Most of us have not even noticed this change, nor do we have any realization of its radicality…To put the matter as dramatically as possible, we do not even know whether viable human beings can over any long period of time be reared in such a fashion" (italics mine).

This is a stunning observation. Never has there been a generation of men with so little direct influence from their childhood by a strong and healthy male template. And once a generation of men is raised in this female-controlled environment, the sequential male template is marred. The next generation of fathers pass down this feminized template to their sons and the problem is compounded.

Now a healthy man always possesses soft traits (Jesus certainly did), just as a healthy woman always possesses a certain assertiveness and strength. But soft traits in a man are only desirable when you find them in the context of manliness (just as assertiveness in a woman is only desirable in the context of true femininity).

Jesus was the ultimate man’s man, though he possessed the softest of traits. Joseph, who wept with his brothers, had all the traits of godly manhood. Jonathan, the tender-hearted friend of David, was every bit the man his father was not.

Softness in a strong man is a wonderful thing. But when a man takes on these softer traits as his primary modus operandi, things get turned upside down.

Earmarks of Feminization

What are some of the earmarks of feminization (which can be seen in varying degrees in different men)? According to Clark:  

  • Compared to men who have not been feminized, a feminized man will place an unbalanced emphasis on how he feels (and how other people feel), in turn becoming highly visceral in his personal thinking and reactions.
  • He will be much more gentle and handle situations in a “soft” way.
  • He will be much more subject to the approval of the group, and thus significantly affected by how others feel and react towards him.
  • Sometimes he will relate by preference to women or other feminized men, and will have a more difficult time with an all-male group.
  • He will tend to fear women’s emotions; in his family and at work he will be more easily controlled by a woman’s emotional reaction.
  • He will tend to idealize women, and if he is religious, he will see women as ideal

Christians and identify Christian virtue with feminine characteristics" (italics mine).

Feminization is not about persona or personality. A macho personality may hide a feminized inner worldview, while the most sensitive and poetic personality can carry a very manly inner worldview. Jacob, for example, was the sensitive, family-connected twin brother of the rugged outdoorsman, Esau. Yet it was Esau who turned to jelly at the aroma of a bowl of soup. While of Jacob we learn that “in the womb he took his brother by the heel, and in his manhood he strove with God. He strove with the angel and prevailed; he wept and sought his favor” (Hosea 12:3-4).

Another example is Saul, the good-looking, masculine first king of Israel. Yet beneath lay a hidden feminization. Saul was overly concerned with the feelings and approval of people. “I feared the people and listened to their voice,” said Saul when he disobeyed God (1 Samuel 15:24), and he lost God’s anointing because of it.

Yet hidden away in Saul’s courts was an unimpressive, poet-musician who possessed a surprisingly strong inner core of manliness. It was of this man, David, that Samuel spoke when he said, “Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).