Practice what you preach: Charlies Kirks of the world and the inevitable hypocrisy of modern day conservative crusaders

Human societies at a lower stage of economic development create less socially advanced ideas and social norms. Human societies at a higher stage of economic development come up with more advanced ideas and social norms. The various civilisations of the past were economically dominated by agricultural activity, which in turn would create within the minds of the contemporary individuals such concepts as natural social hierarchy, the divine right of the kings, and so on. Today, as our economy is dominated by advanced manufacturing, services, and a much greater division of labour in general - all of these feudal notions seem ridiculous. And in response to the calls by conservative people to “make everything great again” we may ask: why should a more advanced society adopt the social norms of less advanced societies from the past? Wherefrom comes this urge to venerate some historical social norms that corresponded to a more primitive society?

Certain clarifications are needed here. Firstly, unless one lives in social isolation, it is impossible to reproduce the social consciousness of a bygone era. In countries like the UK, Spain, or the Netherlands, for instance, there are people who still wholeheartedly support their monarchies. However, rest assured, not a single one of them actually believes in the so-called divine right that was defended in, say, the 17th century. We may also legitimately ask how many of the regular church goers today truly truly believe in supernatural powers and miracles? In addition, when we look at various historical events, individuals, as well as their social norms, we see them through the lens of our own mindset. Or, in other words, through the filter of our contemporary social consciousness.

It is for this reason that we have to take the words of today’s crusaders against social progress with a pinch of salt. Likewise, this is the reason why more than often the practical personal reality of the conservatives is so distant from what they are actually preaching. The phenomenon of Charlie and Erika Kirks is a perfect example: a couple attacking feminism despite the fact that Erika herself is a clear representation of feminist achievements. Again, even here there are limits to what type of social norms are to be reestablished. We have already discussed the cherry-picking of traditional family values here. For our purposes here it will suffice to say the following. Yes, Charlie Kirk was brave enough to proclaim that “women should not attend college and that high-school girls should prioritize marriage and children above all else”. But would he also have been as brave to suggest, for instance, that it should be the fathers who chose the husbands for their daughters? Or to justify consanguine marriage? These were also once the social norms of Christian civilization. Why wouldn’t the Christian nationalism à la Charlie Kirk include these features into its agenda too? Why limit oneself to marriage and child-bearing?

In any case, since “for a woman, a career, financial independence or self-sufficiency is only a distraction”, according to Erika Kirk, it might be worth having a look at some historical notions from the previous epochs that touched upon the subject of women’s education. According to Dollie Boyd, “from ancient Greece and Rome forward, male pundits frequently equated educating women to releasing some form of evil upon the world.” And when we reach the 19th century, “at Macalester College, a Presbyterian school founded in St. Paul, Minnesota, in 1874, the organizers debated how to provide a good education to women that would make them fit Christian wives without spoiling them with radical ideas and longing for mannish occupations.” Charlie Kirk himself seems to have been less appreciative of colleges, for he regarded them as infected with “the ‘woke’ teachings of the U.S. education system and the Left”. For him the only excuse for a woman to go to college is, of course, “the intention of finding a husband”.

As far as outdated and obsolete social ideas are concerned, here are some more historical examples of how an educated woman was conceived of in the past:

“As Menander (c. 343–291 B.C.) the Greek dramatist observed, ‘He who teaches a woman letters feeds more poison to the frightful asp.’”

“Lucius Anacus Seneca (c. 4 B.C. – A.D. 65), philosopher, dramatist, essayist, and tutor of Nero, expressed a similar though more comprehensive claim in Hippolytus: ‘When a woman thinks…she thinks evil.’”

“Immanuel Kant thought women ‘need to know nothing more of the cosmos than is necessary to make the appearance of the heavens on a beautiful evening a stimulating sight to them’.”

To be sure, the society of the 1st century A.D. was not the same as the society of the 13th century, for example. And the latter differed greatly from the society, say, of the 18th century. But that does not have any impact upon the fact that our contemporary social consciousness judges the social truths from all of these different centuries as ridiculous and stupid. Unsurprisingly, “the dire predictions of males like Professor Charles Davis of the U.S. Military Academy that the higher education of women would ‘introduce a vast social evil… a monster of social deformity’ had been proved dead wrong.”

As the idea of women’s education gradually gained ground in the modern times, inevitably there appeared another issue that the conservative generations would try to push back against. Namely, for instance in the 19th century US, there comes the question of coeducation. We have discussed this topic here, so for our purposes within this post one quote will be sufficient:

“The first coeds had come upon the scene in the 1840s with dire predictions of disaster. But despite feelings that the higher education of ladies was a creature of ‘wild fanaticism,’ in 1841 Oberlin College graduated Mary Kellogg. She was the first American woman to earn a bachelor’s degree by completing requirements identical to those of men. Since then, millions of women have followed Kellogg and the Republic has survived.”

Naturally, throughout history many people have died while still being stubbornly convinced that women should not get education. Later on, many people would die with the belief that while it might be okay to educate girls, the society must at all costs avoid coeducation. Both of these sets of people would have been incapable of imagining our contemporary society and the current levels of woman’s emancipation. It might also be worth noting here the historical parallel whereby same sex marriages and transgender individuals can still be regarded today as ‘wild fanaticism’. Hence, there will also be people who will refuse to accept a more diverse and inclusive society even when on their deathbeds. And yet, our civilization will likewise survive these social changes. For future generations the LGBT or transgender issues will be as irrelevant as the question of women’s education is for us today.

To finish off, the particular material economic conditions of a particular historical moment generate particular social norms and values. Those ideas that manage to survive the disappearance of the material basis that initially gave rise to them only succeed by becoming a modern rendition within a novel social consciousness. They have to adapt to the new social realities. That’s why a meeting dedicated to the promotion of “life of subordination for women and girls” can have the title “Young Women’s Leadership Summit”. That’s why all the female speakers at an event that calls “upon women to abandon careers and education to ‘submit to a godly man’” can have successful careers themselves. And the very fact that women here are addressed directly as autonomous individuals is by itself a vindication of feminist social progress that Charlie Kirk and his acolytes would rally against:

“Speakers warned women and girls that a life filled with degrees and promotions would be empty and miserable. The summit depicted a pathetic and depressed image of the ‘modern Western woman,’ one focused on a career, deprived of children. Feminists were described as hooked on dangerous antidepressants - their lives desolate. Kirk’s brand of traditional femininity and motherhood was juxtaposed as a way to achieve true fulfillment and happiness in an angry and divided society, leaving behind the mental health disorders born from the horrors of feminism.”

What could better attest to the irreversible historical change in our social consciousness than the fact that these miserable conservative preachers are forced to base their arguments upon the welfare of women themselves? Ladies should now skip education and prioritise marriage and children not for the sake of the society. Not for the benefit of the nation. And neither in order to save our civilization. It is acknowledged that they should do so for their own happiness and wellbeing. The individual woman has now become the protagonist. And there is no turning back.

Sources:
https://freethoughtnow.org/charlie-kirk-glorifies-a-life-of-subordination-for-women-and-girls-at-young-womens-leadership-summit/
https://www.wespeakfreely.org/2018/12/09/freedom-feminism-philosophy-mary-wollstonecraft/
https://www3.tusculum.edu/news/news/2019/womens-education-grew-in-the-19th-century-as-attitudes-changed-but-challenges-remained/
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ887227.pdf

Image by Freepik.com