Women Derangement Syndrome (WDS) is when a person has such an intense negative fixation on women that they deny facts, reject evidence, and twist reality to maintain their bias.
In order to understand something, we first have to name it. Language shapes our ability to see patterns, and without a label, harmful behaviors can slip by unnoticed.
In just the past two days, I’ve seen multiple public statements about women that are so disconnected from reality that they border on the absurd. Going beyond ordinary misogyny, these statements reject facts, deny women’s proven abilities, and twist reality itself.
Andrew Tate claimed that women are “barely sentient.” Another man in an interview argued that women should not be allowed to vote or hold leadership positions.
These aren’t harmless, fringe opinions. They represent a much larger pattern, a persistent refusal to accept evidence when it contradicts a deep-seated hostility toward women.
Definition
Women Derangement Syndrome (WDS): a persistent, irrational fixation on discrediting, diminishing, or controlling women, often by rejecting evidence that demonstrates their competence, intelligence, or humanity.
Typically, it manifests as:
- Denial of factual achievements by women.
- Creation or promotion of stereotypes that undermine women’s credibility.
- Calls to restrict women’s rights despite clear evidence of their capabilities.
- Dismissing women’s perspectives as “emotional,” “irrational,” or “hysterical” without addressing the substance of their arguments.
While WDS is most often exhibited by men, it can also appear in women who have internalized misogynistic beliefs.
A Pattern Through History
We have overwhelming evidence that women excel in leadership. Harvard Business Review has shown women outperform men in the majority of key leadership skills. Empathy, a crucial leadership trait, is consistently found to be higher in women across global studies.
Yet, facts like these are often ignored or outright rejected.
Sometimes, this is passive misogyny—prejudice expressed through exclusion or limitation without directly confronting facts. For example, in the early 20th century, many workplaces barred women from management roles simply because “it’s not women’s work.” Women weren’t given the chance to prove themselves, but the bias didn’t require evidence, it thrived on assumption and tradition.
Other times, it escalates into Women Derangement Syndrome—an active, obsessive rejection of reality to maintain bias.
The clearest example comes from archaeology: for over a century, researchers assumed the Viking warrior buried in Birka was male because of the high-status weapons found with the body. In 2017, DNA testing confirmed the warrior was biologically female. Despite this indisputable evidence, some scholars refused to accept it, inventing improbable explanations rather than accepting a woman could be a decorated warrior.
Other historical examples include:
- Rosalind Franklin’s critical role in discovering DNA’s structure was ignored for decades, even though her data was central.
- Female rulers like Hatshepsut, Elizabeth I, and Catherine the Great were framed as anomalies rather than proof of women’s capability.
- Women’s testimony in court has often been dismissed as “emotional” rather than factual echoing the centuries-long misuse of “hysteria” to discredit women.
In every era, WDS isn’t just dislike of women, it’s an active rejection of evidence and reality to keep women in subordinate roles.
Why Naming It Matters
Historically, systemic prejudices only began to be dismantled once they were named and defined. Terms like “sexual harassment” and “gaslighting” gave people language to describe patterns they had long experienced but couldn’t clearly identify.
Until now, there has been no widely recognized term for the phenomenon of rejecting reality simply because it supports women’s abilities, autonomy, or equality. WDS fills that gap.
One reason WDS has been so persistent is that its perpetrators often shift the focus onto women’s supposed instability. For centuries, the word “hysteria” (derived from the Greek word for uterus) was used to pathologize women’s emotions and silence their concerns. This was not just casual sexism; it was institutional. “Hysteria” was once an official medical diagnosis used to justify dismissing or controlling women.
The irony is that research shows women are generally more emotionally intelligent and self-aware than men. Yet the same stereotype, that women are too emotional to lead or decide, is still used today. Naming WDS allows us to flip the script: instead of allowing unfounded attacks to undermine women’s credibility, we can recognize the bias driving them and call it what it is.
In a rational world, the next step after naming WDS would be to study it seriously. We could, for example, direct the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to examine its psychological and social roots, mapping how insecurity, fear of competition, and cultural conditioning lead to this pattern of thought. But in reality, that’s unlikely to happen, especially when terms like “woman” and “female” are being scrubbed from certain institutional language guidelines. This avoidance of even naming women in research is itself a symptom of the problem.
Why It’s a Derangement
Here, “derangement” is not a clinical diagnosis, it’s a description of thinking so warped by bias that it abandons logic and evidence. And the intent is not to pathologize the person, but to remove power from dysfunctioned thinking not grounded in reality.
- It is irrational to claim that women should not vote, when democracies function best with full participation from all citizens.
- It is irrational to deny women leadership roles when research shows they improve organizational performance.
- It is irrational to call women “barely sentient” when human civilization itself is built on the contributions of women in every field.
- It is irrational to believe that false accusations of rape are common enough to justify hostility toward women, when credible data shows they are rare
When someone’s belief system requires ignoring evidence, dismissing lived reality, and holding contradictory ideas just to maintain prejudice, we’re not dealing with reasoned disagreement. We’re dealing with a cognitive distortion, a derangement, a distorted reality.
Unfortunately, this type of thinking is often used by abusers to justify domestic violence and even domestic terrorism. A woman is more likely to be murdered by her partner than by a stranger, and more women are killed by their partners each year than died in the 9/11 attacks. Those who spread this derangement are promoting abusive mindsets in a culture where three women are murdered every day, and one in three experience sexual violence in their lifetime.
The Harm WDS Causes
WDS is not just offensive rhetoric, it shapes policies, workplace norms, and even historical records.
- In politics: Attempts to restrict women’s reproductive rights and voting access often lean on stereotypes about women’s supposed irrationality.
- In the workplace: Women leaders are held to higher standards, criticized more harshly for mistakes, and evaluated more on personality than results.
- In history: Achievements by women are erased or reframed to minimize their significance.
Unchecked, WDS maintains systems that disadvantage women, even in societies that claim to value equality. While this may make people with WDS feel they are “winning,” research shows that when women have equal opportunities, the entire society benefits. WDS is simply a symptom of polarization, distracting from the economic disenfranchisement of the middle and lower classes.
WDS also harms women on an individual level. Young women and girls are being taught they are “less than” their male counterparts, a belief not rooted in fact or logic. A healthy society requires us to call out this mental health dysfunction before it spreads further.
Quick Guide: How to Spot Women Derangement Syndrome (WDS)
When you hear someone speak about women, ask yourself:
- Are they denying clear evidence of women’s abilities or achievements?
- Are they making sweeping generalizations about women without credible facts?
- Do they attack women’s emotions or character instead of addressing arguments?
- Do they argue women shouldn’t have rights like voting or leadership?
- Do they rewrite or erase women’s roles in history or current events?
If yes to one or more, you’re likely seeing WDS in action. Recognizing it helps you respond with clarity.
Quick Guide: How to Respond to someone with Women Derangement Syndrome (WDS)
When someone rejects clear facts and reality, especially to control or demean others, that is crazy in the everyday sense: irrational, extreme, and harmful. But WDS is typically see in men, and calling men “crazy” often gets dismissed because of the gendered double standards.
Instead of using “crazy” outright, you want to call it what it is: irrational fixation, delusional thinking, or reality denial. Those terms carry weight without falling into the trap of gendered dismissal.
Example responses:
- “Their views reveal a dangerous denial of reality.”
- “This isn’t just disagreement; it’s an irrational obsession with controlling women that ignores facts.”
- “Such delusional thinking undermines society’s progress and must be challenged.”
- “Such obsessive denial of facts shows deep insecurity and a desire to control.”
- “Rejecting clear evidence to diminish half the population is irrational and harmful.”
- “This mindset is rooted in delusion, not reason.”
- “This isn’t just opinion—it’s a dangerous refusal to accept reality.”
- “Denying women’s proven leadership abilities reveals a fixation disconnected from reality.”
- “Calling for restrictions on women’s rights despite overwhelming evidence is extreme and illogical.”
- “These views distort facts to justify control and exclusion.”
People with WDS often develop this mindset through their environment. That may explain it, but it does not excuse it. You can present reality and evidence, but you are not responsible for their refusal to accept truth and fact.
If they argue or become intolerant when faced with facts, stop engaging. Social change and evolution, sometimes referred to in this context as the “male loneliness epidemic” will take its course. However, because WDS has gone unchecked for so long, many who have it may lash out at women as their influence wanes, as seen now in the stripping of women’s autonomy.
A common criticism might be that calling out Women Derangement Syndrome is “anti-man” or unfairly targets men. This is not the case. WDS describes harmful mindsets, not a gender. While it is more often seen in men due to social factors, it can occur in anyone.
This discussion is about promoting human dignity and fairness. When women are treated in line with facts and science men, women, families, and communities benefit alike.
Naming and challenging WDS helps create a society where all people can access opportunities free from irrational prejudice.
Closing Statement
People confronting WDS are at an unfair disadvantage because speaking up for women has too often been dismissed as weakness. In reality, it takes strength, clarity, and integrity to challenge irrational hostility toward half the population. When you point it out, stand your ground. You are defending facts, equality, and human dignity and that is never weakness.
If a woman acted toward men the way many with WDS act toward women, her voice would gain no traction she’d be called “crazy” and dismissed outright. Yet this very real irrationality toward women is continually excused or minimized. That double standard is rooted in a deep cultural narrative, one that won’t disappear overnight.
Women Derangement Syndrome is not just an individual prejudice, it’s a societal blind spot that shapes politics, workplaces, media, and even historical narratives. By naming it, we can stop debating whether it exists and start dismantling it. Naming it won’t solve everything, but it is the beginning of changing it.
Once we can say, “That’s WDS,” we remove the illusion of credibility from arguments that are, at their core, a rejection of reality.
The logical next step would be to study WDS in depth and how to counter it. But we can’t ignore the reality: such research is unlikely while certain institutions avoid even using the words “woman” or “female” in official contexts.
So the work starts with us. Name it when you see it. Point it out when someone twists reality to diminish women. Refuse to treat irrational prejudice as a legitimate opinion. WDS thrives in silence and ambiguity. Naming it strips it of both.
Fact-Check
- Harvard Business Review (2019): Women scored higher than men in 84% of leadership competencies, including taking initiative, acting with resilience, and inspiring others.
- McKinsey & Company (2020): Companies with more women in leadership had higher profitability and better employee engagement.
- Frontiers in Psychology (2021): Meta-analysis across cultures found women scored higher on empathy.
- Journal of Applied Psychology (2019): Higher empathy linked to more effective leadership and conflict resolution.
- American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2017): DNA confirmed the Birka warrior was female. Resistance to this finding highlighted gender bias in historical interpretation.
- Medical News Today: “Female hysteria” was a baseless diagnosis historically used to dismiss women’s legitimate health concerns and restrict their autonomy.