There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
Greg Gutfeld delivered one of the most savage and unapologetic monologues of his career—ripping the radical Left to shreds following the shocking storming of a church in Minnesota by far-left activists.
While the corporate media rushed to downplay or justify the desecration of a house of worship, Gutfeld did what no one else on television was willing to do: tell the truth.
Appearing on Fox News’ The Five, Gutfeld dismantled the Left’s narrative piece by piece, exposing what he described as a dangerous and hollow ideology driven not by compassion but by “suicidal empathy” and rescue delusions.
Gutfeld pointed out the staggering hypocrisy on display.
The same activists who invented “safe spaces” were now violently violating them, storming a church, frightening children, and harassing pastors.
These are the same people who call conservatives “fascists,” Gutfeld noted while behaving like authoritarian enforcers themselves.
They claim to defend women, yet defend men who abuse women. They accuse others of hate, while hunting political enemies. They preach tolerance, while terrorizing families at worship.
Perhaps the most damning question raised by Gutfeld was also the simplest:
Why weren’t the police there?
In every other high-risk protest scenario — Antifa vs. Proud Boys, Hamas supporters vs. Jewish students, pro-life activists vs. feminists — law enforcement separates opposing groups to prevent violence.
But not here.
Gutfeld suggested this was no accident.
The chaos, he argued, was allowed even encouraged to create a spectacle and advance a political storyline of “protesters versus persecutors,” no matter how dishonest that framing may be.
Gutfeld saved his most profound critique for the end.
These “rescue fantasies,” he explained, exist because leftist culture has stripped women and men of real, meaningful roles and replaced them with performative outrage.
Motherhood. Teaching. Community leadership. Service. Work. Faith.
All of it replaced with screaming at cops and livestreaming moral tantrums.
“Your life is meaningless unless you’re out there screaming in a cop’s face.”
He contrasted this with the rise of “Internet dads,” figures who encourage young men to find purpose through responsibility and discipline, and asked the obvious question: Where is the Internet mom?
Where are the women willing to guide younger women away from this spiritual void and back toward meaning?
Instead, these activists end up exactly where their ideology leads them: in a church, screaming at people, empty of purpose and overflowing with rage.
Greg Gutfeld: This isn’t about immigration. It isn’t about ICE. It isn’t about Trump. It is about suicidal empathy that is driven by a rescue fantasy.
You have all of these young, middle-aged women going out there because they have some emptiness in them, going out there in this rescue delusion—helping people they don’t know, strangers who are guilty of crimes. How can you defend that?
This is not protesters going to a church. That is a mob. The people that invented the phrase “safe spaces” are breaking it, frightening kids. These are the people that call us fascists, and they’re hunting people. These are the people that claim to defend women, and yet are defending men who abuse women. These are the people that call us homophobic, and yet they want to out ICE guys for using—I don’t know—gay sex apps.
Let’s be honest here. Fry’s a pussy. He’s scared of these people, or else he would stand up for it, calling it love.
There’s no such thing as a mob with love. Imagine showing this tape to Don Lemon 10 years ago—15 years ago—and saying, “Is this where you saw yourself, Lemon? Crashing a church service? Scaring kids? Attacking a pastor? Was this your hope and dream—to do this?”
Radicalization is gradual. Black Lives Matter is now Bad Guys Matter. Now you’ll defend anything. You’re defending rapists. These are the people you’re defending. On what basis did I get to rapists? You had your chance. You brought this up.
Where are the police? When you have Hamas supporters and Jewish students, police make the separation. Antifa, Proud Boys—police make the separation. Pro-life activists and feminists—police make the separation. Somehow, that separation is not even here, even when the leaders are framing this as protesters versus persecutors, because that’s part of this fantasy world that you live in.
And yet they decide they don’t need cops to separate it. The ICE agents aren’t supposed to deal with that. That’s what the police do. You’ve got to ask yourself: why aren’t the police there? Because it’s a deliberate thing to create this. It’s a spectacle.
Then I’ll finish: this is not an isolated thing.
These rescue fantasies exist because the real power of women—which is in the roles of community, whether it’s wife, mother, work, teaching—that stuff has been marginalized by our modern leftist culture and has to be replaced by activism.
Your life is meaningless unless you’re out there screaming in a cop’s face. You have all these sad people out there, this liberation role-playing, and you’re egging it on. You should not be egging this on, Jessica.
This is a time for brave women. We saw the rise of the “Internet dad,” whether it was Elon Musk, Jordan Peterson, Mike Rowe, Scott Adams, Joe Rogan—people who decided to help young men find meaning in life, whether through service, hard work, or constructive activities.
Where is the Internet mom? The women who step up and show younger women a way out of this spiritual dead end—because it is a spiritual dead end—and how apt it is that they end up in a church screaming at people.
This activism doesn’t produce anything but suffering because it replaces what is truly meaningful in people’s lives. That’s what I meant about the backdrop. It is not about good.
It is not about the police officer. It’s about how we got here and why we’ve talked about this over and over again—whether it was George Floyd, whether it was ICE, whether it was the border guard with the whip. It’s all the same.
It’s a desire to be part of this rescue fantasy because your life’s so freaking empty.
I was asked by a friend to write something about what’s going on with leftist white women aged 18-44 these days. Everyone has seen the videos of these women using violence against federal law enforcement as they go about their duties removing violent criminals who should not be inside the USA. In this post, I’ll go over a few recent articles that talk about this problem, and identify the cause of it. I really hope this will help you.
Earlier this week, Kevin Downey Jr. wrote about what he calls “affluent white liberal women,” or AWFLs, pegging them as the biggest internal threat to America… well-off women with pronouns in their bios and too much time on their hands. He described them as attention-seeking harpies who push extreme gender ideology, drag their kids to medicalized gender clinics, and parade them at sexualized drag shows labeled as “family-friendly.” These are the same people, he argued, who want to defund the police, defend criminals no matter how violent or foreign, and censor anyone who steps out of line with their diversity-and-inclusion gospel.
In fact, recent polling from Cygnal supports his thesis in a significant way. According to the poll, around 24% of Americans overall think criminal action, including violence, is acceptable to stop federal immigration enforcement.
[…]But drill down to white liberal women ages 18 to 44, and that number explodes to 61%.
The poll helps to illustrate the general trend behind the specific videos of these women getting violent with the police. Far from being one or two cases, this is actually what 61% of white leftist women ages 18 to 44 agree with. Regular readers will know about the slide of young women into the radical, extremist left, because I’ve blogged about the surveys showing a worldwide trend of young women becoming more leftist. But it’s useful to have the up to date numbers.
It’s also significant that most of these women are extremely unhappy:
Turns out they’re miserable. The 2024 American Family Survey found that 37% of conservative women and 28% of moderate women between 18 and 40 reported being “completely satisfied” with their lives. For liberal women in the same age group, that figure collapses to just 12%. Liberal women are almost three times more likely than conservative women to experience loneliness multiple times a week, 29% compared to 11%.
This article from The Federalist by Joshua Slocum entitled “Why Leftist White Women Are Leading Domestic Terrorism In Minnesota” is exactly right in identifying the root cause:
At least 60 years of mainstreamed feminism has put American culture under the stiletto heel of entitled and exploitative women.
[…]How did so many leftist American women decide that young foreign men who jump the border are innocent victims in need of their maternal protection, instead of the American girls and young women entitled to be shielded from these men?
The answer appears to be Cluster B personality disorders. These are deep, ingrained characteristics. Those with such disorders are fundamentally narcissistic, emotionally unstable, and often disconnected from reality.
[…]This is what we’re seeing in these female leftist “protestors.” Cluster B personalities are all about dysregulated emotions (usually rage or suicidal despair) and twisting reality into its opposite.
And Joshua Slocum actually proposes a solution to this problem. What’s the solution? We hold women accountable for their bad choices, instead of blaming the results of their bad choices on men.
He writes:
First, we must enact swift and proportionate consequences. For too long, leftist agitators, especially women, have been given the hands-off treatment. Too many of these videos show cops wasting time issuing repeated orders to stop the car and get out while the harpies behind the wheel only escalate. Give the order clearly once. If she disobeys, cuff her and put her in the paddy wagon.
[…]Second, we have to reject the “women are wonderful” effect. This is a phenomenon that describes how both men and women have an in-built pro-female bias. We can look at a man and a woman both performing the same bad action, but we’ll excuse the woman while condemning the man.
Ill-tempered women in America have gotten away with disorderly and criminal behavior at high rates because of this bias. They know it, and they use it deliberately. This woman was tailing ICE and interfering with their operation, pulled the “I’m just a mom!” card when she was caught and forced to stop. Don’t fall for it.
By the way, there’s a great recent article from The Federalist about Christians firing a man and paying a woman just over $1 million dollarsfor engaging in the exact same action.
But let us continue with Joshua Slocum:
Finally, men have to go back to telling women “no.” This is the piece of advice most people have the hardest time with. Women hate hearing it. Many men do, too. We’ve been so hypnotized for so long by feminism that simply telling women “no,” and suggesting that a man ever exercise authority over a woman, is read by otherwise reasonable people as “misogyny.”
Nonsense. If women are full adults with as much agency as men, then they must be treated that way. Men have become knock-kneed with fear, even contemplating telling women “no.” It’s not an unreasonable worry. In my counseling practice, male clients have told me that simply holding female underlings to the same standards as males has resulted in complaints to HR that the men are “aggressive” with women.
Men, I’m afraid we’re going to have to do it anyway. They’re going to call us misogynists. They’re going to tell us we have “an aggressive tone” with women. This is merely the same toddler distraction behavior that ends up exploding in these absurd and dangerous street performances.
Men are not going to get through this without the accusations, and we have to accept that as the price we pay for helping put civil society back in order. The women will be fine. Sooner or later, the stroppy toddler cries it out and starts behaving sanely again.
If you want a long-form explanation for what the underlying cause of this mental illness is, you should check out this article from Aporia Magazine, entitled “Sterile Polygamy”. In one line, white leftist women are going crazy because they have adopted a dating strategy that leaves them with no commitment, no children, and no long-term love relationships.
Here’s the important part:
At the 2018 peak, 28% of men under 30 reported no sex in the past year, compared to 18% of women.
On dating apps, women’s average match rate is 31%; men’s is 2.6% — a 12-fold difference. The most desirable men receive overwhelming attention while the majority receive almost nothing.
[…]The data is stark. Analysis of dating app behavior shows that women like about 14% of male profiles, whereas men like 46% of female profiles. The result is that a small percentage of men receive the vast majority of female attention. The top 10% of men get over half of all likes. The bottom 50% of men get about 5%.
[…]High-status men benefit from polygyny. Women may even prefer to share a high-status man over exclusive access to a low-status one.
[…]If you designed a system to maximize sexual access for high-status men while maintaining the pretense of monogamy, you couldn’t do better than the one we’ve built by accident.
[…]We’ve invented something different: effective polygamy without children. High-status men cycle through partners, but nobody reproduces. Why? Because reproduction requires the lock-in that marriage provides. Serial dating offers [high-status] men all the benefits of access with none of the costs of commitment. And women, waiting for commitment from [high-status] men who have no incentive to provide it, delay childbearing until it’s too late.
So, will we get any leadership on this from within the Christian community or the conservative community? I don’t see any reason why we should expect to. Our leaders are still harping about “Andrew Tate” and ignoring all of the real underlying problems caused by feminist laws, policies and indoctrination.
When I listen to Christian and conservative leaders, they seem to think that they can expect good men to date and marry 40-year-old single-mother feminists who have spent their 20s chasing the bad boys and becoming less and less attractive as wives. And these leaders have no interest in reforming injustices no-fault divorce, false accusations, biased domestic violence laws, paternity fraud, single mother welfare, etc. They can’t even name them! So, they’re just going to keep on insisting on a woman’s “right” to protection and provision from any man that she decides to settle for. When she is “ready”.
That’s not working. It will never work. We need a new strategy.
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 writes that the feminist attack on Summers changed the way she viewed the world. She saw it as the birth of “wokeness, an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.” Females emote and males reason. A concentration of females leads to emotion regardless of fact prevailing over reason and analysis. This is the symbol of our era. Facts no longer matter. The feminization of society has destroyed the influence of facts.
Andrews reports that law schools became majority female in 2016, with dire consequences for law. Journalism became majority female in 2018, with the consequence that emotional commitments have replaced objective reporting, or what little of it that had survived liberal bias.
“Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023. Women are not yet a majority of the managers in America but they might be soon, as they are now 46 percent. So the timing fits. 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. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values.”
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.”
In 2019, I read an article about Larry Summers and Harvard that changed the way I look at the world. The author, writing under the pseudonym “J. Stone,” argued that the day Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard University marked a turning point in our culture. The entire “woke” era could be extrapolated from that moment, from the details of how Summers was cancelled and, most of all, who did the cancelling: women.
The basic facts of the Summers case were familiar to me. On January 14, 2005, at a conference on “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce,” Larry Summers gave a talk that was supposed to be off the record. In it, he said that female underrepresentation in hard sciences was partly due to “different availability of aptitude at the high end” as well as taste differences between men and women “not attributable to socialization.” Some female professors in attendance were offended and sent his remarks to a reporter, in defiance of the off-the-record rule. The ensuing scandal led to a no-confidence vote by the Harvard faculty and, eventually, Summers’s resignation.
The essay argued that it wasn’t just that women had cancelled the president of Harvard; it was that they’d cancelled him in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather than logical arguments. “When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,” said Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT. Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another, and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time. Experts chimed in to declare that everything Summers had said about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria.
This cancellation was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field. That is the Great Feminization thesis, which the same author later elaborated upon at book length: Everything you think of as “wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.
The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It really did unlock the secrets of the era we are living in. Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently. How did I not see it before?
Possibly because, like most people, I think of feminization as something that happened in the past before I was born. When we think about women in the legal profession, for example, we think of the first woman to attend law school (1869), the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court (1880), or the first female Supreme Court Justice (1981).
A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.
“The New York Times staff became majority female in 2018.”
The same trajectory can be seen in many professions: a pioneering generation of women in the 1960s and ’70s; increasing female representation through the 1980s and ’90s; and gender parity finally arriving, at least in the younger cohorts, in the 2010s or 2020s. In 1974, only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff became majority female in 2018 and today the female share is 55 percent.
Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023. Women are not yet a majority of the managers in America but they might be soon, as they are now 46 percent. So the timing fits. 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. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.
The most relevant differences are not about individuals but about groups. In my experience, individuals are unique and you come across outliers who defy stereotypes every day, but groups of men and women display consistent differences. Which makes sense, if you think about it statistically. A random woman might be taller than a random man, but a group of ten random women is very unlikely to have an average height greater than that of a group of ten men. The larger the group of people, the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages.
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.
Bari Weiss, in her letter of resignation from TheNew York Times, described how colleagues referred to her in internal Slack messages as a racist, a Nazi, and a bigot and—this is the most feminine part—“colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.” Weiss once asked a colleague at the Times opinion desk to get coffee with her. This journalist, a biracial woman who wrote frequently about race, refused to meet. This was a failure to meet the standards of basic professionalism, obviously. It was also very feminine.
Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women, and wokeness was in many ways a society-wide failure to compartmentalize. Traditionally, an individual doctor might have opinions on the political issues of the day but he would regard it as his professional duty to keep those opinions out of the examination room. Now that medicine has become more feminized, doctors wear pins and lanyards expressing views on controversial issues from gay rights to Gaza. They even bring the credibility of their profession to bear on political fads, as when doctors said Black Lives Matter protests could continue in violation of Covid lockdowns because racism was a public health emergency.
One book that helped me put the pieces together was Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes by psychology professor Joyce Benenson. She theorizes that men developed group dynamics optimized for war, while women developed group dynamics optimized for protecting their offspring. These habits, formed in the mists of prehistory, explain why experimenters in a modern psychology lab, in a study that Benenson cites, observed that a group of men given a task will “jockey for talking time, disagree loudly,” and then “cheerfully relay a solution to the experimenter.” A group of women given the same task will “politely inquire about one another’s personal backgrounds and relationships … accompanied by much eye contact, smiling, and turn-taking,” and pay “little attention to the task that the experimenter presented.”
The point of war is to settle disputes between two tribes, but it works only if peace is restored after the dispute is settled. Men therefore developed methods for reconciling with opponents and learning to live in peace with people they were fighting yesterday. Females, even in primate species, are slower to reconcile than males. That is because women’s conflicts were traditionally within the tribe over scarce resources, to be resolved not by open conflict but by covert competition with rivals, with no clear terminus.
All of these observations matched my observations of wokeness, but soon the happy thrill of discovering a new theory eventually gave way to a sinking feeling. 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.
The threat posed by wokeness can be large or small depending on the industry. It’s sad that English departments are all feminized now, but most people’s daily lives are unaffected by it. Other fields matter more. You might not be a journalist, but you live in a country where what gets written in The New York Times determines what is publicly accepted as the truth. If the Times becomes a place where in-group consensus can suppress unpopular facts (more so than it already does), that affects every citizen.
“The rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female.”
The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tugs at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.
A feminized legal system might resemble the Title IX courts for sexual assault on college campuses established in 2011 under President Obama. These proceedings were governed by written rules and so technically could be said to operate under the rule of law. But they lacked many of the safeguards that our legal system holds sacred, such as the right to confront your accuser, the right to know what crime you are accused of, and the fundamental concept that guilt should depend on objective circumstances knowable by both parties, not in how one party feels about an act in retrospect. These protections were abolished because the people who made these rules sympathized with the accusers, who were mostly women, and not with the accused, who were mostly men.
These two approaches to the law clashed vividly in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. The masculine position was that, if Christine Blasey Ford can’t provide any concrete evidence that she and Kavanaugh were ever in the same room together, her accusations of rape cannot be allowed to ruin his life. The feminine position was that her self-evident emotional response was itself a kind of credibility that the Senate committee must respect.
If the legal profession becomes majority female, I expect to see the ethos of Title IX tribunals and the Kavanaugh hearings spread. Judges will bend the rules for favored groups and enforce them rigorously on disfavored groups, as already occurs to a worrying extent. It was possible to believe back in 1970 that introducing women into the legal profession in large numbers would have only a minor effect. That belief is no longer sustainable. The changes will be massive.
Oddly enough, both sides of the political spectrum agree on what those changes will be. The only disagreement is over whether they will be a good thing or a bad thing. Dahlia Lithwick opens her book Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America with a scene from the Supreme Court in 2016 during oral arguments over a Texas abortion law. The three female justices, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, “ignored the formal time limits, talking exuberantly over their male colleagues.” Lithwick celebrated this as “an explosion of bottled-up judicial girl power” that “afforded America a glimpse of what genuine gender parity or near parity might have meant for future women in powerful American legal institutions.”
Lithwick lauds women for their irreverent attitude to the law’s formalities, which, after all, originated in an era of oppression and white supremacy. “The American legal system was fundamentally a machine built to privilege propertied white men,” Lithwick writes. “But it’s the only thing going, and you work with what you have.” Those who view the law as a patriarchal relic can be expected to treat it instrumentally. If that ethos comes to prevail throughout our legal system, then the trappings will look the same, but a revolution will have occurred.
The Great Feminization is truly unprecedented. Other civilizations have given women the vote, granted them property rights, or let them inherit the thrones of empires. No civilization in human history has ever experimented with letting women control so many vital institutions of our society, from political parties to universities to our largest businesses. Even where women do not hold the top spots, women set the tone in these organizations, such that a male CEO must operate within the limits set by his human resources VP. We assume that these institutions will continue to function under these completely novel circumstances. But what are our grounds for that assumption?
The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?
If the Great Feminization poses a threat to civilization, the question becomes whether there is anything we can do about it. The answer depends on why you think it occurred in the first place. There are many people who think the Great Feminization is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Women were finally given a chance to compete with men, and it turned out they were just better. That is why there are so many women in our newsrooms, running our political parties, and managing our corporations.
Ross Douthat described this line of thinking in an interview this year with Jonathan Keeperman, a.k.a. “L0m3z,” a right-wing publisher who helped popularize the term “the longhouse” as a metaphor for feminization. “Men are complaining that women are oppressing them. Isn’t the longhouse just a long, male whine about a failure to adequately compete?” Douthat asked. “Maybe you should suck it up and actually compete on the ground that we have in 21st-century America?”
That is what feminists think happened, but they are wrong. Feminization is not an organic result of women outcompeting men. It is an artificial result of social engineering, and if we take our thumb off the scale it will collapse within a generation.
The most obvious thumb on the scale is anti-discrimination law. It is illegal to employ too few women at your company. If women are underrepresented, especially in your higher management, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen. As a result, employers give women jobs and promotions they would not otherwise have gotten simply in order to keep their numbers up.
It is rational for them to do this, because the consequences for failing to do so can be dire. Texaco, Goldman Sachs, Novartis, and Coca-Cola are among the companies that have paid nine-figure settlements in response to lawsuits alleging bias against women in hiring and promotions. No manager wants to be the person who cost his company $200 million in a gender discrimination lawsuit.
“Anti-discrimination law requires that every workplace be feminized.”
Anti-discrimination law requires that every workplace be feminized. A landmark case in 1991 found that pinup posters on the walls of a shipyard constituted a hostile environment for women, and that principle has grown to encompass many forms of masculine conduct. Dozens of Silicon Valley companies have been hit with lawsuits alleging “frat boy culture” or “toxic bro culture,” and a law firm specializing in these suits brags of settlements ranging from $450,000 to $8 million.
Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that feels like a fraternity house, but men can’t sue when their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten. Naturally employers err on the side of making the office softer. So if women are thriving more in the modern workplace, is that really because they are outcompeting men? Or is it because the rules have been changed to favor them?
A lot can be inferred from the way that feminization tends to increase over time. Once institutions reach a 50–50 split, they tend to blow past gender parity and become more and more female. Since 2016, law schools have gotten a little bit more female every year; in 2024, they were 56 percent female. Psychology, once a predominantly male field, is now overwhelmingly female, with 75 percent of psychology doctorates going to women. Institutions seem to have a tipping point, after which they become more and more feminized.
That does not look like women outperforming men. It looks like women driving men away by imposing feminine norms on previously male institutions. What man wants to work in a field where his traits are not welcome? What self-respecting male graduate student would pursue a career in academia when his peers will ostracize him for stating his disagreements too bluntly or espousing a controversial opinion?
In September, I gave a speech at the National Conservatism conference along the lines of the essay above. I was apprehensive about putting forward the Great Feminization thesis in such a public forum. It is still controversial, even in conservative circles, to say that there are too many women in a given field or that women in large numbers can transform institutions beyond recognition in ways that make them cease to function well. I made sure to express my argument in the most neutral way possible. To my surprise, the response was overwhelming. Within a few weeks, the video of the speech had gotten over 100,000 views on YouTube and become one of the most viewed speeches in the history of the National Conservatism conference.
It is good that people are receptive to the argument, because our window to do something about the Great Feminization is closing. There are leading indicators and lagging indicators of feminization, and we are currently at the in-between stage when law schools are majority female but the federal bench is still majority male. In a few decades, the gender shift will have reached its natural conclusion. Many people think wokeness is over, slain by the vibe shift, but if wokeness is the result of demographic feminization, then it will never be over as long as the demographics remain unchanged.
As a woman myself, I am grateful for the opportunities I have had to pursue a career in writing and editing. Thankfully, I don’t think solving the feminization problem requires us to shut any doors in women’s faces. We simply have to restore fair rules. Right now we have a nominally meritocratic system in which it is illegal for women to lose. Let’s make hiring meritocratic in substance and not just name, and we will see how it shakes out. Make it legal to have a masculine office culture again. Remove the HR lady’s veto power. I think people will be surprised to discover how much of our current feminization is attributable to institutional changes like the advent of HR, which were brought about by legal changes and which legal changes can reverse.
Because, after all, I am not just a woman. I am also someone with a lot of disagreeable opinions, who will find it hard to flourish if society becomes more conflict-averse and consensus-driven. I am the mother of sons, who will never reach their full potential if they have to grow up in a feminized world. I am—we all are—dependent on institutions like the legal system, scientific research, and democratic politics that support the American way of life, and we will all suffer if they cease to perform the tasks they were designed to do.
Helen Andrews is the author of Boomers: The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster.
For hundreds of years, men dominated the major institutions in western society, but over the past several decades there has been an unprecedented shift. Today, leftist women either dominate or are on their way to dominating most of our major institutions. As a result, the way that things get done has been totally turned upside down. Even our largest corporations are now making consensus-driven decisions that are based on emotion rather than on facts. If you insist on disagreeing with the consensus, you may find yourself being “canceled”. Defending the narratives that the group has established and protecting the feelings of favored individuals have become far more important goals than getting to the truth.
A few days ago, a conservative woman named Helen Andrews published an article that is taking the Internet by storm. In that article, she equates the feminization of our society with the rise of “wokeness”…
Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.
Andrews is a woman, and she is certainly not suggesting that women are bad.
But she is pointing out that things have gotten way out of balance.
When I was growing up, I never thought about the political views of my doctors, and I didn’t really care.
Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women, and wokeness was in many ways a society-wide failure to compartmentalize. Traditionally, an individual doctor might have opinions on the political issues of the day but he would regard it as his professional duty to keep those opinions out of the examination room. Now that medicine has become more feminized, doctors wear pins and lanyards expressing views on controversial issues from gay rights to Gaza. They even bring the credibility of their profession to bear on political fads, as when doctors said Black Lives Matter protests could continue in violation of Covid lockdowns because racism was a public health emergency.
Compartmentalization is a good thing.
If I hurt my arm and go to see a doctor, I don’t want to hear what he thinks about gay rights.
I just want him to fix my arm.
Unfortunately, we live at a time where most people feel like they have to signal whether they are for or against the liberal consensus that has dominated our society for the past several decades.
The reason why the left hates Donald Trump so much is because he has become the embodiment of the backlash to “wokeness”, and that is also the reason why many conservatives love him so much.
Donald Trump is not polite, and he is not afraid to express controversial views that are in direct opposition to the “woke” narratives that our major institutions have been pushing.
Many conservatives think that “wokeness” has been defeated now that Trump is in the White House, but the truth is that once Trump is gone the millions of “HR ladies” that dominate our major institutions will still be there.
On average, girls in 3rd grade outperform boys in reading and writing by roughly half a grade level. By the end of 8th grade, girls are almost a full grade ahead. That’s according to a 2018 study from Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis that tracked assessments from 10,000 districts across the nation.
Normal female behavior is encouraged in our public schools, while normal male behavior is frowned upon.
So a lot of boys end up deeply hating school.
At one time boys could at least look forward to participating in organized sports after school, but now participation in such sports by boys is “declining rapidly”…
Youth sport participation among boys in the United States has been declining rapidly over the past ten years. The cancellation of sports seasons during the unscientific and draconian COVID lockdowns has only exacerbated this devastating trend.
According to a survey conducted earlier this year by The Sports & Fitness Industry Association, the percentage of boys who regularly competed in sports dropped by nine points over the past decade—while the participation rate for girls, while still less than boys, has increased slightly.
In high school, the achievement gap between boys and girls is even larger…
Girls, in addition to being more likely to take advanced courses in high school, tend to earn higher grade point averages than boys in high school. In one statewide study of public high school students, 51 percent of graduating female students earned a high school GPA above 3.0, compared to 36 percent of male students. Girls were 1.9 times more likely to be in the top 5 percent of graduating GPAs, and boys were 1.6 times more likely to be in the bottom 5 percent of GPAs.
Of course it doesn’t end there.
At this point, young women are far more likely to get a college degree than young men are…
In 1972, the year Title IX was passed to promote gender equality in higher education, men earned 56.4 percent of all bachelor’s degrees, while women earned 43.6 percent—a 13-point gap. By 2019, there was a 15-point difference—in the other direction, with women earning about 58 percent of all bachelor’s degrees. The pandemic accelerated that trend: from 2019 to 2020, male first-time college enrollment dropped by 5.1 percent, compared to less than 1 percent for women.
This trend has enormous implications for the future of our society, because college graduates are the future leaders of our society.
In other words, they are the people that are going to run our major institutions in the future.
In her excellent article, Helen Andrews was particularly concerned about what this is going to mean for our legal system…
The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tugs at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.
I very much agree with her.
It won’t be too long before our legal system is completely and utterly dominated by liberal women…
A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.
Once liberal women have achieved a stranglehold over our legal system, what will our society look like?
That is not something that I am eager to imagine.
As Andrews has correctly pointed out, even now our anti-discrimination laws essentially require “that every workplace be feminized”…
Anti-discrimination law requires that every workplace be feminized. A landmark case in 1991 found that pinup posters on the walls of a shipyard constituted a hostile environment for women, and that principle has grown to encompass many forms of masculine conduct. Dozens of Silicon Valley companies have been hit with lawsuits alleging “frat boy culture” or “toxic bro culture,” and a law firm specializing in these suits brags of settlements ranging from $450,000 to $8 million.
Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that feels like a fraternity house, but men can’t sue when their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten. Naturally employers err on the side of making the office softer. So if women are thriving more in the modern workplace, is that really because they are outcompeting men? Or is it because the rules have been changed to favor them?
You aren’t going to get sued if you don’t hire enough men or if your workplace does not feel welcoming for men.
But if you don’t hire enough women or if your workplace does not feel welcoming for women you could get sued into oblivion.
Sadly, many men feel as though our entire society has become extremely unwelcoming to them at this stage.
Men die “deaths of despair” from suicide, drugs, or alcohol at nearly three times the rate of women. And often, those hit hardest by these trends are working-class, men of color, or both.
One of the reasons why our society is such a mess today is because we have allowed vast hordes of extremely liberal “HR ladies” to run things.
If we stay on the path that we are currently on, the future of our society isn’t going to be bright.
Millions of young males that are being pushed aside by our society are going to end up as addicts, and millions of them will find themselves in prison.
Actually, that has already happened.
Millions upon millions of lives have already been wasted, and millions of young boys will soon be joining their ranks if something is not done.
Unfortunately, the “HR ladies” that are now in control of our major institutions seem to think that things are running just fine.
J.D. Vance is right. Whether through hate speech laws, digital IDs, or other measures, the U.K. and other Western countries have gone full Orwell in their treatment of those who express “wrong think” about transgenderism, mass immigration, and abortion.
Those who live in the U.K. and Australia like to brag about how polite and civilized they are in personal interactions, especially when contrasting themselves with “ugly” Americans.Do you think young people are becoming more conservative?(Required)YesNoEmail(Required)
Completing this poll entitles you to receive communications from Liberty University free of charge. You may opt out at any time. You also agree to our Privacy Policy.
Increasingly, though, that’s style over substance. Because by any measure, it is the British and their cultural counterpart who act like brutes. In fact, they’re bloody brilliant at it.
These countries are doubling and tripling down on their efforts to enforce and expand “hate speech” laws against dissenters, or anyone who dares to question leftist orthodoxy on cultural and political topics.
And while Brits and Aussies might be exceedingly genteel when engaging in late-night raids to arrest their fellow citizens and cart them off to jail, they are, nonetheless, arresting them solely for expressing unkind, offensive, unapproved, biblical, true, and even silent speech.
The Joke’s On Us
Nowhere is this more evident than in the area of transgenderism. The U.K. officially recognizes in law that there are only two sexes, male and female, and yet its police are arresting and punishing anyone who “misgenders” someone, jokes about the absurdity of it all, or simply states the truth.
This reality got the world’s attention in early September when comedian Graham Linehan was arrested at London’s Heathrow Airport as soon as he got off the plane.
His crime?
Three posts he made on X regarding males who claim to be female.
In an April 20 post, for example, Linehan said that if a male who identifies as female is “in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act.” He added that women in such a situation should make a scene, call the police, or punch the man.
After his arrest, police interrogated him about the posts. Linehan explained that they were serious points made through humor, but as the interview went on, he became so distressed that his blood pressure spiked, requiring hospitalization.
He was later released on bail on the condition that he not use X.
Linehan is best known for writing the Irish television show, “Father Ted,” a series critical of Catholicism and the Catholic church.
He wrote on his Substack,
“Thank God the Catholic Church never had with the police the special relationship granted to trans activists.
I looked at the single bail condition: I am not to go on Twitter. That’s it. No threats, no speeches about the seriousness of my crimes—just a legal gag order designed to shut me up while I’m the UK, and a demand I face a further interview in October.”
Linehan applauded the civility of the officers, many of whom he believed did not agree with the arrest. However, the civility of the officers “doesn’t alter the fundamental reality of what happened,” he wrote, explaining,
“I was arrested at an airport like a terrorist, locked in a cell like a criminal, taken to hospital because the stress nearly killed me, and banned from speaking online—all because I made jokes that upset some psychotic crossdressers. To me, this proves one thing beyond doubt: the UK has become a country that is hostile to freedom of speech, hostile to women, and far too accommodating to the demands of violent, entitled, abusive men who have turned the police into their personal goon squad.”
Meanwhile, in Australia, Kirralie Smith and her organization, Binary Australia, a group that advocates for single-sex sports, were recently found guilty of “unlawful vilification” for social media posts identifying male soccer players as male.
The case started in 2023 when two transgender soccer players, Justin Dennis, who goes by the name “Riley,” and Nicholas Blanch, who goes by “Stephanie,” filed Apprehended Violence Orders against Smith after she wrote online that the two athletes are males identifying as female and competing in women’s soccer.
Dennis, formerly a transgender activist on YouTube, competes as a member of the Flying Bats, a team of five biological men that have dominated women’s soccer tournaments in Australia over the last several years.
Billing themselves as “the world’s oldest and largest LGBTQIA+ women’s and non-binary football club,” the Flying Bats won their second consecutive Women’s Premier League championship earlier this month.
Dennis claims that Smith vilified him by identifying him as the top scorer in the women’s soccer league and by noting that he is biologically male. She also made it public that while playing for the Inter Lions team, Dennis injured two female athletes. Video from May 21, 2023, allegedly shows the much larger Dennis forcefully shove a female opponent off the field of play and into a fence.
Following the incidents, Dennis left the Inter Lions and applied to three teams but was denied until the Flying Bats approved his application, according to Reduxx.
Blanch’s accusation against Smith centers around an article she wrote in January 2023. In the article and related posts, Smith included pictures of Blanch and a post calling him a “bloke in a frock.”
In a series of posts, Smith effectively said that Blanch should enter the men’s competition or mixed competition. “No one is saying he can’t play,” she wrote. “It is simply a matter of fairness, safety, and dignity. He is male and does not belong in a female division. Women and girls deserve to have the option of a female-only competition.”
The court ruling said that Smith “sought to evoke fear in the reader regarding the fact that [Blanch], who is described as a man/male/bloke is playing in a women’s team (and transgender women playing in women’s sport generally).”
To justify that claim, the court included Smith’s statements that asked: “How can girls, women, and families feel safe when they are not even permitted to question the presence of a man in their space or on the field?”; and “Why should parents be put in the terrible situation of having to deal with an adult man in their daughter’s bathroom?”
The ruling requires Smith and Binary Australia to pay Dennis and Blanch $100,000 each, cover their legal costs, issue a public apology, and develop a policy to prevent future “vilification.” The final penalties will be determined on November 5.
Smith has been repeatedly censored by the Australian government. She has been brought into court 10 times for “misgendering” men who identify as women, and on February 20, 2023, the nation’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant had Smith’s Facebook page permanently deleted.
Fighting Dystopia
George Orwell, the author of 1984, once said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
Understanding this, Vice President J.D. Vance has repeatedly called out European governments for their hate speech laws, and the Trump administration has further warned specifically that the U.K.’s censorship of its own citizens, including punishing them for praying in their heads, could negatively impact the relationship between the two countries.
U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer responded to these charges by insisting, “We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the U.K. and it will last for a very long time.”
Be that as it may, 12,000 British citizens are arrested each year for writing, retweeting, or joking in a way that doesn’t meet the speech standards of the U.K. government.
This is clearly seen in a video released last week. That the police, in true Limey style, are sheepishly apologetic and do their mums proud in the manners department as they inform their fellow citizen that he’s going to be searched and hauled off to jail in the middle of the night for a tweet doesn’t make the underlying policy any less tyrannical.
Meanwhile, the U.K. is experiencing rampant violence that’s disproportionately committed by illegal aliens and migrants who refuse to assimilate and follow British law. And yet, if British citizens speak out about it, they will be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison.
Adding to this dystopia, the U.K. government officially recognizes that there are only two genders and that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder and social contagion, but it will arrest and fine those who actually state those facts online or in person.
It is now a fact that those in the U.K., Australia, as well as other Western countries, only have the “freedom” to recite nice, agreeable facts and opinions that bear the government’s stamp of approval.
This isn’t because these government leaders are actually distressed that people are getting their feelings hurt or are made to feel scared by somebody else’s words.
No, it’s about power.
Western countries have been taken over by globalist Marxists who want to implement an agenda that will radically transform their nations — and the first and best way to achieve that is to punish their citizens for speaking out. They only have to do this a few times for in time many people will, first, self-censor their own beliefs and, second, chastise anyone else who dares to speak their mind.
Within the last month, the U.K. (and Switzerland) made that agenda much easier to implement and police after announcing their plans to mandate “digital IDs.”
These “contactless IDs,” stored on a person’s phone, are being hailed by the government as a way to provide faster and easier access to government services while also combatting migrants who are illegally working in those countries. As such, all citizens will have to sign up for and use the ID if they want to have a job, but U.K. officials have also said that, “in time,” the IDs could be extended to other societal “services” to “make it simpler” to apply for driver’s licenses, childcare, and welfare; access tax records; vote in elections, and set up bank accounts.
What might a government already jailing people for errant tweets do with a one-stop shop for every bit and byte of a person’s vital personal information? It doesn’t require much imagination to answer that question. One need only look to Communist China and its digital social credit system, which is used to determine and regulate a person’s “trustworthiness.”
In reality, a digital ID is not about convenience or efficiency — it’s a Trojan horse for tyranny.
It’s time to recognize these once-great “liberal democracies” for what they really have become: authoritarian regimes. So-called “hate speech” laws and digital IDs are tools meant to crack down on dissent and increase control over the population.
How should Americans feel about this? We must continue to resist any and all efforts to impose “hate speech” laws, digital IDs, and other tools of censorship and control in the United States, even as we pray fervently for those in the U.K., Australia, and other countries — who find themselves living in the dystopian reality that Orwell so presciently portrayed in 1984.
Things like transgenderism and transhumanism are both on a roll, and they have often been discussed on my site. Of interest is how much the two are actually connected. They tend to play off each other, and we need to be aware of this. One new book powerfully makes this case.
American writer Jennifer Bilek has written a number of incisive and hard-hitting pieces on transhumanism, transgenderism and the war we are in with these forces of heavily financed darkness. In addition to being found on her own blog, The 11th Hour, many have appeared in such journals as First Things and Human Events.
Thankfully 27 of her articles have now been brought together in the new book, Transsexual, Transgender, Transhuman (Spinifex, 2024). These important essays demonstrate what a prophetic role Bilek has in sounding the alarm about the very real dangers we are now in. And given how much Big Money is behind all this, there is all the more reason to be aware of her warnings.
The more she dug into what was going on here, the more concerned she became. She lets us know what she has been learning in the Introduction:
In my research and writing I follow the money trail behind the gender industry, a domineering and monied business pursuit with a very powerful lobby which is advanced as a human rights campaign. The gender industry is the promotion of the adult male fetish of transsexualism, rebranded for today’s youth, grooming them for industrial body disassociation.
Behind the slogans about freedom of expression, and euphemisms such as ‘gender care’ and ‘gender dysphoria’ is a marketing apparatus so unrelenting and extreme, it has acted upon the populace like cult indoctrination. It has captured large swathes of the public imagination, corporations, educational and medical institutions, and governments across the Western world and beyond, by the idea that the human sex boundary between males and females is a social construct. (p 1)
She offers plenty of documentation on all this, and her chapter on Big Pharma is certainly revealing. A few more quotes:
When pharmacology and technology made it possible for the tiny number of men with this fetish to escalate their behaviors to appropriate surgically constructed facsimiles of female biology, or synthetic sex characteristics, transsexualism took root in the medical industry….
As the technology and pharmaceuticals to perform more realistic synthetic sex surgeries advance, society is forced to accept this paraphilia and accept the ideology that’s developed around it, which denies our biological reality, raising us above the natural world, where we are supposed to thrive in a living tapestry. (pp. 31-32)
Of interest, Bilek was once a person of the left, but the radical progressives of today are a far cry from the old left. So she found herself shifting to the right. She says this about the “new, new left in America” and where things now stand:
Emerging out of the carcass of that potentially revolutionary movement is a left that has recently climbed into bed with those same big banks. Snuggled up in bed with them, fluffing their pillows, are Big Pharma and Big Tech. The left is running around screaming at protests, getting wide media coverage, silencing voices in our universities and institutions, and shouting loudly that people claiming their sex is not male or female need human rights. These manufactured sexes are being supported by, promoted, and advertised by Big Pharma, Big Tech and Big Banking. This new, unrecognizable left sees no irony at all in their behavior.
These purported new sexes, ostensibly requiring special human rights, depend on a narrative that sexual dimorphism isn’t real, that it exists on a spectrum of sexes. This is the gender industry, and with projected profit margins reaching into the billions by 2026, for surgeries on healthy sex organs alone and the amount of advertising curated to sell it, it is going to be very profitable indeed. (pp. 43-44)
She also argues that the homosexual movement has been “hijacked by a radical transhumanist agenda.” Says Bilek:
Western societies are in the vortex of Transhumanism. We are being sucked in because this radical transhumanist agenda and its eugenicist underpinnings are being obscured by a popular LGB human rights veneer.
“Transgenderism” is a word acting as a social bridge between transsexualism and transhumanism. It is an umbrella term with weak borders that allows this bridging quality to transhumanism to nimbly evade scrutiny. Transsexualism is largely an adult male fetish that compulsively objectifies and covets womanhood. Men with autogynephila (the professional name for this form of transsexualism) seek to medically appropriate the sexed humanity of women by purchasing surgical simulacrums of their sexed reality, in parts, to assuage their compulsion. (pp. 49-50)
And again:
Transgenderism/transhumanism is being forced into every sector of society, government, and even into children’s schools where they are taught that they can be boys or girls as they choose; it is a bridge to get us to a place of social acquiescence to these changes. This grooming process would be impossible without the LGB civil rights political apparatus and the already culturally cultivated acceptance of homosexual people. (p. 53)
She closes that chapter with these words: “Without a banner of human rights, the transhumanist boat would sink like a stone. It uses vulnerable children as fodder for the coming revolution in assisted fertility to force our trajectory as a species away from the biosphere and further into technology—unless we stop them.” (p. 54)
In Ch. 9 she notes how the once small and struggling homosexual movement has morphed into an all-powerful and all-conquering giant, squashing all opposition along the way: “Today’s movement, however, looks nothing like that band of persecuted outcasts. The LGBT rights agenda—note the addition of ‘T’—has become a powerful, aggressive force in American society. Its advocates stand at the top of media, academia, the professions, and, most important, Big Business and Big Philanthropy.” (p. 79)
Transsexual Transgender Transhuman: Dispatches from The 11th Hour by Bilek, Jennifer (Author)
She documents how billionaires and Big Corporations are behind all this, and then says:
[T]he LGB civil rights movement of yore has morphed into a relentless behemoth, one that has strong ties to the medical industrial complex and global corporatists. The pharmaceutical lobby is the largest lobbying entity in Congress. Although activists present the LGBT movement as a weak, powerless group suffering oppression and discrimination, in truth it wields enormous power and influence—power it increasingly uses to remake our laws, schools, and society. (p. 83)
Another chapter deals with related themes:
Under Techno-Capitalism, hatred of women is promoted to commodify female bodies and profit from women’s pain.
Most people probably think more about the liberating elements of technology than how it drives our servitude. We may think about the drawbacks of individual technological developments, but overall, we’re not thinking a lot about the unfettered growth of technology, its speed, complexity and its vast spread. As technology is sewn to unfettered capitalism it must grow or die. It must breach new boundaries or wither. Techno-Capitalism, or technology as it is wedded to capitalism functions of its own accord now, driven by profit. The oppression and hatred of females has become part of this system, which continually magnifies it. (pp. 97-98)
The radical sexual and technological war against children is especially a big concern for Bilek – as it should be for all of us. A chapter on this is also worth drawing to your attention. She writes:
The ‘transgender child’ is a corporate, legal, and technological construct. Its manifestation was necessary for substantiating the evolution of an adult male fetish into an industry of owning women’s reproductive capacities via medical technology. An adult male fetish of owning womanhood, and cutting it up for the market, is a very hard sell for the public.
Children distressed about feeling wrong in their sexed realities being promoted as having special human identities, needing protection and rights, and medical manipulation, hits the marketing sweet spot, because it cultivates our empathy. (p. 161)
Bilek minces no words on this matter:
Societies are not being rapidly overhauled for people’s identities, children’s body dysphoria, or some amorphous ‘gender identity’. They are being overhauled to change the way we think of ourselves as a species: a sexually dimorphic species. Children are being groomed to think of themselves as parts, not wholly sexed beings. If we wish to stop this assault on children, we must be clear on where it comes from, where it is going and why it is happening, or children will continue to be used as eugenic fodder for a future in which they will be reduced to commodities. (p. 165)
And her summarising words are worth offering here:
If I have learned anything in the past decade of researching the gender industry as a front for a transhumanist paradigm, I know that resisting it demands no compromise. We must tell the absolute truth about what it is and what it is doing.
The corporate agenda to deconstruct human sex is a Goliath of power playing on Our empathy, dividing us by positioning us against their construct of alternative humans who need special protections. The laws transhumanists are passing, and their attempts to rapidly overhaul our societies, institutions, and language, are all formulated to advance a transformation of humanity and the reality that we live in. They are not hiding this. It is up to each of us to open our eyes and understand this transformation. (p. 193)
These 27 chapters/essays make for frightening reading. But we must be aware of what is happening in our posthuman world. Thank you Jennifer Bilek for exposing this nefarious agenda at work.
In the past, I’ve written about how the UK is a dangerous secular left fascist country that suppresses the basic human rights of its citizens. In the UK, free speech that disagrees with government policies is illegal. You can’t defend yourself from the criminals that the government imports from third-world countries. And they have two-tier policing – one justice system for allies, and one for enemies.
So, here is how I formed my opinion of the UK. According to Douglas Murray’s “The Strange Death of Europe”, the UK let in unskilled immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. Some of those went on to run child sex-trafficking rings. This has happened in many cities in the UK. And when the parents of the sex-trafficked girls complained to the police, the police refused to do anything, because they said that it’s “racist” to investigate those crimes. This is secular left woke police in action. And then if UK taxpayers say something about the failures of the taxpayer-funded politicians and police to protect their kids, then the police will charge them with hate crimes and hate speech. That’s what’s going on in the UK right now, and has been for some time.
So, let’s see some news stories to learn how things are going.
Here’s the UK Daily Mail, explaining what you have to do in order to be flagged by the UK government as a threat to their policies.
It says:
Record numbers of over-60s are being referred to the Government’s troubled anti-terrorism scheme, the Daily Mail can reveal today. Home Office figures show 127 adults in their 60s or beyond were put on Prevent’s radar in 2023/24 – the most since records began in 2016. Of them, 43 had sparked alarm for expressing ‘extreme right wing’ views.
“Extreme right wing” views are basically things like disagreeing with the child sex-trafficking rings. If you disagree with child sex-trafficking, then the UK government thinks that you are “extreme right wing” and a potential terrorist.
I’m not kidding:
Last month, it was revealed how Prevent training documents listed sharing the view that Western culture was ‘under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration’ was a ‘terrorist ideology’.
Are you wondering how they determine who is a potential terrorist? Well, if you watch certain comedy shows like “Yes, Minister” and “The Thick of It”, then you might be a terrorist. Or if you like old war movies. Or if you own any Shakespeare plays.
Look:
Even the 1955 epic war film The Dam Busters and The Complete Works Of William Shakespeare were flagged as possible red flags of extremism by Prevent’s Research Information and Communications Unit.
Just FYI, I am probably on their list. I just recently read a book about the Dam Busters mission (“Operation Chastise”) called “Enemy Coast Ahead (Uncensored)” by the lead pilot of that mission, Guy Gibson. And I even want to buy a boardgame version of it, if GMT ever gets around to printing it with a mounted map board.
And of course I own two Complete Shakespeares – The Illiustrated Globe edition from my high school days, and an audio book version. Not only that, but I was recently bugging Grok to tell me the best classical commentaries on Shakespeare, because that’s what I want to read when I’m retired (at 50, not 60). I never wanted to be a software engineer – I wanted to teach people the wisdom that you can get out of the British classics and Shakespeare.
And the UK goverment is finding a lot of people who are potential terrorists:
Across all age groups, more than 1,300 people were referred to Prevent last year for ‘extreme right wing’ behaviour, including 27 kids under the age of ten.
But Islam is no big deal:
Over the same period, the overall number of referrals under the Islamist umbrella has plunged by 75 per cent, from 3,706 to 913 – or 13 per cent of the total.
Now, you might think that a failed nation like the UK would be more concerned about their failing healthcare system. Or their violent crime epidemic. Or their third-world economy. Or their diminished role in keeping peace in the world. Or their criminalization of free speech. Or… their child sex-trafficking rings. But no.
Now, let’s look at a different article, one that shows what happens to Christians who try to speak about what the Bible says in the UK.
A school chaplain who was sacked after telling children they were free to question LGBT policies has told how he is still living in “shame and spiritual exile” six years later.
The Rev Bernard Randall, 52, lost his job at Trent College in Derbyshire and was referred to the Government’s Prevent counter-terrorism programme after delivering a sermon to pupils.
During the 2019 sermon, Dr Randall discussed identity politics and said pupils did not have to agree with LGBT teaching.
This obviously affected his finances:
Dr Randall, who is married and has a daughter, said: “I got part-time work with an adult education provider. So we’re OK, but we’ve definitely had to tighten our belts.”
Let me quickly say that many narcissistic people these days are asking “why don’t men lead?” and “why don’t men protect?” and “why don’t men provide?”. And the answer is because it has become costly – finances and freedom – to do so. People find male leadership offensive, and men lose their jobs for leading.
The article also notes that his punishment is ongoing, because of the first female Bishop in the Church of England:
Despite being cleared of wrongdoing over the 2019 sermon, Dr Randall was barred from preaching after a decision by the Rt Rev Libby Lane, the Bishop of Derby, over concerns that he could pose a risk of harm to children.
It’s a common view among feminists that men’s moral and spiritual leadership is “harmful to children”, because feminists interpret their own sad feelings about demonstrated male competence at decision-making as evidence that demonstrated male competence at decision-making will be harmful to children. Single mothers are doing so well raising kids, they think.
Here are more recent stories about life in the UK:
Did you know that women tend to be further to the left than men? According to surveys, women are more leftist than men on abortion, same-sex marriage, and a host of other policies. I’ll show you a few surveys below. But even more interesting is that there is a link between support for leftist policies, and higher mental illness. Let’s take a look at it.
Forty-four percent of young women counted themselves liberal in 2021, compared to 25 percent of young men, according to Gallup Poll data analyzed by the Survey Center on American Life. The gender gap is the largest recorded in 24 years of polling. The finding culminates years of rising liberalism among women ages 18 to 29, without any increase among their male peers.
That article is a bit old, here’s a new one from this week in The Post Millennial:
In annual surveys over the last few years, data pulled from Monitoring the Future has shown that about a quarter of high school seniors identify as conservative or very conservative. Only 13 percent of the 12th grade boys identify as liberal.
[…]The graph excludes moderate students, but of those high school seniors that do identify politically, around 65 percent of boys were conservative while only around 31 percent of girls identified that way.
I don’t support abortion because I favor the rights of unborn babies over the happiness of adults. I don’t support same-sex marriage because studies show children do better when they are raised by a mother and a father. And I think that’s why most of these men are with me, they follow that same reasoning, and side with the children against the adults.
I thought this part of the article was interesting:
As one Politico analyst put it, “Democrats have a masculinity problem.” Citing trends among black and Latino voters, the analyst pointed out that even in minority communities that have voted majority Democrat, men have been turning to the Republican party at higher rates than women.
Some conservative figures such as Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager (through PragerU) have millions of followers on YouTube, a platform where the users are majority male.
In addition, one of the more popular conservative political podcasts, The Ben Shapiro Show, has an audience that skews overwhelmingly male at 86 percent. The audience also skews younger, 18-44, in comparison to Fox’s former show with Tucker Carlson, 25-54, which skews slightly female at 53 percent.
This is good news. Boys are finding themselves role models who they see as “strong”. And those new role models are conservative. These stronger role models champion truth, and they make moral judgements. Even if it hurts other people’s feelings.
Let’s go on to the second point. These leftist policies are having a bad effect on young women’s mental health.
Feminist web site Evie Magazine reported on the some 2020 findings by Pew Research (left-wing pollster):
A 2020 Pew Research study reveals that over half of white, liberal women have been diagnosed with a mental health condition at some point.
[T]he study, which is titled Pew American Trends Panel: Wave 64, was dated March 2020 — over a year ago.
The study, which examined white liberals, moderates, and conservatives, both male and female, found that conservatives were far less likely to be diagnosed with mental health issues than those who identified as either liberal or even “very liberal.”
[…]White women, ages 18-29, who identified as liberal were given a mental health diagnosis from medical professionals at a rate of 56.3%, as compared to 28.4% in moderates and 27.3% in conservatives.
I found an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal that talked about how one leftist policy concern (global warming alarmism) is tied to higher rates of mental illness.
It says:
A study in 2021 of 16- to 25-year-olds in 10 countries including the U.S. reported that 59% were very or extremely worried about climate change, and 84% were at least moderately worried. Forty-five percent claimed they were so worried that they struggled to function on a daily basis, the definition of an anxiety disorder.
The study found that the mental illness was more common in younger people:
Climate anxiety and dissatisfaction with government responses are widespread in children and young people in countries across the world and impact their daily functioning.
So now we are looking at a direct link between the policies of the left, and the lower mental health of the left. And we know that more women than men are on the left. And we see more mental illness among women. Interesting, isn’t it?
And this has consequences. Leftist women are noticing that men are more conservative than they are, and it’s affecting their dating:
The marriage rate is also declining. Could this decline in marriage be related to the increase in leftist women, and all the related mental illnesses that leftist women have? Does it make sense for a conservative man to enter a relationship where he pays all the costs and bears all the risks, but all the decisions are being made by a leftist woman? It’s dangerous for a man to do that.
Consider that the divorce rate is very high right now, and divorce takes away a man’s money, his access to his kids, and his freedom. Women initiate 69% of divorces. College-educated women – who are especially leftist – initiate 90% of divorces. This high divorce rate cannot be blamed on men, because the divorce rate of lesbians is the highest of all. No man to blame in that situation.
Why would a man sign up to be controlled by feminist institutions, like the divorce courts? Men are not interested in projects where they have to pay for everything, but someone else is making the decisions. Especially if they get blamed when things go wrong.
Facing all of these risks, a man would have to be crazy to even talk to a leftist woman – much less date her. Unfortunately, we aren’t making enough young conservative women for these conservative young men to marry. And so, the marriage rate is declining. Young women today are not as conservative as previous generations.
I know a lot of people today are worried about young men falling under the influence of bad role models. But the surveys show that boys tend to have the right role models, and the right political views. So, we need to work on making young women more conservative.
This blog was first published during July 2013. –ed.
In our discussion of male leadership in the church, we walked phrase by phrase through the text of 1 Timothy 2:8-15. We will do the same as we discuss God’s design for women. The biblical model is highly controversial in today’s culture. But if Christians are to reflect God’s nature, they must live by His wisdom rather than the world’s.
In 1 Timothy 2, Paul addresses women in the Ephesian assembly who wanted to take over teaching roles. He wrote, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:11–12). Paul here defines women as learners during the worship service. They are not to be teachers in that context, but neither are they to be shut out of the learning process.
While it may seem obvious to us that women should be taught God’s Word, that was not true for those (like some at Ephesus, cf. 1 Timothy 1:7) who came from a Jewish background. First-century Judaism did not esteem women. Although they were not barred from attending synagogue, neither were they encouraged to learn. Most ancient religions—and even some religions today—perceive women as unworthy of participating in religious life. Unfortunately, that historical treatment of women continues to incite modern feminism.
The traditional treatment of women in Ephesus partially explains why some of them in the church overreacted to their suppression by seeking a dominant position. Paul rebukes them for that. Before he does, however, he affirms their right to learn.
In 1 Timothy 2:11 Paul qualifies the way in which women are to be learners: They are to “quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.” “Submissiveness” translates hupotagē, the noun form of hupotassō, which means “to line up under.” In the context of the worship service, then, women are to be quiet and be subject to the church leadership.
Some have tried to evade the plain meaning of the text by arguing that “quietly” refers to a woman’s meek and quiet spirit. Women, they contend, can preach or teach as long as they do it with the proper attitude. Others go to the opposite extreme and use this text to prohibit women from ever talking in church under any circumstance—even to the person she is sitting next to! Neither of those options is valid, however. The context makes the meaning of “quietly” quite clear.
In verse 12, Paul defines what he meant: “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.” Women are to keep quiet in the sense of not teaching, and they are to demonstrate submission by not usurping authority.
The Greek word translated “allow,” epitrepō, is always used in the New Testament to speak of permitting people to do what they want. Paul’s choice of words implies that some women in Ephesus desired to teach and have authority. In today’s church, as in Ephesus, some women are dissatisfied with their God-given roles. They want prominent positions, including opportunities to exercise authority over men. There is only one biblical way to handle those situations for the good of everyone concerned, and that is to do what Paul did. He directly forbade women from taking the authoritative pastor-teacher roles in the church.
Paul also forbids women from exercising “authority over a man.” The Greek word translated “exercise authority over,” authentein, appears only here in the New Testament. Some have attempted to evade the force of Paul’s prohibition by arguing that authentein refers to abusive or destructive authority. Women, according to this view, can both teach and exercise authority over men so long as it is not abusive or destructive. [1](Aida Besancon Spencer, Beyond the Curse [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989], 87-88) Others claim it carries the idea of “author” or “originator,” thus Paul is actually saying, “I do not allow a woman to teach or proclaim herself author of man.” [2](R.C. Kroeger and C.C. Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992], 192)
In a study of the extrabiblical uses of authentein, however, Dr. George Knight concludes that the common meaning is “to have authority over.” [3](The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text [Grand Rapids, MA: Eerdmans, 1992], 141-42) Paul, then, forbids women from exercising any type of authority over men in the church, including teaching.
These instructions to Timothy echo what Paul earlier commanded the Corinthians: “As in all the churches of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says . . . it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church” (1 Corinthians 14:33–35, NIV). Many claim Paul was addressing a cultural issue in Corinth—nothing that ought to concern our contemporary culture. But they fail to let the text speak for itself: “As in allthe congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches” (1 Corinthians 14:33–34, NIV). That isn’t a cultural issue; it is God’s standard for allchurches.
The context implies that the silence Paul commands is not intended to preclude women from speaking at all but to prevent them from speaking in tongues and preaching in the church. As in Ephesus, certain women in Corinth were seeking prominent positions in the church, particularly by abusing the gifts of speaking in tongues and prophesying. Yet these women, who joined in the chaotic self-expression Paul had been condemning, should not have been speaking at all. In God’s order for the church, women should “subject themselves, just as the Law also says” (1 Corinthians 14:34).
Women may be highly gifted teachers and leaders, but those gifts are not to be exercised over men in the context of the church. That is true not because women are spiritually inferior to men but because God’s law commands it. He has ordained order in His creation—an order that reflects His own nature and therefore should be reflected in His church. Anyone ignoring or rejecting God’s order, then, weakens the church and dishonors Him.
Next time, we’ll look at what a woman’s submission looks like in action.
Each year, the Southern Baptist Convention holds its annual Pastors’ Wives Conference which bills itself as a forum to minister to the wives of pastors. In 2023, the SBC hosted Rachel Gilson, a notorious promoter of Side B theology who led the downfall of Cru. This year, the luncheon tapped TBN host Sheila Walsh to headline the wives’ luncheon.
Born in Scotland, Sheila Walsh has been around for decades, first starting out as a recording artist before being pulled into The 700 Club with Pat Robertson in the late 80s. In the 90s, she would pursue theology and struggled with depression, which ultimately served as the basis for much of her materials. Her most famous works include It’s Okay Not to Be Okay: Moving Forward One Day at a Time and Praying Women: How to Pray When You Don’t Know What to Say, with her 2024 release being titled The Hope of Heaven: How the Promise of Eternity Changes Everything.
On TBN, she hosts a program called Praise while also being a cohost on Better Together. Her materials at TBN feature a range of guests both good, neutral, and bad. On one hand, her show will interview David Jeremiah, but at the same time, she will also interview Jackie Hill Perry and Lysa TerKeurst—both of whom are negative influences in the church.
It should go without saying that such luncheons themselves are a sign of excess and therefore unnecessary, but it is more egregious that it is used to subvert true doctrine to the pastors’ wives on the eve of many contentious battles. Despite the Southern Baptist Convention’s outward commitment to “complementarianism,” they have invited a female teacher to speak to their women’s ministry event.
Even though Sheila Walsh is not as dangerous as Rachel Gilson, she is nonetheless a gateway to subversion and bad doctrine while reflecting the larger theological degradation of the SBC.
Truth2Freedom's Blog 