Erika Kirk:

White Martyr of the Century, or Hypocrite?

In the year AD 2026, I am hard pressed to think of a candidate for white martyrdom (that is, martyred without shedding blood) and witness to the truth more poignant than that of Erika Kirk - at least on the surface. A mere four months ago, she had to experience what the world horrifically watched - and then rewatched - from their phones: the public execution of her husband, and the father of her children. We lost a brother; she lost her spouse.

Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash

Immediately following that horror, however, new and more even more nefarious attacks were waiting for her. What would have been enough to send many of us reeling in shock and agony would only be the beginning of her ordeals. First came the jeers of those supporting her husband’s death, and calling for further violence. Soon after, her every breath would be meticulously scrutinized by those same violence-supporters, ranging from she looked too beautiful to she looked too pitiful to she engaged with friends in her grief too much. The political movement which had opposed her husband both killed the man and sought to insult and mock the grieving widow. Through it all, Erika seemed to keep a high head and upheld the dignity of her state which was itself under attack.

If that was where Erika’s trials had ended, I would not be writing this paper. All those jeers, the mocking, the internet trolls, all that is in a sense to be expected. If they hate the husband, they most assuredly hate the wife who loves him. So it is with Christ and His Church: Catholics are hated in the world because we love Him who has espoused Himself to us. However, I am writing this article: Erika’s tribulations did not stop with her natural enemies.

It did not take long for the conspiracy theorists, the internet sleuths, and the attention grifters to see an untapped opportunity unfolding before their very eyes. Far-right voices long antagonistic to Charlie Kirk used the opportunity to amplify their own voices, filling the gap in his absence with their own platforms and attacking TPUSA - and Erika - in their vulnerability. Moreover, seemingly valid lines of reasoning escalated quickly to involve Israel, Egypt, Turning Point USA, and alleged love affairs of Erika herself as allegedly related to Kirk’s assassination. At one point, the US Military itself was touted as being party to his killing. Every move Erika made - ignoring the clamor, disavowing the clamor, clarifying the noise, official statements - literally everything she does seems to the “just asking questions” crowd to be nothing more than an indictment of her guilt. So, it is not only the left that wants Erika’s head on a platter: the alt-right, far right, and extremists want her disenfranchised as well.

As a fair note to the “just asking questioners”: seeking the truth, especially when there are things that simply don’t pass the smell test, is not a bad practice. In fact, it is laudable in free society. But that does not issue license for the tirade we see today plaguing TPUSA and Erika Kirk. Virtuous and justified search for truth has long since ceased to be the end of this questioning, and the good it might have done has long been eclipsed by the bad. We shall delve more deeply into why this is the case in a moment.

Seeming to fight against a white-martyrdom from both the political left and the right would be enough to prompt some reflections from me here. But Erika’s critics and condemners don’t even stop there! There is at least one more group calling for her silence and subjugation: the ultra-religious/manosphere/red-pill members. Not to be confused with the far-right Fuentes/Groypers, or the Candace Owens following, this final group of Kirk-attackers are those who criticize her ascent to CEO of Turning Point. “She should submit to the masculine presence at the company,” they cry, “and be a stay-at-home mother to Charlie’s children.” The mere fact that this grieving and attacked widow would take a stand and prevent her husband’s legacy from getting away from her angers this final group. Rather than ensure her husband’s - and, by extension, her own - vision is upheld, the rigidity of the religious/manospheric following would have this widow and her voice fade into a sad but distant background, herself and her own public voice a casualty of the assassin’s bullet beside her husband. The image almost reminds one of women burned on the funeral pyres of their husbands in so many ancient cultures!

These three public attacks - the jeering of the left, the suspicion of the right, and the subjugation from the manosphere - leave a grieving widow under fire from nearly every corner of the public world. All this, because her husband was killed for speaking openly and she dared to continue his view. Erika Kirk is well on her way to being the model of white martyrdom of our own day - if all of these attacks are unwarranted. If they are not, she stands the risk of being the hypocrite of the decade, seeking to profit off of her husband’s demise at worst, or common feminist ideologue at best. Let us look at each charge and discern.

The jeering of the left triumphant at Kirk’s death who would wish the same fate on Erika and her children is not worth the time it would take to write a condemnation. It is a horrific mindset that would cheer for the slaughter of those who would extend a hand to converse; how more so to wish an extension of that slaughter to a widow and children! These attacks are not surprising, even if they are a hardship. So much for the first attack.

The “just asking questioners,” the Groypers, and those others on the right who attack Erika are not so easily dismissed, just as they cut deeper than the slices of the known enemies. First came Nick Fuentes - known enemy of Kirk. Not so surprising that he would use Kirk’s assassination to further distance himself from his fellow political ideologues; a bit surprising that he has been given such a microphone from many as if to replace Kirk. And not surprising that he would use that microphone to further attack TPUSA and everything Kirk stood for. Further on Fuentes is unnecessary here; although the attention he has gotten (especially incel/volcel/femenine views) definitely warrants further comment in a later article.

But then came Owens and her following. At first it could be understandable: Owens was a friend of Kirk, hurting as many were, and angry. She began what she is typically good at - investigative journalism - and said that she would stop if Erika asked her to. When she got no audience, no time of day, and no attention from TPUSA and Erika, Owens continued to escalate her accusations, even going so far as to boldly proclaim that Erika had mishandled funds and that TPUSA was completely corrupt and no one ought to donate to them. Then flatly refused to stop - like she said she would - when Erika asked her to. In a closed-door meeting, Owens demanded to be privy to court-room evidence and arguments, and promised she would tell her following that TPUSA was still liable for Kirk’s death if her demands were not met. Owens has even gone so far as to claim that she was Charlie’s confidant when it came to women (thus undercutting whatever supposed relationship Charlie had with his wife)!

Now, as a note of fairness to Owens’ starting point: absolutely, there are and were questioned that needed and must be asked about this horrific crime. And some investigative means by the jury of public opinion is warranted, as it is in every public occurrence. However: the truth gained by inappropriate means, or at an inappropriate time, or by an inappropriate party is not virtuous knowledge. Simply because something is true does not mean that anyone and everyone must or has a right to that knowledge, especially when it is uncovered by violent means, by emotional extortion, or shed in a twisted light. Knowledge gained in such a manner typically (as it has in this case) becomes the truth in the nugget of a complete falsehood, of increasingly outlandish suppositions, and does nothing but eclipse the truth for the sophistic tapestry of the weaver’s egotistic cries for relevance. Any good that then might have come from an open line of reasoning becomes tainted with the spirit of Leo XIII’s coined heresy Americanism: it doesn’t make sense to me, therefore I am at liberty to escalate my insults and public accusations until I am pacified. So, point of order: some of the questions Owens purports to be asking definitely need to be asked; at this point, they cannot fruitfully be asked by her. When she speaks, she does nothing but further attack Erika and everything her husband stood for. So much for attack number two.

The third attack against Erika is perhaps the most nefarious of all, for it pretends to be rooted in a tradition and Faith which it simply does not align with. Moving beyond the Erika wears too much makeup and therefore she is party to her husband’s murder absurdities, beyond the Erika found too much solace in the greeting of her friend and therefore must be in an affair nonsense, we find ourselves confronted with the religious charge: Erika is a mother of children and a grieving widow. But most damnably: she is a woman. Let her return to her kitchen to grieve with her children while the men pick up the pieces of her life. This final charge dives briefly into the realm of the Traditional Gender Roles, but also questions the role of a wife to her husband. Ought women to participate in the public sphere freely? And, more profoundly, ought a wife to be free to help her husband’s legacy and image if he is unable to continue? Let us tackle both of these, a briefly as we can.

The first question regards the nature of work, which is of its essence a culture-building activity. I wrote about culture elsewhere on this site. What I said then pertains now: we must remember that work is an activity of humans, and not primarily man or woman. And, as both men and women are fully human, every work properly speaking is the realm of both man and woman, as long as that work is appropriate and fulfilling to the dignity of human persons.

This does not mean that anyone of any gender is free to do anything they so please, necessarily. It is not always a tragedy or assault on freedom for individuals to face societal pressure because they pursue one career or another: the inclinations of the individual are fallen, and left unchecked are almost certainly selfish and thereby unfulfilling. Culture and society should absolutely attempt to restrict the arbitrary and often selfish choices humans make aimed at a false freedom of autonomy. This includes trying to maintain a balance and healthy distinction between the genders’ respective familial roles and their participation in the public sphere.

However: to unilaterally legislate or culturally uphold discrimination against woman as woman on the false premise that her nature is somehow incompatible with public culture building is missing the forest for the trees. Women cannot be barred from intrinsically human activities: “There is no doubt that the equal dignity and responsibility of men and women fully justifies women’s access to public functions (Familiaris Consortio, para. 23).” The balance between legitimate cultural discouragement of profession based on gender vs. upholding the freedom and responsibility of the individual is a walk upon a razor’s edge. This is especially true when appealing to a tradition which supposedly concludes a woman’s place is exclusively in the kitchen.

When speaking of women and their influence on culture through history, the narrative tendency is almost never understanding of the whole picture. Looking backwards through history almost always results in imposing today’s values and perspectives on cultures and societies whose values are so foreign to our own we can scarce compare the two. Women were in a bygone age ineligible to take out a line of credit on their own - but only because the husband assumed all of her debt as everything occurred within the context of family. Married women were hired less frequently and for less money than married men - but only because it was the man who provided for his family and the women were earning “pin money.” In many specific laws or customs considered a “traditional gender role,” we can detect some tradendum aimed at the family unit - not dismissive of women as such.

Now, has every age been altruistic in their tradendum of preservation? Absolutely not. Many of the laws and customs have simply not been good-faith attempts at supporting the family as the unit of society. The fact is, there have been plenty of times, laws, and customs aimed not so much as preserving family as much as excluding women from the public sphere. There is no denying this. History shows the “reasonable” framework which suggests society benefits from male-only governance and creativity. From philosophies to erroneous theologies to cultural practices, women have often (though not always) been restricted to the home and/or servile arenas of the community from the premise that they were less capable of human activity than men.

Exclusion is the portion of the historical narrative modernity - and those influenced by it such as the manosphere - chooses to focus on. And with little effort we can see clearly how modernity views its predecessors. Our own age looks backwards at history (a worthwhile activity), and recognizes that culture is a product of human praxis (although we only see the seemingly arbitrary construction of it through the lens of a Social Contract). Oppression and the restricting of women from the public sphere is a prevalent occurrence in history, and our society notes that culture is inherited from past societies - societies formed by those actors who built them. And finally, today looks at yesterday and sees centuries of culture and society built by humans, and assumes that women have been successfully excluded from cultural influence at nearly every step of the way. There you have it: the patriarchy so railed against today.

Modern arguments would paint all of history - and therefore tradition - as devoid of the feminine influence. Supposedly restricted to the home, excluded from public functions, and oppressed in domestic slavery, women have not contributed at all to the culture and society we inherit today we are told. From this standpoint, there would be almost nothing redeemable about our current patriarchal society. It is as bad and inhuman as can be, and we only know this because of the individuality proposed by the Enlightenment.

Such a society would absolutely be inhuman, and bad. But both history and Faith inform us that this is in no way the truth of years past. Nothing about the human experience - culture, family, or species - is complete or even coherent without equal influence from men and women. Every age requires both the masculine and the feminine in order to be truly human. And we know from Faith that the deposit of Faith is true and full: the Church has been equipped to bring the fullness of Christ’s teaching and make His kingdom present in every culture and to all peoples. As such, the ages since Christ and the cultures built in His wake must have miraculously been influenced by both the masculine and the feminine. Put simply: if we assert the patriarchy is the only thing we have inherited, we must also declare that the Holy Spirit abandoned Christ’s Church almost immediately, leaving humans to build anti-human societies.

Modernity might paint society as an inherited structure completely devoid of feminine influence, but nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is, women have been involved in leadership roles and active participants in the public sphere for centuries - most consistently within the Christian tradition. From the courageous leadership influencing those in power like Catherine of Siena to the formal political leadership such as Queen Jadwiga of Poland or Elizabeth of Portugal, women have always been present and contributing to that human work of building culture. No age in the Christian world has been without its abbesses and founders such as Clare and Mary Angelica; no time has been without learned women like Hildegard of Bingen, or Margaret More Roper. And no time has been without the witness of the martyrs, from Agnes in the first century to Leonella Sgorbati martyred by ISIS on September 17, 2006.

Now, we must be fair to reality: women have not historically been exactly welcome to contribute to human culture. The lie modernity tells has some kernel of truth: women have often been subject to legislation and cultural bias aimed at limiting their agency. But the falsity is that these biases were successful. But the Holy Spirit guides the Church and her members in conquering the world. He does this in spite of the world, and often subtly undermining the fallen inclinations of Man as a whole.

In the modern world, the excesses of historical sexism are supposedly “overcome” by the new sexism which seeks to erase women. The feminine genius, the receptivity of the feminine nature, and her role within the family are constantly undermined. Instead, women are told to operate as if they were men (or at least how the world thinks men are): autonomy free from family or communio.

The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, ensures that the feminine and her influence on the world is never lacking. Where the world has tried at every turn to erase her, the Church has always treasured and cultivated her femininity through her theology. And this treasuring is testified by the various divine apparitions in the post-Pentecostal Church. Patricia Snow, in her Forward to Women of the Church, suggests that it is precisely her feminine genius which points Heaven, “when divine messages have been delivered to the human race, [to] so often [entrust these messages] to women, and even to young girls. It is as if, when the survival of such messages has been at stake, the good soil of the female heart has outweighed woman’s disadvantaged social status, including her often compromised credibility.”

When we read further in this Forward, we see some familiar language in Snow’s comments. She continues to list the nature of women’s cultural influence:

Shouldering the responsibilities of [true love which also corrects and admonishes], many Catholic women, in times of ecclesial crisis, have emerged as the galvanizing conscience of the larger Church, speaking truth to the power of imperial Rome, in the case of the virgin martyrs, or urging the diffident, ultimately treacherous Charles VII to his coronation, in the case of Joan of Arc. Not only in the consequential public ministeries of a Catherine of Siena or a Dorothy Day, but also in the most ordinary Catholic families, we so often see the same dynamic in place: the mother upholding the higher standard; the woman as the moral center and conscience of the family.

Note the tone of Snow’s language. Here, she specifically refers to women’s influence as “conscience,” a conscience which overcomes the fallen image of himself in which Man tries to build culture. Even in the face of oppression, even when her credibility and agency is questioned, the Holy Spirit preserves her as integral contributor to the building of culture. Her influence on culture is none other than that same influence she brings to the family unit: the conscience of the feminine genius, reminding Man (homo) of the integral personal orientation of creation. Nothing reasonable is complete without the profound gift of Intellectus following Ratio.

This, then, has been the tragic and oppressive historical position at various points in world history: women have more or less been arbitrarily barred, discouraged, or criticized for their participation in the public sphere and the building of culture. And yet, it would not be true that the culture and society today is completely devoid of feminine influence. On the contrary: the world in the aftermath of the Christian Faith has been influenced and formed by men and women alike.

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.