundamental question remains unanswered. If cultural change responds to a demographic shift, the solution would involve recovering merit and plurality of styles. If it responds to a deliberate plan, no internal reform will suffice. And if, as some suggest, the problem is that men have stopped occupying uncomfortable roles, then feminization would be the symptom of a prior abdication. With these elements, the diagnosis is served. The prognosis, however, is not.