Have Charlie Kirk’s comments on feminism or women’s rights changed over time?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Charlie Kirk’s public statements on feminism and women’s roles show a consistent throughline from at least the late 2010s to 2025: he portrays modern feminism as damaging to families and young women and promotes traditional or religious alternatives such as “Mary” or traditional gender roles (examples: “feminism has become much more about hating men” and “Having children is more important than having a good career”) [1] [2]. Reporting from multiple outlets documents both his repeated critiques of feminism and conservative praise for those views, while critics characterize his rhetoric as encouraging subordination and misogyny [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. From “hating men” to “crush feminism”: a throughline of opposition
Kirk has repeatedly framed feminism as hostile to men and harmful to the family. A 2018 quote attributed to him—“Feminism has become much more about hating men than empowering women”—is cited alongside later remarks arguing feminism “misleads women by prioritising careers over family” and urging a return to traditional family priorities [1]. He has also made more religiously framed arguments, calling for women to emulate Mary as an antidote to what he calls the “toxicity of feminism” [2].
2. Rhetoric escalates from cultural critique to moralizing prescriptions
Sources show Kirk moves beyond critique to prescriptive moral guidance for women: urging piety, submissive virtues, or “crushing” feminism via religious exemplars. On his show he recommended Mary as a model for young women; in speeches he has labored to link feminism to moral decline and to call for feminine “retraining” [2] [5]. Critics report that at events aimed at young women, the messaging can read as glorifying subordination and discouraging independence [3].
3. Critics paint consistency as part of an organized message
Progressive and feminist outlets interpret Kirk’s statements as deliberate and sustained. Pieces in Ms. Magazine and Freethought Now argue his rhetoric reinforces “tradwife” norms and an ideology that diminishes women’s rights and agency; they connect his messaging to broader conservative movements targeting feminism and gender studies [4] [3]. One Medium author frames his public comments—such as his responses in debates about sexual assault statistics—as evidence that his positions underscore why feminist advocacy remains necessary [7].
4. Supporters treat his stance as corrective to “radical feminism”
Conservative and allied voices present an opposing view. Supporters say Kirk’s critiques mobilized young conservatives against what they call “radical feminism,” arguing he helped reassert traditional values among youth and that his messaging was influential in conservative circles [8] [6]. The BBC reporting on his influence shows some young followers credit him with reshaping their views on feminism and the family [6].
5. Language matters: from “Jezebel spirit” to “Mary” — religious framing shifts tone but not thrust
Kirk’s vocabulary shifts between cultural, religious, and moral registers. He has used the phrase “Jezebel spirit” to describe what he sees as an infection of modern femininity and contrasted that with an image of Mary as the ideal woman, tying his anti-feminist critique to Christian nationalism [5] [2]. That shift from secular cultural critique to explicitly theological argument signals an attempt to root gender prescriptions in religious authority [5] [2].
6. What the available sources do not say
Available sources do not mention any explicit retractions, major reversals, or public apologies from Kirk repudiating his past statements about feminism or women’s roles. They do not document a substantive moderation of his views toward welcoming feminist goals such as gender equality in careers or policy (not found in current reporting).
7. Bottom line — steady posture, contested consequences
Reporting across outlets documents a steady posture: Kirk consistently critiques contemporary feminism and advocates traditional or religious alternatives, and his rhetoric has both energized supporters and alarmed critics [1] [3] [4] [6] [5] [2]. Interpretations diverge sharply along ideological lines: conservatives portray his stance as corrective and influential [8] [6]; progressive outlets portray it as promoting subordination and misogyny [3] [4]. The record in these sources shows change in emphasis and rhetorical framing over time, but not a reversal of his core positions [1] [5] [2].