Women Hold The Key To Ending America’s Cycle Of Political Violence

While I’ve always believed that every life is precious, motherhood gave me a new perspective: Each person is their mother’s heart, beating outside of her own body.

I thought about this connectedness again when Charlie Kirk was assassinated two weeks ago. While I hope his pain was short-lived, his mother’s pain is unimaginable and ongoing. Similarly, Erika Kirk, Charlie’s widow, has been left to raise their two young children without him. 

Surely, we should all be able to recognize that this violence is depraved and represents not just an attack on one man, but on his family, his political ideas, and, as left-leaning New York Times columnist Ezra Klein recently wrote, the American experiment itself. 

This fraught moment in American history has stirred up grief, anger, and fear. Will Kirk’s assassination be a watershed moment, where we witness—blessedly—a retreat from senseless political violence? Or is it yet another event on our way into a darker chapter? 

American women have a particular role to play in answering this question. We can help steer the country toward a better, less violent path. Women have always been a civilizing force in every society. And America needs civility and decency to pull us back from violence now.

Men are, by nature, more violent than women. Not only has nearly every mass shooter in American history been male, but men far outpace women in every metric of violent crime: homicide, suicide, assault, battery, and destruction of property. 

Social scientists have observed increases in crime and risky behavior at the populational level in countries where men greatly outnumber women, such as China and India. (This doesn’t happen naturally; it’s the result of sex-selective abortion.) Male-heavy populations are also at greater risk for war: Demographer Valerie Hudson and her team have documented that the subordination of women is a risk factor not just for crime, but for national instability and conflict.

The American population isn’t male-heavy, but the recent increase in political violence and violent rhetoric suggests that there is an imbalance in our political discourse—one that favors vengeance and violence over civility and harmony. We should all push back against this.

As more social and relational creatures, women have a natural advantage here. 

Yes, some sex differences are the result of socialization and sex-specific social expectations. But women’s brains are also different from men’s. For example, women experience greater neurological rewards for cooperation and connection. 

Scientists observe significant sex differences in a variety of personality traits. In psychological terms, women exhibit greater agreeableness than men. This is evident at an early age. 

At times, feminists have pointed to women’s predisposition for cooperation as an appeal for more women in leadership positions. Having female board members or members of Congress, they say, could lead to more compassion and compromise. The evidence for this is mixed. 

Women are already in leadership positions in our society, regardless of our job titles or station.

But what is certain, although often overlooked, is that women are already in leadership positions in our society, regardless of our job titles or station. We wield enormous influence: Women are counted upon more for family care and kin-keeping. We design social circles and more often volunteer in our communities. This is leadership, even if it doesn’t come with high pay or status. It is a lie that this leadership in our families and communities is unimportant. 

Men, too, obviously have responsibilities to our families and society. And men’s predisposition for risk-taking and even aggression is not bad or morally inferior. Throughout history, men have valiantly forged new frontiers, fought righteous wars, and defended the weak and vulnerable. Overwhelming majorities of front-line rescuers (firefighters, police, etc.) are male. 

Therefore, in a situation that requires physical strength or even violence, men might be expected to step up. Daniel Penny comes to mind. The U.S. Marines who stopped a terror attack on a Paris subway in 2015 come to mind. Todd Beamer and the men on Flight 93 in 2001 also come to mind. 

Our present situation requires a different kind of strength; one that women possess in higher measure. Now is the moment for women to lead in putting political differences aside to step up into our role, in Alexis de Tocqueville’s words, as “the protectors of morals.” 

First, we must eschew any equivocation on politically motivated violence, including “what about-ism,” jokes, or hot takes that suggest the victims had it coming. This perpetuates violence and chills participation in the political system. 

Charlie Kirk is not the first (or sadly, the last) American to be targeted for murder due to his beliefs or his profession. His ideological opponents might question whether the overwhelming outpouring of grief over his death is disproportionate: A Democratic lawmaker (speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives Melissa Hortman) and her husband were murdered on June 14, and this event did not get the same level of attention online or in the media. 

These two events were equally tragic and equally morally reprehensible. We should all be able to put aside partisan affiliations and acknowledge this. A charitable interpretation of the responses to each event would also acknowledge Charlie Kirk’s greater (national, and even international) celebrity and influence, his hyper online presence, and the virality of the graphic video of his assassination as legitimate reasons why his death has provoked greater outcry.

What we cannot do is celebrate or condone anyone’s murder. On December 4, 2024, United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot and killed by Luigi Mangione, who quickly became an internet sensation. The Network Contagion Research Institute has been raising the alarm, producing troubling survey results about “assassination culture.” As many as 44% of people surveyed believe that Thompson’s murder was at least somewhat justified. This is shameful.

Now is the moment for women to lead in putting political differences aside to step up into our role as “the protectors of morals.” 

The fangirling of Luigi Mangione sits immediately upstream of Charlie Kirk’s death; Kirk’s killer even imitated Mangione by engraving messages on his bullets. Women (and men) who participated in glorifying a murderer should take a long look in the mirror and decide whether they want to perpetuate a culture that produces more similar violence. 

Not surprisingly, approval of Thompson’s murder was correlated with higher social media use. Women and men alike should try, in the coming days, to do more in-person socializing and less scrolling on social media. Social media, while it can provide a great tool for connection and communication, also presents us all with a platform to express opinions and perspectives that we would not naturally say in polite conversation. In-person socializing is a much better avenue for productive conversations that lead to better mutual understanding. 

Women, as more social creatures, should take the lead on reaching out and grabbing coffee or dinner with politically diverse neighbors, coworkers, and community members. Even if we don’t discuss politics with one another, the warmth of a social connection helps us remember the humanity of those on the “other side.”

Similarly, in our role as kin-keepers, we can work to repair any family estrangement that might be the result of politics. After the 2016 election, one in six Americans reported that they’d stopped talking to a friend or family member due to politics. This is sad. Now is the time to pick up the phone and reconnect with that friend or family member. 

Finally, mothers have an important role to play in teaching our children that political disagreement and political violence are completely different. We should encourage our children to think critically about ideas and even boldly debate them, but to always be charitable toward the people they are debating. 

Just as we might expect a man to give up his seat on a crowded bus to an older woman, we might also expect women to be the first to pull up a proverbial seat to the table for everyone, to include those who feel excluded, and to foster stronger social connections that will lead to more peace. 

At this moment, when violence seems to be on the rise, we can hope that cooler heads and warmer hearts will prevail. Women should embrace this opportunity to live out our natural inclination toward hospitality and harmony. The future of our country depends on it. 

Hadley Heath Manning is a member of Independent Women’s Network.