Great insights and wisdom is written in comments at various blogs. Often this gets lost in obscurity unless pulled out and featured.
I also think that a significant aspect to what you are talking about, empath[ologicalism], has to do with a very flawed idea of the notion of male leadership.
There is a tendency to argue/believe, in a rather sloppy way, that because men are supposed to be the leaders (in churches, in families and so on) that anything that is amiss is primarily the fault of the men — women are the designated followers, and so any shortcomings they may have are also the fault of the men for being imperfect leaders. The idea is that if the men were simply leading properly, we wouldn’t see the women behaving the way they do — so the way to “address the issue” is to get men to lead better, and the women will just magically fall in line.
This is a pervasive mindset among American Christians, especially among self-described “conservative” Protestant Christians. It’s also present, to a lesser degree, among conservative Catholic (and unfortunately Orthodox as well) clerics. You see this reflected in guys like Driscoll and Stanton. You also see it reflected in the more general and pervasive idea that people have (as slwerner talks about above) that if a woman is “acting out” in some bad way, ultimately the man must have done something to cause this, even if that “something” was not being the ideal leader to be followed perfectly.
If you have this mindset that everything women do is derivative of male leadership, then you’re going to view “fixing” the problem as primarily a matter of fixing what the men are doing — the women will magically “fall in line” if you do this. (This kind of magic wish thinking also pervades the Game community, by the way, but that’s a topic for a different comment). So, if you see problem with female promiscuity, you immediately look at what the men are doing in the picture, and woodshed them to act differently — because if they do, you believe that the women will stop behaving promiscuously, simply because you see their behavior as derivative of male behavior — i.e., that they “follow the man’s lead”, whether he is leading well or not. In other words, this interpretation of male leadership always finds the locus of any problem in the man — women have a lesser degree of moral agency, in effect, under this view — and even though when it’s expressed that way almost none of these guys would admit that, in effect it is nevertheless what they are doing and saying.
This is very far removed from what we see in Genesis. In Genesis, by contrast, we see God making both Adam AND Eve own their own shit. God doesn’t say to Eve; “Well, we know Adam was being a shitty leader, and therefore we don’t really blame you for what you did, even though it was technically wrong” — no, he berates her for her own sin. Of course, he berates Adam for *listening* to Eve and following her into her sin, rather than leading her out of it, but this admonition and penalty does not obscure or understate the admonition and penalty issued to Eve. Both are sinners, the sin is in some ways the same and in some ways different due to the different situations of each. The American Christian God of today simply does not want to hold Eve to account for her sins — he wants to hold Adam account for his own sins and also for those of Eve. Quite simply, he doesn’t want to make Eve responsible for her own shit.
This is a foundational heresy, in functional terms, that has infected pretty much all of American Christianity — the only difference is the degree of the infection, which differs depending on one’s “Brand” of Christianity. It is, however, a fundamental moral heresy which is destroying the church from within. The social conservatives and traditionalists are just as guilty of this as are other Christians due to their tendency to magnify male responsibility while diminishing female responsibility. There are many reasons for this — Victorianism, longstanding pro-female sympathies due to chivalry and the ancient regime order between men and women in the West, the influence of feminism — all of them mingling together to make for a distinctly toxic brew. But the fact remains that they do this, they do it almost reflexively, because it “feels right”. This is the fundamental problem.