Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk’s widow, will now lead the organization he founded, TurningPoint USA. She moved millions of viewers at Charlie’s memorial service by forgiving his killer, and she has promised to carry her late husband’s legacy forward in her new leadership role. Given that Erika is a successful entrepreneur and nonprofit leader in her own right, she is likely to succeed as TurningPoint CEO (as she finishes up her Ph.D. in biblical studies at Liberty University).
But she also made comments during her speech about marriage that reflect an embrace of traditional gender roles. She described the role of wives as “helper(s)” to their husbands. This echoes comments that Charlie Kirk made just a couple of months ago about Taylor Swift’s engagement; he encouraged Swift to “submit” to Travis Kelce when he becomes her husband.
So which is it? Is Erika Kirk a business-savvy feminist girlboss or Charlie’s submissive tradwife?
This is a false dichotomy. She’s both.
When Charlie Kirk railed against feminism, he primarily criticized second- and third-wave feminism, which he called “complete garbage … irreconcilable with any decent society … far more about hating men than actually respecting women.”
He was not against the dictionary definition of feminism (“the belief in full social, economic, and political equality for women”). He was against left-wing positions on abortion, marriage, and sex differences, and he blamed modern feminism for making American women unhappy.
He argued that putting family first (both as a priority and a chronological matter) would make more women happier. But he never said women shouldn’t pursue education or a career. His opinion was just that family was more important to most people, and more biologically urgent. It’s a safe bet that Erika Kirk —who had two children before finishing her Ph.D.—agrees.
Madeleine Albright (a bona fide feminist!) said, “I do think women can have it all, but not all at the same time. Our life comes in segments, and we have to understand that we can have it all if we’re not trying to do it all at once.”
My heart goes out to Erika Kirk because she did not choose the timing of her husband’s death or her subsequent assumption of a big leadership role at TurningPoint. I hope that she has the personal and organizational support she needs to continue in her roles as both a mother of young children and now, an influential political leader. It may feel like everything, all at once.
But that’s life, isn’t it? Each woman has her own path. We make choices—some good, some bad—and those choices determine a lot. But we also face the unexpected: A family member is sick, a job is lost, a pandemic hits, a pregnancy is complicated, twins are born … who knows? And most people aren’t thinking of feminism when we navigate all of this. We are thinking of what’s best for us, our families, and our futures.
Rather than debate whether the Kirks represent feminist or anti-feminist ideas, a better frame would be this: The Kirks represent complementarianism in their descriptions of marriage roles.
Complementarianism, in contrast to egalitarianism, posits that men and women are equally valuable but not the same, and therefore are better suited to distinct, complementary roles. For example, complementarians are more accepting of the reality that women do more hands-on child care, while people with an egalitarian view of marriage might strive for a 50-50 division of labor.
The Kirks believed that complementarianism worked well for their marriage and that this model would ultimately make people happier. And they seemingly embraced traditional roles in their marriage enthusiastically.
To some people, Erika Kirk represents a wife and mother who was very happy in a traditional, complementarian marriage. To others, she represents the benefits of a free, pro-woman society, where women can pursue higher education, start a business, and step into leadership roles.
But perhaps, most remarkably, she represents that these two paths are not mutually exclusive.