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.

Chapters

• 0:00 Addressing Political Violence
• 1:10 True Masculinity vs. Fragility
• 2:17 Living With Disagreement
• 4:30 Call for Resilient Masculinity

Transcript

Charles: 0:01

Everyone seems to have a take on what happened today, but I have not heard anyone share the perspective that is on my mind and that is what compels me to speak tonight about strength, masculinity and the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I will begin by saying that what happened today does not sit well with me. A man has lost his life life and his family is grieving. When political violence occurs, it is not just a private tragedy. It is also a wound to the society 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, I need to be clear. I'm speaking for myself here. I have not discussed these thoughts with Dan, so this is not the voice of both of us as a podcast. These reflections are mine alone. I intend neither to endorse nor to condemn Charlie Kirk's politics or his ideas. What I want to focus on is the act itself and the culture and the climate that produced it, the place we have reached as a society where, for some, political assassination feels like a natural progression. At the heart of healthy masculinity is the role of threat assessment. For centuries, men have been looked to as protectors, people who scan the environment, identify danger and decide what is safe and unsafe. That is a role worth honoring. It is one of the oldest and most important ways masculine strength has served families and communities. But here is the failure when you mistake someone's words or ideas for an immediate physical threat, so much so that you justify violence in response, that is not strength, that is weakness. That is a failure of masculinity. Violence in the face of speech is not evidence of power, it is evidence of fragility. It says I cannot withstand the sound of your voice, I cannot tolerate your ideas entering the air. I cannot trust my own mind and heart to stand against yours without striking you down. That is not masculine strength. That is the collapse of masculine strength. And I want to be clear Physical violence is only one way this failure shows up. Picking up a weapon because you cannot tolerate someone's words is the most extreme form, but it is not the only one.

Charles: 2:27

There is also the tendency to reach for institutional power, whether that is government or policy or even media, and use it to silence people whose opinions make us uncomfortable. That impulse too, is born from fragility. It is just another way of saying I cannot live alongside your ideas, so I need to erase them. And if you're listening to this and thinking, well, that is something the other side does, not my side you are deluding yourself. This is not about right versus left. It is a human problem and all of us are vulnerable to it.

Charles: 3:02

Anytime we respond to ideas with the urge to erase rather than engage, we are failing the test of strength, we are failing the masculine role of resilience, and this is where culture comes in. We live in a climate that prizes outrage, that rewards reactivity, that treats disagreement not as a challenge to be understood but as a threat to be eliminated. In that kind of environment, violence becomes thinkable, and once violence becomes thinkable, it becomes possible. Real strength is the ability to live alongside people who think differently from you, sometimes radically differently, and still remain grounded, calm and secure. Real strength is not silencing your opposition, but standing firm enough that their words do not shake your identity, your values or your dignity as men.

Charles: 3:53

We need to reclaim this healthier form of masculinity. It does not mean rolling over. It does not mean being passive. It means being resilient, intellectually resilient, emotionally resilient, socially resilient, strong enough to engage with disagreement without mistaking it for danger, strong enough to coexist in the same society with people who see the world through a different lens. Because here's the truth Disagreement is not danger, philosophy is not violence, and if your response to words is to reach for a weapon or to reach for power that erases speech, you have already admitted defeat. You have shown that your ideas cannot stand on their own strength. So my challenge to myself and to every man listening is this Be the one who can stand in the storm of someone else's philosophy without breaking. Be the one who can hold his ground without striking back. Be the one whose masculinity is not defined by reactivity but by resilience. That is the strength our culture needs. That is the masculinity that keeps us and those we care most about both safe and free.