Drawing the Line on Masculinity: Getting a Male Role Back (Part Four)

Part One     Part Two      Part Three

In a recent episode of the Triggernometry podcast (January 1, 2026, specifically a clip titled “Helen Andrews On The Problem With the Feminization of Society”), Helen Andrews discussed her thesis on how the demographic shift toward female majorities in powerful institutions has reshaped societal behavior.  She made several points in her argument against the feminization of society, which one could also call the abdication of the male role in fitting with this series of articles here.

Observations and Argument from Helen Andrews

Andrews argued that the rise of “wokeness” is a direct result of applying feminine patterns of behavior to institutions (with provided examples in such contexts as law schools, medical schools, and the media) where women now hold the majority. Her key points in the interview included:

• Conflict Resolution Styles: Andrews suggests that men typically solve conflicts through open debate and adherence to rules and facts (the “masculine way”), whereas women tend to prioritize relationships and consensus (the “feminine way”). [01:31]
• Wokeness as a Feminine Pattern: She posits that wokeness is characterized by “feminine patterns of behavior” like internal policing and “slack revolts” seen at places like The New York Times after it became majority female in 2018. [01:14], [02:24]
• Weaponized Caring: Andrews observes that women have a strong impulse to care for the helpless. She argues that political issues are now framed as “caring for a helpless class” to weaponize this maternal instinct, treating minorities or marginalized groups as “babies” to be protected rather than equals to be debated. [07:12], [07:22]
• Feelings over Facts: Using the 2005 resignation of Harvard President Larry Summers as an example, she notes that female critics didn’t debate his scientific facts but instead focused on how his words made them “feel like throwing up” or “blacking out.” [10:14], [12:14]
• Reputation Destruction: She agrees with the idea (often cited by Jordan Peterson) that while men use physical aggression, feminized conflict relies on reputation destruction and social exclusion. [12:50]

Related to the male role as established by God in scripture, the “feminization of society” is a departure from the divine order.  An exposition of scripture focuses on distinct roles and the consequences of reversing them.

The Divine Order of Creation

The order of creation buttresses gender roles.  It emphasizes that the headship of man over women in family and all other institutions is not a result of the Fall but an inherent design.  Adam was created first, signifying his role as the head and protector.  The prohibition of women teaching or usurping authority over men is rooted in the order of creation.

Genesis 2:7, 18, 22: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground. . . . And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . . And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-9: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man. . . . For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

When women take the lead in institutions, it reflects a fall-like state.  Just as Eve was deceived by the serpent and led Adam into sin, a society led primarily by feminine consensus and feelings becomes more susceptible to theological and moral deception.

Restrictions in Teaching and Authority

1 Timothy 2 restricts women from positions of authority over men within the church and, by extension, that a society where women “rule” is a sign of judgment.

1 Timothy 2:11-14: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

As seen in Eve’s greater susceptibility to deception in the garden, God designed men to be the protectors and leaders to prevent chaos.

Feminization as National Judgment

What Andrews in her interview labeled a demographic shift, God in scripture manifests as a “judicial act of God.”   Isaiah 3 reads it as a prophetic explanation of a collapsing civilization, describing a society led by women and children as one having lost God’s blessing.

Isaiah 3:12: “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”

Empowering women makes weak men and when men are weak, the culture becomes vulnerable to conquest and moral decay.  In an Israeli culture formulated by the civil or judicial law of God, for a woman to “rule” was seen as a sign that the men had become spiritually and morally effeminate or passive.  When God wants to judge a nation, He removes “the mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet” (Isaiah 3:2). The resulting “feminization” is a symptom of a vacuum — men have abdicated their post, and the resulting leadership lacks the rugged, truth-at-all-costs character necessary to sustain a civilization.

The Role of the “Weaker Vessel”

Scripture describes the woman as the “weaker vessel,” which conservative teachers interpret as a call for male chivalry and protection, rather than institutional competition.

1 Peter 3:7: “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”

The problem with a feminized society is not that women are lesser, but that the overturning of the divine order leads to disaster. When women ascend to power structures, men become passive, childish leaders take over, and the tender sensibilities of women are exploited to replace objective justice with subjective feelings.

Distinction in Appearance and Identity

The blurring of gender or sexual distinctions — a key component of a “feminized” or “unisex” society — is condemned in God’s Law.

Deuteronomy 22:5: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Deuteronomy 22:5 and a companion New Testament text, which preserves the unique, visible symbols required for the righteous validation and support of God’s design, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, do more than prohibit blurring of gender or sexual distinctions.  They argue for the maintaining or protection of the male and female items of appearance that reveal the God created roles in the culture.

The Shift Toward Empathy, Characterizing Feminized Institutions

In her appearance on Triggernometry, Helen Andrews describes the shift toward empathy as a defining characteristic of “feminized” institutions, which she views as a departure from traditional masculine systems.

Empathy vs. Rationality

Andrews argues that when an institution becomes majority female, the fundamental group dynamic changes. She contends that men typically prioritize rationality, facts, and rules, whereas women prioritize empathy, relationships, and consensus. In this framework, the pursuit of truth or justice is often sidelined in favor of ensuring everyone feels included and cared for.

The Weaponization of Empathy

A central part of Andrews’s argument is that the feminine impulse to care for helpless things has been weaponized by modern political movements.  She explains that wokeness succeeds by framing complex political or institutional issues as a matter of caring for a helpless class.  She suggests that marginalized groups are often treated like “babies” in this system — objects of maternal protection rather than participants in a rational debate. Once a group is framed as helpless, any rational criticism or factual disagreement is viewed as an act of cruelty rather than a legitimate counter-argument.

Empathy as a Barrier to Debate

Andrews uses the case of former Harvard President Larry Summers to illustrate how empathy replaces discourse.   She notes that his female critics did not attempt to debunk his scientific claims with better data.  Instead, they responded with physical and emotional reactions (e.g., “I felt like I was going to black out”).  In a feminized culture, she argues, these expressions of emotional distress are treated as “veto points” that end a conversation, making it impossible to discuss “uncomfortable” facts.

Safety Over Risk

In the interview, Andrews further links empathy to an obsession with safety, both physical and emotional. Because the feminine dynamic seeks to protect the group from harm or conflict, institutions move away from the “rigorous, high-conflict” environment that traditionally spurred innovation and excellence, opting instead for a “kindergarten” or “HR-driven” culture that prioritizes emotional comfort above all else.

The Weaponization of Soft Virtues

Andrews’s point about “weaponized caring” aligns with a biblical critique of “effeminate” theology — that “love” and “empathy” have been redefined to mean the “affirmation of sin.”  Feminine empathy contrasts with the masculine command to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).  The KJV’s use of the word “charity” in 1 Corinthians 13 is often misunderstood as mere “niceness.”

“Charity . . . . rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6)

A feminized society creates a “sentimentalist” morality. If someone “feels” hurt, the “truth” is discarded to soothe the feeling.  Indeed, God’s love is holy and just and by prioritizing empathy over the Law of God, society commits an “idolatry of the feelings.” This shifts the focus or goal from “justice,” punishing the wrongdoer according to the law, to “social justice,” protecting the “helpless” regardless of their actions.

The Loss of Chivalry and the Rise of the “Passive Man”

The feminization of society doesn’t just change women; it “unmans” men.  1 Corinthians 16:13 serves as a core mandate for masculine leadership.

Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.

The phrase “quit you like men” (from the Greek andrizomai) literally means to “act like a man” or “be courageous.”

A feminized culture encourages men to be “soft” (the Greek malakos, translated as “effeminate” in 1 Corinthians 6:9).  A society cannot survive without men who are willing to engage in unpleasant conflict and protect the boundaries of truth.  When the feminine group dynamic of consensus takes over, men who stand fast are labeled as toxic or aggressive, leading to a society of cowardly leaders who refuse to take a stand against moral rot.

Distinctive Identity vs. The Unisex Society

Historical, biblical theology of the true church reveals that the confusion Andrews notes in her trans-ideology discussion is a direct result of ignoring the binary nature of God’s creation.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27).

“Feminization” is a step toward “androgyny” — a state where the “glory of the woman” and the “strength of the man” are blurred into a single, indistinguishable mass. By removing the “headship” of the man, the society loses its “structure,” and by removing the “distinction” of the woman, she loses her “protection.”  The “hysteria” Andrews describes in the interview (feelings over facts) is, based upon doctrine proceeding from scriptural exegesis, the natural result of a society that has rejected the objective reality of the created order.

More to Come