Posted on

The Government is NEVER the Solution to Declining Birth Rates

I saw this post on FB and recognized that over 75,000 people had shared this, because of a feeling. That’s scary. The writer posed reasons for the decline in birth rates in America. They were drenched in emotions, had little verifiable insight, and could only propose the government as the solution. I’m still trying to recall the last time the federal government did something right. I’ve chosen to briefly address each point.

  1. Daycare often runs higher than rent. The daycare problem is real, particularly for mothers who made poor decisions or fathers who abandoned their family. It feels terrible to think about, truly. However, the solution to an emotional problem is never with an emotion. Policy must be made with objective eyes, refusing and denouncing empathy1 in the process, and considering the calculated costs for the majority. Head Start is a good example of this. When the program was investigated for efficacy, it was found that there were no actual benefits from the program.2 But when lawmakers attempted to remove the program to put the money towards a program that would work, other lawmakers just couldn’t bring themselves to remove it because of the internal guilt they felt for removing something that belonged to “The children.”
  2. That invisible spreadsheet moms are carrying around 24/7? You know, the one tracking school picture day, pediatrician appointments, whether there’s milk in the fridge, and what form needs signing for the field trip? Yeah, that. It’s exhausting. Motherhood (and fatherhood) is not for the weak. But the joy far outweighs the misery.3 Parenthood is for the sacrificial. Parenthood provides meaning for most. Parenthood helps most mature properly. It is a joy like no other. It isn’t easy. It isn’t always fun. But it is rewarding in a way that can’t be properly measured.
  3. People are also waiting longer to have kids. And not because they’re out partying until 3 a.m. They’re trying to get stable: financially, emotionally, professionally. It is true that people are waiting longer. This could be from multiple domains. The new stigmatized orientation of women staying home to raise children has pushed many into the workforce that wouldn’t otherwise choose to foster a career. It could be that men are maturing later and later than in years past.4 One reason I can personally point to is that the universities are teaching our youth to never have children, and if they do, wait until at least 40. Now why would anyone tell youth to never have children? Is there a correlation to the infection of overt Marxism in universities? The Marxism that was disgusted at the “Hallowed correlation between parent and child” and believed children should be property of the state in order to provide labor for communistic achievement? I tackle this in my post “My Time at Karl Marx University.”
  4. Let’s also not forget the joy that is our healthcare system. The U.S. has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. Fun! And we still don’t guarantee paid parental leave. The healthcare system is broken. The only guarantee one can have about the solution is that the government would NOT be a viable solution. The government is the worst run business on the planet. Healthcare should be privatized with oversight regulations. This is the only way to ensure high quality and low cost.
  5. And then there’s reproductive rights. When you restrict access to safe abortion and contraception, people respond by not taking chances. This may be my favorite. The suggestion here is that the solution to not having enough children is to have easier access to abort them. So being able to kill them easier will cause us to have more children? I’m not sure what to say to that. Also, there are 12 states with total bans on abortion and 10 states with no bans whatsoever.5 All put into place by elected leaders representing the people of the local area. The only change that was put in place via the Dobbs decision was to return the jurisdiction to the states, which is where it should have been the entire time.
  6. Climate anxiety is real, and not exactly a turn-on for family planning. Climate anxiety is real. That is true. But the evidence to justify climate anxiety is not real. Some people have a real fear of peanut butter sticking to the roof of their mouth, called arachibutyrophobia. That’s real to that person. But the evidence for peanut butter actually sticking to the roof of one’s mouth permanently is not real. Here again, we have a clash of feelings against facts. When considering policy, we cannot be caught up in the emotion of the moment. Policy must be thought out rationally and must benefit the majority, directly or indirectly.

The declines in birth rates are due to multiple sociological factors. The correlation to the decline can be found when the birth control pill came onto the scene. The pendulum swing from “Women should be stay-at-home mothers” to “Women should never be stay-at-home mothers” brought a new social pressure to work regardless of whether they wanted to or not. Women are under a new pressure. Work full time or you are a neanderthal, trad-wife sellout. The fact is, no one should be shamed for any personal decision they make. I make this argument with more clarity on this post (Shame on You).

Another correlation to the decline in birth rates is social media. The malevolence of algorithmic echo-chambers showing us only what they think we want to see, only what we agree with, and only what will make us even more furious than we were right before seeing it cannot be overemphasized. The world on social media looks scary. Unfortunately, it also looks nothing like the world outside. The world outside is full of good people doing good things for total strangers, not knowing how they voted, who they had sex with recently, or where they were from. I make a case for this on this post (Is it Live or is it Memorex?). The advent of social media and devices in our hands brought on more loneliness than society had ever seen, less personal engagement, and more depression and anxiety than the world had ever seen.

If we want to see a return in the birth rates, we must destigmatize women staying home to raise children, boys must become men sooner, and both should make better decisions about their future. The Brookings Institute studied this and found that if youth would do three things, they would move from lower class to middle class: Graduate high school with a diploma, get a full time job, and wait to have children until after they have married beyond age 21.6 The government will NEVER be the right answer. Unless the question is, “How do we instill Marxism so that we can make children belong to the state, take from one group against their will and give to another group, and centralize all power in a reductionist form to the equivalent of an oligarchy?” Then yes, the government would be the answer to that.

Better education empowering healthy decision-making for youth is the answer, not the government.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

1 Buffone, A. E. K., & Poulin, M. J. (2014). Empathy, Target Distress, and Neurohormone Genes Interact to Predict Aggression for Others–Even Without Provocation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(11), 1406; 1406–1422; 1422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214549320

2 Shapiro, G., Broene, P., Jenkins, F., Fletcher, P., Quinn, L., Friedman, J., Ciarico, J., Rohacek, M., Adams, G., & Spier, E. (2010). Head start impact study

3 Nelson, S. K., Kushlev, K., English, T., Dunn, E. W., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). In Defense of Parenthood: Children Are Associated With More Joy Than Misery. Psychological Science, 24(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612447798

4 Twenge, J. M., & Park, H. (2019). The Decline in Adult Activities Among U.S. Adolescents, 1976-2016. Child Development, 90(2), 638–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12930

5 https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-abortion-bans#:~:text=shortly%20after%20birth.-,Highlights,bans%20based%20on%20gestational%20duration.

6 Brookings institute Ron Haskins, “Three Simple Rules Poor Teens Should Follow to Join the Middle Class”, Brookings Institute (March 2013), https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class

Posted on

The Masculine Replacement Theory

The Failed Experiment of Removing Strong Men From Society

I recently read a total hit piece on men. The author was the business name. As I was reading, it was blatantly obvious it was written by a woman, without even knowing the name of the author. No male would have ever written something this far-reaching and full of lies. Before I continue, this publication does great work in the field of gender and has written great pieces about the truth about gender that aren’t very popular in academia, university, and mainstream media. She just reached for something to grab a hold of in the category of why men are taking women’s spaces as it relates to gender… and missed. The writer proposed an Entitled Displacement Theory, which seeks to understand men through the lens of Margaret Sanger1, if you’re asking me. The writer made several points. I’ll respond to each one.Subscribed

1. All men feel they lost status dominance. This is a collapse of traditional male hierarchies. Most men do not care about status dominance in reference to women. Men, per research2, care about status among other men. This is basic evolutionary psychology. A male hierarchy (patriarchy) is not a bad thing. Only if it devolves into being based on power is it a bad thing. Until then, it is a very solid, fruitful, thriving entity. Have men abused this in the past? Absolutely. Do most men abuse it now? Not even close.

2. Manosphere: online grievances. statements like “women don’t want nice guys anymore”, “modern women are hypergamous and selfish”, and “feminism has destroyed family values” may or may not be a neutral observation but it is definitely not a “battle cry for a return to dominance through manipulation, withdrawal and outright hostility.” They are true statements based on observation. Society is now recognizing that the idea of “toxic masculinity”, emasculation, and the wussification of men was a failed experiment. Most men knew it would fail. But we just waited for society to catch up. Weak men are of no use to society. Men are biologically designed to protect and provide (at least help provide).3 This is seen in the biological shifts that happen post puberty. Men get stronger, bigger, and even more prone to risk and exploration. This was nature’s design. Men were (are) to go out and find food, protect the family from an external threat, and women were (are) designed to protect the children from themselves and internal threats, like sickness. Again, evolutionary biology has a lot to say about this. Have men abused this in the past? Absolutely. Do most men abuse it now? Not even close.

3. Autogynephilia as a way to make more money and regain dominance. This “psychotherapist” either has no male clients or very weak, spineless clients. Men who suffer from autogynephilia are not even thinking about money. In fact, I would surmise that most men who suffer from autogynephilia probably struggle to manage their finances well. This hypothesis is based on personality traits that are commonly found in those with autogynephilia and their proclivities towards an aversion to conscientiousness (a diligent, dutiful person), which is the primary predictor of success. Yes, some successful men suffer from autogynephilia. Among those, the primary issues include ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences), or an adult relationship that has been traumatic. Not money or power.

4. Misogyny as inclusion. I can agree that men do not belong in women’s spaces. I cannot agree with this post on why. Straight men do not want to erase women. I don’t think gay men do either. Gay and straight men have different motivations for loving women. The males who find it appropriate to invade women’s spaces, sports, prisons, bathrooms, are also suffering. It is typically either autogynephilia or gender dysphoria (GD). These men do not even come close to representing most men. What they do represent is a small group of loud activists who pulled at the heartstrings of those that cannot separate empathy from good judgment and are unwilling to draw a line between good and bad, right and wrong, for fear that they hurt someone’s feelings and may cause a two part reaction, a) they feel bad for causing the negative emotion among the sufferer and b) they are forced to deal with their own self-guilt for existing (usually existing as a straight, white, far-left female). There’s research4 on this too. Wanting to invade women’s spaces is not misogyny, it’s sickness and unresolved trauma committed by an extreme minority of men.

5. Narcissistic collapse and identity invasion: “If I can’t own her, I’ll become her to take back my dominance over her.” I debated on even giving this any attention due to the severely preposterous nature of the claim. Most men do not want to own anyone. I mean, do I have to elaborate on this for someone with common sense and sufficient comprehension of social adequacies?

The feminist response was “fight back.” Fight back against what, exactly? In our country, women have complete power over the bedroom in relationships. In America, most nurses are female.5 Most teachers6 and assistant professors7 are female. Most people attending college are females.8 Conversely, most people dropping out of high school9 and college10 are males. Most (94%) prison inmates are males.11 Most lonely12 people are male. Most people successfully committing suicide are male.13 What other catastrophic demise among the male population would you like to see in order to have successfully fought back against men who are trying to find their place in a society where men are undervalued, mocked for being male, and are receivers of misinformed vitriol merely for being masculine?

As it currently stands, women are tired of nice guys because nice guys aren’t strong guys. The utmost virtue in a man is that he is capable of fierce danger but has the wisdom to know when to use it. Modern women are selfish in some ways, but not in all ways. And feminism has destroyed family values. Because feminism does not want equality, it wants superiority, “We were oppressed, now it’s your turn!”

Did men cause the rise of the feminist movement? Yes. Did they abuse the fact that they are bigger and stronger? Yes. Did this cause a seismic shift in gender roles? Yes. Did society overcorrect due to emotional dysregulation that never was dealt with, absolutely.

So where should we be on the spectrum of possible gender neutrality? The first and best place to start is to allow men to be men. Allow them to open doors, pull out your seat, and serve you like you are the queen they always wanted. Allow men to risk. Simultaneously, men should look for the qualities in women and let them flourish rather than mock them or suppress them. The answer to the issues mentioned in the male-hit-piece is not to apply an exaggerated reductionist viewpoint of “evil man want power”, otherwise known as the Masculine Replacement Theory. But rather the answer is to foster a conversation on how both can see the other side, deal with the ACEs, the emotional baggage that brings on autogynephilia and GD, and the misunderstanding that men want power. Men want to be respected and needed. That’s about it. Men struggle to understand why a woman can say they are upset but not know why while women are perplexed as to how a man can be sitting calmy, thinking of absolutely nothing. The lack of understanding is causing both the male-haters club to continue and the feminists who write hit pieces like this to have a crowd. No, men do not want dominance, control, money, or unrestrained power. They want to be appreciated for who they are rather than being attacked for it. Men and women should work to appreciate the difference in each other and utilize them to our collective benefit, not looking for reasons to exacerbate the division.

1 Kengor, P. (2015). Takedown (1st ed.). WND Books.

2 Bleidorn, W., Arslan, R. C., Denissen, J. J. A., Rentfrow, P. J., Gebauer, J. E., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2016). Age and gender differences in self-esteem—A cross-cultural window. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 396–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000078

3 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

4 Napier, J. L., & Jost, J. T. (2008). Why Are Conservatives Happier than Liberals? Psychological Science, 19(6), 565–572. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40064955

5 https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/08/your-health-care-in-womens-hands.html

6 https://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/hidden-bias#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20National%20Center%20for%20Education,recent%20year%20for%20which%20there%20is%20data.

7 https://www.tiaa.org/content/dam/tiaa/institute/pdf/insights-report/2023-03/tiaa-institute-a-path-toward-equity-for-women-faculty-wvoee-colby-bai-march-2023.pdf

8 https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98#:~:text=See%20Digest%20of%20Education%20Statistics,percent%20(6.5%20million%20students).

9 https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb//population/qa01503.asp?qaDate=2018#:~:text=The%20status%20dropout%20rate%20in,its%20lowest%20level%20since%201975.

10 https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/18/fewer-young-men-are-in-college-especially-at-4-year-schools/

11 https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp

12 https://www.phillyvoice.com/mens-health-loneliness-epidemic-relationships/#:~:text=The%20loneliness%20epidemic%20acknowledged%20by,to%20seek%20help%20than%20women.

13 Murphy, G. E. (1998). Why women are less likely than men to commit suicide. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 39(4), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-440X(98)90057-8

Posted on

Inoculation > Isolation

I’ll never forget the story I once heard Christine Caine tell about sending her daughter to kindergarten. She comes home from her first day and she’s crying. Some boy called her stupid and it hurt her feelings. Caine’s husband sits her down and says, “Let me tell you what I think. I think you’re very smart. And I think you’re very beautiful, just like your mom.”

The next day she comes home from school with a smile on her face and says, “Hey mom, that boy tried to call me stupid today and I told him that he’s wrong because my dad says I’m smart. Then he tried to call me ugly and I told him he was wrong about that too because my dad said I’m beautiful just like you, mommy!”Subscribed

The little girl was almost elated to tell this story. Why? Because she realized she had an antidote for vitriol. She had a way to fight back and win. She was armed with the necessary tools to withstand great adversity (for a 5-year-old).

Caine told that story to point out that sometimes we need to remember what our Heavenly Father says about us when the lies from the world start creeping into our minds. And that’s so true. I’m going to take a slightly different angle here.

To me this screams inoculation over isolation (I must give credit where credit is due. I read that phrase in an article by Dr. Steve Stewart-Williams. He is an accomplished psychologist and author). If she had never heard those words from that boy, she would’ve gone through time having been shielded and not having built a resistance to hurtful words. By that point, she would have built up this unrealistic notion that people don’t say hurtful things to each other and once this hurtful rhetoric is encountered after years of believing it didn’t exist, the let down is significantly stronger than it would have been if she’d learned it sooner. This would have caused greater stress.

As it stands, she learned it early. And was able to apply what she learned the very next day. The feeling that came over her in the wake of this new empowerment was driven by dopamine (the proper amount) and a sense of self achievement, self-efficacy, and proper cognitive alignment as it pertains to her identity.

This is what has crippled an entire generation. Mom and dad bubble-wrapped them and when they entered the real world and found out they really weren’t that special, it wrecked them, thinking it was certainly their fault. They had been able to make mom and dad happy and now somehow, they can’t impress certain people, like the professor or the new boss… “What’s wrong with me?!”

Keeping children isolated from what the world offers is the wrong way to go about it. It only delays the inevitable and causes more pain than if they’d learned it sooner.

It reminds me of a client Dr. Jordan Peterson had who came in and could not overcome certain hurdles in life. She was in her late 20’s and was dealing with issues like not being able to finish college. Couldn’t keep a job. Couldn’t set boundaries with her stepmom. Somewhere in the conversation Peterson noticed that she couldn’t wrap her head around the idea of death, animals being used for food, and the processes of both. It was just too much. Peterson immediately knew what to do.

He asked her to go to a butcher’s shop with him. She needed to see the meat hanging. She needed to know what was out there. Exposure therapy. They went. She cried after walking 5 feet into the shop. So they left. They went back again. This time she stayed and touched the meat to gain a realistic acknowledgment of what she was witnessing.

At their next session, she asked to go to a slaughterhouse. She wanted to gain a deeper understanding. This blew Peterson’s mind. This someone who could barely think of the idea, much less someone who would willingly attend something of this nature. Dr. Peterson couldn’t arrange that but was able to get into a funeral home where they were embalming a body. So they went. Again, it was hard to watch. But she did.

What happened next was amazing. She finished college. Got the career she wanted. Made a phone call and drew a healthy boundary with her stepmom. Everything fell in line. Now that she knew what the world actually had to offer, she was able to properly assess where she stood in the hierarchy of achievement.

When I was a child, my mom didn’t see how long she could keep me away from chicken pox, she gave me an inoculation so that my system knew what it looked like in order to fight it later.

If we wait to allow them to see what the world has to offer, they won’t have the luxury of learning this under our guide as parents and instead learn the truth of the matter and coping mechanisms from those they are around, which may or may not be beneficial. The child is much better off learning the truth of the world while they can ask you about it rather than asking their dorm roommate who may use unhealthy coping mechanisms.

Our children don’t need isolation. They need inoculation. Don’t hold all the information back. Of course I’m speaking of age-appropriate info. We don’t need to let a 5-year-old in on the mental issues of a psychopathic narcissist that murdered his wife and children. But they do need to be placed in a situation where they can hear hard things for their age and know that if little Johnny says something that doesn’t line up with what mom and dad said, they can trust you and no longer need to acknowledge little Johnny’s rhetoric.

Inoculate. Don’t isolate.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Dopamine

Watching tv in the morning while getting ready for work? Listening to music when you get bored? Watch tv as soon as you get home from work? Watch tv to go to bed? Sleep with the tv on? Can’t have any amount of silence? Dopamine is mostly the culprit. Well, mismanagement of dopamine.

One aspect worth noting is that for some, not being able to sit in silence is related to being left with one’s thoughts. This sometimes stems from ACEs (adverse childhood experiences) that were never dealt with. As soon as it gets silent, those memories start coming back, so we look for noise to drown it out. The problem is it never goes away until we actually deal with it.

So why is it a big deal that we have tv on all the time? One reason is that if we are trying to sleep, the tv prevents us from going into REM sleep. Another is the brain needs more and more dopamine to reach balanced levels.

Dopamine was designed to be released in doses apropos to the stated goal. Too much or too little and things go bad.

A research study was done on rats and dopamine. They successfully muted or deactivated the part of the brain in the rat that produces dopamine. Then they put a piece of cheese about 6 inches in front of it. The rat starved to death. There was no system of pursuit in the rat. So we need dopamine to survive.

However, too much is just as bad. When we get hits of dopamine from things that cause us to produce massive amounts at once, it overloads our system. Things like TV (studies show that the brain is at its lowest functioning when watching tv and listening to college lectures), smart phones, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, chocolate (anything with lots of processed sugar), porn, the list goes on.

This is where homeostasis kicks in. Our body is meant to be in balance. So when our brain gets overloaded by dopamine because we turned the tv on, the synapses shut down and stop allowing dopamine to travel from neuron to neuron. The only medicine… is more dopamine. So when we turn the tv off, our brain says “NO! I need stimuli right now!!!” This is because your brain is mislead into thinking you are lacking dopamine all because it took in too much dopamine and your body’s attempt at homeostasis is sending mixed signals. This is the literal reason for addiction.

I’m not suggesting that tv is bad, that background noise is bad, that listening to music when you’re bored is bad. I’m only suggesting that if the intake of those things appears to be out of balance and there’s no possibility of silence without a disruption in your mental state, you may not be living your best life.

So what now? Dopamine fast. More on that later. But it is a thing. After that, we monitor our dopamine intake carefully to ensure we don’t overload. Knowing is one step closer to making it a possibility.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

10 Truths to Live By

I have had a couple of people that I hold in high regard recently all but chastise me, citing that there is no one way to do certain things and there’s no right way or wrong way to do other things. What those are will be for another day. Today I’ll list 10 verifiable, objective truths that everyone on planet earth could and should live by.

1. One should always aim high enough that the goal is unachievable while simultaneously making one better for taking steps towards such an ineffable aim. When you take one step towards the highest aim, the dopaminergic system kicks in and rewards you for doing so.

2. What one aims towards should never be another human being and should always be greater than anyone on earth, as people will let you down at some point. One must aim towards one that will never let you down. Aristotle once said:

Everything that is in motion was moved by another being in motion, but that this could not have begun by anything in motion. The very beginning of motion had to have been started by an eternal unmoved mover.

This is where our aim should be.

3. Anything you do for a child that the child is capable of doing for themselves has just delayed the development of that child in that area. Resilience and achievement are pillars for human flourishing.

4. Suicide is always preceded by isolation. We are social beings. The only thing that prevents us from becoming mentally insane is meaningful social interaction.

5. The greatest meaning in life is found at the crossroads of order and chaos. The greatest meaning for a man can be found at the intersection of productivity and generosity.

6. Life is about the journey. Not the destination. The destination takes care of itself through the manifestation of the journey’s steps.

7. To truly find meaning in life, make your life about others. Stop focusing on you and focus on others.

8. For children, self esteem is not the primary goal, but rather the secondary byproduct of the goal. If self esteem is the goal to aim for, it will be attained falsely and will not sustain without manufactured achievement. If personal self-achievement is the goal, self esteem is obtained through the successful merit of such achievements. Self esteem is the result of something else, not the primary goal.

9. If you marry because you feel love for the other person, you will divorce because you no longer feel love for them. The reason for marriage must reside on a much more sustainable foundation of compatibility, reaching beyond the fleeting nature of feelings into the cognitive process of knowing this person is right for you and you are right for this person, even and especially when times get difficult.

10. Pineapple ruins pizza (Ok. I had to put one funny note in here. But really, yuck. Don’t do that).

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

#notadragqueen

The issue of sexual misconduct is a dark subject. No one wants to hear about how awful some people can be. The primary distinction between sexual crimes and other dark and evil crimes is that it is done in secret. When one commits murder, there is open proof that a crime has been committed. When one steals, there is also proof. When one commits a sexual crime, they do so, often with a calculated, premeditated approach to ensure the victim does not reveal the crime nor the perpetrator. This is mostly done by scaring the victim into believing something very bad will happen if they reveal this dark information. Sexual crime is a secret crime. Sexual predators can continue their crime and often there is no open evidence of a crime having been committed.

This type of hidden malevolence invites any type of individual, not just the typical criminal. In murders, there are all types, but the most common are those killing for passion, status, or an addiction. These killings involve types. In theft, it is often for the same reasons. Also, these criminals have types. Usually, they are not the type of person that has a positive reputation, a job that requires a background check, and a close direct tie to their community and family they grew up around. Sexual predators do not have a type. It could literally be anybody. They can hide behind their perfect family, their cub scout leadership status, their money, and even their position at a church.

Before I go any further, it needs to be made abundantly clear, I despise sexual predators. They ruin entire lives, even if they don’t murder their victims after their sexual crime. The damage they do is lifelong and though it can be healed, the victim is never truly the same. Now that this is clearly established, let’s address the pendulum swing.

Many supporters of drag queens performing in libraries have decided to call out the hypocrisy of clergy committing sexual crimes. More about that in a minute. For now, let’s talk about children in libraries. There has been an attempt by parents to not allow drag shows to be performed in public places, particularly where children will be, like a library. First, the issue is not of hate, or even judgment. The issue surrounds children and their proper development. For centuries, we have known that children need to be exposed only to that which fits their current developmental stage. This exposure expands as they get more mature. But for some reason, there are a group of people that have decided that this exposure is perfectly acceptable for small children. The idea that someone with autogynephilia or gender dysphoria might have their feelings hurt is enough to risk the development of an innocent child. That is a problem.

Here’s also where part of the problem is: imposition. For decades now, many have been averse to the Christian religion, citing that they continue to impose their beliefs onto American society. Every time someone wants the Ten Commandments up in a public courthouse, they cry foul for reasons of imposition. This is where it gets quite hypocritical. Now, the T in LGBT wants to impose their beliefs onto our children. I know people in each letter. And I can assure you that the Ls, Gs and Bs do not impose their lifestyle on my children. But the Ts are certainly trying. Here’s what parents are truly saying, We want you to be happy in your lifestyle. We want you to love the way you wish to love. We just want you to honor and acknowledge centuries of child development understanding, and conduct your sexual life behind closed doors, or at least among consenting adults. Children do not belong in rated PG-13 movies, much less sexually charged dance shows. Do what you want, just leave our kids out of it. But there’s a new issue.

The hashtag “#notadragqueen” has become wildly popular lately. This is primarily concerning Christian clergy who have committed some form of sexual criminal activity. The sarcastic slogan basically suggests, “It may be a dark sexual crime against children, but at least it’s not a drag queen!” Or “This crime was not committed by a drag queen.” Obviously, this is intellectually dishonest. No one endorses sexual crimes against children… anywhere in the world. No one approves of anyone, especially someone in a place of power and influence, committing sick atrocities against children. But the hashtag suggests something more serious, it suggests an epidemic of sorts. Is it an epidemic? Are all pastors doing this? Well, let’s look at the numbers.

In America there are approximately 465,000 ministers, pastors, priests in America. What percentage of these clergymen do you think are committing these sexual crimes? If you said .001%, you’d be wrong. That’s too high. There have been approximately 7000 allegations of sexual abuse from a clergy member in America over the last 20 years, approximately 350 per year (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2007). In 2022, there were 10 pastors in Texas charged with child abuse. If you applied that number to all 50 states, there would have been 500 charges that year. This still equals .001%. This means, that using the highest year of sexual crimes committed by clergy, 464,500 members of clergy each year were doing the right thing, helping those they loved, honoring their commitment to God and God’s people, loving people where they are, sacrificing their lives to ensure those they serve are helped, and being attacked for doing so by people that simply don’t understand the life of a pastor.

But why pastors? Why leaders who preach against this? And why does it seem like it happens all the time? The reason it appears to happen all of the time is the media. The media covers it because it is an easy target. They don’t report that 21% of transgender women (men with gender dysphoria (GD): DSM-V, section II, vi, page 1059) spend time in prison (Movement Advancement Project). That’s an estimated 220,000 people in the US. They won’t report that over 70% of transgender prisoners in British jails are serving sentences for sexual and/or violent crimes (Rayment, S., The Telegraph, “More than 70 per cent of transgender prisoners in British jails are serving sentences for sex offences and violent crimes, February 2024). You will not see a report that says on average, 1 in 424 transgender women (again, men with GD) have been convicted of a sexual crime in the UK and New Zealand. I’m not suggesting that all drag queens suffer from GD, but almost all either do suffer from GD or autogynephilia.

I’m not suggesting that one is better than the other. They’re both awful. But the numbers on clergy don’t suggest an epidemic. To ensure I’m not letting the pastors off the hook, one of the primary reasons they are so prone to this is what I mentioned at the beginning of this article, secrecy. It is a hidden crime. They don’t deal with their issues because it will cause their power and status to come into question, so they commit a private, secret crime. There is never a reason that will be satisfactory to commit a sexual crime of any kind, especially against children. But for the T community to suggest that there is a huge problem with ministers committing sexual crimes against children (7000 over 20 years) without glancing into the mirror (220,000) is the literal definition of hypocrisy.

Most pastors are doing it right. Most are not predators. A very small number (<.001%) of sick miscreants do not represent an entire occupation. So while #notadragqueen is cute, gets emotions stirred up, and sends a virtuous signal that they possess moral superiority, this is #notarepresentationofchristian either. It’s just a small subset of sick people doing sick things.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Does Empathy Equal Morality?

Empathy: Is it a good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing? Does being high in empathy make you a good person and does being low in empathy make you a bad person? Good questions. We turn to research to find the answer.

Turns out, the answer is actually that empathy is not moral or immoral, rather it is amoral. It’s just a thing. It does not make you a good person to have a lot or a bad person to have little. There is no such connection.

In a 2014 paper for the Psychological Bulletin, researchers reviewed all available data on this subject in a meta-analysis and found that 1% of the variation of aggression was due to lack of empathy. There is no real correlation to low empathy making you a bad person.

Studies show that when “spotlighting” one through empathy, one is willing to disregard laws, ethics, morals, and good reasoning to make sure the one they’re empathizing with is taken care of. This clearly clouds our judgement.

Participants in one study were willing to move one subject up in the list of transplants, even if it meant there was a good chance the subject would still live and a good chance the ones she skipped would die. It didn’t matter. Participants had empathy.

Another study took it another step and participants were willing to inflict pain that could result in hospitalization on a math contest participant that was opposing the one they were empathizing with. Didn’t matter. Gotta empathize.

You can only empathize with one person at a time. You can sympathize with many and have compassion for many. But you can only empathize with one at a time. This is why it is so dangerous.

Is it all bad? No. Cognitive empathy, theory of mind, and effective altruism are all ways in which empathy can be a good thing. We can allow it to drive us in a good direction but empathy must be met with analytic and altruistic reasoning that calibrates the possible upcoming action for effectiveness and realistic achievement. Understanding where someone is and how they are feeling is a good thing. When it propels us into unfettered, unbridled, blind action is when it becomes a problem.

Compassion is the best emotion to feel for those suffering. It is a true feeling that keeps bad decisions at bay long enough for your prefrontal cortex to get involved and make a rational decision. Rational compassion.

So, please remember this when you begin hearing people claiming empathy is the one all encompassing path to morality and goodness. It is FAR from that. On a good day.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Where is the Middle?

Where is the middle?

I’ll start walking your way, you start walking mine…

I heard the story of girls in college who were roommates. The four of them were eating dinner and the conversation turned to politics. One girl said to one other girl, “You can’t be part of this discussion because the three of us are not on your side. We are on the other side.” This was brought to my attention because I know some of them. My immediate response was, “Why is there a ‘side’?” But really, why does there have to be a side? This isn’t a new problem.

There we were, people were willingly losing lifelong friends in the name of “Their team.” The entire first term of Trump and the entire time Biden was in office, this permeated throughout society. Biden and his team were making claims that no one consciously believed to be true. Men were not having babies. But this was being said by very important people that were believed to be smart. But this is what one “side” was saying. The more the conspiracy theories became true, people began questioning what a conspiracy theory really was.

Then comes Trump for a second term. Trump could announce that he will dedicate a state park and include outstanding black men and women in American history and someone would still find a way to hate him. In fact, he did just that! Notable black people in American history, like MLK Jr., Fredrick Douglas, Muhammed Ali, Harriet Tubman, and many more, will be honored by this new park. But it will somehow become a bad thing. Why? Because we can’t find the middle.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner speaks as President Donald Trump and Tiger Woods listen during a reception for Black History Month in the East Room of the White House Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025. AP/PTI(AP02_21_2025_000007B)

What does the middle look like?

It probably looks like a place where I get to think for myself. If I like Trump more than Harris, and I vote for Trump, then he renames the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, I can think for myself and come to the conclusion that this was one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen a president do. The middle is also a place where I can acknowledge that one the best moments of the Biden administration was when they began making steady moves towards bringing mental health to a place where it is recognized similarly to physical health, in the way of insurance coverage and medical recognition. It is being normalized by the medical society and subsequently helping save lives every day. This was because of the Biden administration.

If I loved Biden/Harris and despised Trump, the middle would look like a place where I could acknowledge that the insanity of claiming men can have babies and that anything non-white is good must cease if we are to move forward as a country. In the middle, I could despise the things that Trump says, enjoy the things that Biden or Harris say, and still recognize that both Trump and Biden gained the most financially from the production of covid vaccines. In the middle, I could see that while Biden was my choice for president, He changed the catch and release program from release back to Mexico awaiting trial to release into America while awaiting trial, causing there to be less actual trials for asylum seekers than ever before. I could recognize that the First Step Act enacted during Trump’s first term released over 1000 black men on day one of the implementation, and that this is a great thing. I could acknowledge that one is my president but call him out when he makes a bad decision. Because in the middle, I am my own person.

We have this terrible tendency to look at politics in much the same way we do sports. There is a binary way of thinking. Me against you. One way or the other way. Good verse bad. In sports, it is my team against your team. The problem with this analogy is that, in sports, when the Eagles beat the Chiefs in the Super Bowl, America still won. When one part of America defeats another part, nobody wins. We become the divided states of America.

We find ourselves looking at the middle as if it is a severe compromise that denigrates our own conceptualization of what is right and wrong, causing us to combat such cognitive dissonance with blind fervor in an effort to retain what’s left of being right, regardless of whether we are right or not. This perception of the middle is a very nihilistic and produces nothing good. We would rather hang on to wrong information than accept that fact that we could be wrong and welcome new correct information. James Baldwin once said,

“I imagine one of the reasons people cling to hate so stubbornly is because they sense, once the hate is gone, they will be forced to deal with the pain.”

So what happened to the middle?

Well, it moved. If you found yourself just slightly to the left of the middle 10 years ago, it is now moved to your left. You are now slightly right of the middle. How did that happen? Each group pulled to the outer realms of their beliefs. The right pulled towards the far right and the left pulled to the far left. The results were that the left pulled stronger. How did that happen? Negative emotions. Studies show that when an emotion is tied to an event, you are far more likely to remember it, especially if it is a negative emotion (Kensinger, 2009). This is because during episodic encoding and retrieval, neurologically encoding negative emotions involves the sensory systems of process and positive emotions involve conceptual processes. So when something good happens, we see it from a conceptual framing, as if it contributes to the overall existential congruence we hoped for. But when something negative happens, it catches all of our senses, particularly sight, feeling, and hearing, which is directly involved in the release of cortisol.

Why is this relevant to the left pulling stronger?

Because the left are typically the ones responsible for suggesting new ideas to replace old broken ones. This is vital to our country’s success. However, this usually involves being emotionally tied to a negative situation where there needs to be a new policy or a changed policy. So they feel strongly about a situation and begin acting on this negative emotion. This activates the sensory system and gets emotions directly involved, which studies show can severely cloud good judgment. That’s where conservatives come in. Conservatives’ job is to address the new suggestions from a more analytical approach. So when the pulling began, the emotional ties to policies were stronger than the conceptual ties to policy. Thus, the left pulled stronger.  

Why are feelings bad when making policy?

It has been shown that empathy can cloud judgement beyond the scope of morality or even legality. Studies have shown that juries are more likely to find one guilty based on the emotional display of the victim regardless of facts, laws, or evidence (Prinz, 2011). Studies also show that people are willing to inflict pain on an innocent person if that person is in competition with the person one is empathizing with (Buffone & Poulin, 2014). Lastly, studies show that people are willing to be unfair and unjust to someone if they are in the way of the person we are empathizing with getting the help they need, even if it means someone else, or a group of people all dying as a result of the person you’re empathizing with getting help (Batson et al., 1995). It is a terrible idea to make policy based on emotions.

So how should this work?

The ideal situation goes like this: A liberal sees a flaw in a policy or a lack of a policy and suggest, “This is broken (or missing) and we need to do something about it. I think we should do_(xyz)__!” The conservative says, “Ok, let’s look at history. Has it been done before? Has it worked? What do we think will happen if we implement this policy? How will it affect the overall population?” Then the liberal and the conservative reach a compromise, and a policy is enhanced or created that is better for society as a whole. Emotions drive it, analytics define it, and reason implements it.

Why is this not happening now?

Algorithms. If you are not paying for the product, you are the product. The algorithms of social media are designed to only show you more of what you say you like. So the amount of opposing views you now see is minimal, on purpose. If you only see what you like, it only pours gas on the fire of fury you have over perceived atrocities. If we can remember this, we can understand that the real world looks nothing like the online world. Then and only then we may be able to meet in the middle… beneath that ole Georgia pine (please tell me you’ve heard of Diamond Rio!).

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Buffone, A. E. K., & Poulin, M. J. (2014). Empathy, Target Distress, and Neurohormone Genes Interact to Predict Aggression for Others–Even Without Provocation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(11), 1406; 1406–1422; 1422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214549320

Kensinger, E. A. (2009). Remembering the Details: Effects of Emotion. Emotion Review, 1(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073908100432

Prinz, J. (2011). Against Empathy. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 49, 214–233. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=pif&AN=PHL2175308&site=eds-live&scope=site&authtype=sso&custid=s4672406

Posted on

The Returning Rabbit

Are bunny rabbits cute? Sure they are. So let’s talk about them. One group of researchers took babies between the ages of 3 months and 7 months old and conducted an experiment. They put on a puppet show with little stuffed bunnies. They were wearing various colored shirts. The primary bunny had a gray shirt on. He was trying to get an item into a box and needed help. Along came a bunny with a blue shirt and helped the gray bunny get the item in the box. Nice thing to do. They did the scenario again, but this time a bunny with an orange shirt came and closed the box so the gray bunny could not get the item in. Not so nice. Afterwards, they presented the blue and orange bunnies to the baby and allowed them to choose which one to pick. Over 80% of the babies chose the blue bunny. They instinctively knew the blue bunny was good and the orange bunny was mean.

Next, they had a yellow bunny and a green bunny involved. First, the baby was to choose a food item, a golden graham or a cheerio. Let’s use the cheerio for this scenario. The baby chose a cheerio. Then the yellow bunny chose a cheerio. Next, the green bunny chose the golden graham saying the cheerio was bad. Again, they presented the bunnies to the baby and over 70% of the babies picked the bunny that chose the same food they selected.  

This last experiment is where it gets interesting. They used the bunnies who chose the food items, yellow and green, and conducted the first experiment. For instance, the baby chose the cheerio, and the yellow bunny had also chosen the cheerio. The yellow bunny approached the gray bunny and slammed the box shut so that the gray bunny could not get the item into the box. While the green bunny helped the gray bunny get the item into the box. This produced an internal dilemma for the babies. They liked the good bunny in the first experiment. They liked the bunny that chose the same food they liked. But what happens when the bunny that chose the food they liked is the bad bunny in the next experiment? When presented with the yellow and green bunny in the situation I just presented, the baby still chose the yellow bunny who selected the same food as the baby, even though the yellow bunny had been mean to the gray bunny.

What does this mean? The baby chose what was familiar over what was good. In fact, most babies in this experiment chose what was familiar over what was good. This indicates a natural tendency in humans to choose the familiar over the moral or ethical. The implication for human behavior is that when we encounter adversity in our lives, we quickly return to whatever is familiar. We like, and ultimately choose, whatever is familiar because there is safety in this. We recognize this. It shields us from the unknown. If abuse is familiar, this is what we will return to. We are quicker to return to abuse if we a) don’t know our worth and b) possess too much empathy for our abuser, also known as identification with aggressor (IWA).

Setting the tone for our children to learn and fully understand who they are and their worth is vital to adequate development. They must be taught what their actual value is. If they are not taught by parents, someone else will teach them, and it will likely be wrong. When we believe we have more worth than we actually do, this causes problems, as we overestimate our abilities, as seen in the Dunning-Kruger effect. When we believe that we have less worth than we do, this causes problems in assertiveness, standing up for ourselves, and allowing others to take advantage of us personally and professionally. The solution is simple. Who is God in you? That is the question. If we truly understand that we are nothing without God, but we are everything with Him, this gives us proper perspective. I have accepted this perspective, and subsequently, I do not allow someone to offer me less than what I deserve, but I simultaneously do not believe I am owed more than I deserve either. When you do not understand your worth, you allow things to happen to you that you would never normally allow if a) you knew your actual worth and b) it wasn’t previously familiar.

Another aspect of this conversation is empathy. Too much empathy can be absolutely poisonous. Empathy has a dark side to it that discriminates against anything or anyone not in perfect alignment with the individual you are currently showing empathy for, even in the face of moral or even legal dilemmas. This happens in the context of this subject as women try to show empathy to their abuser, believing there are good parts of them and they choose to focus on those aspects of the person they are in a relationship with. In this case, empathy drives IWA and blinds them to the reality of the boundaries this person has obliterated, in the name of empathetic dysfunction. A pre-covid study was done on this subject. Victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) were surveyed, and it was discovered that over 66% of women had reported to have left and returned to an abusive relationship once and 97% reported to have left and returned multiple times. There are many reasons for this, but the primary reason is not knowing your worth. It is fair to suspect these numbers are even higher post-covid.

This only highlights the need for parents to instill in our children good habits and good interpersonal perspectives. My parents forced me to go to church when I was younger. Then later, when life became very difficult, I returned to what I knew, church. Whatever you instill in them as a child, they will return to when things get tough. My parents made sure that I knew that I could accomplish great things, while understanding my place in the home and in the world, all while putting me in the position to return to healthy practices when life did what life does. Set your children up for success by instilling a balance of knowing who they are and who they are not. This will take care of the self-esteem issue and knowing their worth will help them avoid many obstacles in life.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

We Have Work To Do

Was 2024 different from 2023? Better or worse? The answer to that will be drastically different for those who experienced severe tragedy in 2023 or 2024. For those that didn’t, what was different about 2024? And the real question, what are you going to do differently in 2025 to make it better than 2024? The real answer is a very uncomfortable one. We have work to do.

Anytime something is better than before, it goes through an arduous process prior to the improvement of status. When making glass, it goes through extreme heat. For muscles to get bigger, they first tear. If you obtained a degree, license, or certification, you first took some very difficult tests.

There is no workaround. There are no cliff notes for actual progress. There’s no “swipe right” or “door dash me a degree please.” It’s the hard process that makes it real, adds value, makes it better, provides a sense of accomplishment.


What does that mean for you? For most, we could start with opening our minds. If I type, “Liberals are..” and you immediately finish that sentence with something negative, you have work to do. Because my first instinct is to finish the sentence with the word “needed.” I said this on the first page of my book, America’s Greatest Threat: America, “Without both liberals and conservatives, we don’t have a thriving country.” The same can be said on the other side. No “side” is any better than the other. They have work to do.

A recent example of this was the tragedy of the man driving the truck through a New Orleans crowd. Conservatives ran immediately to border policies, which was disrespectful of the deceased, if nothing else. They ran without all the facts. Just like liberals did with the last 5 mass shootings. They just ran headlines to push an agenda without waiting for the facts.

The facts came out that he was an American. Border policies had nothing to do with this. If you can’t see the problem with that, just because they appear to be on your “team”, you have work to do.


This thinking only comes about from limiting our informational intake to resounding echo chambers of negative outrage that captivates our attention and merely stokes previously held beliefs, that on the surface appear to be axiomatic, regardless of whether they are actually right, wrong, good, or bad. There was a paper recently released that showed that most Americans believe that if someone disagrees with them, it was because they did not listen properly. They must not have actually heard them. That is a big problem. They may just disagree because people have varying perspectives. Perspectives that you don’t have. And it is likely that you may benefit from other perspectives. Actually, it isn’t likely, it is a guarantee. We all have work to do.

If 2025 brings us anything, may it bring us the instantiation of diverse conversation, leading to and from diversity of thought, completely irrespective of nonmalleable identity characteristics. May it bring difficult, yet civil, discourse, with a central goal to make the immediate world around us better, often beginning with understanding others better, especially those we don’t align with optimally. May it produce conversations that have a central aim, and may we not be so rigid in our thinking that we can’t see that there may be a better way of thinking than the mode we currently employ.

If you want to see 2025 as being better than 2024, start with reshaping how you view those you don’t often agree with. Jesus did. So can we. Clearly, we have work to do.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger