There has been a clear shift in the ideas, behavior, and voting among young men in the United States. Recent polling shows that Generation Z men, particularly those who voted for Donald Trump, put marriage and children near or at the top of their priorities.
This generational shift, making some young men more conservative than their fathers and grandfathers, can be at least partly attributed to the influence of men such as Charlie Kirk and Jordan Peterson, who have encouraged young men to “man up,” to get married, take responsibility, and do difficult things.
But what about women? Gen Z women in both parties are still prioritizing career and personal freedom higher than marriage and children. Is there someone who can tell them to “woman up?” As Erika Kirk takes the helm at Turning Point, many have suggested she could do for young women what her husband has done for young men.
Kirk is a woman of remarkable talent and grace, who has made it clear that she isn’t hemmed in by feminist tropes. “Women,” she said at her husband’s memorial service, “I have a challenge for you too. Be virtuous. Our strength is found in God’s design for our role. We are the guardians. We are the encouragers. We are the preservers. Guard your heart. Everything you do flows from it.”
She was encouraging service, love, presence, nurturing — some of the best things that come from women. Perhaps more importantly, Kirk’s new role as CEO of Turning Point wasn’t a career choice, but carrying on her husband’s legacy because of his assassination.
Kirk isn’t speaking out of ignorance when she says motherhood matters most. She has had high-profile personal career successes, but as she emphasized Sunday, she still weighs motherhood above everything else: “If you’re a mother, please recognize that is the single most important ministry you have.”
With all her charisma and capabilities, Kirk still faces some significant obstacles to helping women help themselves. Here are some of them.
1. Girl Math
Feminism has a tangle of ideological problems, but at heart, its real issue is the economics of time. Feminism encourages women to do it all, to have it all, but without explaining how one woman can do the work of two, first by working full-time while raising children.
The expectation has been that children will simply adjust to their mothers at work. In fact, some have suggested that children of working mothers will flourish from knowing their mother is doing what makes her happy. (Curiously, a similar argument hasn’t been made on the popular level for deadbeat dads.)
In the 1970s, Germaine Greer assured us that “bringing up children is not a real occupation, because children come up just the same, brought up or not.” Fifty years later, Greer’s insights have clashed with reality.
The Centers for Disease Control reports that “Nearly 20% of children and young people ages 3-17 in the United States have a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral disorder, and suicidal behaviors among high school students increased more than 40% in the decade before 2019.” The root of many of these maladies are children not properly attached to mothers.
It will be hard to disabuse women of the now-pervasive belief that we can be both full-time mom and full-time worker without any damage to ourselves, men, marriages, children’s mental health, and the entire fabric of civilization. Kirk will need to show the opposite is true, both in her vibrant words and example.
2. Emotional Connections Are Key for Women
The second obstacle to helping women is that women don’t easily follow leaders without a tight emotional connection or identification. This is why we haven’t seen a standout Jordan Peterson type among women.
We are often motivated more by identity than ideas. This is why debates and other means of “owning the libs” such as Charlie Kirk was famous for are less effective with women than with men.
Women imitate other women when they have an emotional connection or sense that one “represents me.” We are tribal, communal, and egalitarian, so the idea of following a remote or distant leader doesn’t ring as deeply for women as does for men.
Factors such as appearance, branding, status, and life experience also play a role in how much a woman is willing to associate with and follow others. There might be amazing women to follow, but unless we feel some kind of emotional connection or can see some of ourselves in them, the leadership connection can be tenuous.
3. The Romantic Lie
Another enormous obstacle to helping women refocus their priorities is that few women know how deeply indoctrinated we are. Philosopher Rene Girard talks about The Romantic Lie, the false belief that people make autonomous decisions instead of being highly influenced by outside forces. Most of our thoughts and decisions, Girard explained, are not our own but are imposed from the options presented from outside of ourselves.
Women value this kind of modelling when adopting clothing fashions, but often remain unaware of how deeply we are also influenced intellectually, emotionally, and socially. Woman-on-the-street kinds of interviews expose well The Romantic Lie when women are asked to explain their thinking about well-accepted ideas.
Few can explain a rationale for them, often lapsing into far-off looks as they try to justify why they believe in abortion or other regnant leftist policies. Social media algorithms further silo women’s values into predictable patterns.
4. The Myth of ‘Good’ Feminism
Most influential women today, including conservative women, are still clinging to feminism as the great hope for women’s success and happiness. Few see any urgency to make an ideological break with the movement that tells women we can have it all. Much of the belief in this myth hinges on the well-trod argument that although second-wave feminism and beyond are bad, the first wave was good.
In truth, feminism shares the same pedigree as the other radical ideologies that devastated the 20th century. It isn’t an accident that the grandmother of the movement, Mary Wollstonecraft, was deeply enmeshed with the grandfathers of socialism and communism. Her mentor, Dr. Richard Price (against whom Edmund Burke, the first conservative, wrote), is considered the first leftist thinker, while her husband, William Godwin, was a strong influence upon Karl Marx.
These and other radicals, including Thomas Paine, Theodore Lindsey, and Joseph Priestly, were united in political beliefs and the Unitarian faith. They rejected the Christian worldview that included a Trinitarian God, making Jesus simply another prophet and not true God and Savior.
They called themselves “revolutionary men” as supporters of the French Revolution, its radical break with the past, and its atheistic leadership and civic structure. Wollstonecraft shared their convictions, even justifying the violence of the French Revolution as a necessary step for maturing a France allegedly long infantilized by the Catholic faith.
The women who followed Wollstonecraft in the 19th century also abandoned Christianity for a Unitarian or occult view. Women including Fanny Wright, Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Matilda Gage insisted men use Christianity to enslave women. Women’s liberation depended on eliminating Christianity. So disabusing conservatives of the idea that first-wave feminism was good and populated by Christian women will take some doing.
These challenges are all formidable, both inside and outside conservative circles. Kirk’s steel determination to exponentially grow her husband’s legacy means she won’t be cowed by convention or shy away from the real issues.
We can expect her to speak the truth about women, the female heart, and the vital importance of motherhood. May women — young and old — have the ears to hear her. As her husband knew, the future of the West depends upon it.
