I’ve been asked what I thought of Harrison Butker’s commencement speech, and here goes!
So many people, while I was on vacation, sent me that commencement speech that I know you’ve seen.
Harrison Butker, kicker for the Kansas City Chiefs,, was invited to give the commencement speech at a small conservative Catholic university. Once there, he proceeded to give a speech that outlined the gender roles he expects men and women to hold within their homes and the larger world. People have been sending me this video and saying, “you’ve got to say something about this.”
We tackled it in the last bit of yesterday’s podcast (episode 237), but I’d like to devote a post to those thoughts to.
Was Harrison Butker’s Speech Really “Pro-Family?”
People defended Butker saying he was being pro-family. Actually, he was pro-a-very-specific-way that he believes a family is supposed to run, which comes down to a worldview where men do stuff and women help men do stuff.
In this world, the man is the main character, and the woman is the sidekick. Homemaking is so incredibly important for women to do so that the man can go out and do the important stuff that he needs to do as a man. Because, in this context, men simply can’t do all that homemaking and still get all this great stuff done. So, essentially, what Harrison is saying in this speech is, “thank you for doing all that you do in the home so that I can do this cool stuff.”
This reminds me of one of my favourite movies: The Other Guys with Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell.
In the movie, they play these partner cops that are polar opposites. A lot of comedy comes from that. But at the beginning of the movie, there’s this other set of cops who are heroes – super cops, who are always in the news, played by Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.
There’s a lot of swearing, so I’ll just paraphrase. The super hero cops say to them, “Thank you for doing all that stupid stuff that we don’t want to do so that we can do all this important stuff.”
When people say things like this, they’re trying to make it sound like they really revere the things that women do in homemaking, but, at the same, they would never do it themselves. Which begs the question:
If they really think that homemaking is so great and so important, then why don’t they say something like, “Homemaking is the most important thing that anybody can do. And so everyone needs to figure out what works, and then show up. Whatever works for your family, do this.”
But they never say that. It’s just that women have to do it so that men can go do the important stuff.
How is that pro family?
It’s pro-industrial revolution, right? It’s pro-modern, Leave it to Beaver, kind of a fifties family. But it’s not pro-a-family-where-both-parents-are-engaged, both parents want to spend time with their children, both parents are involved and know their children and care for them on a daily basis.
Lots of women won’t marry. Where do his views leave them?
And then there’s the glaring problem of the fact that a lot of women will not get married. To say that a women’s main role is as a wife and a mother is just so horrendously terrible, especially to women who won’t end up married or as mothers. And it’s ironic that he gave this speech at a college founded by nuns–women who were never married or mothers.
And especially to give this message at a commencement when women had just finished graduating. It was just very, very tone deaf.
The Speech Pitted Men And Women Against Each Other
Not only was the speech not pro-family, but it created this worldview that pits men against women.
Here’s what he said to men during his speech:
My vocation as a husband and father and as a man. To the gentlemen here today, part of what plagues our society is this lie that has been told to you that men are not necessary in the home or in our communities. As men, we set the tone of the culture. And when that is absent, disorder, dysfunction, and chaos set in. This absence of men in the home is what plays a large role in the violence we see all around the nation. Other countries do not have nearly the same absentee rates as we find here in the U.S. And a correlation could be made in their drastically lower violence rates as well. Be unapologetic in your masculinity. Fight against the cultural emasculation of men. Do hard things. Never settle for what is easy. You might have a talent that you don’t necessarily enjoy.
I actually agree with some of the things he said, but I don’t agree with how he framed it.
I do agree that men are important in society and the family, and I agree that there’s a big problem with absentee fathers. However, he’s setting up this fallacy that people are saying men don’t matter in the family. I don’t know anyone who is making that claim, especially feminists. It’s a false argument.
It’s the motte-and-bailey fallacy we talked about last season on the podcast talking about complementarianism; he’s making a point that no one can disagree with. His argument starts out as, “men are important for society.” But then he continues on to argue, “therefore, men should be in charge of everything.”
Harrison Butker misdiagnoses the problems with absentee fathers
According to Butker, the reason that we have absentee fathers is largely because our culture has decided men aren’t necessary.
Our culture didn’t do that. What we did do is say, “Hey, single moms can be good parents,” But we haven’t said that a mother is better than a mother and father together.
(We have said that a mother alone is better than a mother and father, if there’s abuse and toxicity for sure, because studies show that. But in an ideal world, a mother and father work best together. In general, people don’t want to parent on their own. So the argument that men are superfluous is fringe, not mainstream.)
But here is the thing. Men are choosing to leave, and Butker is blaming this on our culture that has disparaged men.
But what does the data actually say about absentee fathers?
I took a look at a ranking of gender equality and single parenthood. Where do we see absentee fathers? Well, out of 129 countries that they’ve ranked in terms of single parenthood, the United States is 10 out of 129 of the worst. Near the top of the list–as in the top bad.
But when we compare it to other western nations, what you’ll find is that the more gender equality the less single parenthood. So countries like Denmark, Canada, New Zealand: they all have single parenthood rates that are about two-thirds of the U.S.
It’s not gender equality that is causing single parenthood.
It is continuing these narratives of manhood where men are entitled to women’s bodies, so they get women pregnant. And they don’t stick around. Men are entitled to do what they want, but women are left to pick up the pieces.
You may also enjoy:
- Let Men Be Men! Our podcast on how weak the evangelical view of men is (podcast)
- Let Men Be Dads! Why are we assuming that men can’t be good dads? (podcast)
- Are We Making a Strawman out of Complementarianism? (podcast)
- What Happens When We Get Gender Stereotypes Wrong?
The Speech Revealed an Insecure and Skewed View Of Masculinity
At the core of Butker’s speech is the idea that when women are empowered, men are emasculated. Their power has been taken away as they’re being told, “men and women are supposed to be equal.” But, when you define being male as being superior to women and being over women, then any time women are empowered you feel like masculinity is under attack because it means that a man’s power is being stolen from him.
They see it as a zero sum game: when women gain, men lose. If you have no idea of what masculinity means unless it means being in charge and being over women and not letting women run me, then that’s a very deficient view of what it means to be a man. It shows a lot of insecurity.
When men are at the centre of the story, and things aren’t going the man’s way, the natural sense is, “Well, she’s not giving me what I need, so I don’t owe her anything. She’s not living her part of it. So I’m just going to take off.” It’s entitlement.
Men, as a whole, are seeing women doing better off and going, “I don’t like this. I don’t think it’s fair that I don’t get the special treatment I used to get. And so, therefore, I’m going to leave, and I’m going to abandon this woman to a single parent life because she’s not giving me the respect that I’m due as a man because I’m born a man.” And our solution to that is to say, “We better be nicer to men.”
Our solution should be to say, “Grow up. That’s not what manliness is.” And we need to be teaching men that it’s this idea of what masculinity is that is causing the problems we are discussing.
Can we get back to a biblical view of how men should approach masculinity?
What if, instead of talking about how manhood is under attack because men aren’t leading, the church talked about getting back to Jesus attitude? Let’s let the Bible speak for itself:
Let each of you look not to your own interests but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who though He was in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited but emptied Himself taking the form of a slave being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore, God also highly exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend in heaven and earth and under the earth and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
That is the mind of Christ. Christ set aside the power and privilege He had. He willingly stepped down to live among us. That’s the kind of attitude that we should have, too.
Not, “all my power and privilege has been taken away. How can I get it back?” But, “How can I lay aside the power and privilege that I have for other people’s benefit?” That is having the mind of Christ. If that was preached more, we would have better families, and we wouldn’t be as worried that men are under attack.
Thanks to the guys who are showing up!
I just want to say to the good guys out there: thank you.
To the guys out there who are doing the dishes, who are playing with your kids, who are Googling how to get my picky eaters to eat veggies or how to get my kid not to wet the bed, thank you to all the dads, who are showing up, and all the guys who are just being great partners. You matter. You’re changing the world. And you don’t need to be a hero. You can just be a normal guy, who is walking with integrity and who is doing is job and is being responsible. That’s what really makes the world a great place.
Here’s How I would Have Written The Commencement Speech:
Here’s my take, and I hope you like it!
Our society will tell us that everything is a fight. That our position is precarious and others are vying to take the power we have. But life is not about preserving power. Life is about service. Stop viewing others as out to get you as the other and view others as people, not caricatures. Serve. Love. And respect.
Now to all of you, you have the chance in what you choose to do both in your career and in your volunteer work to change the world. That is a high calling. Do it well. Show up. Walk with integrity. Use your gifts. Speak out for the marginalized.
But remember that all of the accomplishments in the world will not bring you the peace or be as meaningful as your relationships. Don’t neglect people. Some of you will marry and have children. Remember that parenting is a job that nobody else can do for you. Never put your kids second. Cling to your families. Love your spouse. They matter, and they need you. And all of us will be called to be friends and neighbors. So take risks and be vulnerable. Let your guard down. Choose intimacy because that’s what makes life worthwhile.
What do you think? How would you have rewritten the speech? Anything else wrong that I didn’t mention? Let’s talk in the comments!
Great news, men! You can literally do anything you think of, anything that interests you, and switch to something else whenever you want! You have a full range of options, from A to Z. Well, except for the letter M.
Ladies, you are sooooo lucky! You, in your entire being, get to be reduced to the one thing that men are unable to do: the letter M. Your main purpose in life is growing a brand-new human being in your own body, then pushing it out after working 24/7/280 (the equivalent of working 3.33 years of a “normal” full-time job in just nine months) without even a second off, let alone whole evenings and weekends. Anything else you might think you’d like to do, or have an interest in pursuing, must absolutely be shelved so you can focus on that one letter, M. If you ever get tired, or lose focus, or even think occasionally of maybe eventually doing something else in some future time, well, you’re just selfish and a horrible M.
As for you 10 percent or so of women who can’t do the whole M thing, well, we’ll still acknowledge your existence if we absolutely have to, but you should know how uncomfortable we are because you’re kinda putting the lie to our whole shtick. So, if you could make yourself even more scarce than we make the typical M woman, that would be super helpful, so thanks ahead of time.
Your brothers in Christ,
Lots of men in church (and the Ms who obey them unquestioningly)
—
When we remove all the fluffy, emotional, super-spiritual, churchy language, it doesn’t sound quite so appealing, does it?
That really sums it up well!
Regarding taking special goodies away from men feeling like they were done wrong: ironically, conservatives should understand this.
Conservatives believe that if you give people government goodies, taking away those entitlements gets the recipients really, really riled up. This is true even if they should never have gotten those goodies anyway or if it was a special one-off situation. Increase benefits during the pandemic? All hell breaks loose when you return those benefits to previous levels later. “You’re taking food off Granny’s table!”
(Note: I am NOT arguing the validity of these arguments or the need for a social safety net. I am saying that the people who cheer on Butker also firmly believe the things I am saying above.)
They know how this works in government spending. Why don’t they understand that culturally, men have been double-dipping for centuries and women have been footing the bill?
“which comes down to a worldview where men do stuff and women help men do stuff.”
So pithy and perfect.
The bad thing is, this came in my Sunday school class (mostly ladies 50 or older, I’m the only below 40). One of the ladies was saying that she agreed with him, even though she said never had children herself! Where does she think that leaves her? I can’t even begin to fathom the thought process behind that (short of the lady thinking that she failed). Cue agreement and lament from the other women as well. I swear people hear the “correct” buzz words and don’t think about the consequences of what they’re saying.
Yeah, it sounds like people think that the solution to absent fathers is to get the women to behave and coddle reluctant men. How about “If you’re not willing to be a father, don’t bed any women.” instead? Oh that’s right, that would mean that people would actually have to think about what they’re doing.
Sadly, she probably does think she failed. I hope it’s becoming less prevalent now, but certainly in the UK, almost any woman who is 50 or upwards who has grown up in church will have had the ‘married motherhood is a woman’s sole destiny’ drummed into her from toddlerhood. And for those growing up in the very reformed churches, you can lower that age to early 40s. Late 40s here, and when I was growing up, I was constantly hearing that married mothers were the only women who really counted, and that single women were ‘failures’ (unless you were an overseas missionary, in which case, you were still a second-class citizen but your mission work made you kind-of acceptable), and that married childless women were also ‘failures’, although not QUITE as much a failure as single women. And it’s still around. Only last month, someone told me that I could never be as effective a Christian as I would have been if I’d had kids…
Fortunately, I grew up around some wonderful single women whose lives were proof that you can be a single woman AND be greatly used by God. Ditto with married women who never had kids. But I do feel for all the women who didn’t have those examples. Even with support, it’s hard to stand against a lifetime of messages telling you that you are ‘less than’.
You could have described three of my aunts. Two married, but never had any biological children. The other aunt never married. All three of them were amazing godly women who loved Jesus until the end of their lives.
I also had a teacher in middle school who never married, but she mentored hundreds of students throughout her life. She even mentored some of her former students even after they became adults. She also loved Jesus until the end of her life. Her influence still carries on in the lives of her many students today.
I believe all four of those ladies were very successful even though they never had children.
I have a lot I could say about Butker’s speech and may even blog about it.
I get that we should all consider the importance of families and the raising of future generations, but we cannot return to the 1950s. While it is great to have one parent (often the mother) who is a full-time homemaker, it is just not realistic for everyone. With our high costs of living, it is difficult to make it on one income. Harrison is a professional athlete, so of course, he makes tons of money for his wife to be able to stay at home and raise the children. Not all mothers want to stay at home full-time and they should not be shamed for that. I have a cousin who makes excellent money as an engineer and with the high costs of daycare, her husband chose to stay at home with their kids until they are both in school. BTW, there is nothing wrong with stay-at-home dads. They are not less masculine than men who have full-time jobs outside the home. Of course, a lot of the theobros make think stay-at-home dads are emasculating.
I have been a stay at home dad and most of the emasculation that I have received has been from women, not men.
I have been at the playground with my kids and any moms that are there give me the side eye and act as if I’m a perv for even being there when it obvious that I am there with my kids.
Since toxic masculinity in church and secular culture is teaching men that it’s okay to be perverts, those women weren’t emasculating you by assuming you were one. And stay at home dads aren’t necessarily exempt from being perverts just because they stay home. My husband stays home, but he actually takes care of the home. He doesn’t use the time to look at porn, pick up neighborhood single moms, or ask me to do perverted stuff in the bedroom. Not saying you’re doing those things, but some men would use kids to hit on women. Being wary as a woman in this day and age comes with the territory cause most women would pick a bear in the wood than a strange man. Even on a playground with kids present, I can understand why a woman would be wary of a strange male. OTOH, assuming you aren’t acting creepy or perverted, these women may be biased against you for being a stay at home dad because it doesn’t fit their narrow view of masculinity as protector or provider. That would be emasculating. Not because you aren’t adhering to some perverted toxic masculinity stereotype promoted by male church leaders who view this kind of thing as okay in political leaders.
.
So his feeling (of being emasculated) is only valid if the women treating him like this are adherents of toxic masculinity.
This is so insightful.
Well, Lee, Jim has spent plenty of screen space here previously telling women they are only “perceiving” they are in danger, they are only “perceiving” this or that instead of what he says is their *actual* reality. Shoshana is trying to get, and give, some understanding by reasoning things through which is generous considering the amount of gaslighting Jim has thrown at women here in the past.
He may well and validly feel uncomfortable or judged or some other word, but emasculating is a poor word choice to land on given his described situation. As Jim has also harped on the need to use the correct wording before, I am only treating him how he has treated others here before.
If Jim is so uncomfortable when women at the playground “side eye” him, he might take a moment to try empathizing with their lived experiences that have brought them to that point (because *they* have been or felt unsafe due to male behaviors) and seek to gain better understanding instead of consistently blaming women for making him feel badly.
I’m not sure what word you are actually looking for, but emasculating doesn’t seem the right one… if anything, receiving the “side eye and act as if I’m a perv” builds a case for enforcing (stereotypical) masculinity. How does *their* worry about *your* presence make you feel powerless? That situation seems as if it would make you feel more powerful instead of less. Genuine question.
I’ve been hearing mixed things about the speech, so I found it and read it myself.
He does seem to indicate that men can only do great things when women do supportive things, and he did say that being a wife, mother and homemaker is one of the greatest things of all (but didn’t say the same thing about husbands and fathers). However, nowhere in that speech did I read anything even close to “you MUST be a wife and mother, otherwise you’re a failure”, nor did I see anything that said “you CANNOT pursue a career outside the home”.
Now, maybe he could have phrased it as “if you choose to have children (men and women), then parenting is one of the greatest things in life”. Not everybody needs to have kids.
Some oddball things he said:
Only through marriage can we be saved.
As men, we set the tone of the culture.
These two things are just wrong. We can be saved all by ourselves, and ALL OF US (for good or ill) set the tone for our culture.
One note on JoR and her brilliantly biting sarcastic post on top, while I didn’t see that in Butker’s speech, I have seen that same attitude A LOT in various churches, websites, books, etc. That attitude is sadly alive and well in the world, and must be exposed and defeated.
Now, did he say (or hint) this? Maybe I misread it, maybe I didn’t read deeply enough between the lines. I don’t want to get the wrong impression of the speech (for good or bad). Maybe somebody can directly point me to phrases that could be interpreted that way?
Hi Nathan,
I think it’s vital to remember the context- he said all this at a college graduation. At a time where the men and women who have just worked for years towards the end of gaining a college degree that most people put to use in obtaining better opportunities for a career, he divided the men and the women. He downplayed the opportunities the women have worked hard to achieve in favor of becoming wives and mothers who stay at home and do almost nothing with the education they just earned. He also seemed to imply that men need women to be their supporters so they can achieve more full success which downplays the potential in men that will have to work for careers without a woman supporting them.
Also with those 2 statements you pointed out, he was incredibly wrong, particularly with the saved comment. We do not save ourselves or spouses- only Jesus Christ can do that. Just days ago Sheila posted this which I think is appropriate for his speech. https://baremarriage.com/2024/06/why-christians-read-harmful-marriage-books/
When a person shares a speech like this and the messaging is combined with ALL the other messages women and men in that audience usually receive about gender roles, it carries the weight of that combined messaging. Many who give such speeches are very careful with their wording so as to not explicitly state such things, yet it is deeply implicitly implied.
I think it is worth noting that the nuns of the college did state that his words do not agree with their beliefs. Will try to find that statement later.
Nathan, I agree with you. I think a lot is being added, or read into, his speech. I dont think Butker was saying women can’t work, or can’t stay home, or that women who aren’t mothers are failures. As a masters degree educated, full time stay at home mom, I found his speech rather refreshing. I live in an area where most women work full-time, and Ive often felt judged for that, and have felt like I had to explain my situation. Also, our culture absolutely marginalizes men! Name one tv show that portrays a man as a good father, well respected and adjusted. Instead, the dad is always portrayed as the bumbling idiot who is typically irrelevant, out of touch, one dimensional even. And just because men are marginalized, doesn’t mean they think it’s somehow the fault of women.
Context is everything. He didn’t actually state that a woman is a failure if she didn’t become a wife and mother. But he did say that his wife’s life “truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother.” Ok, maybe he meant that HER vocation was to be a wife and mother and another woman’s vocation might have been to be a single, childless teacher, or doctor or… But in the context of a whole section about ‘homemaker’ being one of the highest callings, how most of the women there must be more excited about becoming wives and mothers than anything else…it does send the definite message that this is what every woman should aim for and…more worryingly, that your life doesn’t start UNTIL you are a wife or mother. Now even if a woman’s vocation IS to be a full time homemaker and mother, it’s rubbish to say that her life doesn’t ‘truly start’ until that point.
I find it more worrying that he also condemns Catholic birth control (i.e. avoiding sex during a woman’s fertile period), and saying that he takes this stance because he has “leaned into my vocation as a husband and father and as a man”. No mention about his wife’s views…although she is the one whose life would be put at risk by continuous childbearing.
I get what you’re saying about context. But to be fair, if we are looking at the context of his speech, we also have to realize that he was an invited speaker at a private Catholic university, and at a time when long held values and morals are under attack by the Catholic Church itself. The papacy is pushing Marxist ideology, which is anti family, anti life, pro transgender etc. Many catholic institutions are either pushing this ideology or, if they aren’t teaching it, they’re not standing against it. Most catholic universities and institutions are Catholic in name only, and push Marxist, globalist goals and values.
Oh, I agree context is important. But in my view, nothing excuses telling women that their lives don’t truly begin until they are wives and mothers. Especially as you don’t know how many of them already know they will never be able to have kids – major fertility issues often get picked up very early, and in a gathering that size, there is bound to be at least one or two women who already know they will never get to conceive. Imagine how they feel, being told that their lives are never going to ‘truly begin’. I had a ton of messages along those lines when I was younger, and it was always a gut punch to be reminded of how the church views childless women. It makes me angry that women are still having to listen to this garbage a generation later.
Absolutely! And it’s not in line with Scripture anyway. You don’t “correct” what you think is false teaching with other false teaching.
I understand that there are those in the church who believe, and send the message, that a childless and/or single woman is less valuable, and that is flat out wrong. BUT, in his speech, Butker was talking about HIS wife, her role, her vocation, her life, their family. He wasn’t saying that life doesn’t begin until one becomes a mother, but that for his wife, that was the case. A little extreme, yes. But if a man were to say, hey, life truly only became meaningful once I became a dad, people would ooh and ahhh and say what a great man and father he was. If a woman says this, she is chastised for not wanting more. If my neighbor, who is a doctor, says that her husband supports her and allows her to do what she does best, they are both applauded. But if a man says this same thing about his wife, they are backwards, he’s a pig and she’s somehow not contributing, not living life to the fullest or using her degree, education, etc.
Just because Butker and his wife have this arrangement, doesn’t mean it works for everyone else. And just because most in our society have two working parents, doesn’t mean that the specific scenario works for everyone.
Amanda, he told women that being a homemaker was their real calling.
“But if a man were to say, hey, life truly only became meaningful once I became a dad, people would ooh and ahhh and say what a great man and father he was. ”
If a man said this in my hearing, I would think exactly the same as I would if a woman made the same comment about being a mother – that the person concerned was idolising parenthood. It’s particularly bizarre behaviour from someone who claims to be a Christian, since following Jesus should be more than enough to give our life meaning however old we are, or whatever our marital status, educational background or vocation.
Harrison just told everyone in the world that he sees his wife as his support staff.
You say:
“To the guys out there who are doing the dishes, who are playing with your kids, who are Googling how to get my picky eaters to eat veggies or how to get my kid not to wet the bed, thank you to all the dads, who are showing up, and all the guys who are just being great partners. You matter. You’re changing the world. And you don’t need to be a hero. You can just be a normal guy, who is walking with integrity and who is doing is job and is being responsible. That’s what really makes the world a great place.”
My abusive, covert, cruel ex dis every one of these things. He was labeled as a “great guy.”
He had absolutely no understanding of a wife or child’s emotional needs. As you say, seeing him “do” all the things, I believed he was a good dad and (as he regularly told me) our problems must be my fault and the abuse I suffered behind closed doors was my due.
Please be careful. I would take a man who had a soft teachable heart, who wanted to meet his family’s emotional needs and seriously yearned to be like Christ over the “doing” man you describe every single time.
No one is suggesting that all the “doing” things are the ONLY things that men ought to be doing in their own homes and for their own children.
But given how many men do absolutely nothing to assist in the day-to-day functioning of their own homes, and how many men won’t do anything to help raise their own children, men getting off their butts to DO THINGS is at least a start.
But those things ARE only the start.
Sheila,
I really love the rewrite of the speech❤️
You said everything so well. I enjoyed reading it. Thank you.
Obviously he’s a Christian. Not much else to be said. A lot of people THINK they are Christians, but don’t really feel the way this one does, or they’re born into it like me, and don’t really feel that way at all. This kicker took it all a little too seriously. It was these kinds of attitudes and beliefs that made me an atheist a long time ago.