UnHerd with Freddie Sayers

Episode: Helen Andrews on the Great Feminisation

Date: October 23, 2025
Host: Freddie Sayers
Guest: Helen Andrews

Overview: The ‘Great Feminisation’ and Its Impact

This episode features conservative writer Helen Andrews, whose recent essay "The Great Feminisation" has sparked significant debate. Andrews argues that the "woke" era, often attributed to shifting politics and social pressures, is fundamentally linked to the increasing presence and influence of women in prestigious institutions. Together, she and Freddie Sayers explore how gender dynamics may shape institutional cultures, conflict, legal systems, academia, and public discourse. The discussion is robust, controversial, and addresses critiques from both supporters and detractors of Andrews’ thesis.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Framing the Hypothesis (03:31–05:38)

• Andrews theorizes that ‘wokeness’ is best explained by “feminization”—the transition from masculine to feminine group dynamics within key institutions.
  • “Wokeness is feminisation. It is feminine patterns of behaviour and group dynamics applied to institutions that had previously operated by more masculine rules of group dynamics.” — Helen Andrews (04:21)
• Cites tipping points: Law schools (2016), New York Times staff (2018), medical schools, and the broader white-collar workforce all became majority female shortly before the so-called “Summer of Woke” in 2020.

2. Defining “Woke” through a Gendered Lens (05:38–08:01)

• Andrews distinguishes between individual traits and group dynamics, emphasizing the latter in predominantly female groups:
  • “It would be reductive to say that men like argument and women are more conflict-averse, but when you’re talking about groups that are majority male versus groups that are majority female, it is a lot more consistent and fair and true to the facts to say that ... groups that are majority female tend to operate by these HR-type rules of you can’t ruffle anybody’s feathers and you have to avoid conflict and be more consensus-based.” — Helen Andrews (07:16)
• “Woke” cultures, she argues, emphasize avoiding disagreement and minimizing conflict rather than traditional, debate-centered conflict resolution.

3. Ancient Dynamics and Evolutionary Reflections (08:01–10:53)

• Drawing from evolutionary psychology (“Warriors and Worriers” by Joyce Benenson), Andrews explores the idea that:
  • Men are acculturated to rules of open, reconciliatory conflict (“honourable opponent”), while women and female groups may prolong internal disputes and resist reconciliation.
  • “Women tend to not have that attitude of good game ... women tend to simmer and continue conflicts indefinitely.” — Helen Andrews (09:38)

4. The ‘Harshness’ of Wokeness and Gendered Conflict (10:53–12:53)

• Freddie Sayers raises a contradiction: isn’t woke culture often unforgiving and exclusionary, not soft or consensus-focused?

  • Andrews responds that it’s not about conflict avoidance, but rather the mode of conflict: ostracism and exclusion versus direct disputation.

    • “What you do is … you ostracize that person ... shut down conversation and exclude that person from even the realm of things you’re willing to debate. That to me was the biggest pathology of wokeness.” — Helen Andrews (11:27)

5. Case Study: Larry Summers at Harvard (12:53–18:57)

• Larry Summers’ resignation following 2005 comments about gender imbalance in science is described as an archetype of feminized institutional response:

  • Off-the-record speech critiqued for content, not factual inaccuracy—resulting in outrage, offense, and ostracism.
  • “Feminist hysteria managed to unseat one of the most powerful people in the United States from one of the most valuable positions simply on the basis of being offended … without even trying to argue that what he had said was wrong.” — Helen Andrews (16:22)

• Freddie pushes back, noting men also played roles in Summers’ ousting. Andrews concedes, but maintains that the “straw that broke the camel’s back” was this incident.

6. Responding to Criticism: Is It Just Anti-Woman? (18:57–24:44)

• Freddie cites Cathy Young’s critique that Andrews’ argument is “ultra simplistic” and blames everything conservatives dislike about modern culture on women.
  • Andrews replies:
  • “I didn’t start with gender differences ... I started with observing a disaster and asking what could possibly explain it. And I think that the most simple explanation is feminisation.” — Helen Andrews (22:54)
• She reiterates that the approach is empirical, observing correlations before theorizing causation.

7. Evaluating Fields Where Feminization Is Good or Bad (24:44–27:33)

• Certain areas, e.g., legal fields surrounding sexual assault (Title IX courts), are cited as negative examples:

  • “These Title IX courts for sexual assault on college campuses were railroading a lot of innocent guys who got caught up in ambiguous situations. So there were many injustices.” — Helen Andrews (25:19)

• She argues MeToo-era legal responses imported similar “feminized” patterns, focusing on victim solidarity and emotion over evidence and conventional due process.

8. Individuals vs. Groups / Margaret Thatcher and Parliamentary Debate (30:06–34:52)

• Margaret Thatcher is lauded as an exception: tough, rational, thick-skinned.
  • Nevertheless, Andrews maintains group averages, not exceptional individuals, determine institutional behavior.
  • Predicts that increasing numbers of women reduce the “rambunctious” style and repartee of parliamentary debate in favor of a less confrontational, more consensus-driven approach.
  • “There’s just a huge difference between individuals and groups and generalizations.” — Helen Andrews (32:19)

9. Is Feminisation a Loss or Progress? (32:39–34:52)

• Sayers points out that many celebrate the move away from adversarial male-dominated styles, to which Andrews responds:

  • “I absolutely do [think we should get back to it]. I think … the old rambunctious style of debate was better able to handle conflict.” — Helen Andrews (33:10)

• Similar trends in academia are discussed: as history departments become majority female, Andrews claims they focus less on military history and more on social or feminist history, which she sees as a decline in academic quality.

10. What’s the Solution? Reversing the Trend? (34:52–40:54)

• Sayers summarizes the options: forcibly reverse feminisation, or insist women in institutions adopt previous norms.

• Andrews proposes a third way:

  • “All I am proposing is a return to fairness … I believe that the great Feminisation is artificial. It is the result of social engineering.” — Helen Andrews (36:27)

• She argues affirmative action, quotas, and legal protections artificially inflate female representation; removing these would let “meritocracy” decide natural balances.

  • “If we get rid of those thumbs on the scale and return to gender neutrality, gender fairness, pure meritocracy in this respect, then I think the great feminisation problem will take care of itself.” — Helen Andrews (37:49)

• Sayers follows by noting the practical effect would likely mean a “much diminished voice for women” in powerful institutions. Andrews, while personally wanting women to have careers, says her greater priority is competent, rationally-run institutions.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Wokeness is feminization.” — Helen Andrews (04:21)
• “Groups that are majority female tend to operate by these HR-type rules … you have to avoid conflict and be more consensus-based.” — Helen Andrews (07:16)
• “What you do is … you ostracize that person ... shut down conversation and exclude that person from even the realm of things you’re willing to debate. That to me was the biggest pathology of wokeness.” — Helen Andrews (11:27)
• “Feminist hysteria managed to unseat one of the most powerful people in the United States ... simply on the basis of being offended.” — Helen Andrews (16:22)
• “There’s just a huge difference between individuals and groups and generalizations.” — Helen Andrews (32:19)
• “All I am proposing is a return to fairness ... just pure meritocracy.” — Helen Andrews (36:27)

Key Timestamps

• 03:31 — Andrews lays out her central argument
• 05:38 — Distinctions between male and female group dynamics
• 08:01 — Evolutionary psychology and group conflict
• 12:53 — The Larry Summers case as a pivotal early episode
• 18:57 — Freddie introduces Cathy Young’s criticism
• 24:44 — Discussion of fields benefiting/harmed by feminisation, e.g. law and MeToo
• 30:06 — Margaret Thatcher as a counterexample; group trends vs. individuals
• 34:52 — What’s the fix? Options for institutions
• 36:27 — Proposed solution: end affirmative action/quotas, return to meritocracy
• 39:19 — Final reflections: Is Andrews comfortable with likely reduction in female institutional voices?

Concluding Thoughts

Helen Andrews’ provocative thesis provides a springboard for an in-depth, sometimes heated, examination of gender’s influence on institutional cultures and contemporary ideological trends. She emphasizes group dynamics over individual traits, arguing that “feminisation”—a demographic and cultural shift—lies at the root of the “woke” turn in many Western institutions. Despite pushback, she maintains that reverting to gender-neutral, merit-based policies would naturally restore what she sees as healthier, more rational institutional cultures.

Listeners are encouraged to weigh in, as the topic is sure to provoke further debate.