A Psychological Look at Unknown Number: The High School Catfish
The High School Catfish
Spoiler Alert! We are about to give away the end of the documentary in the first paragraph. If you don’t want to know the end, save this article, go watch it, then come back.
Netflix’s Unknown Number: The High School Catfish left me unsettled. The case was already disturbing enough. A teenage girl being harassed for over a year through anonymous texts and messages. But the real gut punch came with the reveal: it wasn’t a jealous classmate, or an online predator. It was her own mother.
That’s the kind of twist that makes us stop and ask: what could possibly drive a parent to do this? As a counselor, I naturally look at these stories through the DSM lens. And while no diagnosis from afar can ever be definitive, there are some clear psychological patterns worth unpacking.
A Digital Twist on FDIA
The closest clinical category here is Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (FDIA). We used to call it Munchausen by proxy. Typically, it shows up when a caregiver fabricates or induces medical illness in someone they’re caring for, often a child, to maintain attention, sympathy, or control.
Kendra Licari didn’t fake medical symptoms, but she created a crisis nonetheless. By bombarding her daughter with anonymous harassment, she generated a problem that only she could later “help” solve. The dynamic is eerily similar: the parent manufactures suffering in order to keep the child dependent. This unmistakably produced severe distress in her daughter. Only this time, it’s Cyber-FDIA.
But FDIA alone doesn’t quite capture the full picture. The content of the messages, sexually explicit, cruel, sometimes telling her daughter to kill herself, suggests something more than just attention-seeking or misguided protection.
The Dark Triad Running the Show
To really understand this case, I think we need to look beyond disorders and into personality traits—specifically the Dark Triad: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (Note that I am aware of the new Dark Tetrad, but sadism did not fit here).
Vulnerable Narcissism: This isn’t the loud, arrogant narcissism we often picture. Vulnerable narcissism is fragile and hypersensitive, desperate for affirmation and terrified of abandonment. In Licari’s case, her actions look less like ego inflation and more like a desperate attempt to keep her daughter tethered to her at all costs.
Machiavellianism: The manipulation was elaborate and calculated. Hundreds of messages. Fake accounts. Careful concealment. That’s classic Machiavellian strategy: long-term deceit in the service of control.
Psychopathy: What stood out most to me was the callousness. Watching her daughter spiral under the weight of harassment, and not stopping, reflects an alarming lack of empathy. Refusing to take full responsibility for her actions was another indicator of psychopathy. Even if she wouldn’t meet criteria for full-blown psychopathy, the trait was alive and active.
With the statement, “Everybody has broken some law in their life. Nobody is perfect”, she made the Dark Triad evident. In this case, the Dark Triad wasn’t just present, it was driving the bus.
Trauma and the Distorted Logic of Protection
Licari later shared that she had been raped as a teenager. She framed her harassment toward her daughter as a twisted form of “protection,” suggesting she created a problem that would keep her daughter close, safe, and coming to her for help. In her mind, maybe she was shielding her daughter from the very dangers she had endured.
But here’s the truth, trauma might explain why her fears were so heightened, but it does not excuse or fully explain her actions. Many people endure sexual trauma, often at the hands of someone close to them. Almost none go on to send their own child sexually explicit messages, attempt to ruin their life, or tell them to kill themselves.
This went deeper than “I got raped.” Trauma may have been the seed, but pathology was the soil it grew in.
The Perfect Storm
At the same time, Licari was losing her job, suppressing her own trauma, and avoiding accountability. That combination created fertile ground for character flaws to take over. Without reflection, accountability, or support, trauma can metastasize. Stress, loss of identity, and secrecy cracked the door open, and the Dark Triad walked right in.
This is the part I can’t stop thinking about. It wasn’t just trauma. It was trauma + personality traits + a lack of accountability and boundaries. That’s when fear of losing a child morphs into controlling them, destroying them, just to keep them “safe.”
Why This Case Is Different
We all know parents who are overprotective. Many of us have seen trauma survivors carry their fears into their parenting. But this case is different. This isn’t the natural endpoint of being “too protective.” It’s something darker.
That’s why the story rattles us so deeply. It takes something familiar. It’s the instinct to protect your child. Yet it twists it into something unrecognizable. The very bond Licari claimed to protect ended up destroyed. Or was it? The daughter’s reaction to the news almost presented “I figured it was her.” Much like the story of Rapunzel, even though the daughter knew, she couldn’t bring herself to accept what her mother had done.
Why It Matters
It would be easy to write this off as one woman’s madness. But I think it raises bigger questions:
How do trauma and personality pathology interact?
At what point does “protectiveness” become control?
And what safeguards, like family, friends, and community, might have stopped this spiral before it escalated?
In an age where technology makes it easier than ever to monitor, manipulate, and entangle those we love, these questions aren’t abstract. They matter for how we parent, how we relate, and how we check ourselves.
A Final Reflection
The irony is crushing. In trying to protect her daughter, Licari destroyed her. The very bond she wanted to preserve now lies in ruins. That’s the tragedy here. Love, once twisted into control, becomes indistinguishable from harm.
The lesson for the rest of us is simple, but not easy. Real protection never requires manipulation. Real closeness never has to be forced.
We must recognize the line between care and control, and have the courage to stop before we cross it.
For obvious (and unfortunate) reasons, I see many people who struggle with anxiety. I want to cover a couple of things about anxiety that hopefully with help.
Anxiety is a Good Thing
First, anxiety is a good thing. Yep. You read that correctly. It wasn’t a typo. Anxiety is a good thing. It drives us to focus on a difficult task ahead. That feeling you get when you are about to go on a first date (yes, the one where you feel like need to get to a bathroom fast)—anxiety. The feeling you get when you’re about to go on stage—anxiety. The feeling you get when you are about to a take a test—anxiety. All driving us to be our best.
Daily Anxiety
Next, there is daily anxiety. Worry that our neighbor is going to mow his grass onto my driveway. Worry that I may hit traffic on my way to work, knowing I can’t afford to be late again. This may surprise you, but the counseling/therapy industry has pathologized this. That really makes no sense, but it’s true. This is not a clinical issue. This is a Tuesday.
Social Anxiety
Then there’s social anxiety, which is the most common. Very possibly from being nursed by devices. We haven’t had to look up from them, so when it’s time to react in real time, where we can’t backspace or just hit “block”, we freeze. Social anxiety has a fairly simple fix. When you are in a social setting, find someone to talk to and immediately start asking them questions about themselves. People love talking about themselves. Also, self-consciousness and absolute misery are difficult to distinguish on a mental health questionnaire. So asking them questions takes the focus off of you, relieving your anxiety symptoms rather quickly.
Clinical Anxiety
Then there’s clinical anxiety. This is debilitating. You can’t go to the mailbox without fear. Going to a public place is almost out of the question. You can’t hold a job or a solid relationship because of your crippling anxiety. We often turn to Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) to relieve us of this fear and anxiety. Here’s the problem. These medications do the job, but they trim your range of emotion and they rewire your brain to need them. This dependency is not healthy.
Possible Solutions
[This is not medical advice] I’m going to give you a method that I have used for every client that has expressed a desire to come off of SSRIs. And so far, we’re batting 1.000. It hasn’t missed. This regimen needs to be practiced every day for at least 21 days consecutively.
Circadian Rhythm: Wake up at the same time every day. This helps release neurochemicals into your brain that were being withheld because of the unpredictability. It doesn’t matter that much when you go to bed but wake up at the same time every day for at least 21 days consecutively.
Protein: Consume some form of protein within 30 minutes of waking. The protein is going to help absorb some of the release on insulin if an anxiety trigger hits, preventing a hypoglycemic reaction. It doesn’t even matter what type of protein. Just take some within 30 minutes of waking up.
Walking: Walk like you’re late for at least 30 minutes per day at least 3 days per week. This sends proper blood flow to the brain, which helps everything from anxiety to dementia.
Saffron: I use a saffron gummy that also has vitamin D in it (this can be found at Walmart as well). Head-to-head, Saffron has been shown to have similar effects of SSRIs, but without the restriction of range of emotion.1234
Omega 3: consuming some form of Omega 3 will help reduce blood pressure, brain development, help in managing depression, and help protect against cognitive decline.
Caution
So far, it’s working. There are obvious risks with this. Let me share a couple. First, your body may react differently to saffron. Highly rare, but possible. So pay attention to your body and act accordingly to what’s right for you.
Here’s the big one. The first 3 days of coming off of SSRIs will be very difficult. Be in a safe environment. Inform those closest to you that you are doing this. Be ready for an emotional rollercoaster for 2 or 3 days. For most, by the time you get to day 3, things start to lift. And by the end of the first week, you feel better than ever. Then it lifts from there. This is what I have seen in every client.
I hope this helps. Thanks as always for supporting my work.
Stay Classy GP! (← God’s People)
Grainger
References
1Saffron for depression: Noorbala, A. A., Akhondzadeh, S., Tahmacebi-Pour, N., & Jamshidi, A. H. (2005). Hydro-alcoholic extract of Crocus sativus L. versus fluoxetine in the treatment of mild to moderate depression: a double-blind, randomized pilot trial. Journal of ethnopharmacology, 97(2), 281–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2004.11.004
2Saffron for depression: Akhondzadeh Basti, A., Moshiri, E., Noorbala, A. A., Jamshidi, A. H., Abbasi, S. H., & Akhondzadeh, S. (2007). Comparison of petal of Crocus sativus L. and fluoxetine in the treatment of depressed outpatients: a pilot double-blind randomized trial. Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry, 31(2), 439–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2006.11.010
3Saffron for MDD and GAD: Ghajar, A., Neishabouri, S. M., Velayati, N., Jahangard, L., Matinnia, N., Haghighi, M., Ghaleiha, A., Afarideh, M., Salimi, S., Meysamie, A., & Akhondzadeh, S. (2017). Crocus sativus L. versus Citalopram in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder with Anxious Distress: A Double-Blind, Controlled Clinical Trial. Pharmacopsychiatry, 50(4), 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-116159
4Saffron for post partum depression: Kashani, L., Esalatmanesh, S., Saedi, N., Niroomand, N., Ebrahimi, M., Hosseinian, M., Forooghifar, T., Salimi, S., & Akhondzadeh, S. (2016). Comparison of Saffron versus Fluoxetine in Treatment of Mild to Moderate Postpartum Depression: A Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial. Pharmacopsychiatry, 50 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-115306
Some may notice that I’ll write about children, parenting, biblical issues, church issues, relationships, and some current events. But you may notice that I tend to lean towards and often revisit issues of men’s health. It’s not that men are more important than women, couples, and children. They’re not. It’s not that men are smarter or dumber than women. IQ levels have remained rather steadily similar across cultures and time. It’s because while the whole world is willing to talk about the help that women (rightly) need, such as areas of attempted suicide or breast cancer, no one is addressing the growing problems that plague men and boys. The conversation is very one-sided. I’m not asking for the side to switch, just to show both sides.
Awareness and Budget Comparisons
Take a look at breast cancer awareness vs. male suicide awareness:
Breast Cancer Awareness: Saturated, normalized, well-funded, and embraced by culture (I have two Breast cancer awareness bands on right now)
Male Suicide Awareness: Underrepresented, stigmatized, and critically lacking in broad public engagement.
Or maybe we can look at how many new cases of breast cancer vs. new cases of prostate cancer there are each year, and the correlating federal health budget for each:
New cases: Prostate cancer new cases are about 91% of breast cancer new cases (255,395 vs. 279,731).
Federal health budget: Prostate cancer funding is roughly 78% of breast cancer funding ($319.8M vs. $410.5M).
Or we could look at federal health budgets for breast cancer vs. male suicide. You’ll see that male suicide is 90% of the total deaths from breast cancer. But the budget for male suicide is < 1% of the budget for breast dancer. Dr. Richard Reeves might call that a Gap!
Any way you view it, it’s a problem. And many are rightfully calling it a crisis. Surely those in academia are seeing this and doing their part. Certainly they have an avenue to bring awareness to this issue and are willing to do so… right?
The Chance For Exposure
Ladies and Gents, step right up. I present to you Exhibit A! The reason I write about men and boys’ issues. I have had hope that the Association for Psychological Science (APS) wouldn’t be so ideologically captured. And for the most part, compared to the American Psychological Association (APA), they’re not. It’s rather difficult to be more ideologically captured than the APA. But here, with exhibit A, we see the blatant move to turn their heads and act like the elephant really isn’t so big. “Maybe if we just ignore it and pretend the elephant isn’t there, it will just go away.” Well, I’m sorry to report, it won’t, because of people like me.
The article is titled, “Science Counters Education Inequality.” In this article they cover educational gaps in society. They covered SES gaps, race gaps, and differences in STEM, reading, and math. They noted, “Women remain underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields.” And even while highlighting math, they said, “They’re normally as skilled as boys or even better. The only issue is that they tend to be even better at reading even if they’re good in mathematics.” Every paragraph illuminated ways in which we should close gaps for girls and women. How we should be working towards girls advancing, and the issues that women face. They covered educational inequality—for females.
The Real Inequality
If you’ve read anything I’ve written, you already know where I’m going. They obviously ignored some keys points. They ignored that:
There is a hiring bias in favor of females in STEM.1
While there is a small gap in favor of boys in math, boys are an entire grade behind girls in English.2
Which gap is larger, a slight lead, or an entire grade behind?! They saw gaps in education among race, STEM, and SES, but outright refused to acknowledge the largest gap in the U.S. and the world in education, gender.
The gender gap in education is the largest of any other demographic comparison on earth. Boys are significantly behind in many areas. Possibly as a result of:
Feminized classrooms, calling boys who can’t sit still dysfunctional and in need of a diagnosis. Boys are wired to seek, risk, find adventure, and test boundaries. Sitting still simply isn’t what they are wired to do.
Maybe it’s because of a teacher bias in favor of females.3
Perhaps it is society’s paradoxical nature, condemning what it quietly perpetuates, insisting that boys suppress their struggles, “Figure it out” and “Get over it”, as if their pain were a nuisance rather than a need.
Regardless of the cause, the reality remains unmistakable: men and boys are in crisis. The evidence is undeniable. Yet when the APS was handed the chance to confront it, they turned their backs like cowards. As if moral responsibility were optional. As if truth itself could be banished by refusing to look at it. But truth doesn’t vanish; it waits, patient and unyielding, exposing the cowardice of those who pretend it’s not there. They had a moment to choose courage over comfort, and they chose comfort. I shouldn’t be surprised by their retreat. But it’s possible the lingering surprise is proof I still expect more from those who claim to seek truth. They didn’t just miss the mark, they threw the target in the trash. If Dr. Richard V Reeves were there, he’d be white-knuckled and asking what on earth they were thinking. Scratch that, he wouldn’t have to ask. We both know they saw the opportunity, recognized it for exactly what it was, and still, intentionally decided to parade out Exhibit A in willful blindness.
I guess they believe if they just go ostrich-style, we will just shut up. Well, they severely underestimated my stubbornness.
Stay Classy GP!
Grainger
References
1 Honeycutt, N., Careem, A., Lewis, N. A., Jr., & Jussim, L. (2020, August 18). Are STEM Faculty Biased Against Female Applicants? A Robust Replication and Extension of Moss-Racusin and Colleagues (2012). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ezp6d
2 Reardon, S. F., Fahle, E. M., Kalogrides, D., Podolsky, A., & Zárate, R. C. (2019). Gender achievement gaps in U.S. school districts. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2474–2508. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219843824
3 Terrier, C., & Terrier, C. (2020). Boys lag behind: How teachers’ gender biases affect student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 77, 101981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.101981
Seven Clues the Counseling Industry Has Lost Its Mind
I’m playing basketball when the referee makes the worst call I’d ever seen. This particular ref was known for being terrible. I just shrugged and began calling out our next defensive formation. The ref gave me a technical foul (this is bad in basketball). While that ref had a reputation for being terrible, I had a bit of a reputation too, for being a hot head. This led me down a path to consider what basketball would be like if the refs weren’t terrible. So guess what I did. Yep, I became a ref. And 18 years later, I don’t regret it. I’ve been able to referee high school, college, and minor league pro basketball all over the country. And I love it. But I got into it because of the severe deficits I saw and hoped to become good at it in order to pave the way for other younger refs coming in.
I still ref, but that’s a side hustle. It’s my “self-care.” I’m primarily a counselor. And one of the primary reasons I got in was because of the deficits I saw in the industry. There were so many incongruencies I could see from my everyday experiences that I had to get in and figure out what was going on.
Here are seven things I’ve noticed that have gone wrong in counseling, along with my advice to professionals about how to put them right:
Over-emotionality
Assuming there’s a diagnosis
The client is viewed as an annuity
Validation at all costs
Rumination
Weather Man Syndrome
Feminization
1. Over-Emotionality
The counseling industry has overemphasized the need for feeling. I’m not negating the validity of feelings. I’m suggesting that when making decisions, feelings are the last thing that should enter your mind. Rationality, practicality, who all these decisions will affect, these need to enter your mind. How you feel can help guide at times, but feelings alone are a terrible decision maker. If you make a decision based on a feeling, when the feeling changes, the decision changes with it. This explains why people who get married because of passionate desires get divorced fairly early in their marriage. They married because of a feeling. Then when that changed, their decision to be married did too. Anyone who has been married for any amount of time knows that the early feelings of infatuation in marriage go away relatively quickly.
How It Should Be
Acknowledge and address feelings. The counselor should give them their proper weight. Feelings detect, guide, and lead us to dangers to be aware of as well as opportunities to take advantage of. A counselor should hold that in juxtaposition with rationality and allow the client to experience this new perspective.
2. Assuming diagnosis
It is obvious that certain fashionable conditions are over-diagnosed (and drugs are over-prescribed for them). I’m not making light of these conditions, and I’m not suggesting they don’t exist. I’m suggesting that 14% of all boys in America between the ages of 5-17 do not ALL have ADHD. How is this diagnosis up from 9% just recently in 2015? Because it’s not actually true that more boys than ever have ADHD.
Boys are wired to run, risk, explore, and seek adventure, more so than girls. Boys are more physically active during recess: 22% as opposed to 10% for girls. And because we don’t know what to do with that, we pathologize it for 3 reasons:
That makes the parent not feel so bad about their kid
It helps the teacher out because she doesn’t know what to do either
Someone receives a kickback from big pharma for recommending medication.
How It Should Be
Not everyone needs a diagnosis. It’s ok to be rambunctious, and rambunctious kids don’t need to be labeled “too hyper.” You can be socially awkward and not be labeled neurodivergent. Then there are the iatrogenic effects of diagnoses; when the act of diagnosis or treatment causes “the condition” itself. We give these kids a diagnosis, they realize they’re “not normal”, and the rumination begins. This causes more problems than the original symptom they came in with. I’ve seen it. It’s devastating. And medication should only enter the conversation as a last resort, not a first option.
3. The client is viewed as an annuity
Too many counselors are seeing too many clients for way too long. I realize that not everyone can benefit from Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT), but many can. Here’s the problem—this doesn’t pay for that trip to Cabo. It only pays for a trip to Costco. I know counselors who are seeing clients who have been with them for more than 2 years. This should be rare, but it’s not.
How It Should Be
I have yet to achieve this, but my goal is to be able to tell a client on the first session approximately how many sessions this will take to achieve their stated goals, with relatively good accuracy. Clients need an end game. They need to know hope is around the corner. Bringing them in for more than a year for the same issue doesn’t provide hope. It provides the practitioner enough money for an all-inclusive vacation.
4. Validation at all costs
This one is prevalent. Counselors are encouraged to validate at all costs. The client comes in and says her family doesn’t accept her because she now identifies as a kitty cat. We are now to validate her feelings as rational, sane, and beneficial to her overall health. Nope. I can’t. I won’t be mean. I won’t be overly contrarian either. But I won’t be telling that client that her “identity” is normal and that everyone around her is nuts. Not happening.
How It Should Be
If you are my client, what I will validate is that you are hurting. I will acknowledge the confusion you must be experiencing. I will help figure out where the confusion started and provide scientific evidence for why this confusion doesn’t have to debilitate you, then help you recognize it and begin to reframe your mentality. Counselors should not be validating falsehoods for the sake of the client’s feelings.
5. Rumination
At times, a counselor will let a client ramble on about all their problems without any direction towards healing. This is not therapy. This is rumination. Problems need to be dealt with in a structured environment to move towards healing; endless rambling about problems is not healing. The client doesn’t even realize this is happening. They just come in thinking, “I’m supposed to talk about my problems, so here I go.” And the counselor just lets them deliver unfettered rumination.
How It Should Be
It is the job of the counselor to be the professional. The counselor needs to interject when discussion turns into self-indulgent rumination. This can be done without confrontation. We just turn our focus to a point the client just made. We zero in on something he said that will lead us to a core cause, and that helps us address the symptoms. Move towards healing. Not rumination.
6. Weather Man Syndrome
Counseling has become prey to Weather Man Syndrome. I can be wrong about everything I tell you and there’s little to no consequence for me. Misguided counselors end up like the proverbial weather man who gets it wrong at least half the time while everyone still treats him as an accurate authority. Iatrogenic effects are as prevalent in mental health as they are in physical health. But there are warning labels on pill bottles. Counselors don’t come with those. We call it “informed consent”, but that’s not a real warning. We as counselors can do some real damage and so many are out there just throwing noodles against the wall hoping they make enough money to afford their favorite Airbnb this fall.
How It Should Be
There should be clear warnings of the possible side effects of receiving mental health counseling/therapy. Digging up old feelings is dangerous for some. We must be careful. Talk about this up front.
7. Feminization
I could write an entire article about this alone. I’ll just say this; we have gotten to a place where the normative experience for clients is a totally feminized one. This approach alienates half of the couples who walk into our offices, particuarly for couples counseling. The wife feels great about this. The husband looks at his watch every 5 minutes hoping we get out of there before the game starts. Why?
Women communicate to relate.
Men communicate to exchange information.
Women process negative emotion face to face through social communicative relation.
Men process negative emotion side by side through action and honor, allowing them the time to form the words needed to communicate the necessary information. A man will hear bad news and go fix a lawn mower he will never use and can’t actually be fixed.
So when a couple comes in and is expected to relate face to face, it shouldn’t come as a surprise when it doesn’t work for the man. There’s more to therapy than talking face to face.
How It Should Be
When I see men, I get them to do activities with me. We throw darts, putt on green strips in the office, maybe go outside and throw football. Then they open up. We must make counseling spaces inviting for men if we expect them to begin speaking to counselors about their problems.
Conclusion
Therapy doesn’t have to be stigmatized and it doesn’t have to be experienced as distressing. For individuals who have had unsatisfactory therapeutic experiences, I encourage continued engagement with other clinicians. Maybe you haven’t found the right therapist; maybe there are more competent practitioners who are more effective. There are others like me who are willing to address patient needs with cognitive empathy, constructive challenge, evidence-based science, and common sense. The tiny handful of us still willing to say out loud that there are only two sexes get slapped with the “iconoclast” label. Fine. Say what you will. But I won’t pander or lie to clients, and neither will any professional worth the title.
Grainger holds a B.S. in Psychology and is currently earning his Master’s in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at Liberty University. He’s an active men’s ministry leader and pastoral counselor with over 5 years of experience, currently seeing clients in both faith-based and clinical settings.
Karina holds a Master’s degree in Behavioral Science with concentrations in mental health, counseling, marriage and family therapy, career development, and child and adolescent therapy. She has a robust research background and is board-certified in brain health, ADHD, sensory processing, and wellness. She, too, actively sees clients in clinical practice.
Together, we represent both the psychological and pastoral lenses on today’s mental health landscape. We are deeply committed to truth over trend, accountability over blame, and growth over grievance. In this article, we explore how communism has historically undermined the structure and values of the American family. Combining historical evidence with lived experience, Karina’s firsthand memories of life under communism and Jason’s work as a counselor, we expose how communist ideology weakens faith, parental authority, and generational bonds. Our shared commitment to protecting the American family drives this important conversation.
What you are about to read is Grainger’s reflection on the historical agenda to dismantle the family, paired with Karina’s lived testimony of the very communism some in Gen Z now idealize; an ideology that seeks to unravel the foundational merits of the family.
Grainger
I’ll get right to it. No fluff. The attack on the family isn’t new. And it isn’t accidental. It was intentional, particularly by proponents of communism.
Even before the Communist Manifesto, Robert Owen, founder of the “Yankee Utopians”, wrote that the absurdity of religion and marriage, founded on individual property, were total monstrosities.1 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels often wrote about the destruction, dissolution, and abolition of the family. Marx once wrote,
“The hallowed correlation of parent and child is disgusting.”
The Russian Orthodox Church had long prohibited divorce. But with the Bolshevik rise to power, that prohibition was eliminated, causing an explosion in divorce rates. The dismantling of the family opened the door for Lenin to implement his system of terror. Very early on, it was understood that marriage was the greatest impediment to implementing communism in any society.
Bolshevik theorist Aleksandra Kollontai wrote:
“But the joys of parenthood will not be taken away from those who are capable of appreciating them. That is, from those mothers and fathers who happily accept that the best educators are not the parents, but the collective, not the sanctuary of the home, but the supremacy of the state. The children would be reared by society. Children would be wards of the state.”
Margaret Sanger
Then there’s Margaret Sanger, who is not winning “Mother of the Year” anytime soon, according to her son, Grant. She is best known for her quiet campaign to eradicate the Black population. Critics twist her infamous line, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population” in an attempt to preserve the reputation of someone they call a hero. Unfortunately, in 1926, this hero went on to give a speech to the Klu Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, likely repeating such rhetoric.
But who was she? Well, besides being an openly neglectful mother, she joyfully told her husband she would be sexually free whether he liked it or not. Such “freedom” was a movement championed by Emma Goldman, who was eventually deported by President Wilson. Margaret’s first of many affairs was with Goldman.
After destroying her marriage, she went on to destroy other marriages, having numerous affairs with men across Europe, including H. G. Wells, who was infatuated with the “Candid, fair, and honest Joseph Stalin.” Wells was also an admirer of Lenin.
When the racial eugenicist herself wrote a June 1935 article titled, “Birth Control in Russia”, this was the first clear indication of the ideological blueprint she wanted to embed in American consciousness. She originally began American Birth Control League, later renamed Planned Parenthood, to rid the earth of “Idiots, morons, imbeciles, and the mentally and physically defective.” What a Mother Teresa she was. Ironically, Sanger was startled by how many abortions were taking place in Russia. She was for eugenics and birth control, but not abortion so much. She eventually made the statement,
“A functioning Communistic society will ensure the happiness of every child and will assume the full responsibility for its welfare and education.”
There, she leaks her true intention of the child being property of the state.
But abortion had already spun out of control, to the point that Stalin himself, one of the deadliest men in world history, had to ban abortion after observing the catastrophic population decline. And Sanger’s mission to export this ideology to America was unwavering. The family, once a cornerstone of civilization, had become a liability to communism. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union had declared the family a “formidable stronghold of all the turpitudes of the old regime.”
Educational Infection
Ralph de Toledano, a historian who studied Columbia University’s interest in communism with comprehensive tenacity, wrote,
“The primary method [to wage warfare on Western civilization] would be to saturate Western culture with the miasma of unrestrained sex. The destruction of the West, from which a Marxist utopia would arise, was to be achieved through a mass brainwashing of neo-Marxism, wrapped up in what euphemistically became known as Critical Theory.”
Toledano identified the two greatest obstacles to a Marxist utopia are God and family.
The architects of Communism’s infiltration of the West declared the primary focus was the education system, getting naïve American parents to hand over their children to the universities for ideological reprogramming.
Kate Millett
Introducing Kate Millet, a student at Columbia University, where she earned her PhD and wrote her most famous book Sexual Politics. She grew up deeply troubled. She frequently had psychotic episodes that included several attempts to kill her sister, Mallory.
I’ll leave you with this enlightening bit of information. To show you where this issue really is, here is an excerpt from a gathering among university professors, led by Kate Millet, where she led a chilling chant. Millet’s sister, Mallory, detailed the following chant at an event she attended:
Kate Millet (KM): “Why are we here today?” the chairwoman asked.
Group (G): “To make revolution,” they answered.
(KM): “What kind of revolution?”
(G): “The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
(KM): “And how do we make Cultural Revolution?”
(G): “By destroying the American family!”
(KM): “How do we destroy the family?”
(G): “By destroying the American patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
(KM): “And how do we destroy the American patriarch?” she probed.
(G): “By taking away his power!”
(KM): “How do we do that?”
(G): “By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
(KM): “How can we destroy monogamy?”
(G): “By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution, abortion, and homosexuality!”
Columbia University’s Red Legacy
By the 1960s, Marxist ideology had a firm grip on universities, namely Columbia University, which is now no surprise. What did Columbia U produce?
Early faculty at Columbia was John Dewey, whose work was admired, praised, and eventually implemented by the Bolsheviks soviet education system.
2005: MEALAC controversy- professor and students accused of hostility to pro-Israel students, also anti-Israel bias and Jewish student intimidation uncovered
2007: Iranian president, while holding Holocaust denial and Israel’s right to exist, was asked to speak at Columbia.
2010: BDS. Ultimately there was no divestment but Jewish students reported feeling very unsafe, with no recorded response.
2016: pro-Palestinian events begin to increase. Posters everywhere comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Student-wide call for intifada. Jewish students filed complaints regularly to no response from university,.
2023: after 10/7, intense protests began. Pro-Hamas vitriol filled the campus. Students set up Gaza solidarity encampment, pro Hamas students occupied buildings and refused to allow Jewish students in, increased violence, including property damage, physical altercations with police, assault on Jewish students, and even discovery of a swastika on campus.
The Effects of Marxism on the Family
Karina’s Experience Under Communism:
In the early 1950s, after the Bolsheviks had financially stripped the wealthy upper class (in the name of fairness and equality), they repurposed private homes and buildings to force people into communal living. The highest achievable honor became getting an apartment of your own. People applied and waited for years to receive one. Many, like my paternal grandparents, even married each other to secure an apartment that was pending approval for my grandmother, they did end up falling in love later.
I was born in the former Soviet Union in the early 1980s to a small Jewish family. My parents shared a 600-square-foot apartment with my father’s parents. We shared one bathroom and one kitchen, and the living space was communal. (This living arrangement was actually considered wealthy and upper class.) Most families had to share living spaces with strangers.
The Red Attack on Men
As Marxist ideology spread in the 1960s, patriarchy was cast as inherently evil, men as the root of all social ills, and the solution as simple, remove the man. This was fertile ground for implanting policies to ensure the demoralization of men.
Karina
For a man, life in the Soviet Union was bleak at best. Once school was over, the options for higher education, work, and the future were predesigned and prewritten for everyone. You only had 2–3 rational choices, and all of them required government micromanagement. No matter what you did, where you went, or how you lived, you were watched, managed, and “parented” by the government.
By nature, men are providers and protectors. Men have roles that ground a family system and support the healthy development of its members. But take away a man’s right to provide and protect, and all that’s left is misery. The only other option—what my father chose—was to fight the system and run. However, that risk carried deadly consequences, literally. Going against the government meant:
Joining the black market, which in our language was capitalism. The black market operated on a supply-and-demand system. Most of it was run by men, but my mother was involved too, as were several women at the time. Supplies were brought in from Poland and other nearby countries and sold privately.
Practicing religion—any religion. There was only one god, and it was the government.
Reading, listening to, or watching American music, movies, and books.
Denouncing the government in public.
Protecting children against the government run and managed school system.
What made life in the Soviet Union even more unbearable was the cognitive and emotional abuse, manipulation, and control of children. Once a child turned six and was sent to school for an education, the indoctrination began. Children were taught from first grade to build loyalty and unquestioning love toward the government—only the government. My mother was desperate to keep me home as long as she could, hoping we’d get our refugee papers before I started first grade. However, that didn’t happen, and she had to send me to school. Parents who quietly hated the Soviet Union dreaded the day school started for their children. No one was excited, no one was cheerful—it felt like going to a funeral. Children were taught to tattle on their parents if they heard any anti-communist conversations, spies in our own home. The entire school system was carefully developed to ensure complete compliance and order.
Do I look happy on my first day of 1st grade?
Should a 1st grader look that worried?Look at the other children
Karina’s Personal Experience:
My father couldn’t protect me. He understood that I was now the property of the communist party. Everyone knew, but the risk of change was so high most people just couldn’t handle the stress of planning asylum or a refuge.
Helplessness eats away at our will to live from the inside. In a communist, government-run society, men are ideologically minimized and almost completely controlled to ensure the survival of the country. They close their eyes, bow their heads, and walk into their own demise—dragging their families with them.
My grandfather, a loyal communist, pledged his entire life to the system. He barely worked, barely provided, and reported anyone he knew who was involved in the black market. That is, until his own son and daughter-in-law, my parents, got involved. My father paid him off to keep his mouth shut, and that was the very first time my grandfather felt the power of a tiny bit of freedom. Years later, he finally denounced communism—but not before ruining lives in the name of the idea that everyone should be equal, included, and judged.
Grainger:
There it is. The communistic utopia, manifest before our eyes.
Moynihan Report
It should come as no surprise that President Johnson implemented social programs that inadvertently incentivized single motherhood. But Daniel Patrick Moynihanwarned about the risks of government programs unintentionally undermining the family. In his report, he wrote that the emerging matriarchal structure developing in many low-income Black households could lead to further marginalization of men and generational dysfunction.
“A community that is centered on the female, with men increasingly in roleless positions, is likely to find it difficult to sustain stable family and community life.” — Moynihan Report, 1965
No one listened. The unintended consequence was that financial support became easier to access without a male partner present. The father became disposable. As of the 1965 release of the Moynihan report, 3% of white babies were born to single mothers and 23% of black babies were born to single mothers.2 This number, following this policy, jumped quickly to 8% for white babies and eventually, in 2023, was listed as 28% of white babies born to single mothers and 70% of black babies born to single mothers. This shows race was not a factor. It affected everyone.
Why the Father Matters
In one study, one significant finding was that youth living in fatherless homes have the highest levels of incarceration rates. However, youths in homes where only the father is present, there was no difference in the rate of incarceration than that of youth living in two parent homes.3
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, fatherless males are at a significantly greater risk of suicide, mental illness, and becoming a father as a teenager.4
Daughters of single parents without the father involved are:
The facts are sobering: The campaign to eliminate fathers in America, and thereby weaken the family, was not only strategic, but devastatingly effective. We are living in the aftermath of a carefully orchestrated ideological takeover.
We must decide whether we have the courage and the clarity to rebuild what was torn down, starting by rebuilding and prioritizing the family.
Karina’s Conclusion:
The minute socialism or communism enters a conversation, life as we know it begins to unravel. The core idea behind both—essentially two sides of the same coin—is to dismantle the most successful and natural system known to humanity: the family. Like animals and plants, people need a healthy structure to grow and evolve.
Communism wants to be your parent—that’s what it ultimately comes down to. It wants to raise you, control you, and keep you “safe.” It is the ultimate hungry and selfish parent: one that gives you life only to dominate you under the guise of protection.
That’s our 4 cents. Stay Classy GP!
Grainger & Karina
1 (All quotes and citations were from the following book, unless otherwise cited)
Kengor, P. (2015). Takedown (1st ed.). WND Books.
2 Moynihan, P. D. (1965). The case for national action: The negro family. U.S. Department of Labor
3 Harper, C. C., & McLanahan, S. S. (2004). Father absence and youth incarceration. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14(3), 369-397. https://10.1111/j.1532-7795.2004.00079.x
4 Seidel, F. L. P. (2021). The proclivity of juvenile crime in fatherless homes: An urban perspective (Psy.D.).
Post-president legacies are a strange thing. By the time Reagan was out of office, he didn’t know who or where he was, mirroring Joe Biden’s experience. W. Bush backed out of the spotlight just long enough to return by forming friendships with Clinton and Obama in an attempt to show solidarity for a country they all love. Jimmy Carter had one of the best post-president legacies, offering his time for humanitarian causes. He was often mislead by his feelings to ignore facts, the same dysfunction that soured his presidency, but his efforts were driven towards peace and love for other human beings, causing him to be very loved by most Americans. As it turns out, Obama may go down as having the best post-president legacy in history, other than maybe George Washington.
I was not a fan of much of what Obama did (and did not do) in office. The entire time he was in office, I felt like he was regurgitating buzz words for the demographic party that further ensured division. The democratic party drew the hard line that “we’re over here and you stay over there”, and Obama seemed forced to fall in step. I didn’t get the sense that he was saying exactly what he wanted to say. He wasn’t promoting ideas he really believed needed to be emphasized. He was a champion for ideological dichotomy.
He always struck me as someone who was very common sense oriented, level-headed, and a deep thinker. But during his presidency, his actions, and often inaction, were very divisive, lacked evidence necessitating emphasis, and was void of issues that were important to most Americans. But they lined perfectly with every flyer posted by the democratic party and their super PAC donors.
What is Obama Up to Now?
Now he’s out of office and doing podcasts. The recent podcast with his wife and brother-in-law, Craig Robinson, came out and got mixed reactions. The first thing many Americans lamented was highlighting that he called for men to have gay friends so if their son comes out, he has someone to look to. In context: He was not highlighting sexual orientation. He was highlighting diversity in friend group. Don’t just have a bunch of guys in your circle that look and think exactly like you. Challenge each other and yourself. That was his point. But leave it to hardline conservatives to refuse to remove the side blinders and focus on what was not being focused on. Yes, the right can be ideological too.
Obama Talks About Men and Boys
The focus of this podcast was on young men. Right away—that’s new! Since when did someone care about boys and men? I am of the belief that Obama cared the entire time but was not allowed to address it, except the one time he did in a speech, and received backlash from his party. After their slap on Obama’s wrist, he never did it again. But listening to him here, it is clear this is something on his mind. It is also clear Michelle (Misha- as Craig called her) has read research and is equally as concerned about where boys are headed.
Other Criticisms
Some have criticized the podcast as them saying what needs to be fixed about boys so that it benefits girls. They have two daughters. What other perspective would you expect from girl-parents? I’m a girl dad and I thought the same thing. My daughters need good men to marry. But even that criticism has no merit. Obama literally said,
“We have spent so much time talking about what boys do wrong that we have failed to say what they did right.”
Obama’s Marriage
Obama covered the laughable rumors that their marriage is in peril. Michelle did openly state that there was one time during their long marriage when she thought it was about to end, but that they worked through it. She did not cover when that was. Obama shared openly that he did not know his father and was raised by a very young single mother who did her best but was ill equipped to raise a young man. So he knew the importance of having a good father and set out to be that for his daughters.
What They Really Got Wrong
There were at least three times when they (really Michelle) were way off in their approach to issues with young men and boys. They basically kept referring to boys’ natural tendencies, like risk, adventure, and aggression, as broken and how they needed to be more like girls. This is so incredibly false. You will not convince a dog to purr. It just doesn’t know how. At one point. Michelle made the statement,
“I think it’s time to look at stepping away from sports and looking towards the arts, theatre, music, to give them an outlet for their feelings.”
Wrong. It’s not that the arts are bad. They’re not. I was in the music industry for 15 years. It is a great outlet for expression and the people I became friends with were very good people. But stepping away from sports is a terrible idea. Sports brings out the best in boys and young men. Camaraderie, teamwork, adversity, resilience, all get built in sports. The only idea in this part of the conversation I liked was that boys and young men need to diversify their interests and find outlets for expression. That’s true.
With all of that, Obama did attempt to keep the focus on the idea that we are pathologizing boys and young men, rather than allowing or creating spaces where they will thrive. Michelle quoted Obama as saying that the education system in its entirety is feminized, having no space for boys to be boys. Thus, instead of allowing boy traits to shine, we pathologize them because they can’t adhere to guidelines of sitting still the same way girls can.
My Assessment
Overall, the theme was clear. Young boys and men are suffering. Whether its due to failed parental strategies of trying to make them be more like girls, or even a more systemic dysfunction of making all learning spaces feminine and wondering why boys are
“People are capable of having two thoughts at once.”
No one is calling for attention to women’s issues to end. Only that we open our focus to both males and females.
So I understand Dr. Richard Reeves’ enthusiasm for what Obama had to say in this podcast. I hope we hear Obama’s emphasis on boys needing a community of men, not just a good father, to steer them in the right direction. I believe that’s true. However, I also hope we stand firm against Michelle’s approach to feminize boys, as if that’s the path to true morality.
All in all, with Obama talking about issues among men and boys, which was most likely very important to him the entire time, having been raised without a father, if he keeps this up, he may go down as having the best post-POTUS presidency ever..
Stay Classy GP!
Grainger
1 Reardon, S. F., Fahle, E. M., Kalogrides, D., Podolsky, A., & Zárate, R. C. (2019). Gender achievement gaps in U.S. school districts. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2474–2508. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219843824
I know that when I’m eating pizza, I’m not aware of when I’ve had enough. I just keep eating and eating. But usually around 2AM, my body tells me I had too much. Really inconvenient time to tell me this. So why do I eat to the point of hurting and not even realize it? Because I haven’t defined the number of slices I can have without hurting.
As a counselor, when I talk to people about their issues, what I’ve found is their problems are typically not defined. We sit. I listen. They talk about the issues they encounter and how it makes them feel. But after a while, I realize they still haven’t identified a problem. Just the results of the problem. That’s usually my job. To help them identify the problem. They often don’t seem to be able to get there on their own.
It looks like this:
(C)lient: I just can’t seem to get out of bed. I’m sad about everything. I really don’t want to do anything. My girlfriend broke up with me and I haven’t desired to do anything since.
(M)e: Tell me more about your everyday life
C: Normal stuff, play video games with my friends. Hang out at the frisbee golf park. My friends all seem happy. I can’t imagine what that’s like. Being happy.
M: Do you all work together?
C: Oh I don’t work. Can’t seem to get the desire to do anything, including work.
M: How do you pay bills?
C: I barely have any. Live with mom.
M: I think we’ve identified the source of your depression. You’re not productive. You were designed to be productive. When you’re not, chemicals that you need are being withheld.
C: Wow! I didn’t know that.
Not kidding. This is about how many of them go. They just didn’t know. They’ve never been told. They didn’t know how to identify the problem. Once the issue is identified, they move forward and life changes.
—But what about you? Do you find yourself feeling like you’re not enough?
My Wife’s Story
I have been given permission by my wife to share this. She grew up in a home that was unpredictable on a good day. Parents were divorced. Father was an angry alcoholic. Mother worked around the clock to keep the lights on. Often during her childhood, my wife wasn’t sure where the next meal was coming from, if they were getting evicted this week, or if something more sinister would completely rattle their routine. She was told by her father on a very regular basis, “You’ll never be anything. You’re too stupid.” She turned to drugs, pills, alcohol, and friends to numb this painful rhetoric coming from her father.
Fast forward. She’s currently a mother (or bonus mother) to 8 kids, not including those that consider her their mentor, she runs 3 businesses, she’s been celebrated for her achievements by various local news outlets, companies she’s helped, and county governments that recognize her contributions to the overall well-being of teenagers. Her children are all successful. She is very loved. In fact, the only reason I have friends is because people like her so much. So they put up with me. But recently she felt like she still wasn’t enough. I quickly recognized that this was because a daughter naturally longs for her father’s acceptance. No one else will substitute. Her father was never going to be that guy. This got me thinking. What is enough?
Objective Standards of Enough
As I talked through it, I found that there should be a definitive, objective standard for what is considered enough in life. As a Christian, I found it. Connection and Commission. I have two tasks in life:
Connection: Have a relationship with God, through Jesus and
Commission: Take as many people to heaven with me as possible- mostly through the way I live.
I firmly believe that if I am accomplishing these two goals, or aiming at them, I. Am Enough.
Here’s how I know. The guy on the middle cross said so. The thief basically says, “Don’t forget me when you leave.” Jesus tells him they will be together. God says that when we accept Him, we become heirs to His blessings. Not through what we did. But through what He did. And that’s the key. We are enough, because He is enough.
We Are Enough Because He is Enough
If we were left to our own accomplishments, we would be doomed. Through every move forward toward the ineffable aim, the indescribable telos, our dopaminergic system gives us a pat on the back to keep going. And with every step forward, we allow God to remove one more thing about us that doesn’t look like Him, allowing room for something to become a part of us that does look like Him.
As I spit out all of these truth-bombs, my wife stated that she still didn’t feel like she was enough. But she felt better. That’s because she now heard undeniable truth but had yet to identify and define exactly what would make her feel like she was enough. Now that she knows she is enough because God (in her) is enough, she can identify what, on earth, will make her feel like she is now enough. It must be reasonable and attainable. But this will cure the empty feeling.
If you are not yet at a place where you have identified what would be enough, sit down and figure it out. Because you can’t change what you don’t define. Now, earlier, I identified pizza as the best meal on earth, and right now I can smell it in the kitchen. So I’m out. Hopefully I won’t eat too much this time! Who am I kidding? Of course I’m going to eat too much. Because I haven’t defined what too much is yet!
I’m in church. Something hits me. Gratitude. My daughter looks up at me and asks me if I’m alright. I’m fine. “Then why are you crying?” I wasn’t crying. But a tear did form and drop. And now my face was wet. And my daughter was worried.
See, I’m a large, masculine man. I don’t display emotional pain. I just grit my teeth and move on. So this had my daughter worried. The truth is, I’ve been tearing up at church for years. She just never noticed. But it’s the only time I do. Why is that?
Thanks for reading Tidbits of Audacity! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Jordan Peterson once said:
Be the strongest person at your father’s funeral.
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
That’s me. A few years ago my father almost died and I was the “strong one” in the moment. My daughter flipped her car and was worried. I was strong first, then the emotion of realizing I could’ve lost her hit me later.
I’m seeing a current call for more men to cry. I’m seeing it often. Men are saying they don’t want to feel emotions. Women are saying that they love it when their man cries. So who is right? The answer is… Yes.
Where is the Balance?
There is a need for men to become more emotionally intelligent. Most men find emotions binary: happy and pissed off. Learning the array of emotions makes a man more effective in assessing problems. It also helps a man better understand his wife.
A man needs to be able to express emotions. But here’s the catch,
They aren’t going to express it in a communal fashion like women do. They’re going to express it alone.
They aren’t going to do that right now. They must first take care of the issue at hand. Then they can be concerned with their emotions.
On the other hand, if a man is shedding tears every time something pulls at his heart strings, he isn’t very useful in his God-given capacity.
When sh*t hits the fan, people turn to the most stable person in the room. The one who manages emotions. They know that guy will make a sound decision not based on emotion. But if that dude is in the corner crying, he’s not worth much in that crisis.
So When Do We Cry?
Women cry when they are happy, sad, frustrated, anxious, joyful, angry, pretty much any given emotion. Men cry when they are overwhelmed. So for all the women that are saying, “I wish men would cry more, I wish they would release their emotions more”, I say be careful what you wish for. You’re asking him to be overwhelmed more. If a man is too weepy, he is no good in a crisis. If he is crying, he is overwhelmed about something.
Remember, male suicide is 4 times higher than female. One could propose that this is because they bottle up their emotions. And they might be right. One could also say that few care if men are ok. They would be right too.
There’s a balance. We definitely need to be more emotionally aware. No one questions that. But we also need to be able to control our emotions. Put them in their proper place; in service to us, not the other way around. Men do have a desire for control. Not to be tyrannical with it. But to protect with it. If I am in control of a situation, this means everyone around me is safe. If I am crying, I am not in control. This is why men carefully select times to cry. Having said that, if a man never cries, this is also a problem. We must find emotional homeostasis. Balance. Don’t be completely stoic. Don’t be completely emotional. Be what those around you need in the moment and be the other as soon as possible.
Ladies, be ok with him not being just like you. He’s different than you are. And that’s ok. Appreciate the difference. Love the difference. And understand that men are wired a certain way for a reason. And men, be that strong man everyone turns to at your dad’s funeral. Then later, get away and let it out. Don’t hold it back.
Grainger holds a B.S. in Psychology and is currently earning his Master’s in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at Liberty University. He’s an active men’s ministry leader and pastoral counselor with over 5 years of experience, currently seeing clients in both faith-based and clinical settings.
Karina holds a Master’s degree in Behavioral Science with concentrations in mental health, counseling, marriage and family therapy, career development, and child and adolescent therapy. She has a robust research background and is board-certified in brain health, ADHD, sensory processing, and wellness. She, too, actively sees clients in clinical practice.
Together, we represent both the psychological and pastoral lenses on today’s mental health landscape. We are deeply committed to truth over trend, accountability over blame, and growth over grievance. Which is exactly why we couldn’t let the recent Vice article on Mankeeping go unanswered. What you’re about to read isn’t just a rebuttal. It’s a reality check grounded in science, sharpened by real-world counseling experience, and unwilling to accept yet another one-sided cultural narrative that shames men while infantilizing women.
Grainger
I once had a friend of mine tell me that when he really wanted to meet a girl, he just took his dog to the park and Boom! There were beautiful girls everywhere. Then he carefully “accidentally” let his dog get too close to this gorgeous girl’s dog. Personally, I think it’s brilliant. But what if it wasn’t a dog park? What if it was women taking their boyfriends or husbands to a Man Park? Glad you asked.
Definition of Mankeeping
This concept of Mankeeping that is circulating the interweb is based on a paper1 that was dropped on us last November. I received an email from the APA Div. 51 the day the paper on Mankeeping released and read it almost immediately. I made every attempt to read it with an open mind. It is based on the Theory of Kinkeeping, which is familial division of labor. This theory posits that females basically hold the family together by ensuring everyone stays in touch. Mankeeping flowed from this theory, adding that women take on the burden of men’s lack of social networks and thus bearing the brunt of their emotional baggage, making up for losses caused by men’s isolation. Here are some of the conclusions I came to:
Observations
I could see how it would be emotionally draining for the wife to be the loading dock for every problem a man has. There are certain things a man needs a man for. There are certain problems that a man cannot address with his wife, especially if she is the problem he needs addressing. And treating your wife as an emotional garbage can doesn’t help. There’s a balance. She needs to be in on most communication, but not all. And we can all agree that men need to get better at verbally communicating.
Men understand other men better than women understand men. Of course, this is due to our brain hemispheres being at different distances. Female brain hemispheres are closer together and there is a significantly higher fire rate between the hemispheres. Whereas male brain hemispheres are further apart and there is not much firing between them. So when a woman asks what he’s thinking about, and he says nothing, he really means- Nothing! And this fries a woman’s brain-circuits. She just can’t imagine a world in which one can sit and think of nothing. Here, a man must relate to another man about this.
The recent article in Vice addressing this paper didn’t mention that in the paper they addressed the concept of men relying on their partners to find them friends. They even mentioned in the paper the SNL skit where wives took their husbands to Man Park to play with other men. I don’t rely on my wife to make friends for me, but I also don’t have many friends. Mostly because the men in my life view me as a leader, which is a divider. Leaders separate the person from who they were (or are) into who they could be. Therefore, when they see me coming, they see a divider, not a friend.
Having said all that, I polled my wife and friends and their wives. I asked them if they felt the emotional pull from their husbands’ problems. They all said absolutely not. I think I know why.
Marriage vs. Dating
For the established relationship, she has already seen most of his worst characteristics. There is an expectation that he will turn to her before he turns to the bottle, drugs, porn, or another woman. Also, by this time, she wants him to be open and emotionally available. This is because they have spent years building something on the core principles of good relationships: trust, sacrifice, love as a verb, and loyalty.
He first tried to impress her. Wore his best shirt (probably his only clean shirt). Tried out that cologne he read about. Cleaned his car out for the first time this year. He wanted her to see the best parts of him so she would want a second date. Then the second date gets here and he gets the nerve to lean over and kiss her. This is how the dating scene looked 10, 15, and 20 years ago. Not today. And this is what the Vice article was addressing. Dating.
In the new dating scene, you snap each other. You hope she sends you something sexy. But she doesn’t. You wonder why. Then you hear and see on snapchat and TikTok that girls want a sensitive man. They don’t like toxic masculinity. So you dig deep to find the innermost parts of you and become vulnerable, because feminism. But then he makes a critical mistake.
See, for the new relationship, you’re still building something. You haven’t really established much yet. And yes, she wants to know what she’s getting into before the relationship takes off. But she doesn’t want too much too soon. And this is exactly what many Gen Z males are doing. They hear women say they want an emotionally available man, so they word vomit. She then gets turned off quickly. It’s because it’s out of balance. She needs to know what positive contribution he brings to the table first. She really just wants to see that he cleaned his car out. That he wore his best shirt. That he doesn’t smell like an oil slick.
One Possible Cause
One unspoken contributor is for years, that’s what women have been asking for. They’ve been criticizing anything masculine as broken. They’ve been scoffing at the idea that cognitive empathy is better than emotional empathy. “Of course, emotional empathy is better, because it’s what women do, and that makes it better.” Men have heard the outcry and have responded. And now women are realizing they don’t really like the response. But they got what they asked for. And even worse, they can’t say that they asked for a spineless crybaby that they don’t really want. Because they’ll get cancelled by their peers. So they have to blame-shift. It’s the only course of action for the regretful Karens.
I think in homeostasis terms. There is bilateral culpability, in my estimation. Boys need to grow a pair and be the man they wanted to be when they were a kid, wrecking fire trucks into the Jenga tower. They need to put their best foot forward first. Be strong. Capable of protecting her. Regardless of what the cluster B Karens say, all women want to be protected.
Girls need to stop asking for a spineless man. Allow him to be the man he was designed to be. Stop playing victim incessantly. Be satisfied with him being very different than you. Be content with him learning how to become emotionally intelligent over time, even though he’s not right now. But of course, you also have the women who just play victim because it’s the new in-thing to do. And for those, no man will make them happy. But I will stop short of covering this and let Karina say it much better than I could.
Karina
Like Grainger, I too approached both the article and the research paper with an open mind and a sensible attitude. After reading them thoroughly, I walked away with a growing sense that modern relationships have been twisted into something coldly transactional and contractual. As
Abigail Shrier aptly puts it, “Love isn’t an accessory. It’s an adventure.” So when exactly did we decide to throw men out with the bathwater?
What’s most ironic about this so-called “research” is that it starts in the middle of the story completely skipping over how we even got here. It’s a story that’s now being told with no sense of balance, no rational breakdown, and certainly no attempt to understand or accommodate both men and women in the conversation. Instead, it seems to be another installment in a growing cultural habit of placing blame squarely on men, with zero curiosity about the other half of the equation.
The audacity of academia inserting itself into the dating discourse wouldn’t bother me if academia weren’t already so incredibly biased. Why does that matter? Because despite the thousands of courses, degrees, and certificate programs dedicated to Women’s Studies, there isn’t a single mainstream academic institution in the U.S. offering a degree in Men’s Studies. Not one. Do you understand how minimizing and manipulative this is overall? Why are we surprised that college educated women (educated by a feminized culture) are crying about masculinity?
Oversight or Intentionality?
This is more than a minor oversight it’s an intentional, built-in bias. Writing entire research papers on relationships and dating without a single academic framework or scholarly resource focused on men their psychology, biology, emotional needs, or social challenges is already disparaging. But to then use that limited perspective to justify an article like “Mankeeping,” which amounts to little more than emotional gluttony, is even worse.
The narrative of this article positions men as emotionally dependent burdens, while highlighting women as the “mothers” the ones who must carry the weight of dealing with a man. But where is the insight, accountability, critical thinking, and self-agency of these so-called Mother Teresas? What happened to holding the actual mothers of these “emotionally stunted” men accountable for how they raised their boys? Furthermore, why aren’t these women who are “expected” to be everything for their boyfriends not setting boundaries and working on building a healthier relationship or leaving?
If a man is stoic, strong, accountable, and protective, he’s labeled controlling. If he’s emotionally flexible, open, and vulnerable, he’s suddenly “too much work.” What do women want? Because even Mel Gibson couldn’t figure it out. Have we considered the possibility that today’s woman might not even be able to tolerate dating herself let alone handle compromise, challenges, and growth in a relationship?
Clinically Speaking
In my practice, I work with both women and men who are currently trying to survive the black hole of modern dating. Men are afraid to compliment women because of the #MeToo movement, which has increased fear around being misunderstood or falsely accused. Men report that many of the women they attempt to date want to see their credit report before agreeing to meet for drinks. Women, on the other hand, often report being offended if their dinner isn’t paid for. Really?
So what is it, exactly, that a woman can offer a man in a relationship today that he can’t already provide for himself? You rarely hear or read about how men are exhausted by a woman’s constant, incessant emotional needs as she moves through her hormonal monthly journey. Why is only one side of emotional fatigue ever acknowledged?
Moreover, the suggestion that men need therapy while completely ignoring the emotional immaturity, unrealistic expectations, and entitlement often present in modern women is ridiculous. Many women lack emotional intelligence arguably more than men. But shhh we can’t discuss that. We can’t criticize women, because then we’re labeled womanhaters, jealous, or sexist.
Women are constantly praised for “knowing their worth,” even when that “worth” is based on shallow standards and zero depth beyond grooming habits, social media likes, and an obsession with hydration. If we’re going to demand that men “do the work,” then we must also be honest about how many women are actively avoiding their own growth—hiding behind situational trauma to justify a lifelong narrative of victimhood.
Conclusion
In the end, modern dating is not failing because men are emotionally stunted—it’s failing because the narrative has been manipulated by emotionally inflamed women. Men are judged, discarded, and shamed, while women are excused, glorified, and insulated from criticism. If women are exhausted, so are men—except men are expected to suffer silently.
Dating is a mess—as it should be. It’s an actual labor of love. It requires curiosity, courage, failure, misunderstandings, and, of course, micro-stressors. As Grainger pointed out, preparing for a date is an art form. The jitters, the unknown, the act of sharing a space together leaning on each other through conversation and physiological cues. What happened to putting in the work?
Where are the parents of these so-called victimized women who “can’t handle” dating men? Where are their fathers? Have they ever even tried to understand what a man needs in a relationship how to set boundaries and bring real value to each other? Of course not. Because, well, it’s too much emotional work to act like people and adults. Cuddling with a cellphone and raging against some trending social movement is easier. It’s more comfortable.
Speaking of comfortable, I guess I got too comfortable, and my dog just got out. And I’m not even looking for a date. I’m happily married! Gotta run!
That’s our 4 cents. Stay Classy!
Grainger & Karina Schneidman MBA, MS
Ferrara, A. P., & Vergara, D. P. (2024). Theorizing Mankeeping: The Male Friendship Recession and Women’s Associated Labor as a Structural Component of Gender Inequality. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 25(4), 391–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000494
Much of society is shouting that we need more male counselors. They desire more men, but not the masculinity that comes with them. So what’s the problem? Why aren’t there more male counselors? Let’s dig into that.
Recently, on a plane, a lady was getting frustrated with a 90-year-old man getting his bag down slowly. The old man looks to her and says, “I am not obliged to take part in your anxiety.” The whole plane smiled in relief.
We have all been around a Karen like this. And in public discourse, the fear in everyone was natural and expected. The relief was too. However, in professional walks of life, it is the opposite. You are vilified if you don’t affirm such anxiety.
Why in the professional setting and not normal discourse? One plausible explanation is that “professionals” believe they are smarter than those inferior beings not in professional settings. Another is the fear of liability. The backlash both professionally and personally is scary to many. Many are scared to death to hurt anyone’s feelings. But in everyday life this is not a fear.
My Experience in Counseling Training
I was in a group counseling class with other future licensed counselors. I led the very first group. Following the session, everyone else gave feedback. The feedback I received was all aimed at who I am, not what I did. It went something like this:
You are a man, so you need to be careful as a counselor.
Because you are a man, you are very intimidating
Men in counseling is not really a good thing, so I didn’t like the session
If you want to be a successful counselor, you need to act more like a woman.
I specifically requested behavioral examples. Some would be honest and say, “It’s not really what you did, more just who you are.” Some would say, “The way you spoke, you know, like a man, was scary.”
I realize that counseling is a feminine profession. But I must ask the question, why? Because men don’t communicate verbally? Because men don’t want counseling? Or is it because few care about issues with men, masculinity, or the stance that men can take care of themselves?
There may be another explanation. While in this class, I heard “I have 4 children and they all have ADHD and ASD!” She smiled and everyone looked excited and celebrated with her. I was almost shocked at the celebration of the two most over-diagnosed conditions in America. Both because we are celebrating dysfunction and because they are over-diagnosed. So the chances that they have an accurate diagnosis are very low. None of that mattered. Only affirmation and validation mattered. Another said, “Everyone needs therapy because everyone has trauma.” This was from a 22-year-old female who has no idea when and when not to talk. She never heard, “You have one mouth and two ears. So listen twice as much as you speak.” This girl got it backwards. And oh the wisdom coming from her lips. Again, everyone validated and affirmed. No one challenged either statement.
You might be thinking, “Why didn’t you challenge it?” Good question. Being a man, I am already at a disadvantage. We have already seen what these ladies really think about me. My challenge would go unheard, not welcomed, and met with vitriol. No male spoke up. They knew better. They saw what the psycho-Karen squad did to me. But I know this, men don’t easily affirm nonsensical lies. Men push back. Men are not afraid of confrontation and challenging. Therefore, a man would say, “Hey, did you know that the statistical likelihood of one mother having four children with ADHD and ASD is 0.7937% on a good day? And knowing it is severely over-diagnosed, the stats are probably much rarer than that?” But this wouldn’t serve the purpose of the counseling industry. To merely affirm and validate through femininity. Maybe, just maybe, this is why there aren’t more men in counseling.
Each day of this week-long intensive course, only feminine characteristics were celebrated. Masculinity was scorned as broken. The professor played a very sweet, soft, feminine worship song each day as class started. I realize that starting with worship is probably a good thing at a Christian school. It sets the tone. I get it. But every day? We get no strong, mighty songs? Why? The answer to all of the questions so far is simple. Men. Don’t. Matter.
As it stands, unless you are a very feminine man, it is an uphill climb. You are not wanted in the class among “professionals” or future professionals. You are not accepted for who you are. You are not welcome in psychological spaces. You are viewed as the one they must “tolerate” on their way to proper, soft, feminine, easily triggered, affirming of falsehoods, counseling. So you must know that it is a battle. It is not for the weak (Well, it kind of is, actually). If society is interested in doing something about the mental health epidemic among men, they have a weird way of showing it.
If there are to be more male counselors, we may have to attempt to provide an incentive for men to go through the difficult, arduous process of becoming a licensed counselor. We must welcome masculinity, as long as it is utilized correctly. We must be ok with challenge. The industry needs men for this very reason. We need more men that are willing to challenge falsehoods, present a masculine perspective, and be there for other men and boys in their crisis.
