By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The “Share the Arrows” conference in Dallas brought together thousands of conservative Christian women, including social media influencers and online personalities, to discuss faith, culture, and politics. The event, organized by Allie Beth Stuckey, aimed to equip women to engage in cultural battles, particularly in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Speakers emphasized defending biblical truths, traditional values regarding family and sexuality, and opposing progressive ideologies. The conference featured talks, worship, and practical advice, reflecting a specific conservative, evangelical worldview, and a significant overlap with MAHA mothers. Stuckey noted the conference’s growth, suggesting a shift in the landscape of Christian women’s engagement.
Read the original article here
In Dallas, 6,700 women rally for culture war battles after Kirk’s death, and the immediate image conjured is a potent one. It’s a gathering, a spectacle of sorts, bringing together a significant number of women, many of whom are likely white, well-off, and, as some see it, disconnected from the realities faced by others. The event’s context is the passing of a figure, Charlie Kirk, who, regardless of one’s political stance, was a prominent voice in the conservative movement. The sheer number of attendees suggests a wellspring of emotion, a desire to coalesce around shared beliefs and anxieties, and a readiness to engage in the ongoing culture wars.
This leads to the question of what exactly these women hope to achieve. The criticisms and observations surrounding the rally touch on several key themes. The core of these concerns circles around the perceived hypocrisy and disconnect. There’s a pointed contrast drawn between the biblical teachings of compassion, care for the vulnerable, and the welcoming of strangers – values often associated with Christian faith – and the focus on “culture war” issues, such as those related to gender roles, sexuality, and national identity. The argument is made that these issues are given priority over the more fundamental teachings of the faith, which advocate for the care of the less fortunate, a concept often ignored by those in the upper echelons of wealth. This creates a dissonance that fuels much of the critique.
Another dominant theme is the role of women in this context. The observations suggest a deep-seated irony: the very figure being memorialized, Charlie Kirk, held views that, according to critics, relegated women to the domestic sphere. The fact that thousands of women would gather to rally and protest, directly contradicts his own purported beliefs, with the underlying implication being that they are not acting in accordance to his wishes. The critique then morphs into questions about the lives of these women: are they not meant to be at home, as he would have desired, tending to their families? The irony is highlighted because it brings out a blatant clash of values. This exposes a rift between the perceived values of the movement and the actions of those within it.
The observations further hone in on the perception of the movement as predominantly white and privileged. The comments touch on the lack of diversity within the rally’s attendees, and the social location of the women. The observation is that a large amount of the attendees are stay-at-home mothers. This lack of diversity suggests that the concerns of the culture war are primarily focused on the concerns and anxieties of a specific demographic, at the expense of other voices and experiences. This is also contrasted against the stated values of the religion, highlighting a perceived lack of inclusivity and an echo chamber effect within the movement.
Furthermore, there are concerns raised about the motivations and potential exploitation of the participants. The comments suggest that the rally is a platform for disseminating propaganda, with the implication that the women are being misled or manipulated by right-wing online propagandists. The assertion that they are being “grifted,” that is, being taken advantage of for financial gain or political power, raises concerns about the integrity of the movement and its leaders.
Finally, the observations highlight the dangers of living in a bubble, of being disconnected from reality. The comments point to the ways in which the culture war can distract from more pressing social and economic issues. There is a sense of disbelief and frustration at the focus on cultural battles, while real-world challenges remain unaddressed. The suggestion is that such a fixation prevents a clear view of the world and limits the capacity for empathy and understanding. The conclusion draws the image of a highly insular and isolated community.