Erika Kirk, the Career Feminist?

This is the conclusion of a three part series. Please check yesterday and Friday's publications to see this whole article play out together! Or, you can head over to my Substack and read this whole series as one article: https://rememberingtomorrow.substack.com/p/erika-kirk . We left last time by examining the charge that she was a feminist for becoming TPUSA's CEO, and beginning to examine what role women have played through history in the Church, and some oppressions they've faced through the annals of time. We return now to the modern woman in the modern world, and wonder what role they play as part of the human family.

Women as modern contributors

 
It is a small comfort to remember that women’s historical oppression has not typically been specifically against her as woman. She has merely borne the brunt of policies and legislation which has excluded men and women alike at different times. From voting laws to property ownership, from citizenship to leadership roles, men and women have both been deemed unworthy of full cultural status at different times and in different cultures.

Now, though the specifics of each law, time, and custom vary, the thing these specific actions are oriented towards are higher than the actions or laws themselves. They point towards some perceived or actual good those with authority (political power and cultural influence alike) pursue for their community. Many of the traditional gender roles and customs were aimed at preserving the family unit and the coherence of Man as integral male/female species in community with the other. Our discussions on philosophy and the development of anthropology show, I hope, a prevalent bent in other realms of cultural practice: excluding women through laws and customs was less about her as woman and more about ensuring reason was ordering society. To this end, men who fell into different categories (outside tribe/race, not property owners, conquered, etc.) and women alike were excluded at different times from fully participating in culture as human agents: preservation of reason as ordering society trumped considering reason as integrally human activity.

In this light, there is actually some good we can perceive in the historical oppressions of the past: order and reason are good, as are preserving the familial dichotomy within culture as a whole. These are goods, that still apply to this day. 

However, to recognize there is some good in any given choice or custom is not therefore to say it is worth preserving necessarily. Everything is aimed towards some good. The nature of evil is simply aiming towards some lesser good as if it were the highest good. And so, while there have been goods aimed at in the past, we cannot sacrifice the whole of reality to preserve some fewer goods. Family and the ordering society through reason are absolutely goods we must preserve - but not at the cost of human agency, recognizing the necessity of the feminine influence, and the dignity of personhood in solidarity and as member of the human family. There must be a way we can bring these ancient tradendums of years past to our modern age.

And yet, what we have said about the errors of history equally apply today. There are many things claimed to be goods in our modern age. The fact that in the West (generally speaking) women can vote, work, lead, and fill nearly every role traditionally reserved for men is supposed to be momentous for recognizing women’s agency and humanity. Her creativity as rational being is admitted respected by allowing her autonomy to be enshrined into law. And the basic human needs of every person are intended to be continuously addressed and listened to through multi-national charities, foreign aid policies, and sentiments extending beyond ourselves. 

These are the actions of the modern world which claim to empower women and garner equality. And, to a certain extent, I think they do - at least in name. However, as we said: admitting some good in any given choice or custom is not to say the whole thing is therefore ultimately good. Furthermore: the data often used to illustrate these goods often does not, in fact, prove those goods it supposes. For example, according to one article published by the American Psychological Association, “When more women are empowered to lead, everyone benefits. Decades of studies show women leaders help increase productivity, enhance collaboration, inspire organizational dedication, and improve fairness.” But let’s break down this specific claim to see where the good lies. 

The data this article draws on to reach its claim is extensive, and there is no need to replicate it here. Be it known that this particular study cites more than five academic studies cited, spanning decades of psychological research. A simple Google search can provide additional data to support benefits of women leaders. In a nutshell, the first blush of the data seems conclusive: women leadership = undeniably better results = absolute improvement for society and the world. 

Data suggests that when women lead, employees work together better, show increased loyalty to the company, think more highly of their superiors’ leadership skills, and think they are treated better by that company. What’s not to love? Again: at first blush, the data suggests the opportunities provided to women by the sexual and industrial revolutions, married to the inevitable rise in women leadership through gender quotas, is an unmitigated boon to humanity.

The problem with this isn’t so much that the data shows women in leadership roles is good. The problem becomes clear when we ask who is this really good for? Another article, this time published by the World Economic Forum, spells it out for us: “Diversity in leadership is good for business.” Another academic study supposedly proves WEF’s point: “For example, a Harvard Business School report on the male-dominated venture capital industry found that ‘the more similar the investment partners, the lower their investments’ performance.’ In fact, firms that increased their proportion of female partner hires by 10% saw, on average, a 1.5% spike in overall fund returns each year and had 9.7% more profitable exits.”

Again, undeniable data. But we’re not done! The WEF takes these percentages one step further. It turns out that, “Research by Deloitte suggests companies with an inclusive culture are six times more likely to be innovative. By staying ahead of changes, they are twice as likely to hit or better financial targets.” So, from a profitable standpoint, when businesses place women in places of leadership, they can generally expect to see roughly 10%-100% increase in profits. You don’t have to be an economist to understand how appealing these numbers are in a Capitalist market.

In the face of hard numbers, increases in profits, and the undeniable marketability of diversity, one begins to wonder why America isn’t tripping over itself to have every position of leadership filled by women. The WEF wonders this very thing. Pointing to the tech industry, it gives a warning to its readers. “There’s nothing inherently masculine about blockchain, artificial intelligence (AI), or machine learning; computers are androgynous by nature,” it begins its warning. “That said,” it continues, “the tech sector remains heavily dominated by men… Unless the sector can balance the ledger by making roles attractive to women, then we risk missing out on the full potential of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” Another argument in favor of gender quotas: include women or miss the progress of industry.

The risks of “missing out” on the goods of women leadership is not isolated to businesses, nor are the arguments for gender quotas solely economic. The UN Women moves the conversation from the corporation realm to the political sphere. Reviewing the benefits of women leading in the political sphere, it paints a picture of world progress and cooperation influenced by the feminine leader:

There is established and growing evidence that women’s leadership in political decision-making processes improves them. For example, research on panchayats (local councils) in India discovered that the number of drinking water projects in areas with women-led councils was 62 percent higher than in those with men-led councils. In Norway, a direct causal relationship between the presence of women in municipal councils and childcare coverage was found… Women demonstrate political leadership by working across party lines through parliamentary women’s caucuses - even in the most politically combative environments - and by championing issues of gender equality, such as the elimination of gender-based violence, parental leave, and childcare, pensions, gender-equality laws, and electoral reform.

Now, there are some areas of overlap we can see between political and corporate female leaders. We see the recurring themes of cooperation and empathy for humans (fair treatment). We see human needs being met, and even see some pride in being associated with the organization (or nation) which esteems their women. 

What are we to do in the face of percentages and demonstrated good? Well, the conclusion these articles arrive at are not the necessary, or even the correct, interpretation of the data presented. It is true: all these data points paint a good and beneficial picture. However, the picture is good only because its premise is a societal assumption based on the faulty philosophies outlined in this book. The question, “is larger GDP and financial return actually good for human culture and society” is not something anyone thinks to ask anymore. And yet, these articles specifically assume that the the economic growths companies report are the proof in the pudding: it must be good for everyone because we have tangible proof of some good. 

That there is more commercialized childcare is not necessarily good for society is not even a question. That gender quotas overlook the person and focus on the data point as literally antithetical to all that is truly feminine is not even considered. That tangible financial proof is no proof of goodness for society at all is a completely foreign idea. The underlying premise of the conclusions is that everything has to be economic, and what doesn’t increase economic growth is unilaterally considered bad for humanity. Similarly, opening doors to women in every industry and increasing their representation based solely on the fact that there is a disparity is considered good with no further examination. All that our leviathan can see is that there are two people unable to operate in the same manner with the same results: the principles of complete autonomy and freedom from influence dictate this inequity must be overcome, and it is our civic duty to eliminate it.

Yes: we admit the data shows goods when women are included in leadership positions. But the data actually defends the position of truly traditional femininity: of course there will be more collaboration within an organization when women are involved. Inherent in their being is the inclination to value the individual and recognize their subjectivity. This much is true no matter the premises against which this reality is considered. So while gender quotas and the ills of reducing women to corporate assets are logically sound, we established in our introduction that logic does not equal truth. In a strange twist, the sound logic of the Industrial and Sexual revolutions have further removed the true feminine influence from the world by including them through force in the workplace based on faulty premises and denying their true value as other oriented - not individual (or themselves) oriented.

We just finished seeing the data. There are no end to percentage points and numbers reflecting financial gains for corporations and industry. In order to see that as good, or even as building culture, you must first buy into the premise of Amazon, Microsoft, Tesla, Apple, Fortune 500 companies, and other giants as building a culture which is good for humanity. Is employment at these companies really culture-building activities? Well, yes inasmuch as any human activity is building the culture. But whether it is a culture oriented towards human flourishing is almost certainly not the case. And it is worth pointing out the Catholic Church has spoken on Capitalism, and as denounced unbridled Capitalism as often (and in the same breath) as it has denounced Socialism/Communism. I wrote about that a few weeks ago; perhaps now is a good time for you to get caught up!

We are not going to belabor economic systems at this time. But let us not advocate for women to participate in what we merely suppose are culture-building activities, but are in fact mere grunt work for a machination of economy. Any particular job in an unbridled Capitalist system tends to be not so much of a human, culture building activity as much as it is to be one in which the worker’s own identity is hidden into mere utility for the sake of the business owner, the governing body, or the individual’s autonomy. So, in a sense, the premise of the whole question is wrong. Forget the question of women: should anyone be permitted to work jobs which reduce their individuality and personhood to such levels of utility? The number of such professions in which the necessity of the position outweighs the evils of dehumanization are incredibly limited, I think. 

Ignoring the dangers and pitfalls of professions within unbridled Capitalism, let us return to the topic at hand. Admitting that every public activity is in one form or another a culture-building activity, it is undeniable that women do belong in public professions - even those traditionally reserved for men. Now, there are statistics and data to suggest that by overwhelming numbers men feel more secure in their cultural contributions of bricklayers, delivery, etc. than women do. While yes: women can (and sometimes do) choose to enter these fields, they are much more inclined to pursue professions that are not menial. However, just because “99% of bricklayers are men,” in no way means that women cannot or ought not be included in those areas. There does not seem to be any specific reason for them not to contribute to the culture in such a way - be it menial, laborious, or monumentous. 

The problem arises when women are allowed into professions to perform as if they were men. The whole justification for women in places of leadership, as bricklayers, as plumbers, and in every other profession is because Man (homo) needs woman. The mother often occupies a leadership role within the family. Sometimes this role is in the absence of a husband (imagine that!), sometimes it is because he is tired. Sometimes it is because he is just wrong. But his masculinity is incoherent without her femininity. And both he and she bear equal responsibility for the well-being of the family. 

The same is true for society at large: if the family is the smallest unit of society, and women are leaders within the family, women absolutely belong in places of leadership. But only if they are there as women - not isolated, autonomatrons whose insurmountable subjectivity causes them to arrest society in a paralyzing attempt at recognizing others’ human subjectivity. Women, after all, cannot escape their femininity. Her feminine genius at one level or another shines through in her actions and beliefs - whether as fulfillment of her nature in her actions or as witness to her nature in spite of her decisions.

Just as women occupy leadership roles within the family, so too do they perform menial jobs for the good of the family culture. My wife loves it when I take out the trash. I joke with her that she sees it as the quintessential husbandly activity. And yet, she has to do that sometimes. But my wife also cooks; she paints the library, and plants the garden. When she is able, she helps me shovel the snow-buried driveway. There is literally no task here at my house that I do not at one time or another need her help with. And our family culture and community reflects that partnership. I do dishes, and help take care of little ones. I make dinner when I have to. 

There is a difference in this dynamic, though. It is not like we sit down and explore all the different tasks we feel fulfilled in. We don’t really get to decide what needs to be done, or whether its our responsibility to do it. In short, we both do things we sometimes actually don’t like or feel fulfilled to do because that’s what keeps our community going and our culture growing. And it is this conscious decision wherein our complementary and equal genders shine and are fulfilled. 

It is this same dynamic which insists that public functions - even menial ones - are open to women as they are men. Women must be allowed the freedom to fix those potholes, to lead their nations as so many Christian saints have done in history, and drive those trucks. They must be equipped to participate and contribute to the larger community of the human family in recognition of their humanity, their agency, and their femininity. And how much more so ought a woman be free to lead her husband’s legacy and vision in his absence! She is a help to him; she affects his vision in her femininity to her family and to the human family. Her children will only know their father through the actions and stories of their mother; how appropriate that she take steps to complete the tour he was murdered for doing. 

Erika Kirk: White Martyr of our time

So, here we are at last: the end of our examination. The charges against Erika Kirk are public, frequent, and from all comers. Her every tear is both celebrated and meticulously observed by her expected enemies: the opponents of her husband. Her every word, every text message, every internet search, and every trip is the subject of suspicion and accusation from her unexpected enemies: the once friends and political alternates of her husband. And finally, her very activities of keeping her husband’s legacy alive is critiqued and condemned by a surprise factor: the religious manosphere. The charges are public; are they warranted, or is Erika the very witness of martyrdom? I am convinced of her witness to martyrdom.

As to Erika Kirk, object of jeering mockery, who is surprised when those advocating violence shudder with glee as a wife grieves? Such internet commentary ought to elicit the condemnation of the all and sundry; it should be eradicated from public society. I for one do not find insulting grieving widows to be an appropriate application of freedom of speech, and communities ought to gather around the oppressed to defend them. In this case, the community of the Public Speakers who are and were Charlie’s friends. Charge one shows Erika the victim of a martyrdom.

As to Erika Kirk, the conspirator, let her accusers gain a point in their favor: there are questions to be asked, just as there are questions to be asked in every public tragedy. That being said, the very people who in any other circumstance would comprise her peers and community which would rally to her defense against those seeking to ridicule a widow are the exact people who join in the proverbial stoning. The information sought by these egoists - or the platforms cultivated - do nothing to further the good of society, nor do they have the Virtuous truth as their aim. Erika has become a casualty in the way of grifting attention seekers, not the recipient of communal defense. Charge one shows Erika Kirk the victim of a martyrdom.

As to Erika Kirk, the career feminist vs. mother, let the naysayers also gain a point in their favor: yes, an individual is not free to do anything and everything they might choose careerwise, as if presented from an infinite list. On the contrary: freedom stems from responsibility and obligation. And that is precisely the responsibility and freedom Erika enjoys in becoming CEO of TPUSA. Each of us, in our sexuality, hears the echoes of anamnesis within our being and seeks to act according to the highest good. We seek to act in ways that fulfill us and manifest our place as masculine or feminine to the larger human family. These positions must open to women, because Man needs women. We do not need more laborers; we need more sons and daughters of the King. And if those sons or daughters be the object of ridicule for their royal efforts, all the better. 

Let the world, the jury of public opinion, and the readers of this article make up their own minds. For me, Erika Kirk has just won the example of white-martyrdom of our times title. May we all be so blessed so as to have the ability to so witness to the truth and the good. Pray for the Kirk family; pray for the repose of the soul of Charlie. 

Thanks for reading!  If you'd like to read all three parts in a cohesive whole, head on over to Substack and see the article there! https://rememberingtomorrow.substack.com/p/erika-kirk