Exclusive: Nick Freitas Says Chivalry Isn't Dead, But Fourth Wave Feminism Wants To Kill It

Carmen Schober: What was your first viral video about? 

Nick Freitas: The first one that went into the millions was actually a floor speech I gave in the Virginia House of Delegates about a fellow Green Beret who was being kicked out of the military because he essentially beat up a child molester in Afghanistan. He tried to follow the correct process and they were kicking him out anyway three years after the fact. And so there were several people who were advocating on his behalf and thankfully they did reverse their decision.

Another video that got tens of millions of views was actually a floor speech in 2018 on the 2nd Amendment after a shooting had taken place. I didn't want to just give a defense on why we think having the means to provide for your own self-defense is very important. I was also tired of the other side of the aisle essentially suggesting that if you didn't agree with their solution to the problem, you weren't just wrong but that you were “mean,” you were “evil,” you were a bigot, you were a racist, you were a segregationist–we had some people actually saying that. So I gave my argument, and one of the things I said is, “You know, it's very difficult to have a civil and productive conversation when one side of the aisle compares us to the worst things possible. And as long as we're keeping score, it wasn't my party that supported slavery, that fought against women's suffrage, that put people in concentration camps, that supported Jim Crow or segregation or mass resistance. That was your party. And I would really appreciate it in the future when you want to make a strong point, you don't project the sins of your party onto the rest of us.” And that one took off. 

It was really about three years ago I realized that if you actually want to be effective on some of the things that matter within politics, then you better be able to effectively engage with the culture. I saw social media as an opportunity to do that. I'm actually very proud that about half of my followers on social media probably have no idea I'm an elected official.

CS: I didn't know until we scheduled this interview! I was like, “Oh, so he does other things besides the smart commentary with a coffee.” You’re just multi-talented.

NF: I don't know about that. When I started, I didn't know much about short-form content, but somebody who was working for me at the time said, "Nick, I really need I think you need to lean more into just talking about being a father." So I did a video on three things I learned raising daughters. It was about how I went to two people when I found out I was having daughters. 

The first one was my wife because I figured she’s the expert, and the other person I went to was the biggest, for lack of a better term, “man-whore” I knew in Special Operations. I was going through the Special Forces qualification course at the time and I asked him, "How do I keep my daughter safe from a guy like you?" He was a good sport and gave me his honest advice. He said,, "Tell your daughter you love her because if you don't, someone like me will, and she'll believe him." 

So, in the video, I talked about how important it is to be honest with my daughters and to always make sure that their daddy loves them. They need to know that I’ll always love them and tell them the truth and always have their back. And I finished the video by saying, “Plus, I taught them how to shoot, too, just in case.”

CS: As an elected official, what’s one thing you wish everybody knew about the United States government? 

NF: Really, the only thing that really makes government unique is the ability to use force to get what we want. It's not voting. It's not committees. It's not pretty buildings. It's none of that. The only thing that makes it truly unique is that we pass laws and use force to make them happen. 

It always cracks me up when politicians say "All we're asking is…” Politicians are not “asking” for anything; they’re always telling. And the reason why I think it's so important to understand that is not because I want anarchy, but because I don't want people to see the government as the first place you go to solve the vast majority of problems that you encounter. 

If you genuinely want to live in a free society, then that has to be one where we respect both individual liberty and personal responsibility. So if I can't convince you to do what I want, I shouldn't try to coerce you into doing it, and I also shouldn't try to outsource the coercion to a politician. A free society, a tolerant society, and a compassionate society, is one that allows us the ability to be able to work together when we agree and leave each other alone when we don't. And, unfortunately, I think we have far too many people that have essentially been educated to believe that when there is an issue when there is a challenge in society, the first thing that you should do is look to politics. I actually think that's a very dangerous viewpoint.

CS: Right, there’s only a very small subset of serious problems that you really want to get the government involved in. Otherwise, they usually create more problems. 

NF: Right. Like, if you think about the various problems that you face throughout your day on everything from what are you going to wear, how you're going to get to work, what are you going to drive, where are you going to work, what do you want to do, very few of those challenges are going to be made better or effectively addressed by giving more power and money to politicians and bureaucrats. That’s essentially what you’re doing when you get the government involved. You’re giving more money, and more power to politicians and bureaucrats. Do you think that is likely to get you the best, most effective solution to a problem? Probably not.

CS: That’s why people who support more taxes always baffle me. It’s like, “Do you really believe that people who have a life that's completely different from yours, they live in a different place, they have totally different experiences than you, that they would know the better use of your money than you would?” Like, if people had that money to spend on their lives and what they want to invest in, wouldn't they know their own needs better than some rando in Washington, D.C.?

NF: The answer is yes. And the way you know this is because even the people who advocate for higher taxes when they keep more of their own money, never write a bigger check to the government. Ever.

CS: I’ve seen you talk a lot about masculinity a lot on social media. Some men, particularly in the so-called “manosphere” argue that chivalry is outdated and unrealistic in today's society because modern women either don’t want it, or they aren't worth being chivalrous for. What would be your response to that?

NF: I think genuine masculinity protects, upholds, and creates an environment where femininity can flourish. So, if you're going to say chivalry is dead because you don't think a certain number of women in society are properly appreciating it or wanting it, that doesn't mean that all of them don't want it. I think what's happening more and more is men are understanding that they've been fed a lie. The lie is that you’re going to somehow find meaning and value in essentially going around and sleeping with as many women as possible. 

I completely reject the idea that chivalry is or should be dead or that it's not relevant. I do think it's not appreciated to the same level it was before, and that’s because you get more of what you appreciate and less of what you punish. And fourth-wave feminism especially has made it their mission and life to punish what we would call traditional masculinity or chivalry. If you want to be the sort of man that allows fourth-wave feminists to tell you how to behave, be my guest, but you're not going to like the results for you. You're also not going to like the results for the sort of society it creates. 

I always saw one of my first responsibilities as a father of both daughters and a son, as to do my best to set an example and to set expectations incredibly high for both of them on what they should expect out of relationships and what they should expect out of marriage. And that starts with me treating my wife the way she deserves to be treated. 

And I think the truth has a way of winning out in the end, and it’s true that there are traditional roles. That doesn't mean that there aren't things that generally fall within masculine categories that women can't or, you know, should do. That doesn't mean that there aren't certain things that generally fall into feminine categories that men can't do. But, ultimately, if you're a man, then no, your job is to be able to protect, to be able to provide. I think when men embrace that, they find that women appreciate it.

Of course, I don't encourage men to start a life with the sort of woman who doesn't share their values, just like I encourage women to not start a life with the sort of man who doesn't share their values. But sooner or later we're going to find out that this modern version of masculinity and femininity has been entirely wrong, and people are going to be looking around to see what actually worked. And lo and behold, they're going to find that men that embrace those attributes and develop them in the service of the people they love and a thing that's truly noble and honorable thrived. And they're going to find that the women who did the same thing with feminine attributes thrived. And that's going to be evidence enough.

CS: Something I’ve been observing is that many modern men and women are so focused on what you get from the other sex. It's like, “I'm not going to act this way unless I get something from the other sex.” And that fundamentally misses the point of developing your own character. Like, shouldn't you just do what is right because it is right, not because you think that men or women will treat you a certain way? 

NF: Yeah, it's become very transactional and that's actually what you get when you have kind of a hedonistic viewpoint of the world where sex is transactional and relationships are transactional. “And as long as it's doing something for me, I'll stick around with it and when it doesn't I won't.” What's amazing is the same people who demand that sort of attention for themselves fail to see that maybe other people will start demanding it for themselves. How do you actually foster the sort of relationship that can actually navigate the challenges that naturally arrive in life?

My wife and I both came from broken homes, and we got married young, and we sat down and discussed this. We shared the same faith, which was essential, but another one of the things that we talked a lot about was our expectations, what we saw as our duties and responsibilities to one another. And I can say right now, that nothing is more shallow than a life that is exclusively lived for oneself. When you actually find someone that you truly love, admire, and are passionate about, and they feel the same way about you, and you are just ready to go through life together, understanding there are going to be challenges.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, it’s her and me against the world and the freedom that comes with that in knowing that and your ability to learn together and grow together and take risks together, to succeed together, to fail together, to get back up and know that person's going to be there, is amazing. You don't get that if the fundamental foundation of your relationship is, “Well, if it works out for me, then I'll do it, and if it doesn't, I'll leave.” 

I want my wife to know that I'm there no matter what, and she lets me know that she's going to be there no matter what, I would never trade that for the cheap artificiality of what I see in the current dating scene or even unfortunately, in a lot of the new marital advice.

CS: If there is one thing you could do over in your life thus far, what would it be?

NF: I would have taken my faith more seriously in my adult life and my marriage and a lot of people. When I say something like that, a lot of people look at it and be like, “Oh, OK, that's nice. Can you leave your religion at the door?” And the answer is no, I can't and neither can anybody else. Because if you want to live a life where you're secure in your identity, when you're secure in your meaning and your purpose, if you want to pursue a life that I think possesses honor and love and trust and justice, then you're gonna need to know what you believe about objective truth and objective morality. 

About seven years into my marriage, I started to take my faith a lot more seriously because that was the first time in my life that I really allowed it to be challenged and questioned in a way that I had to not only kind of emotionally defend what I believe but intellectually do it as well and really go through that process of explaining why do I believe what I believe and why is it essential to the things that I do and why is it essential to how I will behave as a person as a husband as a father. And I found the moment I truly enjoyed it embraced that intellectual component of it and really dug down into why do I believe this and why is it important is it true? I became a better father. I became a better husband. I became a better soldier, too. 

CS: What’s your advice to people who might be feeling pretty burned out by the news and politics?

NF: You're probably too focused on things that you have relatively little control over and not focused enough on things that you have a significant amount of control over. And, look, the two are not mutually exclusive. If you're really concerned about the direction of the country and you understand that politics plays a role in that, and so you want to be an effective advocate, or you want to be involved, fine. 

Here's my question: If you're spending more time concerned about what a random stranger on Twitter thinks about your beliefs than you are with what your kids think about your beliefs, then you're essentially fighting a war of attrition that you're going to lose. The more time that you actually invest personally on just being able to understand what you believe, to be able to effectively articulate it to fostering good relationships with your children, with your family, and with your friends. I would say that not only are you more likely to have children who are going to grow up sharing your beliefs because they've not only heard them talked about, but they've seen them played out in the real world, but you're also going to end up being a more effective advocate to people that are strangers. 

Of course, you don't need to ignore politics, but you should not be obsessed with them. I think one of the things politicians want is for people to be obsessed with politicians. And, honestly, if you're grounded, if you're, you know, voting correctly, if maybe you're advocating on issues that you care about, that's all wonderful and you should do that. If you're interested in running for office, great. But don't do any of that at the complete expense of the benefit of your family.

CS: As a politician, I have to imagine that there are instances sometimes when you just would love to compromise on something, right? Like,  there's an issue and it would just be so nice if you could just compromise. You could just say, "Sure, we can do that," but for important reasons, you can’t. How does one stick to their values when they're feeling very tempted to compromise?

NF: There's appropriate compromise and there's inappropriate compromise. I would say inappropriate compromises, anything that causes you to go back on your word or to betray your values. It's one thing to understand that you're not gonna get everything that you want, and as long as you're making something better, you're moving in the right direction, then that might be an appropriate compromise or something to work on. But you never want to surrender to a general value or something you believe to be true. And when you have the kind of politics that I do, which basically sees a very, very limited role for government, it's difficult. There aren't a whole lot of people showing up to committee hearings to lobby for less government.

CS: Right. The people who work for the government are trying to reduce the size of the government.

NF: Yep. So I end up having to say no a lot. And not just to people that I disagree with. They want funding for this or that, but it’s just not the role of the government to do it.  

I think two things really keep you grounded on that. One is never to get your identity from being in elected office. If the primary source of your identity is being in elected office, you will almost certainly find 1000 different justifications to compromise on things that you really shouldn't. The other thing is to make sure that you surround yourself with people who care about you but also care about your character, not just about the position you hold. 

I had a United States senator once ask me, "Nick, what do you want your legacy to be?" And I said, "Senator, this is gonna sound somewhat cliche but please believe me when I tell you this:  If I have done my job correctly then the government will stay focused on the very limited number of things it's supposed to do and will otherwise be so insignificant in people's day-to-day lives that there will be no need to remember I was ever here." 

Ultimately, I want to be far more concerned about what God says to me when I arrive than what men say about me when I'm gone. As long as you recognize that you're there to do a particular job and if doing your job faithfully means taking a vote that costs you an election then you have to be absolutely determined to leave with your integrity intact.

CS: If you could pass any piece of legislation, what would it be?

NF: My dream legislation would be some form of significant education reform. I think it's ridiculous that we let the government manage education. Why would we do that? That's not to say that I don't want every child to have a quality education, but what we have right now is a government-administered mass-production approach to education when we all know that a far better approach would be something that is far more individualized. Right now we tax you, we take your money,  and then we give it to institutions. I would think at the very least I would like something where dollars follow students. I would much rather parents have the sort of options that allow them to find an educational opportunity for their child that works for them at every stage of that child's development. And I don't think you're ever going to get that in a mass-produced model run by the government. And that's not a dig on all the teachers or even administrators or whatnot. That's just the reality about what happens when the government is running it in an institution.

CS: The data continues to show it's not going well. 

NF: Right. And I get it when people say “I want to get the politics out of the classroom, ” but the government runs the classroom. You're not going to get the politics out because politicians are the ones that approve the budgets. We're the ones that ultimately have, say, over the departments that choose the curriculum. So, if you really want to get the politics out of education, well then get the government out of micromanaging day-to-day education sense.

CS: This is my last question, and it's very important. You’re going to brunch this weekend, and there are two tables you can pick from. At the first table, you will be enjoying brunch with Joy Behar and AOC. At the second table, you will be with Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi. Which table do you choose?

NF: No question. Joy Behar and AOC.

CS: Really?

NF: Yeah. The reason why is that my impression of Kamala Harris is that she's very enamored with position and power, but I honestly don't think she's thought very deeply about her political philosophy. Nancy Pelosi is too skilled a politician to actually have an in-depth conversation with. AOC is a true believer and actually probably willing to provide insight into what she believes and why. And I think under the right conditions, she would actually listen to a counter-perspective. I mean it's not going to be with a camera in front of us, but at brunch, maybe. 

As for Joy Behar, one of the things I love to do when I'm talking with people that I know have very different worldviews is I just like to ask questions. And I think what would inevitably happen is that Joy Behar would get very, very frustrated very early on because I also think she's someone who hasn't thought very deeply about what she believes. I think she would get nasty pretty quick. And I think AOC would look at me as someone who was asking questions and was inquisitive and would almost be in a position of “OK, Joy, let’s just hear him out.” And I think that in that dynamic I could actually have a conversation with AOC where at the very least we would both walk away from the table and she wouldn't think that I was evil or mean. 

I would certainly appreciate getting perspective on the reasons behind why she believes what she believes, 'cause I think what she believes is highly destructive, but she clearly doesn't think that. Having a better understanding of why someone in her position, her age, where she's at, and why they're absolutely convinced of something that I think is horribly detrimental, that would be would be beneficial. I think that would be a worthwhile conversation. I would sign up for that brunch.

CS: What if I told you it was going to be 6 hours long? With no mimosas?

NF: I'd still do it. In fact, I might even be more inclined to do it then because you would actually have time to go into a variety of things. I remember I had somebody come into the office once furious with me, and I realized something as the conversation started. She came into the office thinking I was evil and we moved from “OK, he's not evil.” And then it was like, “OK, he must be stupid.” And then and then I managed to convince her I wasn't stupid and then it was “Well, he must be ignorant.” She said something like, “Well maybe when you get a little bit older, then you’ll properly understand what I believe, then maybe you’ll believe the same thing.” And I said, “Well, let's do a thought exercise on that. For the next 5 minutes, I will argue the progressive worldview in a way that you find convincing. And all I ask is that in return you then present a 5-minute argument for what I believe in a way that you think I would find convincing.” And she said, “I don't think I could do that.” I said, “Well, then who's really ignorant of whose position?” She ended up looking at me and she said, “I can vote for you.” I don’t know if she did.

CS: That is a really good thought exercise because it highlights the divide that has taken place for a long time. A lot of conservative people genuinely can come to the conclusion that liberals and left-wing people are just wrong. We just think they're wrong and for whatever reason, they have come to the conclusion that we are Nazis. We're not human anymore. We're just kind of cartoonish villains. It makes sense why we have a hard time making progress as a country.

NF: I think it's important to understand something about a political philosophy that almost starts the conversation with believing that the other person is evil or that that's the only possible explanation for what they can believe. Because if you're the sort of person that believes the government is the way that you solve problems, it makes it a lot easier for you to do what you want to do, which is to use coercion against other people. If you've convinced yourself that these are not your fellow citizens or your fellow human beings with a different perspective, that they're evil and so they have to be stopped. And if that includes some force, and if that force gets rough, well, I guess they had it coming. That's a pretty dangerous perspective.

Follow Nick's Work

You can find more of Nick's commentary on Instagram and TikTok, as well as his podcast, Making The Argument.

Evie deserves to be heard. Support our cause and help women reclaim their femininity by subscribing today.