‘Wokeness is feminization’: The true origins of cancel culture



Journalist Helen Andrews has written what BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock calls “one of the most important pieces of journalism in quite some time.”

The article for the online publication Compact, titled “The Great Feminization,” dives into the dangers of feminism and the havoc it has wreaked on society as a whole — starting with “cancel culture.”

“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. … Everything you think of as ‘wokeness’ is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization,” Andrews writes.

“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,” she continues. “How did I not see it before?”


Andrews notes that women “became a majority of college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019,” which was followed by women becoming a “majority of college instructors in 2023.”

“Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions tipped demographically from majority male to majority female,” she writes.

“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,” she adds.

Andrews also points out that within group dynamics, the “most important sex difference” is the “attitude to conflict.” While “men wage conflict openly,” women “covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.”

“We’ve all been in denial, that we all just, you know, ‘Women and men, they’re all the same and welcoming them into the workforce and into all positions of power — this is long overdue and this is good for America,’ and this article points out in great detail, and very powerfully, like no, they’re not the same,” Whitlock says in response.

However, while BlazeTV contributor Chad Jackson agrees somewhat with Andrews, he points out that the article was still “written from a spirit of feminism.”

“And what I mean by that is that she describes wokeism kind of rising up out of nowhere, seemingly out of nowhere here recently. When the reality of it is that what we’re seeing in these recent years is actually a culmination of what’s been going on for a few centuries, actually,” Jackson explains.

“When you’re coming from a kind of evolutionary worldview, you might get a lot of things right, but you miss the mark when it comes to certain key points. … I think that we tend to miss the mark when it comes to how these things have been brewing up for much longer than the recent history," he adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Western Culture Isn’t Feminized, It’s Transgender

Helen Andrews argues woke culture is the inevitable result of women taking over pivotal industries such as law, media, and medicine.

Why Imposing Consequences For Evil Acts Isn’t Cancel Culture

This is very obvious to people who can think their way out of a wet paper bag Sharpied over with 'cancel culture bad.'

I experienced Jimmy Kimmel’s lies firsthand. His suspension is justice.



ABC announced last week that it was indefinitely pulling “Jimmy Kimmel Live.” The network cited his dishonest remarks about MAGA and the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk. Then on Monday, the network reversed itself. Kimmel is expected to return to the air on Tuesday night.

The original decision outraged the left. Activists immediately claimed it was a violation of free speech, pretending Kimmel was a victim of “cancel culture.” The network’s change of heart likely won’t please anyone, except for Kimmel and his staff. The irony? Kimmel himself cheered when others lost their platforms.

I still live with the fallout of his lies. Many others do too. For once, at least, Kimmel faces consequences.

This isn’t a man who deserves sympathy. I know from experience.

How Kimmel targeted me

Five years ago, while working for the California Republican Party, I promoted the party’s legal ballot collection efforts online. That one tweet turned into a smear campaign. Politicians and left-leaning groups smeared and defamed me. My own employers abandoned me.

Media figures amplified the false narrative. None did more damage than Jimmy Kimmel. Days after the controversy began, he ran a segment featuring my full name and photo. He falsely claimed my work was illegal and added a grotesque line suggesting that someone should stuff me into a ballot collection box. The box was too small to fit a person. The implication was obvious.

He wasn’t joking. The segment was a televised incitement that smeared my reputation and put my safety at even greater risk.

Living with the fallout

The consequences came fast. Threats filled my inbox. Law enforcement advised me to leave my apartment and lay low. Police guarded my parents’ home after they were harassed.

When my short-term contract with the California Republican Party ended, I couldn’t find work. Despite my clean record, military service, and two master’s degrees, doors kept closing. They still do. Kimmel wasn’t the only one who defamed me, but his national broadcast magnified the lies and hardened the damage.

Unlike Kimmel, I didn’t have millions in the bank or a network behind me. I was a junior staffer, recently out of the military, scraping by on less than $60,000 a year. His words carried a weight mine never could.

Kimmel’s hypocrisy

In 2023, NFL star Aaron Rodgers joked that Kimmel didn’t want the Epstein client list released. Kimmel threatened to sue him. Yet when Kimmel broadcast falsehoods about me — and encouraged violence against me — no apology ever came.

Kimmel even lectured Rodgers from his monologue: “When I do get something wrong, which happens on rare occasions, you know what I do? I apologize.” That’s an obvious lie. He certainly never apologized to me.

And I’m not the only one. He has encouraged vandalism against Tesla owners and, most recently, pushed the outrageous lie that Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin was a MAGA Republican — a smear made after evidence proved otherwise.

RELATED: The market fired Jimmy Kimmel

Randy Holmes/Disney General Entertainment Content via Getty Images

Why ABC pulled the plug

Contrary to the left-liberal narrative, ABC’s move was not political interference. It was business. Kimmel’s audience had been shrinking for years. Just this month, his ratings fell another 11%. His rant about Kirk’s assassination would only have accelerated the collapse.

Networks have every right to act when a host becomes a liability. The First Amendment does not entitle Jimmy Kimmel to ABC’s airwaves.

Consequences at last

So, in reality, Kimmel’s return to late night may be short-lived. His career decline is his own making. But unlike his targets, he’ll be fine. He will walk away with a $50 million net worth. He’ll find plenty of work again.

I, on the other hand, still live with the fallout of his lies. Many others do too. But for a moment, at least, Kimmel faced consequences. And to borrow a favorite line from his liberal supporters: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

Free speech is more than a slogan. It’s a duty.



Leftists insist that “words are violence.” They also claim that “silence is violence.” Curious. They wield the term “hate speech” as a weapon, though it has no legal definition. It’s a political tool designed for abuse, much like the tactics of China’s Red Guard during the Cultural Revolution.

Recent debates over free speech have shown how few Americans — left, right, powerful, or powerless — actually understand what the First Amendment protects. That ignorance is unnerving.

Every silence either defends or betrays liberty. Kirk lived and taught that truth. Now, in his absence, we carry that responsibility.

To honor Charlie’s legacy, we must defend free speech boldly, graciously, and without compromise.

Free speech flows from God’s gift of free will, enshrined by the founders in our nation’s founding documents. As Charlie Kirk once said, “Without free speech, there is no such thing as truth. The moment you silence opposing voices, you destroy the foundation of democracy.”

Scripture underscores the responsibility that comes with this freedom. Colossians 4:6 reminds us to speak graciously, with words “seasoned with salt.” Matthew 12:36 warns that we will give an account “for every careless word.” Proverbs 18:21 drives the point home: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.”

We are free to speak, but we will be held accountable.

Bondi’s blunder

That accountability is central to the recent firestorm over Attorney General Pam Bondi. Appearing on Katie Miller’s podcast last week, Bondi said, “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.”

Bondi later cited federal statutes criminalizing threats, doxxing, and swatting, promising full prosecution. She framed her argument as a defense of families, freedoms, and Charlie Kirk’s legacy.

But Bondi blurred a crucial line. Threats of violence have been crimes for centuries. “Hate speech” doesn’t legally exist. By conflating the two, Bondi gives more ammunition to those who want to criminalize speech they dislike.

Kirk himself once wrote: “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And all of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.” He warned that once “hate speech” becomes a category, it will be used against conservatives first.

Consequences, not censorship

Free speech carries consequences, both spiritual and legal. It also carries social consequences, often borne disproportionately by conservatives. Kirk frequently noted that conservatives are branded “bigots” and accused of “hate speech” simply for defending traditional values.

The media’s distortion of his words proves the point. Misquotations, half-truths, and selective edits continue to shape his legacy. Not long ago, speaking ill of the dead — especially the innocent — was taboo. Today, it is routine.

Government-sanctioned propaganda

The erosion of free speech didn’t happen overnight. In 2012, Congress passed the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, allowing government propaganda once restricted to foreign audiences to target Americans directly.

Since then, administrations — especially Joe Biden’s — have funneled taxpayer-funded messaging into “news” outlets indistinguishable from government press releases. That’s what Trump meant when he labeled the media “fake news.” It’s not just bias. It’s legalized propaganda.

The results are obvious: riots over George Floyd but prayer vigils after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Manufactured outrage for causes the left elevates, silence for causes it despises.

The algorithmic censor

Corporate media is only half the machine. Social media algorithms do the rest. Conservatives (myself included) face shadow bans and throttling for speaking truth. Posts about Iryna Zarutska’s stabbing death get sanitized into euphemisms like “poked” or “unalived” to avoid suppression. Kirk’s assassination was reduced online to being “pew pewed.”

RELATED: The market fired Jimmy Kimmel

Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Language itself has been contorted. Political correctness has turned serious matters into absurdist code words. Kirk once warned: “Political correctness is the most deadly of political weaponry.” He was right. If this continues, truth itself will become unspeakable.

Cancel culture vs. accountability

The left wants to erase the difference between cancel culture and accountability. Cancel culture punishes thought, speech, or belief without moral or legal justification. Accountability punishes advocacy of violence. When employees cheer assassination or call for murder, employers have every right to fire them. That is not tyranny. That is justice.

Failing to distinguish between the two plays into the left’s hands. It allows them to conflate legitimate accountability with censorship, further eroding free speech.

The duty to speak

To honor Charlie’s legacy, we must defend free speech boldly, graciously, and without compromise. Free speech is not merely a constitutional right; it is a moral duty.

Every silence either defends or betrays liberty. Kirk lived and taught that truth. Now, in his absence, we carry that responsibility. Speak now — bravely, responsibly, and without fear — so that the freedoms Charlie cherished endure for generations.

We Are Not Going To Have A Debate About Free Speech

The cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel’s show doesn’t matter. What matters is the left’s embrace of political violence.

Liberals conveniently forget how many people they've canceled in the last decade



Liberals are up in arms about Jimmy Kimmel's "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" getting suspended by broadcaster ABC, claiming conservatives have been hypocritical over the ordeal.

Kimmel found himself in hot water after claiming that Charlie Kirk's alleged assassin was of the same political tribe as Kirk, saying, "The MAGA gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it."

'Remember when you and your wife called Bob Iger to have me fired?'

Even President Barack Obama has spoken out about Kimmel, saying on X, "After years of complaining about cancel culture," the Trump administration has "taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn't like."

However, the liberal elites and their late-night mouthpieces have seemingly forgotten about the high-profile cancellations that have occurred in recent years, especially those involving people on the other side of the political spectrum.

For instance, Roseanne Barr had her iconic 2018 comeback stymied over what were considered by the media to be "racist tweets."

Barr's show "Roseanne" had a thunderous return to the very same airwaves as Kimmel on ABC, but even though she had the most-watched show of the year, she was still booted from her own creation.

Barr even responded to President Obama's post on Thursday, saying, "Remember when you and your wife called Bob Iger to have me fired?" referring to the CEO of the Walt Disney Company, which owns ABC.

The comedian is just one of many personalities who lost their jobs as a result of their speech.

RELATED: Jimmy Kimmel's show pulled off the air after Charlie Kirk comments

— (@)

Who can forget that Gina Carano, also employed by Disney, was fired in February 2021 after she made posts online that mocked the use of pronouns while also criticizing COVID-19 policies?

She was promptly kicked from Disney's "The Mandalorian," with studio Lucasfilm saying, "Her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable."

Tucker Carlson was famously fired by Fox News in April 2023 for what some say was a result of his hammering of the January 6, 2021, investigations. However, Carlson claimed his firing was a requirement of the $787.5 million settlement Fox had agreed to with Dominion Voting Systems.

Another conveniently forgotten cancellation from the left was Alex Jones, who was simultaneously taken off of every major platform in 2018. YouTube, Apple, Spotify, and Facebook all took Jones' Infowars off their sites for allegedly promoting violence and hate speech.

Jones' take on Sandy Hook, Comet Pizza, and the Parkland, Florida, shootings were cited as reasons for removing Jones not from just radio stations, but from entire platforms that are meant to be public for all.

RELATED: 'John Goodman wouldn't do it': Roseanne Barr says other 'Roseanne' actors refused to play Trump supporters

J. K. Rowling attends day four of Royal Ascot, 2025. Photo by Karwai Tang/WireImage

Author J.K. Rowling was blacklisted from a reunion for her own project in 2021 over her unwillingness to accept males as females. She was also banned from certain "Harry Potter" projects for the same reason.

Almost every star of "Harry Potter" has condemned Rowling's comments and views, which have amounted to, essentially, not wanting trans-identifying men to be allowed in women's spaces.

Liberals certainly did not shed any tears for Megyn Kelly when she was fired by NBC in 2018. The morning show host dared to say that if a non-black person wanted to dress as a black character for Halloween, it should be allowed.

"Truly, you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface at Halloween or a black person who puts on whiteface for Halloween. Back when I was a kid, that was OK, as long as you were dressing up as, like, a character," she said, per the Associated Press.

Leftists did not defend Kelly then and treated the situation as if she had been advocating for the mockery of all black people.

Last but not least, BlazeTV's own Glenn Beck departed from Fox News Channel in 2011 at the behest of Media Matters. In fact, not only did the activist group proudly claim the victory, but executives openly said they would monitor whoever replaced Beck.

"We monitor Beck's 5 p.m. show on Fox. Whoever is in at 5 p.m., we’re still going to monitor,” said Media Matters executive vice president Ari Rabin-Havt.

Though Beck was drawing in more than 2 million viewers per show at the time, Media Matters targeted the show's advertisers, which eventually caved.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Ocasio-Cortez’s Old Remarks Come Back To Bite Her In Wake Of Kimmel Suspension

'Couldn’t have happened to a better guy'

Charlie Kirk’s death tests America’s moral and civic compass



Over the weekend, the world mourned the murder of Charlie Kirk. In London, crowds filled the streets, chanting “Charlie! Charlie! Charlie!” and holding up pictures of the fallen conservative giant. Protests in his honor spread as far away as South Korea. This wasn’t just admiration for one man; it was a global acknowledgment that courage and conviction — the kind embodied by Kirk during his lifetime — still matter. But it was also a warning. This is a test for our society, our morality, and our willingness to defend truth.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni recently delivered a speech that struck at the heart of this crisis. She praised Kirk as a man who welcomed debate, who smiled while defending his ideas, and who faced opposition with respect. That courage is frightening to those who have no arguments. When reason fails, the weapons left are insults, criminalization, and sometimes violence. We see it again today, in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

Charlie Kirk’s life was a challenge. His death is a call.

Some professors and public intellectuals have written things that should chill every American soul. They argue that shooting a right-wing figure is somehow less serious than murdering others. They suggest it could be mitigated because of political disagreement. These aren’t careless words — they are a rationalization for murder.

Free speech vs. glorifying murder

Words matter. Celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk is not free speech. It is a glorification of evil. Parents and communities have every right to demand accountability from those in positions of trust. A teacher, professor, or public official who cheers violence has revealed the state of his or her heart. Scripture reminds us, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” A society that tolerates murder is a society that has lost its moral compass.

Some will argue that holding such figures accountable is “cancel culture.” They will say that we are silencing debate. They are wrong. Accountability is not cancel culture. A critical difference lies between debating ideas and celebrating death. Debate challenges minds. Celebrating murder abandons humanity. Charlie Kirk’s death draws that line sharply.

History offers us lessons. In France, mobs cheered executions as the guillotine claimed the heads of their enemies — and their own heads soon rolled. Cicero begged his countrymen to reason, yet the mob chose blood over law, and liberty was lost. Charlie Kirk’s assassination reminds us that violence ensues when virtue is abandoned.

We must also distinguish between debates over policy and attacks on life itself. A teacher who argues that children should not undergo gender-transition procedures before adulthood participates in a policy debate. A person who says Charlie Kirk’s death is a victory rejoices in violence. That person has no place shaping minds or guiding children.

RELATED: ‘Do not go gentle into that good night’: Remembering Charlie Kirk

Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images

For liberty and virtue

Liberty without virtue is national suicide. The Constitution protects speech — even dangerous ideas — but it cannot shield those who glorify murder. Society has the right to demand virtue from its leaders, educators, and public figures. Charlie Kirk’s life was a challenge. His death is a call. It is a call to defend our children, our communities, and the principles that make America free.

Cancel culture silences debate. But accountability preserves it. A society that distinguishes between debating ideas and celebrating death still has a moral compass. It still has hope. It still has us.

9 Times The Left Ruined People’s Lives For No Reason

All Sandmann did was smile