Posted on

Would the Real Jordan Peterson Please Stand Up

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Stay Classy, GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Unspoken Truth About Patriarchy and the War on Men

From Father Knows Best to Man Bashing

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.

Devaluation and Disadvantages

So where has its destruction taken us? Men are now traditionally devalued and openly discriminated against, without fear of retribution from anyone. James L. Nuzzo puts it this way: “Feminism has led to blatant discrimination against boys and men.”

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.

We can all recall hearing people say that there isn’t enough funding for women’s health. However, Steve Stewart-Williams reviewed data provided by James Nuzzo that shows that 20% of the country’s health budget is sex-specific. Of that 20%, 15% goes to females and 5% goes to males. Again, tell me the last time you heard someone address a lack of men’s health funding. This is despite the fact that more men die on the job, men have a shorter life span than women, and men commit suicide more often than women. Male suicide accounts for the same number of deaths per year as breast cancer. Male suicide rates are four times higher than females and has increased 40% in younger men since 2010 (which just randomly coincides with the explosion of smart phones and social media).

Importance of Men

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

Posted on

Ladies, Before or After?

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

Posted on

Psychobabble or Spiritual Journey?

Jordan Peterson’s Personal Map of Meaning

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.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

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