My Conservative brothers: True masculinity means celebrating our sister leaders

An unclean house is not suitable to host. Similarly, a broken ideology is not befitting to convince a society of its ideas. To juxtapose, conservatism has a stain that needs deep cleaning.  

A stealth uprising of conservative men is opposing women in public leadership — even their right to vote. This niche-gone-trend has been gaining new traction, namely within some Reformed and Christian Nationalist communities whose leaders endorse archaic positions — positions that I cannot oppose enough. 

Disclaimer: My message is about leadership positions in all institutions other than the nuclear family model and church leadership structure. I am arguing from a position that biblical texts on gender roles in the Church and home do not apply to public service. 

My conservative brothers, undermining our sisters’ place in public leadership is not the way. Masculinity means protecting our sisters against ideas and people that would subvert our sisters’ desire to impact culture righteously, even if that means in public leadership. To undermine our sisters’ role in public leadership is to abandon our role to protect and honor them. To undermine our sisters’ role in public leadership is an assault on the amazing righteous impacts they’ve had in our dark cultural arena. 

Indeed, women were at the center of two of the most celebrated conservative victories in the last few years. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a woman, supported by several pro-life groups led by women, spearheaded the Dobbs case that overturned Roe v. Wade — a decision made by men. Alliance Defending Freedom CEO Kristen Waggoner was the lead attorney for 303 Creative v. Elenis, a major free speech victory whose precedent will secure Americans’ expressive and religious freedom for decades. Waggoner also successfully defended Jack Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. ColoradoCivil Rights Commission. 

The above victories aren’t simply convenient facts that support my thesis. They’re few of many. 

This trend caught a recent boost after Matt Walsh tweeted that “…Western Civilization has declined as women have assumed more and more power.”

To be clear, I like Matt Walsh. But as much as I’ve valued his insight over the years, he got this one wrong. This is a classic correlation/causation scenario. Walsh provided no evidence as to why the results (decline in Western Civilization) correlate to the alleged cause (women in leadership). To blame women for the decline in Western Civilization is to forget that the fiercest of tyrants, slave moguls, abortion-solidifiers, and mass murderers were, in fact, men and that even now, evil men are at the helm of so many institutional, political, and otherwise influential entities. 

Sex is no more a faculty in cultural decline than guns are to murder. It’s not the sex, it’s not the gun, it’s the heart. 

Here’s a fun irony: As conservatives, we staunchly oppose intersectionality since it sacrifices merit on the altar of irrelevant factors such as sex, race, class, etc. The irony is that those who undermine women’s roles in public leadership simply because they’re women are literally drinking from the same intersectional Kool-Aid the left swims in. They’re sacrificing merit (not to mention historic accomplishments) on the altar of sex. To be fair, some conservatives’ opposition to women in public leadership is indeed based on merit, arguing that women are emotionally weaker than men and thus unfit for public leadership. To those people, I would harken them back to the major conservative victories referenced above — victories that could not have been accomplished by the emotionally weak.

“Christianity can’t diminish the intellect and contribution of women without ignoring its own creation narrative.” – Katie McCoy

McCoy’s point is poignant. The fact that many of my rebukees do acknowledge the contribution women have made throughout the creation narrative highlights a hopeful takeaway from this article: Why undermine the influence of those who have proven to be fundamentally influential throughout the biblical timeline and to the post-biblical moral blueprint of society? From slavery abolition and anti-human trafficking initiatives to combating abortion and advancing free speech, women have played far too important of a role in society to be maligned.

A note on masculinity

Masculinity on full display means protecting and honoring women. Yet this niche-gone-trend ironically masks itself in masculinity while sacrificing true traits of chivalry. In charity, I will acknowledge that many men who oppose women in public leadership do treat women with respect and honor. But their opposition to female public leadership is not an honorable posture.

Masculinity and chivalry have a harmonious contrast. Know the difference. Masculinity, when void of humility, is selfish and toxic. Masculinity, when paired with humility, is strong, courageous, chivalrous, and kind. But when we put a disproportionate premium on masculinity, we lose sight of the servitude behind chivalry, subsequently paving a path towards chauvinism — the belief that men are the superior sex. 

This is simple: Women are incredible cultural influencers, strategists, and leaders. To push them out of leadership is to undermine the fight — the fight in which women have proven to be effective among our conservative ranks. 

Some men fear that female leadership will come at the expense of men leading. But this reasoning doesn’t compute. If your first reaction to women leading is fear that you, as a man, can’t lead, that’s your own insecurity speaking. This is not “women over men,” or “women instead of men.” This is “women leading with men.” This is not feminism. The women listed in the victories above have not sacrificed femininity for feminism, strength for power, or logic for emotionalism.

Some men argue that they’re protecting women by keeping them away from the inevitable attacks that come with being in public leadership. The problem with this position is that women are grown capable adults, not children needing to be restrained “for their own good.” As a reminder, this article is addressing those who believe women should not be allowed in public leadership, not those who simply question whether it’s a good idea (though I hope they benefit from reading this, too).

“But more women vote liberal!” 

We can play the numbers game all day. On one hand, a voting map of America shows that women’s votes lead to liberal elections. But are we really going to punish our conservative women for the actions of liberal women? With that logic, men shouldn’t be in Congress since the vast majority of Democrats in the House and Senate are men, and they’re making evil decisions. Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision made by men. It's as if gender isn’t the issue. 

What about mothers raising their children?

The most important role of a mother is to raise her children righteously, and among the best ways to raise her children righteously is by setting a righteous example. This can be done in the home or in the public arena. If her career comes at the expense of raising her children, then she should quit working or pursue a different career. And I would make the same exact argument for fathers. 

Gents, lead with courage, integrity, and nobility. Be masculine men in a culture of pansy men. Be wise in a culture of fools. Be righteous in a culture of evil. And when women desire to lead with the same righteous zeal and impact, remind yourself that they’re co-bearers in arms in the culture battle. They’re fighting for the same victory as us, and they’ve proven to be good at it.

O that our humility, wisdom, and zeal would welcome them with gratitude.