In graduate school, one of my psychotherapy assignments required us to write about a specific treatment modality – its origins, purpose, application, and validity. I don't remember how the selections were made, but I do remember what was left for me: feminism.
What exactly is feminist psychotherapy?
I was irritated and made no effort to hide it. I told my professor I was the wrong person for the assignment. I wasn't a feminist and had no interest in becoming one. With a knowing smirk, she said that was precisely why I should write it – perhaps I'd learn to appreciate it.
I didn't.
It was the most absurd paper I wrote in graduate school. The framework was intellectually thin, emotionally indulgent, and essentially detached from measurable outcomes. I walked away having learned nothing beyond this: feminist therapy is driven almost entirely by feelings, elevates subjective experience above reality, and treats victimhood as a therapeutic endpoint rather than something to be examined or challenged.
No, thank you.
That experience comes to mind as more women begin openly criticizing the feminization of once-serious institutions. Helen Andrews recently reignited this conversation with her essay, The Great Feminization, which has clearly struck a nerve.
Andrews describes a shift in her thinking after revisiting the controversy surrounding Larry Summers, the former president of Harvard, who was effectively forced out after acknowledging observable differences between men and women. From there, she traces how modern wokeness didn't appear out of nowhere but emerged alongside the increasing feminization of professional spaces, particularly those that once prioritized competition, merit, and objectivity.
She supports her argument with data. One statistic that should stop anyone pretending this is imaginary: roughly a third of American judges are now women, up from about five percent in previous decades, with President Joe Biden responsible for appointing the majority of recent additions. This transformation has coincided with the aggressive spread of DEI ideology into fields where evidence, precedent, and rational analysis are supposed to matter more than feelings.
The response to Andrews' essay led to her appearance on the Triggernometry podcast, where she expanded on her position. She argued that today's cultural priorities increasingly favor emotional safety, empathy signaling, and moral posturing over logic, competition, and risk-taking. In other words, traits traditionally associated with femininity are treated as moral absolutes, while traditionally masculine traits are framed as dangerous or oppressive.
Some argue this wasn't accidental but intentional. One frequently cited example is Gloria Steinem, a feminist icon who later acknowledged her involvement with the CIA-backed Independent Research Service during the Cold War. While the more conspiratorial claims surrounding her role can't be definitively proven, Steinem herself admitted the organization existed to influence foreign populations under the banner of Western values. Critics argue that feminism's push to remove women from the home and into the workforce conveniently benefited the state, expanding the tax base and outsourcing child-rearing to institutions. Whether by design or consequence, the result was the same.
Megan McArdle followed Andrews' essay with a complementary piece in the Washington Post, exploring what she labeled "toxic femininity" and its connection to cancel culture. She echoed Andrews' concern that an overcorrection toward emotionalism has discouraged risk, punished dissent, and flattened ambition. These dynamics aren't harmless. They quietly suffocate innovation and reward conformity.
At some point, this pattern becomes impossible to ignore. Time and again, movements framed as "liberation" overshoot their target, swinging so far in the opposite direction that they become hostile to balance, reason, and restraint.
I've watched this pattern play out up close – in academia, in therapy, and in institutions that once valued rigor over sentiment. When women gain influence, too often the response isn't balance but excess. Advocacy turns into grievance. Empathy becomes moral coercion. Any pushback is treated as violence. The constant emotional escalation doesn't advance women – it exhausts everyone and ultimately discredits the cause itself. What starts as a demand for fairness ends as an insistence that feelings override reality. And when that happens, the backlash isn't misogyny – it's inevitability.
If women want lasting influence rather than temporary power, they should get married, raise their children, and if they choose to enter the workforce, do it on merit.
Soad Tabrizi is a licensed marriage and family therapist with a private practice based in Orange County, CA (www.soadtabrizi.com). Soad is also the founder of www.ConservativeCounselors.com.
