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.
This aticle is written for Christians about Christians. If you do not share this fundamental belief, that is fine. Just know that this is the framework from which it is written.
Every parent most likely has had this happen. You are supposed to be at a certain place at a certain time to pick up your child. And you forget. It happened to me. I was supposed to get my daughter from school, and I forgot. I wasn’t running late or stuck in traffic. I forgot. My mind was stuck on the tasks at hand and it just slipped my mind. My daughter was just hanging out with the teachers by the car rider line. She began wondering if I was ever showing up. I finally get a call, “Dad, you coming to get me?” This is one of the worst feelings as a parent. For a couple of reasons. You feel stupid for forgetting your own child. But you also feel terrible for your child who probably is dealing with some sort of embarrassment that their own parent isn’t on time. She gets in the car, and I begin apologizing incessantly. She listens carefully. When I’m done groveling, she just smiles and says, “It’s ok dad, I know you didn’t mean to.” And now you feel worse!
This wasn’t the last time I would have to apologize to her and hope she forgave me. And she did, every time. I often wonder how it was so easy for her to forgive me. How did she cognitively understand the genuine sorrow I felt when I had to apologize? As an adult, I see the difficulties in accepting apologies. You wonder if it’s sincere. You wonder if it means you need to just trust them in the future, but you don’t think you can. You don’t want to get hurt again, so you keep them at bay.
There is a clear difference between human forgiveness and divine forgiveness. Divine forgiveness is unconditional and designed to restore. God forgave me in order to draw me back to Him. Human forgiveness is simply removing the burden. I can forgive someone who is deceased. Because with human forgiveness, there is only one necessary participant, me. Forgiveness requires only me, restoration requires two parties. I can forgive you and not want to restore to you. There are many valid reasons why someone might not want to restore to a previous relationship. But what should we do with those apologies when they show up?
John Crist
Comedian John Crist found himself on the wrong end of a scandal a few years ago. He had built a brand of being the Christian comedian. But his lifestyle was revealed to not align with Christian teachings and values. Crist went public with his apology. He was genuinely sorry for those he hurt along the way. He understood that, for better or worse, fans of a celebrity get hurt when that celebrity breaks the trust of the fanbase. Should they hold celebrities in such high esteem? No. But they do. And they get hurt in the process. I’ve been around celebrities my whole life and they are aware of that pressure. It is part of what makes their life somewhat lonely, in spite of what many think.
Following Crist’s apology, many came out destroying him online. Saying that he wasn’t truly sorry. Saying that it didn’t matter if he apologized, he’s still a monster. Saying that he can’t change and that he’ll always be evil. These were the sentiments of many. I watched the apology video. It seemed genuine. But to many, it didn’t matter. I wondered how many times he would have to say sorry before someone believed him. And why is it necessary to repeat himself?
Michael Tait
Insert Michael Tait. Allegations circulated of sexual misconduct by the Christian singer. This began in 2024. Then in January, Tait abruptly left Newsboys and somewhat disappeared. His statement has recently been released and we now know where he has been since January. Rehab. He was abusing alcohol and abusing illegal drugs on a regular basis. Primarily cocaine. He released a full statement of admission, shame, and sorrow. Towards the end of the statement, he made a very well put and fair assessment of reality:
“To the extent my sinful behavior has caused anyone to lose respect or faith in me, in understand, deserve, and accept that. But it crushes me to think that someone who would lose or choose not to pursue faith and trust in Jesus because I have been a horrible representative of Him- for He alone is ultimately the only hope for any of us.“
-Michael Tait
I’m not going to get into the fact that I knew more than 10 years ago that Tait was conducting himself this way. I’m not going to address why he felt it was ok to do so then. I’m also not going to minimize his struggles with sexual propriety. We all have our own struggles. My dad says, “I sin differently than you.”
The real question here is, when is an apology enough, and when is it not enough? John Crist was not found of any legal wrongdoing, but he still hurt many people emotionally. I have no idea what Tait’s legal troubles will be. But regardless, he has hurt many people. Do we accept Tait’s apology? If so, why? If not, why not?
My personal belief here is that we should accept his apology, in the context of what our Bible says about forgiveness, and in light of the aforementioned human forgiveness vs. divine forgiveness. We should take Tait at his word. We should allow him the room and time to heal. One may have no reason to ever want to listen to his music again or be his friend again. And that’s a personal decision. But that person still needs to forgive him and move on. Maybe we need to act like my 7-year-old and get better at forgiving.
He said he’s sorry. We have no reason to believe he’s being insincere. He should not have to repeat himself ad nauseum. He should simply show us that he has truly changed and let his life be an expression of such change. As Believers, we should extend the same grace we were given in our darkest moments. Hurt people hurt people. But forgiven people forgive people.
My brother told me a story about his son’s soccer league. They were 8-year-olds. His team did not win a game all season. They were simply the worst team in the league. At the end of the season, they received a trophy just for being in the league. As they were about to get into the car to leave the complex, my brother told his son to give him the trophy. After he did, my brother told him that he did not deserve this trophy and that he would throw it away when he got home. He explained to his son that when he earns praise, he will receive it. But he would not receive praise for doing nothing to earn it. His son understood and quickly moved on like it never happened. That response was only possible because the son had received praise when it was warranted prior to this conversation. So it was no big deal when dad removed what the son knew he didn’t deserve.
There is now 20 years of research that show that unearned praise is quite harmful to child development. We know that when children receive an award they deserved but learn that everyone received the same award, the value of the award is significantly diminished, if not destroyed. We now know that when children receive an award they did not deserve, they are more likely to suffer from depression as a consequence of the guilt and shame of unearned praise. This is a lose/lose situation.
There is now 20 years of research that show that unearned praise is quite harmful to child development. We know that when children receive an award they deserved but learn that everyone received the same award, the value of the award is significantly diminished, if not destroyed. We now know that when children receive an award they did not deserve, they are more likely to suffer from depression as a consequence of the guilt and shame of unearned praise. This is a lose/lose situation.
I have seen many teenagers struggling with the transition into adulthood, whether it’s college or right into the workforce. They arrive thinking they will have immediate impact and will not have to experience adversity. Things come fast for them. Want a date? Swipe right. Hungry? Doordash! Then when adversity happens, they miss a deadline and the boss is furious, or they turn in a paper late and think it’s ok but the professor knocks points off of their grade, they cannot figure it out. They had been celebrated for just existing. What changed? What changed was their parents aren’t there to save them and overprotect them anymore. They must now integrate into the real world. This serves no one.
Two Big Losers:
Lincoln
Lincoln’s losses (in chronological order): Lost his job early in adulthood. Was defeated for legislature. His business failed. His girlfriend died. Defeated for speaker, congress, then rejected for land officer. Defeated for US senate. Lost VP nomination. Defeated again for senate in 1858. In 1860, he becomes the 16th President of the United States. He then went on to become one of the most influential leaders in the history of the world. He lost, time and again, and was better for it.
Jordan
A young man in North Carolina tries out for his high school basketball team as a sophomore. He is cut from the team. He tries out again the next year and makes the team. Goes on to play at the University of North Carolina. Gets drafted by the Chicago Bulls and goes on to be the greatest basketball player of all time. Michael Jordan has been quoted as saying that he has missed over 300 possible game winning shots. He failed in baseball. But here he stands, the GOAT. His losses motivated him like no one else.
We should all be ok with losing. Losing does something in us that sticks with us. We rarely can remember all of the wins, but we can always remember the losses. Let’s look at benefits from losing.
7 Reasons to Be a Loser:
Growth. Once you lose, you begin to grow. You develop problem solving skills. Anger management skills. You begin seeing the possibilities out there and you become more competent.
Emotional Intelligence. Now that you’ve lost, there are a myriad of emotions you must deal with or they will destroy you. In dealing with them, you learn to become emotionally intelligent, which serves you, your family, and your community in the long run.
Resilience. Now that you’ve lost, grown, and experienced muiliple emotions, you now possess somewhat of an immunity to the devastation of losing. You grow resilient. Inoculation over isolation. You now know what it’s like. It didn’t kill you before, it won’t kill you now. You become stronger overnight.
Motivation. Now that you’ve gained some resilience in th face of adversity, you become movitated to overcome. Staying where you were is not an option. Losing again is off the table. You perfect your skills, making you more attractive to the job market and more beneficial to your community. This is where Jordan spent his time, allowing his losses to fuel him for the next game. He worked and worked until…
Success. Once the motivation kicks in, it almost certainly leads to success. This was the case for Jordan. And although it did not happen quickly, it eventually led to Lincoln’s success. It is hard to find someone who genuinely believes that Jordan and Lincoln weren’t two of the most successful people on the planet.
Progress > Perfection. Now your expectations are more realistic. You realize you won’t achieve perfection. But you can achieve progress. Becoming a better version of you today than you were tomorrow is all anyone can ever ask for. The progress comes through failure.
Identity. Now that you’ve experienced all that, you realize that failure is an event, not a person. You may have failed at something, but you aren’t a failure. That’s very different. With this realization, you can rest in the fact that you will try your best, win some, lose some, and never stop moving forward.
Here’s the thing, if all we ever do is coast through life winning, or at least not losing, we enter the real world completely unprepared for the adversity we are sure to face. In this context, losing isn’t only not a bad thing, it’s a good thing to lose. Parents, let your kids lose. Let them taste the “Agony of defeat.” Let them get their feelings hurt because they didn’t get a trophy. Though it is tough to see them struggle, it is a very beneficial long term strategy.
I have read the newest critiques of Jordan Peterson and his ill-advised appearance on 1 Christian vs. 20 Atheists on YouTube. Peterson was so vague in most of his responses that they had to change the name of the show to Jordan Peterson vs. 20 Atheists. Many came away with more questions than answers. Most who watched and commented on it were bemused by Peterson’s refusal to place a stake in the ground. One thing is certain, whoever had the idea to put Peterson on a show entitled 1 Christian vs 20 Atheists did not think that through. It was a terrible idea. Those on Peterson’s team who did nothing to stop it also need to be held accountable. So, to be fair, the criticisms of Peterson in these exchanges are warranted, albeit some felt invigorated to “take him down” as if their worth increased if they were able to successfully dismantle such a brilliant thinker. I have “taken down” a few people in discussions and felt no such invigoration. I felt sadness. And if you feel anything less than sorrow after ruining someone’s day, you should get that checked out.
Jordan Peterson on 1 Christian vs 20 Atheists
So what does Peterson really believe? It’s not as complicated as one might think. First, to know the answer to this, you must know his temperament and personality type. (I laid out a more broad interpretation of who Jordan Peterson is HERE. This post will hone in on spirituality)
He’s Agreeable
Peterson is an agreeable person who greatly dislikes conflict. I know what you thought, “He runs to conflict!” No, he doesn’t. He avoids it like the plague until he has weighed out the consequences of not saying something.
He started his intellectual journey studying the vilest characters of modern history. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, (The Deadly Trio). In this endeavor, he discovered that there were a couple of patterns to their success:
Lies. People were willing to tell lies incessantly and people were willing to blindly believe the lies. What the trio had in common was they were consistently selling lies that people were buying. As a result, Peterson always swore he would tell the truth at all costs.
Silence. For those who knew there were major problems with what was going on in their society, they were silent. Few spoke up. For obvious reasons. They feared being killed for speaking up.
Because of this, Peterson always maintained a position of saying what needs to be said to avoid catastrophic outcomes in the future by telling the truth. It’s even one of the points in both of his 12 Rules books: The first book, 12 Rules for Life, “Tell the Truth, or at least don’t lie.” The second book, Beyond Order, 12 More Rules for Life, “Do not hide unwanted things in the fog.” This explains his need to speak out in spite of his propensity to avoid confrontation. It also explains his willingness to find ways to agree on positions that many think shouldn’t fluctuate. And maybe they’re right. It may not excuse it, but it explains it.
He’s searching
As with most people who reach that place in life where the end looks closer than is used to, we hit this existential crisis of sorts and begin thinking of what it all means in the end. Peterson is there. He began learning more about the Christianity he was exposed to as a child. And in typical Peterson fashion, he made psychological connections that allowed him to process what he was reading. Everything had to have a psychological parallel for him to make sense of it. His seminar on Genesis, Exodus, and the Gospels all had psychological underpinnings which enabled him to competently ascertain the benefits of such a religion. He took it a step further and began to determine that it made more sense that Jesus was who he said he was, and that the resurrection happened than it did to deny it. Logically. Philosophically. Psychologically. He is in search. For the deepest possible meaning.
He’s Humble
It is noted by most everyone that he consistently avoids the direct question of his claiming to be a Christian. And I think I know why. Sure, he has fits of anger and has problems with certain confrontations. He only desires thoughtful debate, and in good faith. Chances are, he went into this YouTube special with a preconceived notion they were not doing this in good faith. Remember, these were probably some of the same people, or the same type of people that thrust him into the spotlight by attacking his positions on free speech back when he was at the University of Toronto. He was incredibly uncomfortable during that period of his life and very possibly harbors some resentment from that experience. So he may have underestimated the level of his PTSD going into this show. But at the end of the day, he is a humble human being. He does not think himself to be better than anyone simply because of his education or status. He desires for everyone to seek to be better versions of themselves each day. That’s all he really wants out of life.
His humility comes as a slight detriment to his current effectiveness in the public sphere. One would have needed to follow him for some time to see what is happening here. He is so humble, that he cannot wrap his head around the idea that God in all of his perfection can love and embrace someone like him. Peterson can’t fathom the idea that all of his failures, slips, thoughts, can be forgiven and wiped away by such an ineffable God. This is his struggle. He will not place the stake in the ground for fear that he can’t live up to it. He, like many academics have opened the door to Christianity by way of reason, intellectual exploration, and cognitive education. What they have all yet to do is walk through the door that was opened. They have stepped into the doorway through reason, but they still need to walk through the door with faith. And that’s where it gets murky. You can’t measure faith. And often, faith looks ridiculous.
Peterson was not the right guy to be doing that show on YouTube. Wesley Huff would have been much better. Peterson is still exploring. Spiritual exploration is messy. It’s murky. It’s plagued with confusion and even cognitive dissonance at times. But at the end of the day, Jordan Peterson wants what we all want. A thriving society of people acting in good faith and learning to become better versions of ourselves. He is peaking through the door of Christianity but still can’t fathom God being accepting of Jordan Peterson in all of his humanity. Therefore, he refuses to claim the tag “Christian.” It doesn’t excuse his inability to have civil discourse with people who disagree with him, but it does explain where he’s coming from. That’s the real Jordan Peterson.
Recently, I have been seeing more posts about patriarchy than I remember seeing in years past. It appears that in most societal circles, it is a foregone conclusion that patriarchy is evil and any forward-thinking non-neanderthal should already know this. So I looked into it. Why is it evil? Was it always evil? Is there a better option?
Definition
It is important to note the definition I will be using for this article. Patriarchy can be defined this way: A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family. There have been branches formed off of this from emotion and protest, but this is the original definition.
So then, what really is a patriarchy? According to the original definition, males lead their families. On the surface, this doesn’t sound so bad. Males are often natural leaders. Their innate ability to assess a crisis intervention with rationality, calmness, and refusal to allow emotion to inform his decision, makes men born leaders. Men have elevated levels of testosterone, which creates more muscle mass and bone density. As a result, men are more aggressive, risk more, are typically taller, faster, and stronger than women. Men go towards danger, rather than seek safety. It has been noted in literature that with sociological and psychological research on gender studies, the axiomatic presupposition is that real gender equality is logically and ontologically impossible.1 The argument made is that patriarchy worked for centuries utilizing the strengths of both genders, rather than an attempt at equality, which cannot become reality. Now before you get into the zero-sum argument, we will deal with that in a minute. And before you get into the “But you’re a man, of course you’d say that!” arguement, women who can see this objectively and set emotions aside are saying the same things this article proposes. You can find such ladies Here and Here.
Benefits
What we know from history on patriarchal societies is that it has been historically successful. We know this because major cultures that dominate much of the global landscape have patriarchal history. Even major religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism come from patriarchal cultures. The innerworkings of patriarchy are that it is child centered. It is based on evolutionary biology. Patriarchy is designed to produce children and raise them to contribute to society. Patriarchy is others-focused. It is a social system of survival. Based on matriarchal societies, we know that matriarchy is individual based. You take care of you. I will take care of me. And we can thrive as a society if everyone does their part.
What Went Wrong
Patriarchy is still not sounding too bad so far. But along the way, things changed. Hierarchies in general are flawed systems. Hierarchies often displace those at the lowest level of the hierarchy. This requires the people, not the state, to lift those from the bottom. Historically, when this is done, the patriarchy survives and offers its finest benefits. As with any hierarchy, it has the propensity to devolve into a power-based structure. This is the entire reason for the U.S. Constitution and amendments. The founders understood this propensity and created documents that were designed to keep such power in check. Prior to the abatement into power-based patriarchy, our country was thriving in most areas. When men began abusing their power, limiting social mobility in women, and refusing to acknowledge women’s God-given abilities and contributions to society, exacerbated by the Margaret Sanger(s) and Kate Millet(s) of the world, touting pluralism, anti-monogamy, and the open intent on destroying the family through actions like promiscuity and prostitution, patriarchy began giving society good reason to abhor its existence.
One study “proved” that there is a bias against women in hiring STEM positions.2 However, this study was done using a sample size of 127. When another group ran the exact same study using a sample size of 1016, they failed to replicate the findings and actually found the exact opposite: People were not biased against women in hiring for STEM, they were biased in favor of hiring women.3
Society spends a great deal of time concerned about the disadvantages girls have in math and science. This is in the face of stats showing us that boys’ disadvantages in reading are a much larger scale. In fact. In the average school, boys are almost an entire grade level behind girls in English.4 The gender gap in college enrollment is now wider than prior to Title IX in 1972, with only 42% of males earning degrees.
The effects of underrepresenting males in attention to health issues throughout society has cataclysmic effects. Among victims of Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH), approximately 75% are female and 25% are male. But try to remember the last time you heard someone suggest we need to address any males being victims of IPH. Yet they make up 1 out of every 4 victims.
Are men important? If you ask around, look around, you would think not. According to recent polling, both sexes think it’s worse for a husband than a wife to have an affair – the opposite of the traditional double standard. We talk often about more women’s health funding, breast cancer awareness, battered women, hiring biases against women, and rightfully so. But we rarely, if ever, hear ways society can help men who are struggling to the point of taking their own lives. Meanwhile, daughters of single parents without the father involved are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 71% more likely to have children as teenagers, and 92% more likely to get divorced.5
One group studied couples separated into two groups. One group, the husband worked full time and the other group, the husband worked part-time or not at all. They found that the couples where the husband worked part-time or not at all were significantly more likely to get divorced.6 However, when the study was turned towards wives, there was no correlation whatsoever in how much the wife worked and likelihoods of divorce. Why the correlation for husbands but not for wives? Men reported becoming depressed from not working and isolated themselves while simultaneously the wives were becoming less attracted to their husband because he wasn’t being productive. Meaning, men need to be productive. But men don’t want to be productive and mocked for it at the same time.
Where To Go From Here
Am I suggesting we should stop focusing on women’s issues and turn the attention to men? Absolutely not. I’ll let Dr. Richard Reeves say it best:
“Gender equality cannot be a zero-sum game. We can do more for boys and men without doing less for women and girls. We can be passionate about women’s rights, and compassionate toward the struggles of boys and men.”
-Dr. Richard Reeves, Of Boys and Men
As Dr. Steve Stewart-Williams pointed out, no one is asking for the spotlight to move from one group to another, we are merely asking that the spotlight shine on a broader population to include both genders.
What if patriarchy was used to serve others, care for others, and resist power dynamics? Would you be opposed to that system? Am I suggesting that patriarchy is the best thing available? No. I am suggesting that it is the least bad system available, and our nation’s history proves it. Only when men abused their power was it a problem. And women stood up to such abuse, rightfully so. This doesn’t diminish the potential that lies within men to lead their families, thus making men better versions of themselves, which helps their family, community, and society thrive. True patriarchy is servant leadership. It is possible. But it will never happen as long as we are in love with a vitriol-filled rage against all things male.
Stay Classy GP!
Grainger
1 Mushfequr Rahman, M. (2021). Why Society Needs Patriarchy: A Scientific and Social Justification. Social Sciences (New York, N.Y. Print), 10(5), 229. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20211005.14
2 Moss-Racusin, C., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109
3 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
4 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
5 Seidel, F. L. P. (2021). The proclivity of juvenile crime in fatherless homes: An urban perspective (Psy.D.). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2628794018).
6 Killewald, A. (2016). Money, Work, and Marital Stability: Assessing Change in the Gendered Determinants of Divorce. American Sociological Review, 81(4), 696–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416655340
So, ladies, who do you choose? If you choose the Olly Murs on the right (after), you are in the extreme minority. Yes, most women chose the Olly on the left (before). I conducted a small survey that reached just over 300 people. The results were polarized: 100% of the females chose the before Olly and 100% of the males chose the after Olly.
I’m not about to blow your mind with any radical insight, but I will let science and experience give us some intel on why most women choose the before Olly. When I showed this to my beautiful wife, who is a bit more visually inclined than the average female (you wouldn’t know it looking at my ugly self), she quickly said the before Olly was much better looking. But why? What’s even more bizarre is how every dude said the after Olly looked better. But why?
Why Did Men Choose After?
When men see the before Olly, they see a lazy guy who sits around and eats chips while others are working hard. He sees an apathetic lack of ambition. When men see the after Olly, they see success. They see achievement. Men see the after Olly as diligent and determined. They see one less thing for women to dislike them for. There is an approachability bias in society when it comes to gender differences in body image. What isn’t talked about much is the level of body dysmorphia and muscle dysmorphia1 among men. It’s higher than you realize. Body Dysmorphia Disorder (BDD) affects approximately 2.9% of the US population. Of that population, 60% are female and 40% are male. That equals to around 3.8M men and boys in America. It is traditionally understood that women have great support for each other in the area of BDD. Men, on the other hand, are afraid to even say it out loud for fear of being called weak. So, in order to avoid this, some work out until the feelings of BDD are gone.
That’s not the only explanation. Men also are hardwired to achieve. To hunt and gather. To protect. You can’t protect anyone if you’re weak. Men traditionally compete for resources, including, but not limited to, the attention of the most fertile women in the community. This is basic evolutionary biology. This may explain why men see the after Olly as better, but this does not explain women’s preferences. Women are generally more attracted to masculinity for protection, provision, and procreation. Evolutionarily speaking, this made sense. So why would 100% of women say that the before Olly was better looking?
Why Did Women Choose Before?
When you ask women this, the answers vary. Some say the after Olly looks aggressive. Some say he looks like he spends too much time in the gym and doesn’t have time for his other relationships, including romantic relationships. Some say that the before Olly looks warm, approachable, sweet, caring, humorous, and emotionally available. There are various explanations for this. Some women have been hurt by narcissistic men who care more about their image than their character. Some women have been abandoned when men go through a physical transition, giving them an aversion to an above average muscular physique.
Another explanation is that testosterone in men decreases when they get married.2 Their testosterone decreases again when they move into fatherhood.3 So, the before Olly looks more like a married father than the after Olly. Now couple that with the fact that, as Dr. Sarah E. Hill, PhD. has noted, women who are on the birth control pill desire a less masculine man. So women desire the man that isn’t slobby, but isn’t cut. They want the man that will meet their emotional needs before any physical needs. They desire a man that they don’t have to fear will display too much aggression.
Put this altogether, and you have some ideas as to why 100% of women said the before Olly was more attractive and 100% of men said the after Olly was more desireable. This is yet another display of just how vastly different the two genders are (yes, I said two). This gives me and my dad-bod some hope. Hope that my wife won’t find herself desiring the super-cut meathead at the gym anytime soon. Now, where did I put those chips?
Stay Classy GP!
Grainger
References
1 Phillipou, A., & Castle, D. (2015). Body dysmorphic disorder in men. Australian Family Physician, 44(11), 798–801.
2 Holmboe, S. A., Priskorn, L., Jørgensen, N., Skakkebaek, N. E., Linneberg, A., Juul, A., & Andersson, A. (2017). Influence of marital status on testosterone levels–A ten year follow-up of 1113 men. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 80, 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.03.010
3 Gettler, L. T., McDade, T. W., Feranil, A. B., & Kuzawa, C. W. (2011). Longitudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases testosterone in human males. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – PNAS, 108(39), 16194–16199. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1105403108
Look around the room you’re in. Go ahead. Look. Try to remember everything in the room that is black. Now close your eyes and recall everything you saw that was red. You can’t. Because you weren’t looking for red. You were looking for black. More about this in a moment.
I’ve been following Jordan Peterson for a few years now. And by following, I should say that I have watched the entire Exodus seminar and the Gospels seminar, as well as many hours of podcasts, YouTube clips, and his interviews on various shows and podcasts. So yeah, I’ve been going to Peterson academy for years before the institution opened. I’ve learned to understand him like an uncle that isn’t perfect but is pretty cool most of the time.
How He Got Here
Peterson came onto the public scene speaking out against a bill in Canada compelling speech. He spent many years studying the worst people in modern history, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. His conclusions were a) the thread of lies and b) not speaking up were constant in all three monsters. His primary argument to the bill was that it was one thing to place policy restrictions on speech, but it is an entirely different issue to compel speech. Telling someone what they must say was overboard, from his perspective. This led to an outcry from two directions. One group of people believed that because he did not want the government to have control of his tongue, this meant he was averse to trans issues and attacked him on social media for his stance. Another group felt that because he was standing on a principle of free speech, he was to be applauded and was supported on social media. This level of attention thrust him into the spotlight.
Fast forward and he has been evolving over time into more of a philosophical lecturer, calling young men to “Make their beds”. He dives into aspects of human behavior and how to maximize potential. He began lecturing around the world on issues of boundaries (12 rules for life) and aiming towards the ineffable transcendent as a deterministic view of beneficial outcome (We who wrestle with God). He sits down with other thinkers and sorts out issues of interest in a conversational style investigation. Anyone he thinks is interesting, he talks to them.
The Attacks
But here lately there is an assault on his cognitive abilities, genuine motivation, and his possible deterioration into a neonationalist position. The critique is that he has lost his mind. He is being accused of one-sided, tribalistic, psycho-babbling fury with no coherent thoughts or direction to his mental linguistic formulation. Some blame the detox from Benzos. Some blame being hired by the Daily Wire or his alignment with Joe Rogan. Some claim he is just getting old. But when I looked into the various critiques for merit, I saw a theme. Each person levying insults, disguised as concern, were openly anti-religion and anti-Zionist elitists.
My Personal Take on JBP
Peterson is certainly not without his faults. His speeches and his books are often hard to follow. I’ve read both of his 12 rules books and have begun the new book, We Who Wrestle with God, and chapters begin with a theme, tell a story or two, then leave that thought to chase another thought that sparked something in his mind. He eventually comes back to the original thought and makes it all join together somehow. I’m still not sure how he does it. But if you are looking for the brilliance in it, it is not difficult to find. If you are looking for psychobabble, that’s easy to find too. Remember, you weren’t looking for red, you were looking for black. His speeches are no different. Except, he is very open and honest about how his lectures will go. He states that each night, he starts with a single thought, then explores and investigates that thought in front of the audience. This can lend itself to a myriad of possibilities in thought. The people that pay for tickets to see him know this and enjoy watching this unfold. It relies on his brilliance. And we all just sit in awe. I have attended two and they did not disappoint.
He also talks way too much in his podcast interviews. He has someone on, asks them a question, and as they get part of the way into their response he jumps in and branches the conversation off into the thought that jumped into his head. Sometimes, the guest gets visibly frustrated. He does this more when it is a subject that irritates him, like gender-affirming care (As though that exists). So I get the frustration with his delivery and perceived unawareness, though he is aware he talks too much. But why the character attack?
True colors shine when he starts talking about religion or Israel. This is where the attacks are coming from. I recently read a Substack article destroying his character and there were 64 comments, which is a lot for Substack. Every single comment jumped on the hate train and most commenters included in their vitriol-filled response some vile disdain for Jewish people, Christians, and anyone who believes in anything beyond physical matter. If you want to piss these people off, start talking about “an ineffable, transcendent God of the Hebrews.”
Peterson’s Spiritual Journey
Jordan Peterson has clearly been on a personal religious journey for the last few years. Originally, his scientific brain would not allow such exploration. It was when he began to explore various religious texts for a deeper philosophical understanding of Being that he found himself challenged and intrigued. He landed on biblical texts as a personal preference, starting with a seminar on the book of Genesis. In the midst of this, he almost died, his wife almost died, and his daughter almost died. His wife had a religious experience and credited God with the blessing of living a longer life. Peterson and his daughter watched in awe. Peterson then explored the Exodus story. Then the Gospels. He began talking to people who were more knowledgeable about religious experience than he was. This was bound to bring out the hate, and it did. The obvious connection to Israel was his appreciation for religious Judaism. Peterson is going through self-discovery of spirituality in front of the world. And to me, it is fun to watch.
Conclusion
What I learned about Peterson before, and what I know about him now is that at the core of who he is, he wants individuals to be the best versions of themselves they can possibly be. He harbors no hate towards anyone. He processes everything from a psychological lens. It’s the only way he can comprehend it. He gets emotional about some things and loses track of the important parts of his position at times. But he only wants to help people be better versions of themselves. He has no desire to tell people what to do. And he believes firmly in standing up against outright lies, like sexual transitioning will fix one’s gender dysphoria. There is documented evidence that will not happen, and he is willing to say the hard part out loud.
So, like him or hate him, his intentions and motivations behind what he does and says are incredibly pure. His delivery is suspect at times. His insistence on oversharing can be off-putting. But his passion for truth, justice, wisdom, knowledge, and the betterment of all people cannot be overstated. He’s human. He’s imperfect. But he’s a pretty good human. Ok, now I need to go make my bed.
