Masculinity and Political Violence

In this special solo reflection, Charles shares his perspective on the assassination of Charlie Kirk and what it reveals about masculinity, resilience, and political violence.

He argues that true masculine strength lies in threat assessment, resilience, and the ability to live alongside opposing ideas without collapsing into reactivity. Violence—whether through weapons, institutions, or media—is framed not as power but as fragility.

This episode challenges men to redefine strength, resist the cultural pull toward outrage, and embody a form of masculinity that protects not only safety, but also freedom.

Support the show

Episode Transcript

Charles (00:01):
Everyone seems to have a take on what happened today,
but I have not heard anyoneshare the perspective that is on
my mind and that is whatcompels me to speak tonight
about strength, masculinity andthe assassination of Charlie
Kirk.
I will begin by saying thatwhat happened today does not sit

(00:21):
well with me.
A man has lost his life lifeand his family is grieving.
When political violence occurs,it is not just a private
tragedy.
It is also a wound to thesociety in which it takes place.
This was bad for our country,bad for free expression and bad
for men.
Before I get too far into it, Ineed to be clear.

(00:43):
I'm speaking for myself here.
I have not discussed thesethoughts with Dan, so this is
not the voice of both of us as apodcast.
These reflections are minealone.
I intend neither to endorse norto condemn Charlie Kirk's
politics or his ideas.
What I want to focus on is theact itself and the culture and
the climate that produced it,the place we have reached as a

(01:05):
society where, for some,political assassination feels
like a natural progression.
At the heart of healthymasculinity is the role of
threat assessment.
For centuries, men have beenlooked to as protectors, people
who scan the environment,identify danger and decide what
is safe and unsafe.
That is a role worth honoring.

(01:27):
It is one of the oldest andmost important ways masculine
strength has served families andcommunities.
But here is the failure whenyou mistake someone's words or
ideas for an immediate physicalthreat, so much so that you
justify violence in response,that is not strength, that is
weakness.
That is a failure ofmasculinity.

(01:49):
Violence in the face of speechis not evidence of power, it is
evidence of fragility.
It says I cannot withstand thesound of your voice, I cannot
tolerate your ideas entering theair.
I cannot trust my own mind andheart to stand against yours
without striking you down.
That is not masculine strength.

(02:10):
That is the collapse ofmasculine strength.
And I want to be clear Physicalviolence is only one way this
failure shows up.
Picking up a weapon because youcannot tolerate someone's words
is the most extreme form, butit is not the only one.
There is also the tendency toreach for institutional power,

(02:30):
whether that is government orpolicy or even media, and use it
to silence people whoseopinions make us uncomfortable.
That impulse too, is born fromfragility.
It is just another way ofsaying I cannot live alongside
your ideas, so I need to erasethem.
And if you're listening to thisand thinking, well, that is

(02:51):
something the other side does,not my side you are deluding
yourself.
This is not about right versusleft.
It is a human problem and allof us are vulnerable to it.
Anytime we respond to ideas withthe urge to erase rather than
engage, we are failing the testof strength, we are failing the

(03:11):
masculine role of resilience,and this is where culture comes
in.
We live in a climate thatprizes outrage, that rewards
reactivity, that treatsdisagreement not as a challenge
to be understood but as a threatto be eliminated.
In that kind of environment,violence becomes thinkable, and
once violence becomes thinkable,it becomes possible.

(03:36):
Real strength is the ability tolive alongside people who think
differently from you, sometimesradically differently, and
still remain grounded, calm andsecure.
Real strength is not silencingyour opposition, but standing
firm enough that their words donot shake your identity, your
values or your dignity as men.
We need to reclaim thishealthier form of masculinity.
It does not mean rolling over.

(03:58):
It does not mean being passive.
It means being resilient,intellectually resilient,
emotionally resilient, sociallyresilient, strong enough to
engage with disagreement withoutmistaking it for danger, strong
enough to coexist in the samesociety with people who see the
world through a different lens.
Because here's the truthDisagreement is not danger,

(04:20):
philosophy is not violence, andif your response to words is to
reach for a weapon or to reachfor power that erases speech,
you have already admitted defeat.
You have shown that your ideascannot stand on their own
strength.
So my challenge to myself andto every man listening is this
Be the one who can stand in thestorm of someone else's

(04:41):
philosophy without breaking.
Be the one who can hold hisground without striking back.
Be the one whose masculinity isnot defined by reactivity but
by resilience.
That is the strength ourculture needs.
That is the masculinity thatkeeps us and those we care most
about both safe and free.