Helen Andrews: "overcoming the feminization of culture" (speech)

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Keep in mind that feminazism arose politically completely through piggybacking on the so-called civil rights movement, which was the most successful communist front ever. Modern feminazism was itself founded by stalinist Betty Friedman (better known as Betty Friedan). However, all of this came to pass, due to the effete snobbery and passivity of self-styled "conservatives" and "republicans" (like William F. Buckley Jr.), who started out in the mid-1950s arguing against the franchise for blacks, but who with time surrendered on every front, including so-called civil rights, feminazism (including in the military), the queering of the military, etc.

In case the reader is wondering why the entire transcript is here, my pc is dying. One of the expressions of its death throes is the loss of all audio. Thus, I rely on transcripts.

My chief of research bought me a "nuc" mini-pc two years ago, but the last thing I wanted to do was set up a new computer! Finally, I started trying to save files since february 2021 (when an electrical short in this room wiped out about 21 years-worth of files on an external drive; I have since rescued many of my VDARE articles, but with Letitia James' destruction of VDARE, that's a whole 'nother disaster!) onto a physically tiny, 3T drive my chief of research bought me, but continuously had troubles (many due to .js javascript files, others likely due to the fact my pc was dying).

Well, we all tried in vain to find the RAM sticks that my CoR had bought with the nuc. He ultimately had to buy replacements (he figures we'll find the originals a week after the lost sticks arrive). Amazon kept re-directing me from the 64GB sticks he'd bought me to 8GB sticks. My CoR believes that's because AI companies have grabbed up all the 64GB sticks. Eventually, he found some for twice as much money elsewhere, but they won't arrive until at least october 27th. Then, hopefully, I'll be able to work off of the "nuc."


Helen Andrews | "overcoming the feminization of culture" | natcon 5
national conservatism



146,719 views sep 14, 2025
"Helen Andrews' address delivered at natcon 5 in Washington, D.C. on sept. 2, 2025.

How this content was made
Auto-dubbed
Audio tracks for some languages were automatically generated. Learn more
Transcript

Follow along using the transcript.
National Conservatism

Videos
About

2,109 Comments

Nicholas Stix

Add a comment...

@edwardszysorhans573

2 weeks ago

I used to be afraid of losing my job for not performing well, now I worry about losing my job for saying the wrong thing

369

@da__lang

2 days ago

I wish I could give this video a billion likes. It should be required viewing in schools and universities across the country.

36

@jaydabelliou3186

3 weeks ago

Masculinity is prefered by healthy women and in hard times by everyone

387

@TheRealFamespear

2 weeks ago

We’ve known this for a very long time. “Masculine republics give way to feminine democracies, and feminine democracies give way to tyranny.”
~ Aristotle

@citytrees1752
As a woman, I'm so tired of looking around and seeing women in positions of power everywhere, then when I point that things are very, very bad all around, and get told by progressives that the problems exist because the 'system' is still patriarchal.

@RM-dc6zd
“if women are statistically underrepresented in your company or institution, it’s a lawsuit waiting to happen” - funny how this doesn’t work the other way, particularly now that women dominate many fields

@kevinboothby5260
"Fire all the HR ladies" ... that should have gotten a standing ovation.

@JamesBond-uz2dm
" Masculine republics give way to feminine democracies that give way to tyranny. " ----- Aristotle

@RadekZvak
This is the most critical issue of our lives. Thank You So much for saying this.

@beauedwards7780
As a 58 year old male this has been an issue that has been hiding in the shadows for most of my life. The emasculation of men is detrimental to the wellbeing of both sexes and hopefully this will become common knowledge, thanks to great minds like yours. Thank you

@RandallvanOosten
The Feminization of institutions will inexorably destroy any and all civilizations. This is true of the church as well.

@Ebergerud
When I was an undergrad in the late 60s the three mot popular majors were English, history and psychology. All have been feminized - arguably history and English (or modern languages) have been maimed. Ms Andrews does us a service to tell the truth.

@mikegan73
I think she is bang on, everyone, especially women, in the western world would benefit from hearing this lady's insights on this issue.

@fractal97
Wow, what a woman. I admire her courage to call out what's happening. This is exactly how we ended up in this mess today, and the worst is that many men fell in to this trap and supported this madness.

@robertdoom8331
Yes!!! Get rid of all of the horrible, 21 year HR girls. Shortly before we retired, my boss (at Boeing in STL) overheard two brand new female college DEI newhires in HR chatting down the hall and one said "We are going to get rid of all of the older male engineers, because they don't do anything." I was the Grade 6 (the company has no grade 7's) Technical Lead over all 25 engineers in my engineering discipline over all of the military aircraft that we made - and I had been performing that same job for the best part of 40 years for all of the hiring, engineer training; work planning, coaching, checking, etc. for all employees on all of our military aircraft and avionics programs. I actually performed much of the engineering work for each program in order for our subordinate engineers to be able to complete their time-sensitive design, analysis and testing tasks on-time to schedule. On average, it took between five and eight years of this heavy coaching (none of what I taught could be learned at college - there are no courses in college on the F-15, AV-8B or F/A-18 hardware and software) before a new-hire engineer could be ready to start working independently. Because of this, my boss and I were notably upset that our company (especially the HR group) knew so very little of exactly how avionics and diagnostic engineering really worked in our industry, let alone, that they we would hire and place age and sex discriminating dingbats like these two in positions over us. Like everyone, we so distrusted HR, that we never reported this. (The old McDonnell-Douglas Company always did things strictly "by the book".

@mariamichael1669
As a 62 year old woman I have noticed the feminisation of institutions for a number of years now yet no one would listen. Further, as more women remain single parents and raise boys without the masculine influence….. watch this space!

@MusclenMore
wow, she's bang on, nice to hear a sensible women

@dalewarriorofthesea3998
Helen Andrews is absolutely 💯 correct
Objective Truth must be maintained as Subjective Truth is a shaky road to walk and all our future generations hinges on this pivotal mindset

@clairejiang1159
as a woman myself, I support her arguments 100%.

@zeno2501
This was absolutely spot on. And I think this is one of the defining issues of our time. And agree that if we don't face it head on then it could destroy our civilisation.

Transcript
0:02
The libertarian economist Tyler Cowan
0:06
once wrote a blog post describing all of
0:09
the revolutions he's seen in the course
0:11
of his lifetime, starting with the moon
0:13
landing when he was a little boy and
0:15
going up chronologically to today's
0:17
advent of AI. And there were only seven
0:21
revolutions on this list because this
0:23
was only the greatest and most
0:25
earthshaking ones. And right there
0:28
between the fall of communism and the
0:31
invention of the internet was something
0:33
called the great feminization.
0:36
That is not a phrase that a lot of
0:38
Americans know, but future historians
0:41
may well rank it as having greater
0:42
importance than almost any other
0:44
revolution on that list.
0:47
The great feminization is very easy to
0:49 define. It refers to the increasing 0:51 representation of women in all of the 0:53 institutions of our society. But as 0:56 simple as it is to define, it's very 0:59 difficult for those of us on the other 1:00 side of that revolution to fully grasp 1:03 its significance. 1:05 The first thing that most people fail to 1:07 understand about it is how unprecedented 1:10 it is in human history. There have been 1:13 many societies that have been feminist 1:15 to one degree or another in which women 1:17 have been queens and owned businesses 1:20 and held positions of authority that 1:22 commanded the respect of men. But there 1:25 has never been a society in which women 1:27 hold as much political power as they do 1:30 today. Think of all of the parliaments 1:34 that have ever existed. Every 1:36 legislature in every country in every 1:37 century. 1:39 None of them has been, as ours is, 1:41 one-third female. 1:44 The idea of a female chief of police 1:46 would have seemed very strange even to 1:48 many early feminists. And yet today, the 1:50 police department is led by a woman in 1:52 the largest city in America. And in the 1:54 city in which we are now standing, law 1:56 schools today are majority female. Law 2:00 firm associates are majority female. 2:03 Medical schools are majority female. 2:05 Women earn a majority of BAS and PhDs. 2:09 College faculty are majority female. 2:12 Women are 46% 2:15 of the managers in the United States. 2:18 and the white collar workforce overall 2:21 workers with college degrees a majority 2:23 of them are women. 2:26 These are in many cases very recent 2:28 developments with the tipping point 2:30 having occurred only in the last 5 to 10 2:32 years and that is the other common 2:34 misconception about the great 2:35 feminization. People tend to think of 2:38 feminism as something that occurred back 2:40 in the 1970s, 2:42 but it took several decades to go from 2:44 token representation to approximate 2:48 gender parody. The first woman on the 2:51 Supreme Court was appointed in 1981, and 2:54 in that year, women were 5% of the 2:57 judges in America. Today, there are, of 3:00 course, four women on the court, one 3:01 justice away from a female majority, and 3:04 women are 30% of the judges in America, 3:07 40% of the judges in the state of 3:09 California, and 63% of the judges 3:12 appointed by President Joe Biden. So, 3:15 from the first woman on the court to a 3:17 likely female majority on the Supreme 3:19 Court is probably going to be a span of 3:22 about 50 years. And the exact same 3:26 trajectory over the same timeline can be 3:29 seen in many other professions. Uh there 3:31 was a pioneering generation in the 1970s 3:34 where a woman was often the only female 3:36 reporter in her newsroom or the only 3:38 female professor in her department and 3:40 then increasing female representation 3:42 through the 80s and 90s until uh healthy 3:45 female representation of about 20 to 30% 3:48 by the turn of the century. And today, 3:50 25 years later, uh, in many of these 3:53 fields, uh, they are now 40% female or 3:57 5050 gender equal. 4:00 And the pendulum may not be done 4:03 swinging yet. As feminized as we are, we 4:05 may get more feminized still. Look at 4:08 the example of the profession of 4:10 psychology. 4:12 As recently as 25 years ago, psychology 4:14 was a predominantly male profession, up 4:16 to 70% male. Today, the youngest cohort 4:21 of psychologists just joining the 4:22 profession, 20% male. Men have evacuated 4:27 the profession of psychology. And it's 4:30 easy to understand why. It's because 4:31 psychology has become feminized. As 4:35 women increased their representation in 4:36 the profession, they reoriented the 4:39 field to be more friendly to their ideas 4:42 and preferences to be about caring and 4:44 empathy and non-judgmentalism. 4:46 So a man who wanted to become a 4:49 psychologist because he liked judging 4:51 other people 4:53 would naturally choose a different 4:54 profession. 4:56 The same thing has occurred in literary 4:58 fiction. Some of you may have read in 5:00 the last 12 months uh one of several 5:02 articles in the New York Times about how 5:04 men don't read novels anymore. And the 5:07 explanation why, which is very obvious 5:09 to me, even if it's not obvious to the 5:11 New York Times, is that the publishing 5:13 industry is overwhelmingly female, 5:16 almost 80% female. So men do still like 5:21 to read novels. They just don't like to 5:23 read the kinds of novels that today's 5:25 publishing industry produces. 5:28 Some fields are more susceptible to 5:31 feminization than others. There's very 5:34 little you can do to feminize the field 5:36 of math or engineering. 5:38 But as women join a field in greater 5:41 numbers, we should expect that any field 5:45 that can be feminized will be and the 5:49 dynamic will play out exactly as it has 5:52 in psychology. It may be that a 50/50 5:55 gender split is not a stable 5:57 equilibrium. 5:59 I have referred several times so far to 6:01 feminization without defining what that 6:03 means. I'll have a lot to say about it 6:05 in just a moment. But if you want to put 6:07 it in a single sentence, you could say 6:09 that feminization equals wokeness. 6:13 Everything you think of as wokeness is 6:16 simply an epiphenomenon of demographic 6:19 feminization. 6:21 Think about all the things that wokeness 6:23 means. uh valuing empathy over 6:26 rationality, safety over risk, 6:29 conformity and cohesion over competition 6:32 and hierarchy. All of these things are 6:35 privileging the feminine over the 6:37 masculine. So if you have ever wondered 6:39 why wokeness appeared out of nowhere 6:41 when it did, that is my hypothesis that 6:43 all of the institutions that began 6:45 admitting women in the 1970s eventually 6:48 got enough women that they were able to 6:51 reorient them. 6:54 For example, women are consistently less 6:57 supportive of free speech than men. in 7:00 surveys asking which is more important, 7:01 protecting free speech or preserving an 7:04 inclusive society. Approximately 7:06 twothirds of men say free speech and 7:09 approximately two-thirds of women say 7:11 inclusive society. 7:13 In moral reasoning, the traditional way 7:17 of phrasing the difference between men 7:18 and women is to say that women have an 7:20 ethics of caring and men have an ethics 7:23 of justice. In making a moral judgment, 7:26 men will ask, "What are the rules and 7:29 what are the facts?" Women tend to be 7:32 more interested in context and 7:35 relationships. 7:36 So, let's apply that to wokeness. When 7:39 James Dour wrote his famous or I should 7:41 say notorious memo for Google arguing 7:44 that female under reppresentation in the 7:46 hard sciences might not be the result of 7:47 bias and prejudice. No one even 7:51 attempted to argue that he was wrong on 7:54 the facts. The reason that he was fired 7:57 was because the things he had written 7:59 might make his female co-workers feel 8:02 bad. Or consider the Kavanaaugh 8:04 hearings. The masculine position was to 8:08 say that maybe something bad happened to 8:10 you, but if you do not have evidence, 8:12 then we can't allow you to ruin a man's 8:14 life and career over it. The feminine 8:16 position was to say, "How can you talk 8:18 about rules of evidence? Can't you see 8:19 she's crying?" Now, to be clear, many 8:22 women were revolted by the way the 8:24 Kavanaaugh hearings played out. In fact, 8:26 the very best book on the Kavanaaugh 8:28 hearings was written by two women, Molly 8:30 Hemingway and Carrie Severino. But a 8:33 political system in which men 8:35 predominate will tend to operate 8:37 according to rules of facts and 8:39 objectivity. And one in which women 8:42 predominate will tend to operate by the 8:44 rules of emotions and subjective facts, 8:47 even if there are individual men and 8:50 women who fall on the opposite side of 8:52 those camps. 8:55 There's a lot more that could be said 8:56 about sex differences and wokeness, but 8:59 I'll skip ahead to the controversial 9:01 part of my argument 9:06 because believe it or not, nothing I've 9:07 said so far has been particularly 9:09 controversial. So far, I have only made 9:11 two claims. One, men and women are 9:13 different. And two, as institutions 9:16 become more female, they change in 9:19 predictable ways according to those 9:21 differences. I think even most people on 9:24 the left would agree with that. 9:26 Feminization is a great example of what 9:29 Michael Anton calls the celebration 9:31 parallax, which is a fancy term for 9:34 anything where you're only allowed to 9:36 notice something if you think it's a 9:38 good thing. There are literally 9:40 thousands of articles out there saying 9:42 it's great that we have more women 9:44 judges now because women are more 9:46 empathetic or it's good to have more 9:48 women on corporate boards because 9:49 that'll make capitalism more humane. It 9:52 is only when you say women are 9:55 fundamentally changing the bedrock 9:56 institutions of our society and that 9:59 might be bad that you start to get into 10:01 trouble. Um but I have two actually 10:04 contentious claims today and that is the 10:06 first of them that feminization is not 10:08 just an interesting new development that 10:11 has had some pluses and minuses. It's 10:12 that feminization in the case of many 10:14 important institutions is a bad thing. 10:17 In a few cases, it is so bad as to be, 10:20 you know, to threaten the end of 10:21 civilization. 10:22 The rule of law, for example, is a very 10:25 important thing. It's also very fragile. 10:28 It requires a deep commitment to 10:30 objectivity and clear rules. even when 10:34 those rules yield an outcome that is not 10:38 nice. I do not want judges who are more 10:42 interested in context and relationships 10:45 than in what the law says. 10:48 Academia is the one part of our society 10:51 that's supposed to be about finding and 10:53 transmitting the truth. If it instead 10:56 becomes about censoring ideas that are 10:59 dangerous or threatening, then it no 11:01 longer serves its purpose. 11:04 In business, if the only way to advance 11:06 at your company is to behave in the most 11:08 HR compliant way possible, that's going 11:11 to exclude and discourage the very 11:14 people who are most likely to be leaders 11:18 and innovators. 11:20 I happen to think that the most 11:21 important political issue in America 11:23 today right now is uh immigration. And 11:26 that is a perfect example of a political 11:28 issue where the elite consensus is 11:30 highly feminized. We have all of these 11:33 laws on the books about citizenship and 11:35 borders, but we're not allowed to 11:37 enforce any of them if it might make 11:38 somebody sad. So, rule of law, pursuit 11:41 of truth, borders, innovation, 11:44 without these things, I I am not being 11:46 hyperbolic when I say that a thoroughly 11:50 feminized civilization will set itself 11:52 on the road to collapse. So, that is the 11:55 first claim that feminization is in many 11:57 cases a bad and a threatening thing. The 12:00 second claim proceeds from a question 12:03 and it's a very important question. Can 12:06 we have demographic feminization in the 12:10 literal sense without having substantive 12:13 feminization of the kind that I believe 12:15 is so dangerous? That is, can we have 12:17 more female lawyers and judges and 12:20 academics without having uh or while 12:23 still maintaining the old standards? 12:26 Because in theory, of course, you can 12:27 imagine such a thing. There certainly 12:29 are enough women uh there were c there 12:32 certainly are many women who have the 12:34 talent and the inclination to meet the 12:37 old standards. There are many women who 12:39 are excellent judges. I know many female 12:42 journalists who are just as hard-nosed 12:44 and uncompromising as any of their male 12:47 peers. There definitely are such women. 12:51 But I am not sure that there are enough 12:53 of them because the question is not can 12:57 some women be excellent professors. The 13:00 question is is it possible to have an 13:03 academia that is majority female and is 13:06 still as committed to uh and still 13:09 respects the unhindered pursuit of 13:11 unpopular truths as much as the old 13:14 predominantly male academia did. I 13:17 believe the answer is no. I believe 13:19 demographic feminization does inevitably 13:21 lead to substantive feminization. Uh it 13:24 is a difficult thing to confront but I 13:27 genuinely believe it to be true. So what 13:29 does that imply? What should we do about 13:31 it? Uh I hasten to make clear that I do 13:33 not propose to ban women from any field 13:36 or even to discourage them from pursuing 13:38 their goals as far as their talents and 13:41 ambitions will take them. I don't think 13:43 we have to do anything as as crazy as 13:45 that. The only thing that I propose and 13:49 I think all that is necessary to solve 13:51 the problem is to take our thumb off the 13:55 scale 13:57 because right now in ways that many 13:59 people don't quite appreciate there is a 14:02 thumb on the scale in favor of women. 14:06 The most important example of course is 14:08 anti-discrimination law. It is illegal 14:10 to have too few women employed at your 14:13 company. If women are statistically 14:15 underrepresented underrepresented in 14:17 your institution, that is a lawsuit 14:19 waiting to happen. 14:21 So, uh, companies and institutions give 14:26 jobs to women that they would not 14:27 otherwise have gotten, give women 14:28 promotions that they would not have 14:29 otherwise gotten, and in a pinch, they 14:32 create jobs that did not need to exist, 14:34 involving PowerPoint slides uh, just to 14:37 get their numbers up. This is why HR 14:40 departments exist and why they promote 14:42 gender diversity so assiduously, not 14:44 because they're ideologues, although 14:46 they are obviously, but because they are 14:48 protecting their company from lawsuits. 14:51 Anti-discrimination law also mandates 14:53 that the culture of every workplace be 14:55 feminized because if the atmosphere uh 14:58 of your workplace is too brash or 15:01 competitive or combative, that is also a 15:03 lawsuit waiting to happen because it is 15:05 an indication that your workplace is not 15:07 sufficiently welcoming to women. That is 15:10 why HR departments are so zealous about 15:13 policing every interaction and every 15:16 communication and making sure none of it 15:17 has any rough edges. So, that's agenda 15:20 item number one. Get rid of all the HR 15:22 ladies. Uh, who's with me? Um, just fire 15:26 them and then we'll see how it shakes 15:28 out. If your company has too few women, 15:31 that might indicate that you have a 15:32 problem with your recruiting pipeline. 15:34 On the other hand, it might not. Either 15:35 way, we're not going to send a team of 15:37 lawyers after you to second guessess 15:38 you. It's funny. HR departments are 15:40 always so careful about making sure the 15:42 atmosphere at the workplace is welcoming 15:44 to women. I wonder if they ever 15:46 considered that maybe their soggy, 15:48 conflict averse, nicy nice atmosphere 15:50 might not be welcoming to men. 15:53 The other thumb on the scale obviously 15:55 is the two income trap. Women pursue 15:57 careers because they have to for their 15:59 families to attain a middle class 16:00 standard of living. If we address that 16:02 through various other policies to make 16:04 it possible for families that want to 16:06 have one earner to do so, I think the 16:08 problem of feminization will subside on 16:10 its own as individuals make different 16:12 choices based on what's best for their 16:14 own families. That's just my prediction. 16:16 Maybe I'm wrong. Let's get rid of the 16:18 two income trap and give people the 16:20 choice and then we'll see what happens. 16:23 In conclusion, feminization is a 16:26 sensitive topic. I am acutely aware of 16:29 the sensitivities because I am of course 16:31 myself a woman. I very much enjoy being 16:34 a writer and I would never want to 16:36 discourage another woman from pursuing 16:38 the path that I have followed. On the 16:41 other hand, I am also someone with a lot 16:42 of disagreeable opinions. 16:45 So if society becomes more conformist 16:48 and less welcoming to ideas that are 16:50 controversial or unpopular, I'm also 16:52 going to have a hard time of it. The 16:54 important thing to remember is that it's 16:56 not about what's best for me personally. 16:59 It's about what's best for the society I 17:01 live in and the society my children are 17:03 going to grow up in. So my final 17:06 exhortation to all of you is that we 17:09 should all consider this difficult topic 17:12 unselfishly, 17:14 not from the perspective of what's to 17:17 our individual advantage, but from the 17:19 perspective of what's best for all of 17:21 us. Thank you. 17:28 [Applause]