The False Dichotomy of Harrison Butker's Worldview

I didn’t want to write about Harrison Butker’s 2024 Commencement address at Benedictine College. But it took up permanent residence in my subconscious. It was unsettling for many, including me. Others in my life loved it, which was befuddling, and I think it was the cognitive dissonance of disagreement with people I care about that finally provoked me to the keyboard.

The difficulty is keeping my ego at bay. It’s the part of me that wants to show how clever or smart I am. The part that prefers snark to sincerity, irony to earnestness, and sarcasm to straightforwardness.

My ego is not my better me and cajoling it into the toddler seat buckled behind the responsible brain driving the car has taken no small amount of effort. It is likely I will cross over the double-yellow line and veer into oncoming traffic a time or two before thinking better of it. Alas, the dialogical journey must take place if we want to get anywhere. And, in a country where we cherish free speech, dialogue must remain a staple of our society.¹

As I was trying to alleviate some of my disdain for Butker’s speech, Rachel Held Evans came to mind. Evans endured copious amount of criticism for where she arrived after the deconstruction of her evangelical faith. I was remembering a comment she made on a podcast. The host asked if she would still take communion with her harshest critics. Her response was gracious and was something along the lines of this:

Yes. It’s what we do. I think we are called to break bread with anyone who would partake of the holy sacrament.

We might remember that when Jesus initiated the Eucharist, he broke bread with Judas who he knew was going to betray him in a way that would lead to his death. He didn’t kick Judas out of the room and then commence with the holy sacrament.

Speech aside, I’d like to think that in some bizarro-world where I bumped into Harrison Butker at a crowded coffee shop and shared a table with him, we’d find we had much in common. Perhaps we’d share pictures of our wives and kids. I imagine that once I realized who he was, I’d probably rib him with a, “Yeah, well keep at it and maybe one day you’ll be as good as Adam Vinatieri.”

But that’s not how I “met” Butker. I met him through my computer screen as I watched him give his speech. He had a message to deliver which was clearly meant to incite emotion, and he put the ball between the goalposts.

He was, for sure… oh, what is the word I’m looking for?

It’s right there on the tip of my tongue…

Ah, yes! …Articulate.

Still, we should not confuse strong, emotionally-charged rhetoric for being persuasive. He did little more than please those who already agreed with him, and upset those who didn’t. The people in the first group are unlikely to cop to his weaker points, and those in the second reticent to admit to his stronger ones. There were some of both.

So then, let’s start with his climactic point and the low-hanging fruit of the speech- the diabolical lies. I wasn’t sure what he was talking about. So we’ll look at the quote, and then I’ll ask Mr. Butker some questions.

“I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.

I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. I'm on the stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation. I'm beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me, but it cannot be overstated that all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.”

Question: Harrison, what are these “diabolical lies”? It seems that if they’re so diabolical, you might be clear about what they are. Instead, you left to infer. I had to do some digging in my effort to understand what you might have meant.

We must not confuse the word vocation with, job or career. Strictly speaking, this is not what vocation means. A person’s vocation is their suitability for a particular job or career. I should not attempt a career in physics as I struggle with more complicated math. It wouldn’t be suitable for me. It’s not my vocation.

Is the diabolical lie that women should have been told a life as a homemaker is of little value to our society? Were you implying that women should feel perfectly content with a life as a homemaker? Proud of it, even?

If that’s what you’re saying, we’re in agreement. I’ve no problem with that.

But Harrison, you’re rhetoric was a bit dramatic. It seemed that you were implying the proper vocation for a women is that of homemaker, and probably just homemaker. We’re going part ways on this point, Chief.

Your words of appreciation for you wife were touching. I even believe the moments you fought back tears was a genuine sign of affection for her. I feel the same about my wife. I’m sure Isabelle is a terrific wife and mother. I’ll even accept that “homemaker” might be what she’s most suitable for, that it is her vocation. Further, I’d even encourage us all to accept that homemaker is one of the most important titles of all. If someone has suggested it isn’t, then they’re wrong.

The thing is, I don’t know anybody suggesting it isn’t.

The diabolical lie is not that women shouldn’t be homemakers. The diabolical lie is that women must be homemakers, or that men cannot. Or more, that homemaking and career making are mutually exclusive ideas.

Another question: You mentioned Isabelle had a dream of a career that didn’t come true. Did Isabelle want to do something before deciding to forgo a professional career in lieu of family life? If you weren’t a professional athlete, a man who makes millions of dollars and instead made something more modest, or even minimum wage, would she have made the same decision? Would she have even been able to with the financial responsibilities young couples face today?

Why didn’t Isabelle do both? Why choose one over the other? The diabolical lie is that somehow being a homemaker and having a successful career are mutually exclusive ideas. It’s the logical fallacy of your position. There’s no reason Isabelle couldn’t have done both if she wanted to. Particularly with a husband who is dedicated to seeing her experience success. Particularly with a household income that could open several pre-schools, let alone pay for a suitable pre-school experience for your children.

That’s what we did. My wife found great success in the corporate world. Last week she spent three days leading a forum for her company in San Diego. She has clearly found her vocation. As she built her career however, she was also being a homemaker. There’s not a mother on the planet who has provided more for her children or been a better spouse than mine has for me.

That’s putting it lightly. For the first part of our marriage my wife was working, raising children, and mostly carrying me too. Should Butker press me on whether or not I was a hard-working man when I was his age, the answer would be no. The change came when my wife wouldn’t put up with it anymore. I wasn’t the partner she needed. We fixed things when she told me to leave. Butker might tear into me for this, and on a certain level, he’d be correct.

But I digress.

There’s nothing wrong with his wife’s decision to find her vocation as a homemaker. Especially if it was her decision, and not one impressed upon her as the only thing women should do. If the two of them entered into a marriage with the same understanding that upon having children, she would remain home, then I’m all for it. I hope that’s the case.

When Butker spoke of his wife’s support of his career, he broke up a bit and fought back tears. I think it was a genuine moment. I’d have done the same. But if his wife has career ambitions beyond the home, he can do better for his wife. There’s no reason a person in his position can’t support his wife’s career goals as he reaches for his own. Marriage is more than a one-lane highway.

I do want to reiterate that Butker was correct in how he said men should try something hard. We should. We should take a chance from time to time. But he said that after dropping this little unwisdom nugget:

Be unapologetic in your masculinity, fighting against the cultural emasculation of men.

Nobody is emasculating anybody, Chief. If women want to enter the workplace, and if women aren’t excited about marriage and bringing children into the world, it’s not a threat to us.

Well, maybe it is to you. “Kicker” is the one area where women have experienced success in college football.

But for the rest of the world… things change. Cultures change. It’s going to be OK. Nobody is coming for your little footballs, son. Hard working, successful women aren’t a threat to hard working men.

Let’s keep up the hard work talk, let women who are vocationally geared towards homemaking move in that direction if they’re able. Let’s cheer them on in non-homemaking careers too, if that’s the way in which they should go.

---

As criticism of the speech picked up steam, a supposed quote from Butker claiming he was “taken out of context” began surfacing on Twi … X. You can see it below. The quote is fake, and originated as satire.

This is fake news; a response Butker did not give.

Nonetheless, the context of the speech does matter. We’ll save that for next time.

Coming up: Harrison Butker and Conservative Protestants Make Strange, but Willing Bedfellows.

1. There have been cries to “cancel” Harrison Butker. I’m told his home address has been posted online. As of the moment I’m typing these words, there have been over 214,000 signatures added to a petition to for the Kansas City Chiefs to dismiss him for discriminatory remarks. I don’t believe this is the best way to handle people we disagree with. In this case, it’s likely the negative attention as strengthened his support. As the outcry against him has grown, so have the sales of his Kansas City Chiefs jersey, which sold out quickly.

It strikes me that cancel culture doesn’t want to see people change. It want’s to see people punished. Punishment is a lazy person’s way of seeking change.