patrick.net

HR should not exist. There should be only legal and illegal activity, not corporate-feminist kangaroo courts.

Simple calculus: the bigger the tits, the greater the groveling and the more flattering the soap opera lines from men. Men will tell women whatever they want to hear, even if it is absurd.

Females in power naturally protect the crippled children, so those who imitate the crippled children receive advancement in exchange for giving 'Mom' love. They operate in emotionally based gangs without recognizance or consequences.

It was funny but I worked for a business that had been resurrected after a female manager ran it into the ground. She tried to be a 'wonderful feminist boss' by giving manipulative, lazy female loser employees all kinds of outlandish pay and benefits and even paid vacations to Hawaii. A girl who was a holdover said she felt guilty working for her. The business became a kaffee klatsch with the employees dragging their usual hormonal private lives in to create a bitchy female village campfire that no longer functioned to perform the tasks of the business in a profitable manner.

The 'return to biologic form' was evident, that of women clustering together in the village gossiping and establishing their preferential female hierarchies while men did the heavy work and brought in the resources for the camp women to squander while taking care of the kids.

https://thelampmagazine.com/issues/issue-21/against-human-resources

There was no such thing as “human resources” before 1958, when the term first appeared in print in an academic paper. The art of keeping one’s workforce in good order used to be called “personnel management” or “industrial relations,” and before about 1920 there was no such thing as that, either. It was not thought to be a separate type of management or something one could specialize in. For most of human history, workers and their bosses had face-to-face relationships. Only when corporations became so large that an owner could no longer learn the names of all of his employees did anyone start to talk about “human resources” in the abstract.

And even then it was hardly inevitable that the systematic science of selecting and managing workers would end up looking like the schoolmarmish, therapeutic, risk-averse paper-pushing that characterizes H.R. departments today. One textbook defines H.R. as “a largely behavioral science approach to the study of nonunion work situations, with particular emphasis on the practice and organization of management.” This is a pithy way of saying that H.R. sees bosses as economic actors and workers as psychological ones. From the beginning, H.R. has been the discipline addressed not so much to workers’ welfare as to their feelings. ...

Eventually H.R. departments added new rationales for their existence. Instead of selling themselves as guardians against lawsuits, they began talking about the importance of diversity in a globalized marketplace or the need to attract the best employees in an increasingly diverse America. The sociologist Lauren Edelman pinpoints 1987 as the year when the benefits of diversity overtook protection against lawsuits as the justification for H.R. programs in management periodicals. ...

The result has been the feminization of the American workplace, the inevitable effect of giving H.R. ladies veto power over everything that happens there. This feminization has happened even in the most unlikely workplaces. Astrophysics is a predominantly male profession. Yet Dr. Matt Taylor found himself in the middle of an international scandal in 2014 when, during a press conference to announce that his team had become the first in history to land a spacecraft on a comet, he showed up wearing a rockabilly-style shirt with busty pinup girls on it. The shirt was denounced as disrespectful to women. His tearful forced apology was a conspicuous triumph for H.R. ladies everywhere.

There is a masculine alternative to H.R. It is called a union. In any given workplace, H.R. ladies and union reps perform many of the same functions. If you have a conflict that needs adjudicating, you want to make sure the company gives you all the vacation days you’re entitled to, or you have a complaint about workplace conditions, you go to them. Underneath this functional similarity, however, the two models of workplace relations rest on very different assumptions. ...

Above all, the replacement of unions by H.R. departments was a humiliating experience for workers. ...

This unprecedented shift in the workforce has taken many women away from their children and prevented others from ever becoming mothers at all. Many of these women became H.R. ladies, where their job was to treat grown men as if they were children. It would have been more efficient all around if the mothering had been left to families and workplaces left to the professionals. Too many women have jobs; too many jobs are fake; these problems overlap. H.R. is at the center of that Venn diagram.

Patrick says

HR should not exist. There should be only legal and illegal activity, not corporate-feminist kangaroo courts.

City of Toledo in Ohio has (almost) all women top honchos (one of them being black of course). How is this not sexism?

Patrick says

epiphenomenon

Great now there's a new lethological word I won't be able to recall on demand.

Regardless of 'wokeness', feminist policies take wealth, status and investment from ordinary men in order to further privilege and empower women (while oblivious to innate female advantages, or differences in female lifestyle-choices which can make them appear to be earning less...).
As a result, there are whole swathes of the male population with little aspiration (nor able to obtain the resources to start a family) - hence the importation of a more flexible and expendable labour force; with inevitable gradual, cultural decline...

Patrick says

HR should not exist. There should be only legal and illegal activity, not corporate-feminist kangaroo courts.

Agree, let's call it the "Payroll Department" again. They can refer infractions of government edicts to Legal.

Sweden's immigration debacle corroborates the thesis: Allow Islamic Cultures following Sharia Law into a country that, as late as the 1970's, required payroll tithes to the Lutheran Church. The women would host "rapefugees" into their bars and homes, with the predictable results: Beatings, Rapes, and Murders of Swedish Women, followed by performative prosecutions with wrist-slap consequences, emboldening more Beatings, Rapes, and Murders of Swedish Women.

Ironically, Margaret Thatcher (who many still see as the heroine of free markets), exported our heavy industry to the East (as did the USA); paving the way for a 'service economy', with white-collar jobs, often more suited to female dispositions...
Now we see aggressions aimed towards the East to regain control of the assets we once gave away... So it's really a misconception to solely point fingers at 'wokeness' etc.

Patrick says

This unprecedented shift in the workforce has taken many women away from their children and prevented others from ever becoming mothers at all. Many of these women became H.R. ladies, where their job was to treat grown men as if they were children. It would have been more efficient all around if the mothering had been left to families and workplaces left to the professionals. Too many women have jobs; too many jobs are fake; these problems overlap. H.R. is at the center of that Venn diagram.

The dirty secret of HR is that any of the good work they do is not even their own, it's cribbed from here:

https://www.onetonline.org/

Imagine if other jobs had a website that had all the information they needed and could steal freely and claim as their own. Anyone updating a resume should go there. It's maintained by the Department of Labor Statistiscs, and your tax dollars pay for it.

It blew my mind when I found out about this. Check it out.

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/why-woke-women-make-terrible-leaders

Why woke women make terrible leaders

It's not just their sanctimony and humorlessness. It's their insistence on feel-good nonsolutions to real problems. The backlash is only beginning.

Wir schaffen das!

In English, the words mean: We can do this! So said Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor from 2005 to 2021, as she hectored her citizens to accept 2 million refugees from Syria and other Muslim countries. ...

In December 2021, days before Merkel left office, Germany even announced a lockdown for unvaccinated people and plans to make Covid vaccinations mandatory. Only the spread of the Omicron variant, which proved the absolute uselessness of shots, undid that effort.

Merkel’s reign ended almost four years ago, but it set Germany in a hole that the country seems unable or unwilling to escape.

In every way, her governing style crystallized the crisis of what the writer Helen Andrews called “The Great Feminization” in an opinion piece that has deservedly received attention in the last week.

Andrews argues that the rise of the political phenomenon Americans call “woke” actually reflects the rise of women in politics, law, medicine, journalism, academia, corporate America, and other power centers:

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…

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. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.

Of course, not every woman feels or acts this way.

Margaret Thatcher, the only female politician in modern history more powerful than Merkel, fought openly and fearlessly with her enemies. But it is obvious to anyone who not entirely blinkered by ideology that, on the whole, men and women interact in profoundly different ways. Men face, and sometimes seek out, conflict; women avoid or sublimate it.

Unfortunately, avoiding or sublimating conflict does not mean ending it. This week, an old clip of NPR head Katherine Maher again popped up. In 2021, Maher said:

“In our messy human hearts, we also know that the truth is something of a fickle mistress and that the beauty of the truth is actually often in the struggle.”

Maher is an easy target, almost too easy.

She’s a living, breathing woke caricature: a white woman from a wealthy Connecticut family who is for Black Lives Matter and against homophobia. She’s against climate change but for transit justice (which I’m guessing does not include arresting riders for menacing their fellow passengers). Christopher Rufo shredded her last year in a piece called Quotations from Chairman Maher, which consists mostly of Maher’s greatest tweets.

But she’s worthy of all the scorn that she receives.

Because what Maher’s is arguing is profoundly dangerous.

The truth is not a “fickle mistress.” The “beauty of the truth” is not in the “struggle.” The truth is knowable. Not always, but usually.

The hard part isn’t usually getting to the truth (at least on a broad level).

The hard part is making decisions, realizing that you — as a person or a society — cannot have it all, that you are going to make choices and that those choices will have costs and consequences. ...

Maher does not so much argue with her opponents as insist that she has the moral (and intellectual) high ground, that anyone who would disagree with her is a cretin. Merkel, who had the advantage of formal state power, used its levers more quietly.

But they wind up in the same place. They’re using the same strategy. What Maher pretends is what Merkel pretended: that hard decisions can be elided simply by refusing to consider the possibility that there are two sides at all.

This is a recipe for bureaucratic creep and statism.

Once the refugees have been let in, throwing them out — or even changing admission standards — requires a policy change, for a policy that was pushed through or hardly considered at all. So too with lockdowns. And climate change (though in that case, the strategy has generally been to try to delay the economic impact of the most radical policies years or decades in the future, to give woke politicians and their constituents a moral thrill while again pretending it is cost-free).

Of course, the pretense that these choices aren’t choices at all — that, say, the only way to treat science is to “believe” in it — has now provoked a massive backlash.

The Trump and MAGA style is hyper-masculine, to look for fights large and small (“Gulf of America”), and to never back down. It’s a gleeful and frequently hilarious in-your-face posturing. The President of the United States released an AI video of himself in a fighter jet dropping feces on the heads of people who protested him.

The attitude isn’t merely rhetorical.

Trump is now strikingly willing to use military force aggressively, in a notable change from his first term or the near-isolationist principles he took as a candidate. (So far with generally positive results, most notably his bombing on Iran.)

Of course, hyper-masculinity carries its own risks.

But the choice between Katherine Maher-style smothering of dissent and Trump’s gleeful incitement is, well, no choice at all. As a society, we have difficult, consequential decisions to make. Let’s do so openly.

Let’s fight like men.

Patrick says

Wir schaffen das!

In English, the words mean: We can do this! So said Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor from 2005 to 2021, as she hectored her citizens to accept 2 million refugees from Syria and other Muslim countries. ...

The lady running as a Dem for governor in NJ just blurted out in a speech "Sí se puede," where she meant to say "Yes we can" in Spanish.

https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/what-helen-andrews-critics-get-wrong

The key to understanding the effects of women’s increasing prominence in modern institutions thus lies in understanding the evolution of sex differences, especially sex differences in cooperation. ...

The first level of cooperation, kin-based cooperation, is the oldest and most intuitive form of sociality. Consequently, it is found in many extant species, from ducks to deer to humans. Parents protect offspring; siblings share food; families defend territory. Shared genes create incentives for coordination and sacrifice. The moral sentiments that promote this kind of cooperation are partial and emotionally charged. Affection, loyalty, empathy and obligation to one’s own. That these moral emotions remain potent can be seen in the difficulty of eradicating nepotism. Even in modern bureaucracies, kinship often trumps merit.

The second level is reciprocal partnership, cooperation between non-kin in mutually beneficial exchanges. This is more complicated than kin relationships because it requires a calculation of partner value and a running tally of reciprocity. Two people hunt together and share the resulting kill. Or one person collects food and shares with the other, expecting repayment in the future. These relationships are mutualistic and flexible, oriented around trust, fairness and reputation. The relevant moral sentiments are gratitude and anger, and the moral sense is reciprocity.

The third and most abstract level of cooperation is coalitional cooperation, the coordination of large groups of non-kin unified by a shared goal. This form of social organization underlies every complex institution, from the army to the university. And it is here that sex differences are the most pronounced and consequential.

Across evolutionary history, men were selected for precisely this kind of large-scale coordination because groups of men who could organize effectively, for hunting, defense, or warfare, had fitness advantages over those that could not. While military buffs emphasize and obsesses over strategy, the primary predictor of success in battle is numbers. The larger group generally prevails. And losing in such a battle often resulted in death or slavery, two outcomes which, needless to say, are not evolutionarily propitious.

Success for men in forming large coalitions required mechanisms for ranking, enforcing impartial rules, and harnessing the power of individual talent for group benefit. The solution to this last problem was a status-exchange system. A skilled hunter or fighter earned status from his group, and his group benefited from his skills. The mind shaped by these selective pressures valued hierarchy, fairness understood as merit, a disciplined emotional stoicism and impartiality, the moral foundations of what would later become meritocracy, law, and science.

Women, in contrast, were primarily selected for kin and reciprocal levels of cooperation, the care of children, maintenance of family, and management of reputation in smaller social networks.4 Unlike men, they rarely engaged in coalitional combat. Thus their moral mind was oriented not toward impartiality of rule but to empathy and concern for the vulnerable. Whereas men developed a coalitional morality that emphasized duty, loyalty to the group, and the subordination of emotion to function, women developed a relational morality emphasizing care, equity, and emotional cohesion.

Sigmund Freud’s controversial assertion that women possessed a weaker superego than men and thus a deficient sense of morality may be interpreted less as manifestation of misogyny than as an accurate observation of these different moral sensibilities.5 Men’s moral predispositions evolved around the creation and enforcement of rules within large coalitions, whereas women’s evolved around the preservation of peace within small groups and dyads.

These different evolutionary paths produced different innate cognitive and emotional tendencies relevant to modern institutions. On average, men are more systemizing, inclined to reason about objects, abstractions and formal rules. Women are more empathizing, inclined to contemplate and ruminate about persons and feelings. Men are more tolerant of risk, pursue status more openly and aggressively, and tolerate competition more easily, often exhilarating in the clash of arms or ideas. Women exhibit stronger preferences for security, stability and social harmony, often discouraging dissent and debate. ...

As student populations feminize, so too do faculties and professoriates. Women already outnumber men among post-secondary faculty and are on track to surpass them among professors as well. Put simply, the modern university is becoming a feminized institution.

It is not a coincidence that over this same period, the academy has drifted and perhaps accelerated away from its traditional lodestar, the pursuit of truth. In its place has risen a new lodestar: social justice, equity, and the emotional safety of students and staff. In other words, extreme progressivism. Outside of the academy, many have pushed back against this species of progressivism. But inside, things are as bleak as ever, with prominent journals encouraging authors to include “citation diversity statements”. In place of meritocracy, we get a communism of victimhood. From each according to their privilege; to each according to their intersectionality. ...

Patriarchy worked for a long, long time. It may have been wrong about some things, but it’s unlikely that it was wrong about everything.

It's simpler than that - women don't know what they want, so it's up to men to show them, "You are sixteen going on seventeen, I'll show you what to do."

Now that's rape.

4th wave feminists - good luck with that.

Patrick says

Sigmund Freud’s controversial assertion that women possessed a weaker superego than men and thus a deficient sense of morality may be interpreted less as manifestation of misogyny than as an accurate observation of these different moral sensibilities.5 Men’s moral predispositions evolved around the creation and enforcement of rules within large coalitions, whereas women’s evolved around the preservation of peace within small groups and dyads.

Kohlberg's studies showed women were mostly stuck on the 3rd "I have to APPEAR as a good boy/girl" stage of development, maxed out by the mid-teens. Only half of all women reached 4th stage by middle age.

Whereas many boys were moving towards the 4th stage "We have rules for a reason" stage by the mid-teens and most by their early 20s.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2025/11/05/societal-death-by-feminization/

Helen Andrews has written an important article, “The Great Feminization,” thus saving me the effort. https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/

I have never cared for former Harvard University President Larry Summers’ economics or his role as a Treasury official in blocking Brooksley Born from regulating dark derivatives, but I have always thought Summers got a raw deal when Harvard’s female faculty cancelled him as president for expressing a truth. The women couldn’t wait to get a male, even a Jewish one. ...

Andrews sees a problematic future. “If wokeness really is the result of the Great Feminization, then the eruption of insanity in 2020 was just a small taste of what the future holds. Imagine what will happen as the remaining men age out of these society-shaping professions and the younger, more feminized generations take full control.” We are already living in a world where “in-group consensus can suppress unpopular facts.”

“The rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female.” Emoting will lead to judgments based on where female sentiment resides. At the moment it resides with black criminals instead of with their victims and with illegal aliens instead of with US citizens.

https://barsoom.substack.com/p/the-canadian-political-class-is-ideologically

On the same day that the ambition to get 400,000 Canadians into uniform was leaked, the First Woman To Be the Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Jennie Carignan, attended a ceremony of apology for the CAF’s history of systemic racism and racial discrimination. Gen Carignan broke down in tears at the lectern, overcome by the numinous ecstasy of the Spirit of Saint Floyd washing her soul clean of sin.




Carignan’s emotional incontinence elicited mockery from the Internet. Historian Darryl Cooper – best known for his Martyr Made podcast1 – had the best take: “She’s crying? I’m crying watching this video after spending months reading about how the Canadian soldier was one of the fiercest monsters to haunt the trenches of the Great War.”

Of course, I got in on the fun myself, and in the process discovered that I’d been blocked by the official Canadian Armed Forces X account.




It’s possible that it’s because of something I said.




Back to the weeping general. She has an interesting backstory. Following her elevation to the apex of the military chain of command, RUMINT2 surfaced to the effect that she had demonstrated cowardice in the face of the enemy. The story goes that in 2019 she was deployed to Iraq, where she was placed in charge of a NATO training school. In January 2020 her position came under rocket fire and she panicked, had her luggage (including a collection of carpets she’d purchased) packed aboard a helicopter, and attempted to evacuate the base before the troops, thereby earning her the designation “Iraqi Evaci”. Her attempted desertion was supposedly stopped at the last minute by a senior American general, who chewed her out and ordered her back to her post. Shortly after that she was relieved of her command and returned to sender, only to be promoted a few months later to take the newly created position of head of “Chief Professional Conduct and Culture” ... informally known to the troops as the DEI division.

I have no idea whether the rumour about the Grandmother-General’s attempted desertion of her post is true or not. Naturally the rumour is officially denied, but then it would be: the Canadian government can’t come out and say “We’re promoting cowards in the name of inclusion”. What isn’t controversial is that Carignan’s previous position as CPCC was explicitly intended to ram DEI down the CAF’s throat in a process referred to internally with the bland bureaucratic euphemism of ‘culture change in the defence team’. Between 2020 and 2024 Carignan was responsible for leading this ‘culture change’ in the form of struggle session/consciousness raising workshops, mandating diversity quotas for hiring and promotion, genderqueering the uniform substandards, establishing a snitch culture for reporting microaggressions, providing a high standard of gender-affirming care, and making sure that the men’s room was fully stocked with tampons.

The reluctance of Canadians to serve in the military is likely related to the elite culture that elevated a weepy old woman to the top of the Canadian military. Most of the drop in pride occurred after 2021, corresponding precisely to implementation of ‘culture change’ in the Armed Forces. The temporal coincidence between culture change, the steep decline in military pride, the recruiting crisis, and the exodus service-members suggests that these factors are causally linked: that disinterest in military service is driven more by white conservative men disgusted by the broken joke of the woke Armed Farces (you heard me), than it is by liberal hijabis agitated by the military’s ostentatious, self-flagellating soul-searching over its sins against racial and sexual inclusion. ...

It can’t be ignored that Canada’s population has become dramatically less Canadian in recent history. Bangladeshis, Punjabis, Gujaratis, Han Chinese, Arabs, Somalis, and the rest of the charcuterie board of multicultural mystery meat served up by our airports simply do not have any authentic connection to the land, people, culture, traditions, and history of Canada. Why would they fight for a country they don’t really think of as their own? By and large, they don’t: the Canadian military is still overwhelmingly white and male.

The Canadian government has worked hard to systemically alienated the native population. Official state ideology is that Canada is a post-national multicultural state with no core identity built on stolen native land by genocidal settler-colonialists. As such, there’s nothing to defend. There’s no there, there: no identity to identify with, no boundaries of culture to justify the borders of political geography, no in-group to defend against an outgroup. No nationalism without a nation; no patriotism without patria.

Reinvigorating Canadians’ willingness to serve their country and rebuilding Canada’s military into a force that can win wars would both require the Canadian political class to repudiate the ideological territory of globalism, feminism, multiculturalism, mass immigration, and gender-bothering that they have made themselves synonymous with. However, they can’t reverse course without discrediting themselves, and so, they won’t. Fixing the recruitment crisis is therefore a coup-complete problem: it cannot be accomplished absent wholesale replacement of Ottawa’s political class. We only need to look south of the border for demonstration of this. Until 2025, the American military was suffering from precisely the same recruiting woes as afflict Canada and Great Britain, due entirely to a collapse in interest amongst America’s traditional warrior class: white rural Southern men.

The ascendant Trump replaced the shapeless blob Lloyd Austin as the Secretary of Defense with the young, energetic, crusader-tattooed Pete Hegseth as the Secretary of War (and that difference in terminology matters). Recruitment rebounded immediately, with the US Army alone exceeding its 2025 goals by 61,000, four months ahead of schedule. Including reserves, the US military as whole recruited about 325,000 new personnel in 2025, with each branch either hitting or exceeding its recruitment targets (which were also 10-20% higher than in 2024). Adjusting for population ratios, this would be the equivalent of the CAF recruiting 32,500 personnel in one year.

Admittedly, the MAGA coup in the US is far from complete, and its survival and success far from assured. Nevertheless, the immediate reversal of the American recruitment crisis following a change in senior leadership can’t be denied, and strongly suggests that replacing left-wing multicultural globalists with patriotic right-wing nationalists is the single most effective recruiting tool given a political context in which young men have been radicalized towards the right.

https://www.adorableandharmless.com/p/the-feminization-is-coming-from-inside

... the cultural changes we now call wokeness are downstream of the ever-ballooning set of contradictory workplace requirements we call civil rights law. Andrews sees the institutional and cultural dominance of women as the ultimate cause of the turn to wokeness, but also traces such dominance back to civil rights law. ...




The second chart demonstrates that women became a majority of new college graduates by 1990. Why, then, have we constantly heard since that time that women face unfair discrimination in higher education, that we must level the playing field with scholarships and programs targeted at increasing women’s college participation? Do people not understand women already out-perform men in college graduation?

In most cases, they do understand that, at least at some level. But on a more visceral level they still feel that women are simply more inherently worthy of our attention and resources than are men, a bias shared by essentially everyone throughout the West. There are good reasons to believe this bias is simply baked in through the process of biological and cultural evolution — women are the bottleneck to reproduction, and any tribe or culture which didn’t elevate their needs above men’s got out-reproduced and therefore outcompeted by those who did. But we have empirical, quantified evidence of the phenomenon since at least 1994, when the “women are wonderful effect” was first coined. Despite what activists might claim, women’s needs are on the whole given more attention than men’s, and in general people like women more, want to be around them more, want to give them considerations and privileges above and beyond what’s afforded to men. ...

Both men and women very strongly preferred female candidates with identical on-paper qualifications, and this was true both in fields that are male-dominated (engineering) and female-dominated (psychology). Nobody in a psychology department is worried about running afoul of a lawsuit for not hiring enough women, but they still prefer female candidates by at least 2 to 1. ...

My own personal experience with these changes has been working for elite tech companies over the last twenty-something years, and I tend to specialize in especially gear-headed domains where the male-female ratio is even more lopsided than in tech as a whole. I’ve seen first-hand how the behavioral norms of an organization shift as women go from being more than a token minority to even a small minority. The famed “boys club” of tech, the “frat-house” environment so decried by women’s activism in the mid-2010s, is a real thing. I saw it first hand. But only on teams where there was, at most, one or two women, and they were “one of the guys.” As soon as there were even three women, even on a team of dozens of men, the behavioral norms shifted abruptly to what women preferred. Out: nerf gun fights, push up contests, casual put downs, practical jokes. In: listening, collaboration, small talk, implicit social status games. Nobody had to be threatened for this change to occur, certainly not by lawsuits. Even computer nerds, famously socially blind, quickly adopt more feminine norms when women enter a social space. And the point at which this happens is nowhere near the 50% female Andrews implies is required. It happens as soon as there is any visible group of women, almost no matter how small. Their preferences are instantly afforded more consideration than men’s by tacit consensus.