We have all heard people say, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, I will be with them” (Matthew 18:20). We have all most likely said it in our lifetime. “Father, I know you’re here because you said where two or three are gathered…” Having said that, I have rarely, if ever, heard this verse quoted in its correct context. I have been guilty of misquoting it myself. I think we all have. But learning to read the Bible in context helped me with many things I was struggling to understand. Think about it, if it takes two or three, does this mean God isn’t there until then? So when I’m by myself, God doesn’t show up? I can easily find verses that say He is there when I’m by myself. So that would be contradictory.
This verse is mostly used to imply that when two or three people are gathered, you now get to enjoy the presence of God. It is also used to justify “forsaking the assembly, as so many are in the habit of doing.” Yes, they justify not being part of a local church with this verse, taken completely out of context. In order to get the true context, we must read Matthew chapter 18, verses 15-20.
First, these verses have absolutely nothing to do with the church. He does use the word Ekklesia, but He is not referring to the “two or three” people mentioned later. The church was only mentioned as a way of handling conflict. So “two or three” is not referring to a local church or a church gathering of any type.
Next, it is not referring to the presence of God. The presence of God is ever-present, according to Psalm 46:1. So you don’t need two or three in order for God to be present. He is omnipresent, according to Psalm 139:7.
This leaves us with what Jesus is actually talking about. He is referring to conflict and discipline. It is a very practical matter for a practical people. His audience was most likely people who understood the Torah, because he was referring to it. Jesus says that if someone sins or falls, we are to go to them and point it out to them. Now wait, I thought we were to never judge? Another misconception. We are only to never judge non-believers. But other fellow believers, we are certainly to judge each other, according to this verse and many others.
Jesus then continues and says that if they won’t listen, take one or two others along so that every word that is said is said in the presence of witnesses. This was very practical and not new to the listeners. Again, Jesus was quoting the Torah. The passage is from Deuteronomy 19:15. This was the law handed down by Moses. It was put in place to prevent someone from being prosecuted by one person. It would be unfair and unjust for one person to hand down judgment. So they put this practice in place to prevent an unjust prosecution from happening and Jesus was echoing this law. Jesus then says that if they still won’t listen, take them to the Ekklesia (derived from two words meaning called and out of, the gathered people of God- the church) and if they still refuse, treat them as a tax collector (or someone who just does not know God).
One thing to keep in mind in all of this, treating someone as if they do not know God means, according to Jesus’ other teachings, that we are to love them, accept them where they are, teach them through our example of living, but not allow them to be in leadership positions. That’s how non-believers were to be treated. They are to be taught and loved but not to teach in the church. This is important because recently, someone took to social media to chastise a church for not letting them be in a leadership position because they were knowingly living in a life of consistent sin and not letting the very verses we are discussing play out. She was told of her sin. She has chosen to deny that she is living in such sin. The Bible then teaches that we are to treat them as thought they do not know God. They can no longer be in a position of leadership or authority. When this church did exactly what the Bible teaches, she took offense. And many came to her defense. The real problem was that she was already in this place of leadership and they recently decided to remove her. And for that, this church was wrong.
So after Jesus says all of this about pointing out sin, taking it to them, then with two or three witnesses, per the Torah, then to the Ekklesia, then treated as a tax collector, Jesus then says that “whatever they agree on and ask for, It will be done for them”, meaning that the conflict at hand has been resolved. He then says, “Where two or three gather in my name, I am with them.” The two or three Jesus is speaking of are the witnesses to the conflict and discipline. Jesus is basically saying, “Follow the Torah. This law is good. Once you have followed what God has commanded, I will be there to deal with the consequences, whether positive (“they agree on”) or negative (“They still won’t listen”).
Now that we know the context of this, it makes sense with the description of the church in Acts 2, Ephesians 4, Hebrews 10, and Hebrews 13. It also makes sense with the verses in Psalm 46 and Psalm 139. It all fits. But only in context. And it teaches a good lesson on how to deal with conflict and discipline with love.
So next time someone says, “Where two or three are gathered…”, you can respond by asking what they witnessed. Stay informed. Read the bible in context. Taking scripture out of context only hurts us and those around us. In context, it displays truth, and the “Truth shall set you free.”
Upon choosing to enter college and earn a degree, I was aware that I would hear and see things that were being portrayed as true that were verifiably false. I knew I would have to simply keep quiet about factual evidence that debunked what was being taught in these classes in order to get a good grade. And as you can imagine, I was not disappointed. At the same time, there were some bright spots along the way. After all, I was attending a central conservative and central liberal school. It was not very radical on either side of political ideology. But then there is the sociology department. This paper documents this journey in the best way I can.
One thing I am noticing in sociology is that the overall view is to see what is happening in society and just react to it without any sort of aim at the best possible good. There quickly becomes a fear of hurting someone’s feelings if they suggest they should aim at the best possible way to go about life. Based on research, it is best to get married prior to cohabitation. The best possible environment for a child is to grow up with both of their biological parents. It is best for parents to get married before having children. This is all backed by science. But sociology says, “Well they are doing it, so let’s show how it is best now where it was not best in the past. Times have changed. Now marriage is outdated. Now family is overrated.” ALL WRONG! This paper primarily covers the topics of marriage, cohabitation, children, gender, and government. Each point throughout this paper is refuted with research.
Marriage
I had a few classes specifically on marriage and one overall theme was that marriage was outdated, overrated, and in some cases, needless. This was what they were teaching in every single “marriage” class I took. This would be in “Marriage and Family”, “Sociology of Families”, “Child Development”, among others. The question you must ask yourself as you read this is why. Why would one want to destroy the marriage institution? I will let you answer that as you read.
One of the first outright lies told was concerning education status and earning status among heterosexual couples. Keep in mind that there was no textbook, only articles plucked from various journals by the instructor. Here is a text from one such article: One of the dire predictions about educated women is true: today, more of them are ‘marrying down.’ Almost 30 percent of wives today have more education than their husbands, while less than 20 percent of husbands have more education than their wives, almost the exact reverse of the percentages in 1970. But there is not a shred of evidence that such marriages are any less satisfying than marriages in which men have equal or higher education than their wives. Indeed, they have many benefits for women.”LIE. There is a mountain of evidence that this presents an increase in the likelihood of divorce.
Research
One such piece of evidence was in a paper written by Alexandra Killewald for the American Sociological Review (2016). In this study, Killewald looked at data from different-sex couples ranging from age 18 to 55 years old from 1968 to 2013. What she concluded in her research was that couples where the husband worked part time or not at all were at a higher risk for divorce than couples where the husband worked full time. What was slightly more interesting than that was that whether wives worked full time, part time, or not at all had absolutely no effect on the risk of divorce, only the husbands (Killewald, 2016).
I pose two possible reasons for this. First, women do enjoy being provided for and protected. They value safety and predictability more than men. This is a verifiable biological fact. So, when the husband is earning a part time salary or not earning at all, it becomes very unattractive to the wives and the romance fades in concurrence with the time the husband is not earning a sustainable wage for the family. Another possible reason for this finding is that men are genetically wired to produce. When we are productive, it releases the proper neurochemicals in our brain. We get a release of endorphins, dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin, as well as a healthy dose of testosterone that gets released into our system. When this is not happening, it contributes to a decline in mental health and brings on symptoms of depression. This depression can easily lead to divorce. Wives do not need any of that. They are just fine working, not working, working some of the time. It does not matter to them. Women want to be loved and men want to be respected. This plays out in our productivity and our educational status is the driving factor behind our productivity, in most cases. Therefore, there is evidence that relationships suffer when men are less educated and less employed than their wife. The solution there is to make sure the husband is employed full-time, regardless of what the wife decides to do.
Along the lines of dating/marriage, the issue of a truly egalitarian relationship was brought up. One question was posed: “How does this research shed light on why, after marriage, many women married to men find that their partnership is less egalitarian than they intended?” To which the answer was, “This research suggested that women feel the marriage is less egalitarian as a result of the dating process being unequal.” Unfortunately, this is also a total lie. When social inferences are completely removed (the literal definition of egalitarianism), all that is left is biology and research on this biology proves that women still prefer masculine men to protect them and provide for them. Many want to provide for themselves also but prefer a chivalrous and masculine man. This is laid out in many different research articles in reproductive biology.
Then there was a discussion about marriage being a luxury and that being the reason more and more couples do not marry. It was too expensive. I responded by saying that I was not sure where that notion came from because it costs little to get a license and very little to get a ring. The teacher’s response… Marriage is not a wedding. A wedding can be expensive or not, but the luxury idea is not about that event. Marriage is a social institution where couples involve the state in their personal lives because to be legally married you have to go to your local county to get a license. So the idea of marriage as a luxury is referring to the linking of financial stability and success with decisions to marry. The larger idea with marriage being a “luxury” refers to the pattern where people with education and financial stability are marrying later, staying married, and not having babies outside marriage.
Predictably, she had no real refutation and dodged the pure fact that there is no real financial difference. She kept linking bad decisions to get married too early, people that choose to get an education after high school and get married and have children later in life once they are more financially stable. These are all individual circumstances that have no bearing on the ability to get married, if a couple chooses to. It is not expensive at all. She completely dodged the fact that there is no real reason to not get married except that you do not want the commitment. You want to “try the other person out.” But if it were reduced to this, it would destroy the Marxist narrative the universities are pushing. The destruction of marriage is clearly one of the narratives.
Cohabitation
One of the ways we know this is a narrative is the overall push to promote cohabitation. Again, ask yourself why would someone promote cohabitation over marriage? Read on and answer it yourself. The first thing to note about cohabitation is the trends on premarital sex. This was plucked from an article for us to read: Contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, research shows that almost all individuals of both sexes have intercourse before marrying, and the proportion has been roughly similar for the past 40 years. Thus, premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans and has been for decades. Abstinence-only sex education is problematic in light of these trends. So, the solution to premarital sex, which clearly causes problems with unwanted pregnancies, children growing up in poverty, and an increase in substance abuse among those parents, is to just eliminate the idea of teaching abstinence altogether. Got it. Am I the only one that thinks this is nihilistic and asinine?
In this next text, the writer lays out facts, decides to disagree with the facts and begins to lay out opinions rooted in individual disbelief of the facts he just proposed. It is quite remarkable the way the writer does a 180 and then contradicts himself in the same piece. Check this out:
These trends are troubling to some because nearly a dozen studies from the 1970s into the early 2000s showed that men and women who lived together before marriage were far more likely to divorce than couples who moved directly from dating to marriage. In fact, on average, researchers found that couples who cohabitated before marriage had a 33 percent higher chance of divorcing than couples who moved in together after the wedding ceremony. In light of those findings, some commentators have argued that reducing the stigma attached to living together outside marriage has been a mistake, leading many young couples to make decisions that put their future marriage at risk. This is called the normalization hypothesis. More on that later.
Here in the next sentence, he just disagrees with years and years of research. It turns out that cohabitation doesn’t cause divorce and probably never did.What leads to divorce is when people move in with someone – with or without a marriage license – before they have the maturity and experience to choose compatible partners and to conduct themselves in ways that can sustain a long-term relationship. Early entry into marriage or cohabitation, especially prior to age 23, is the critical risk factor for divorce. No one is questioning the various reasons why cohabitating prior to marriage increases your risk for divorce by 33%, we are just stating a fact that it does. But again, we cannot just have facts. We have to explain them away so feelings will not get hurt.
Lots of people keep asking, “Does living together before marriage increase your chance of getting a divorce?” In my recently published study, I finally answer this question with a definitive, No! So, again, we have facts followed by a statement of someone’s feelings and an opinion. No facts to refute other facts. Keep in mind that the above statement was written in 2016. Below, you will see research from 2019 directly contradicting this. But first, more text.
With the majority of couples now living together before marriage, if cohabitation somehow caused couples to divorce, you would think that divorce would be more common in recent generations of young adults, who were much more likely to live together before marriage compared to earlier generations. But recent research has found that for young adults born in 1980 or later, divorce rates have been steady or even declining compared to earlier generations. This genius stated something that has an obvious reason… it is because they never got married. That was not hard to deduct. It is hard to get divorced if you never get married. But the blatant dishonesty of his approach was fascinating.
My study found that the rest of the connection between divorce and cohabitation can be explained by one thing that previous researchers never took into account: the age at which couples moved in together. Cohabitors moved in together at earlier ages (on average) than couples that didn’t live together before marriage, and since living together at younger ages is associated with higher divorce rates, cohabitors are more likely to divorce. WAIT! You said they are not more likely to divorce. Now you are saying they are! Which is it?!? This writer has already contradicted himself in the same article. Amazing.
Research
So should you live together before marriage? Should you get married at all? That’s up to you! But living together won’t increase your chances of getting a divorce if you choose to go that route. Again, total lie. Here are the facts. One study (of many studies on this subject) came out in 2019 by researchers at Stanford University and was published in the Journal of Marriage and Family (Rosenfeld & Roesler, 2019). In this study, they looked at data for different-sex couples from 1988 to 2015 between the ages of 15 and 44 years. They specifically looked at the possibility of efficacy in the normalization hypothesis. The normalization hypothesis argues that as the negativity around cohabitating couples is reduced, the risk for divorce among couples who cohabitated before marriage should also decrease. The researchers in this study found no evidence for this hypothesis (Rosenfeld & Roesler, 2019). What they found was that couples who cohabitated before marriage had a higher relationship satisfaction rating during their first year. However, every year after the first year, the rating steadily declined and usually bottomed out during the fifth year of marriage. Divorces usually happened just after this fifth year, thereby showing the increase of risk for divorce among those who cohabitated before marriage.
While having kids “out of wedlock” used to be a serious taboo, today, 74 percent of people say it’s okay to have children while you’re cohabiting. “There is no negative norm against it, it’s accepted,” said Wendy Manning, the director of the Center for Family and Demographic Research at Bowling Green State University. “My question isn’t ‘Why have children as an unmarried, cohabiting couple?,’ but ‘Why not?’” “Shotgun weddings,” Manning told me, are quickly being replaced by “shotgun cohabitations”—in response to an unintended pregnancy, a couple is three times more likely to move in together than get married. So according to that, as long as I can attain it and society does not think bad of me, then it MUST be a good thing. Really? That’s the conclusion we have come to in academia?!
In the same class, but a different article, this text came up: “Cohabiting unions, however well-intentioned, are still far less stable than marriages. (So they admit it!) They lack what Kuperberg calls the “external barriers”—legal fees, formal paperwork, court processes—that stand between marriage and divorce. Compared to kids born into marriage, kids born to cohabiting parents are less likely to continue to live with both parents as they grow up. It’s clear that American families are changing, at least somewhat. Then again, maybe families with cohabiting parents aren’t all that different. “This (cohabitating parents) is the two-biological-parent family that everyone has been talking about forever,” Manning said. In many ways, she told me, it’s the familial “gold standard.” It just might take some time for everyone to see it that way.”
Once again, we are faced with facts followed by feelings that appear to supersede the facts as morally superior. Those pesky facts. Facts that show us that couples who cohabitate before marriage are at a higher risk for divorce than couples who go from dating to marriage. Facts that show us that a child raised in a low-conflict home with their two biological parents is the best possible environment for a child to be raised. This leads us to university’s approach to children.
Children
Another clear agenda of universities is the push to not have children at all. Here we go again. Ask yourself why would a university push their students to not have children? Every family class I took taught me that having children only posed a burden and caused me more problems than children were worth. They taught that if I was to have children, I should wait until I was in my late thirties or early forties, but really shouldn’t have them at all.
There was a document given to us to read for various assignments. It was called “Childfree Adults.” The document pushed for the idea of being child free as a morally superior thing. People interviewed in the text we were required to read said they were making sound decisions, unlike those that chose to bring a child into a crazy world. Another said they saw how much pollution children caused and knew they were better than that. Another said that population control was at the core of their beliefs.POPULATION CONTROL! There is not anything more nihilistic, Marxist, or tyrannical than population control. Ask China.
One question on a quiz was: According to the reading “Childless or Childfree”, non-parent couples are more likely to: a) Hold less traditional beliefs about gender, b) be less religious, c) be more highly educated, d) Work in professional and managerial occupations. The correct answer was D. So, they attacked parents as having traditional beliefs about gender, being religious (as though it is a bad thing), and being less educated. So here they are clearly pushing for not having children. But it gets worse. They spit out blatant lies in order to make everyone feel good about themselves.
Here is an excerpt from another text we were required to read and comprehend: Donald Trump stated children born during slavery were more likely to be raised by a mother and father in a two-parent home than children are today. This is a verifiable fact. But let’s continue. On the campaign trail in 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump described a nightmarish world for black Americans, rife with poverty, homelessness and crime, and asked for their votes by saying, “What do you have to lose?” Outrageous, yes, but not surprising. If your impression of black families comes mostly from what you see in the news — and not just Fox News — then you might think black families have it worse today than when they were enslaved. Yet another indication of a specific political ideological agenda. They could have mentioned any one of 30 media outlets, they chose Fox News. I am not a fan of Fox News either. But I hide it better than they do. There were many references to Fox being full of evil lies and CNN and MSNBC being the only place you can get truth. They consistently denounced any publication that leaned conservative in any way with total opinion, leading these teenagers to learn WHAT to think, rather than HOW. They were steered away from anything that the instructor did not agree with personally.
Research
Here’s another excerpt: “The multigenerational or two-parent family is not necessarily an improvement over single motherhood. This is a total lie. Studies have shown that children living with both biological parents are 20% to 35% more physically healthy than children from broken homes (Gillespie Shields, 2016). Following divorce, children are 50% more likely to develop health problems. A child raised in a married family can reduce the child’s probability of living in poverty by 82%. Studies show that kids who grow up in two parent homes have higher high school and college graduation rates as well as a higher likelihood of sustaining long term employment. Studies have also shown that growing up in a two-parent household is influential on reducing out of wedlock births (Gillespie Shields, 2016). Out of wedlock births are important because one study conducted by the Brookings Institution showed that in order for one to move from lower class to middle class and succeed, they needed to do three things: finish high school, get a full-time job, and wait until age 21 to get married and have kids within marriage (Haskins, 2013).
It continues, A true commitment to strong families and healthy children begins with a focus on the debilitating effects of poverty in the black community. This was said right after quoting single-motherhood stats and their negative effects on children. It continues, Living in a two-parent family does not safeguard children against poverty. True commitment to families requires critical analysis of the structural forces at work and gendered racism. Heterosexist, racist, and sexist agendas of getting black women married or molding black families to fit a two-parent ideal that rarely exists is not a solution for empowering families. So let me get this straight. Attempting to “mold” (black <not sure why that matters>) families into a two-parent ideal is not a solution for the issues that face all families, including black families? Well, I am all ears as to what might be the solution. Unfortunately, they offered no solution. Just that this was not a solution. The reason they could not offer a solution is because this is a solution. A standard to look to. A goal to reach. The problem is that they do not want to offend anyone or hurt anyone’s feelings if they did not grow up in that type of family structure. Unfortunately, this does not change the fact that the ideal family structure for a child to be raised in is the low-conflict two biological parent home. More on that.
Research
There are many studies that clearly show that the ideal environment for children to be raised is in a two-parent household. One study went a few steps further than that. Researchers at Ohio State University did such research that was published in the Journal of Marriage and Family (Sun & Li, 2011). In this study, they looked at disrupted single parent, disrupted two parent, disrupted stepparent, non-disrupted single parent, non-disrupted two parent, and non-disrupted stepparent families. When looking at children’s academic achievement, they found that children raised in non-disrupted stepparent homes performed better than non-disrupted single parent homes. They found that children raised in non-disrupted two biological parent homes performed better than those from non-disrupted single parent homes. And subsequently found that children raised in non-disrupted two biological parent homes outperformed all disrupted household types (Sun & Li, 2011). Therefore, it is statistically proven that the best possible environment for a child to be raised is in a non-disrupted two biological parent home. This is the goal to attain. The standard to measure society against. And yet another study came to the same conclusion. In this study, they showed measurements of higher emotional and behavior problems as well as chronic disease and overall physical issues among those in single parent homes as compared to two-parent homes (Rattay et al., 2014).
Another factor under the raising of children was whether a child was better off being raised by same-sex parents or nuclear parents. Here was one such text: Despite the above evidence that same-sex couples may be functioning better than heterosexual couples in terms of closeness and equality within the relationship… You NEVER put “evidence” in the same sentence with “may.” If it is evidence, there is no “may.” There is or there is not, by proof of evidence. Otherwise it is subjective, which is not evidential. This is the ongoing problem, a refusal to find an objective truth or reality. I found that while interacting with students, they had a very difficult time nailing down an objective truth, and objective morality, or a standard that was definitive. Everything was “up for debate.” And while I agree, like Socrates, that things should be questioned over and over again, there are some things that are certain and not up for debate. I will show you one such interaction in the next section.
But for now, here is another gem of a text that we were required to read: research on adolescents reared since birth by lesbian mothers found that youth with male role models were similar in psychological adjustment to adolescents without male role models. This is a total lie. My statement is backed by mountains of research.
Research
In one particular study, one significant finding was that youth living in fatherless homes have the highest levels of incarceration rates. However, for youths in homes where only the father is present, there was no difference in the rate of incarceration than that of youth living in two parent homes (Harper & McLanahan, 2004). Another study found that early on, not only is the absence of a father a clear predictor of an increased level of violent behavior, the presence of a father early on is a clear indicator of lowered levels of likelihood of violent behavior (Mackey & Buttram, 2012). This study was able to locate not only a cause of increasing the likelihood of violent behavior but also a cause of lowering the likelihood of violent behavior. I did an entire paper on the connection between juvenile delinquency and fatherless homes. And the results were staggering, repetitive, and easy to see in everyday life. Another study came to the conclusion that the only scientifically proven conclusion that has been reached on raising children is that children who are raised by their two biological parents are given the best possible opportunity to achieve the healthiest developmental outcomes (Finn, 2013). This does not state a guarantee of sorts, just that they have the highest chance for the healthiest developmental outcomes. They also concluded that there is zero evidence supporting the claim that there is no difference in the developmental outcomes of children from same-sex parents or two biological parents (Finn, 2013).
Here is another required text: With all due respect to Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, the majority of more than 30 years of social science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father…” -James Dobson. This statement is empirically true. Yet the text says next, “although this kind of claim has been extensively repeated in the media by anti-gay groups, there has not been a shred of credible social science evidence that children raised by heterosexual mothers and fathers do better on any measure of well-being than children raised by lesbian or gay parents.” Nope. Wrong.
Research
One particular study showed that children from same-sex parents showed significantly lower psychosocial well-being than children not from same-sex parents (Potter & Potter, 2017). The results were less significant when comparing children from same-sex parents to children from single parent homes, but this only reiterates the fact that a biological two parent, low-conflict home is the ideal environment to strive for when raising a child.
The next article was literally titled, “Atlantic case against marriage.” I thought maybe by the title, it was an archived writing by Karl Marx. But no, it is recent. It stated, Regardless of this pruning of the tree of care, one of the main arguments in favor of marriage is that it’s still the best environment for raising children. If stability is what matters for kids, then stability, not marriage, should be the primary goal. The text was proposing the idea that marriage is not what we should strive for but rather stability. As we have seen, if stability is the goal, then the most stable environment is the nuclear family. But this may offend someone. So we withhold the hard truth for the easy lie. Professors are saying all the right buzzwords these days, like “critical thinking.” But telling them that children from single parents are just as well off as children from two biological parents is insanely irresponsible.
One name I was forced to read over and over again was Stephanie Coontz. One document stated: Stephanie Coontz has been among the most stalwart of marriage “progressives.” A historian whose name can be found in the Rolodex of countless reporters, she is the founder of the Council on Contemporary Families, which describes itself as a “humane and sensitive” alternative to family-values traditionalism. For years Coontz has argued: (1) that the traditional nuclear family is often an oppressive arrangement, especially for women; (2) that the decline of such families, along with the increasing acceptance of divorce, out-of-wedlock child-rearing, cohabitation, and gay unions, has been a liberating force and deserves public support; and (3) that traditionalists who fight these trends are suffering from an illusion, since the family model they prize was a short-lived artifact of the 1950’s. The nuclear family is oppressive, out of wedlock children should increase, and anyone who disagrees is archaic. Wow. All of this in direct contrast to clear research. Yet, this is exactly what they are delivering to 18-year-olds. At 18, I might have fallen for this nonsense. I learned quickly that this individual had a very Marxist and Nihilistic view of the world.
Gender
The subject of gender is both the utmost in fundamental objectivity and yet also the most misunderstood, primarily by people who refuse to find an objective truth and morality. The most common phrase I heard surrounding gender while in college was “Gender is a social construct.” This is an oversimplification, to put it mildly. Again, ask yourself why are universities ignoring biology? One statement made in one class was What we think of as appropriate behavior or characteristics of men and women are NOT natural but socially created. Again, this is false. But this was reiterated in every sociology class I took, particularly the classes on family.
There are portions of gender that are socially constructed. Men in ancient times wore skirts. Hair length for both men and women have changed over time to fit the current social climate. But to say that gender is a social construct is to leave out the rest of what gender is. Gender is an expression of an existing biological sex. It begins with XX or XY, then moves into interests. And interests, as you are about to see, are biological.
Research
The idea of interests being totally socially constructed has been proven false over and over again. One sexologist stated that what is determined as masculine or feminine is mostly culturally defined and therefore socially constructed (Soh, 2020). However, whether a person has tendencies towards the masculine or feminine is not. It is biological. Soh (2020) also covered the research led by James Damore noting that the differences in genders are driven by levels of exposure to prenatal testosterone. Damore found that this led women to mostly choose people-oriented jobs and men to choose thing-oriented jobs (Soh, 2020). You will see that theme again in a moment. Soh (2020) also mentioned that cultures with greater gender equality had greater differences in interest among men and women. Again, you will see more scientific research to back that up in a minute.
One particular study was done to show that while there are mostly overlapping interests among men and women, where the interests did not overlap, it was significant. Men had interest in things and women had interest in people (Su et al., 2009). The graphic below shows an idea of the results they found:
Effect size of RIASEC interests. R=Realistic; I =Investigative;
One study looked at gender preferences in interests as it pertains to economic development and gender equality in a specific country. What was discovered was that the higher the economic development and the greater the gender equality, the stronger the differentiation between genders in interests (Falk & Hermle, 2018). This means that in developed egalitarian countries, the differences in interests between men and women, where they do not overlap, are greater. This implies that when social “constructs” are removed, and the children are given trucks and dolls in a basket and not told which to play with, all social pressure to be a certain way is removed and all that you are left with is biology. This study shows that when biology is all that is left, their differences are more pronounced. There was another study that looked into a very similar issue and found the same thing. They found that in a very egalitarian community, when controlling for education, occupational class position, age, social and family status, and income, differences among genders were vastly different (Bihagen & Katz-Gerro, 2000).
Desistence is becoming more prevalent among youth with gender dysphoria. This was never discussed in classes, not once. They pushed for gender affirmation, regardless of any existential factors. Any time this was brought up, the response from teachers was always that we should affirm every single person and give them the care they need. And by care, she always meant surgical and hormonal. She made that clear at the beginning of the class. I guess we should ignore the fact that most kids desist at puberty (Steensma et al., 2011). Surgical and hormonal interventions were put ahead in priority of mental health, even though in this same study, they found that up to 90% of children desist by puberty and most grow comfortable with their bodies (Steensma et al., 2011). Another thing that was never mentioned was comorbidities. One study found that only 39% of the almost 600 subjects they studied that stated cross-gender identification actually suffered from gender identification disorder as a primary diagnosis. In the other 61%, the cross-gender identification was comorbid with other disorders and in 75% of that 61%, cross-gender identification was merely a byproduct of something else entirely (à Campo et al., 2003).
I mentioned an interaction with a student earlier. Here it is. The class was asked a simple question. Susan was born a female but identifies as a transgender man. Susan, who now goes by Scott, is attracted to women. Is Scott/Susan heterosexual or lesbian? This was the question. The answer is closed-ended. It has an “A or B” vibe about it. Yet these students just could not bring themselves to find any firm objectivity in their answers. And then came after me when I actually answered the question. Here was my answer: Susan would be lesbian. The reason for this is because while society’s idea of what determines masculine and feminine are socially constructed, one’s gender and biological sex are not constructed. They are rooted in biology, as pointed out in the text when it was mentioned that research indicates that levels of testosterone in fetal development will lead to interests that are more or less masculine, depending on the levels of testosterone the fetus is exposed to This is backed up by a neuroscientist and sexologist named Debra Soh, in which she confirmed through many studies that differences in interests and behavior are not due to postnatal environment but biology (Soh, 2020, p. 41). This shows that gender expression can result in more or less masculine interests while maintaining that gametes dictate sex and gender itself, resulting in Susan being gay. One student replied: I would be careful coming to conclusions too quickly about Susan/Scott! To which I replied, I answered the question. What is your answer to the question? Crickets. He just could not do it. He could not determine XX vs XY. That astounded me.
Government
Lastly, and maybe the scariest, the issue of government was addressed in multiple classes in the field of sociology. One question I had on a test in two different chapters back-to-back in a sociology class was A difference between capitalism and socialism is that: and the correct answer was, socialism forbids private profits that are fueled by greed and exploitation of workers. Exploitation of workers is common in the capitalist system. The first problem is the question assumed they KNOW the motivation behind every company’s endeavors. Assuming something is fueled by greed is always a bad idea in any social system. The next problem is that the extra sentence is a statement of opinion, not fact. This can be proven untrue in minutes. Therefore, it is not a fact, it is opinion. Again, ask yourself why would a university want to place a negative stigma on capitalism, promote socialism, and interpret every aspect of society in oppressed vs oppressor?
The instructor in one particular sociology class on government was great. Amazing, actually. The author of the material was not. A large portion of the material was opinion presented as fact. In every chapter, Karl Marx was mentioned and only in a very positive light. The author (again, not the instructor, he was great) never once mentioned his ideas were tried and subsequently caused the deaths of millions of people. Deaths came from forced labor, war, deportations, man-made hunger, and executions. Here are the number of deaths from the areas that have proposed Karl Marx’s ideas as utopian and attempted to implement them: 65M dead in China, 20M in Soviet Union, 2M in Cambodia, 2M in North Korea, 1.7M in Ethiopia, 1.5M in Afghanistan, 1M in Vietnam, and more (Courtois & Kramer, 1999). Pretty big thing to leave out.
I would probably leave it out too if the majority of students in universities across America believe that life and people are strictly divided on two lines, oppressed and oppressor. Sound familiar? You either are oppressed by your country or you have implicit bias. There is no third factor. You must fall into one of those. While there are many problems involving this delusion that somehow communism (masked as socialism or “starting all over again”) will now work when it has never worked throughout history, it seems that one of the biggest contributors to this problem are the universities. They are pushing out the idea that Karl Marx was one of the greatest minds in history. Intellect may be the only part that was great. His disdain for anyone who had something he wanted was heavily documented. Marx’s own father wrote him a letter and said, “I hope you can, just once, not display evil towards those around you” (Kengor & Knowles, 2020). When the ideas of Karl Marx were put into practice, close to 100 Million people died! There are no redeeming qualities here. Yet on each quiz questions were spun to reflect the greatness of Karl Marx.
So, to get questions right on these quizzes, all I had to do was remember these were bad: men, white people, America, capitalism, Christians. As long as I answered that those people and concepts were terrible, I got the question right. Every. Single. Time. This was nothing short of an agenda laced opinionated attempt at indoctrination. I presented this material to many free thinkers, and all agreed with me. One person objected, but he is anything but a free thinker. He also hates America, white people, men, capitalism, and Christians with incredibly tribalistic views. I subscribe to no one, no party. I think for myself. This course attempted to teach me WHAT to think rather than HOW to think. I cannot reiterate enough that none of this reflects the instructor. He was amazing in delivering the material and allowing the free flow of free-thinking ideas. But the mere fact that the instructor was more than likely forced to deliver this material as fact when it was clearly opinionated is sad and scary at the same time.
Conclusion
As you can see, it was very enlightening, just not in the way I thought it would be. Marriage is clearly being attacked by academia. In spite of clear research that you are at a higher risk for divorce, cohabitation is being promoted. Children are being viewed as burdens to society, not the future of a great society. Gender is becoming victim to subjective truth, despite centuries of objective science and common-sense knowledge surrounding gender. And our current republic is viewed in a very terrible light. Academia is pushing hard to hit the reset button and attempt socialism, communism, Marxism, or some combination of those.
Throughout this you were asked a series of questions: Why would one want to destroy the marriage institution? Why would someone promote cohabitation over marriage? Why would a university push their students to not have children? Why are universities ignoring biology? Why would a university want to place a negative stigma on capitalism, promote socialism, and interpret every aspect of society as oppressed vs oppressor? I am not going to attempt to define the answer here. I will leave that up to you. But one thing I can definitively say, this is NOT an accident. Take care of your children. Teach them to be free thinkers and be strong in the face of ideological nonsense. Teach them to know right from wrong and to have an objective morality by which they calibrate everything they do. If you do not, someone will teach them, but it will all be subjective, fostering total confusion and only making the mental health crisis worse, not better.
Courtois, S., & Kramer, M. (1999). The black book of communism : crimes, terror, repression. Harvard University Press.
Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412), eaas9899. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9899
Finn, T. (2013). Social Science and Same-Sex Parenting. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 13(3), 437-444. https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq201313325
Kengor, P., & Knowles, M. (2020). The devil and Karl Marx : communism’s long march of death, deception, and infiltration. Tan Books.
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
Mackey, W. C., & Buttram, H. D. (2012). Father Presence in a Community and Levels of Violent Crime A Dynamic Beyond the Arm of the Law. The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, 37(2), 222-248.
Potter, D., & Potter, E. C. (2017). Psychosocial well-being in children of same-sex parents: A longitudinal analysis of familial transitions. Journal of Family Issues, 38(16), 2303-2328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X16646338
Rattay, P., von der Lippe, E., Lampert, T., & KiGGS Study Group. (2014). Health of children and adolescents in single-parent, step-, and nuclear families: results of the KiGGS study: first follow-up (KiGGS Wave 1). Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 57(7), 860-868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-014-1988-2
Rosenfeld, M. J., & Roesler, K. (2019). Cohabitation Experience and Cohabitation’s Association With Marital Dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81(1), 42; 42-58; 58. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12530
Soh, D. (2020). The end of gender : debunking the myths about sex and identity in our society (First Threshold Editions hardcover edition. ed.). Threshold Editions.
Steensma, T. D., Biemond, R., De Boer, F., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. (2011). Desisting and persisting gender dysphoria after childhood: A qualitative follow-up study. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 16(4), 499; 499-516; 516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104510378303
Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and Things, Women and People. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859-884. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364
Sun, Y., & Li, Y. (2011). Effects of Family Structure Type and Stability on Children’s Academic Performance Trajectories. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(3), 541-556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00825.x
It seems here lately I’m seeing an unusual amount of people asking about churches in my area. And with these requests are some disturbing patterns. Every post asking for recommendations has a laundry list of demands for what they need in a church. Only from the King James Bible. Soft music only. Only reading, no opinions. Once saved, always saved. One said, “mostly traditional, but some contemporary.”
Are we ordering from Burger King now? We get to have it our way? I feel like we are making a list of demands on God, and if He doesn’t meet them, we aren’t going to serve Him. “I need a 2:15-ish service. With a coffee bar that has pumpkin spice lattes with half and half and a sprinkle of nutmeg fixed to the perfect temperature. This will lead me closer to God.”
Here is a fair series of questions, what happens when God doesn’t accommodate all that? Is that God’s fault? What happens when God makes us uncomfortable? Do we immediately assume it’s not God?
If you are truly wanting to serve God, it will be uncomfortable. There will be times when the temperature in the room and the coffee aren’t perfect. There will be people there that you don’t like. The pastor WILL say something you don’t like (If he’s delivering God’s word). Someone at the church WILL offend you.
If you are looking for the perfect church with the perfect pastor and perfect people, you will be looking for a very long time. And if you find it, don’t join because YOU will ruin it.
In my many years of walking with God, I’ve learned that God is not interested in making us comfortable. Not at all. If we are comfortable, either we get a momentary break from real life, or we are missing something that God is doing. Your comfort is not on God’s to-do list. Your transformation is. Your denial of a long-held belief, thus making room for a revelation that God was wanting to show you… that’s on His to-do list.
Majoring on minors won’t get us anywhere as a people. It’s just more division. Dunk, sprinkle, traditional, contemporary, bright, dark, big, small, doctrinal creed, just say yes… at the end of the day, it ends up at the same place, are we closer to Jesus? A sprinkle or a dunk won’t make the difference. Pursuing Jesus like we pursued our spouse or best friend will. Reading about Him, talking to and about Him, listening to others who know Him talk about Him, this will bring us closer to Jesus. And that’s ALL THAT MATTERS.
I’m not suggesting one way is better than another. You can dunk or sprinkle. I don’t care. But I am suggesting that if you are making a list of demands on God and His house, then that house is the least of your concerns.
The world of research, using the scientific method, has traditionally been a place for verification of previously held beliefs, epiphanies of contradiction to previously held beliefs, information they did not realize they needed, nor did they see coming, and above all, factual discoveries that are entirely objective.
Research has a goal of proving something is not. It typically cannot prove something is, it can only prove something is not. In order to prove anything, you need facts. From those facts, you propose a theory as to why and how you reached the conclusion you did. But you first need the facts. Facts like, the best possible environment for a child to be raised is in a low-conflict home with his/her two biological parents. This has been proven time and time again.
But right away, we run into a problem in the current climate of scientific research. The issue is not the sample sizes. The issue is usually not random selection, in most cases. The research is not typically littered with mixed feelings or things easily proved wrong. The issue is that when one turns in a research paper that does not conform to the current ideological climate, which is based solely on identity and feelings, it simply does not get published. If, somehow, it does get published, the person who authored the paper gets cancelled. The author gets publicly ridiculed, shunned by peers overnight, and sometimes fired from the university that funded the research, citing “differences in direction.”
This should scare you. Because if something does not change course, we will have no verifiable data that speaks to factual issues if it does not affirm and confirm a feeling about identity. There is nothing scientific nor right about this. It is a huge problem.
I won’t mention the journal, but I recently reviewed every paper written and published in this one particular American journal in the last 18 months. There are usually five papers per issue, sometimes 6, sometimes 4. I reviewed 13 issues. In total, there were 65 papers written. Of those papers, there were 23 papers that were not about an extreme minority issue. These papers would pose a significant relevance to approximately 15% of the country. Of the 23 papers that were not about a minority issue of identity, there was one… ONE about religion/spirituality (RS). And the entire paper was written to scold all researchers who have researched RS and not spoken loud enough denouncing what religion teaches and not being inclusive enough. In other words, “we don’t agree with you, so stop writing it.”
There was one entire journal dedicated to women. There was one entire journal dedicated to African Americans. There were none dedicated to men. None dedicated to any race other than the black race. So, in 65 papers, we can’t talk about men at all, but we can talk about women’s issues for an entire issue? And they thought it appropriate to dedicate over 65% of their time to less than 15% of the American population. This is why it should scare you. Because for the rest of the 85% of the American population, there is no research being conducted and published (without dire consequences) that will help you or psychological professionals know better how to help you in your time of need.
I recently read a book by a very accomplished scholar in the realm of gender expression, sex genes, and overall human biology. She stated that she found facts for and against those suffering from gender dysphoria. The journals would allow her to only publish the research that makes those with gender dysphoria feel better. But not the research that shows the fact that suicide ideation does not decrease after transition. She was able to meet her hero in the field of sexology and asked him why he hadn’t published anything in a long time. His answer was chilling. He stated that one day, out of nowhere, after publishing and lecturing for 40 years, he was asked to leave the university where he taught after already being denied entries into journals where he had been published for years. His findings were not much different than before, but the cultural and societal landscape had changed, and his facts were no longer accepted. Again, this should scare you.
The more malevolent consequence of this is that when one attempts to speak from a place of factual experience, someone will cite research to the contrary and no one will be able to refute it with other research findings because there will be none to cite. This will further allow ideological radicals to push an agenda for various purposes, but they are usually tied to money.
For example, if one says, “Every couple in my town of 10,000 people that has lived together prior to being married was divorced before they reached year 8 of their marriage”, someone will be able to quote research that couples are better living together prior to marriage. Unfortunately for them, there is current research that shows that for those couples who cohabitate, year one is better than those who didn’t. But every year after, they show a lower relationship satisfaction rating than the married couples who did not cohabitate prior to marriage. The couples who cohabitated prior to marriage are typically divorced by year seven.
Perhaps it’s time to stop being quiet. If we don’t, there will be no factual research out there to support best practices and methods for achieving the best possible results in our lives. Facts like being raised by your two biological parents in a low-conflict home. This is a verifiable fact that will be shut down and society will begin to believe that this is not the ultimate good to reach for when raising children. But it is. This doesn’t mean that everything else is terrible. It just means that there is a verifiable goal to strive towards that will result in the best possible outcome for the child. The statistics show that every family unit outside of this increases the risk of low grades, poverty, incarceration, dropouts, and teen pregnancies. We know this because we have current research that shows this.
In our society, we need research on all issues, not just the ones we agree with. We need research on teenagers with gender dysphoria and we need research on the positive effects of religion on depression. We need all, not some.
Should the Ten Commandments be in Louisiana schools?
The answer to this question has multi levels.
What relevance would the Ten Commandments have for a school?
Does this violate the separation of church and state?
What is Separation of Church and State?
Are there any judicial precedents for this?
Let’s start with relevance. They are foundations for good behavior. They are pillars of how the founding fathers of America sought to build a great nation. While the first four are religious based, number five, “Honor your father and mother” seem to be of the most important among most anyone who studies behavior (and/or religion). Numbers six, seven, eight, and nine (murder, adultery (grounds for divorce), theft, perjury- respectively) have legislation attached to them in our nation. So, are they relevant? It appears as though they are. Children need these principles in their lives. And often, they are not getting this instruction at home.
Does this violate the separation of church and state? Great question. It is first important to present the fact that “Separation of church and state” does not appear in the constitution. It was a phrase that was made popular when Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to members of the Danbury Baptist association in Connecticut. Why did he write that? Another good question.
A monument with the Ten Commandments stands on the grounds of the Haskell County Courthouse in Stigler, Okla., Wednesday, April 26, 2006. A federal lawsuit challenging the marker’s location comes amid a prickly national debate over displays of Ten Commandments on public property. (AP Photo/Brandi Simons)
The founding fathers knew a couple of things that informed and swayed their decisions when putting together the founding principles of America. They knew that where they came from, and all other countries as well, the government had formed an alliance with the church that caused the church to become as corrupt as the government. This, along with the church of the time espousing the idea that rituals, giving, and acts were what gained you entry into heaven, ignited the Protestant Revolution. Again, the government urged the church to continue to preach this message of acts gaining your way to heaven so that the government could heavily tax their people and the church’s parishioners would believe that this was directly tied to their heavenly reward. More collusion. More corruption. The Protestant Revolution ensued.
This revolution of free speech, individualism, and believing that you are saved by grace and not through works led the founders to consider something no one had ever considered. They chose to be the first country in the history of the world to NOT have an established religion. This had never been done. They simply wanted the church to be a pure place where one could worship freely, and the government wouldn’t have official strongholds over the church and its people. This revolution also brought about their belief that the government must be limited. This is why the U.S. Constitution is a document written for the purpose of limiting the government. For more on the foundations of America, how we became a country, and what it will take to bring America down, go grab my book HERE.
Therefore, the separation of church and state applies to establishing an official religion for the state. This still has never been attempted in America. So why is this such a big issue? Because some forgot how we were founded as a country. But just to be sure, in Van Orden v. Perry (545 U.S. 677, 2005), it was ruled that a “reasonable observer, mindful of history, purpose, and context, would not conclude that this passive monument conveyed the message that the State endorsed religion.” One objection to this is that Van Orden v. Perry applies to a state capitol building and not schools. The obvious rebuttal here is that the ruling and precedent applies to anyone within The State (government), including buildings and schools.
This leads us to one conclusion, if the Ten Commandments are displayed for historical context rather than a call to an established religion, they do not infringe on any part of the First Amendment, including the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. If Van Orden v. Perry holds up, Louisiana will not have to reverse its decision to post the historical monument.
The commandments themselves, regardless of your religious belief system, foster a behavior that promotes good will towards others, respectfulness, and kindness. Think about it, you’re being asked to believe in something greater than you, to not put your faith in things, to not speak ill about anyone’s God or beliefs, to rest when necessary, to honor your parents, don’t kill, steal, or commit adultery, don’t slander others, and don’t wish for what others have to the point of it being unhealthy. This all sounds reasonable. Surely, this can’t be a bad thing. But what do I know, I‘m just a writer, father, husband, mental health counselor, and overseer.
Is there such a thing as objective morality? This is one of those questions that requires perspective. One could make a case that one’s sense of objective morality is in fact rooted in subjectivity, making it subjective morality and no longer objective.
For instance, if one says God is their objective morality, someone else could say that this is a belief, which is, in itself, subjective. There’s a strong case for this. So I’ll take a slightly deeper dive into this.
The term objective morality is the belief that there are morals and values that can be true and exist completely irrespective of individual opinions or cultural norms. As you’re reading this, you’re thinking that everyone disagrees on certain issues of values and norms, so they have to be subjective. For instance, it is immoral for a woman to get an education in some parts of the world. But in others, it is welcomed. They don’t agree.
The reality in this argument has two places of interest. Verbiage and Perspective.
In verbiage, we find that many believe that everything is subjective. No two people agree on absolutely everything. Therefore, there cannot be an objective set of values and morals. But the verbiage is off. The term objective morality never says that two people must agree on everything. It merely states that values and morals can exist outside of individual opinion. So, for example, there are no cultures in which you can steal someone’s property and it be widely accepted. It is objectively wrong to harm another human (outside of defense).
I once read some philosophy on this subject and saw two good points of view. First, let’s look at slavery. While there are still areas of slavery in the world today, no one will openly state that it is a good thing or a moral thing to be a slave owner. Everyone inherently knows it is wrong. Therefore, the objective morality around slavery exists. And if it exists anywhere, then it exists. It is the common sense theory. There are certain common sense areas where there is objective morality.
Another point of view is that when two people disagree over something, it is something subjective. But people won’t disagree over something objective. I love listening to Merle Haggard. My wife does not. The idea that he’s a great singer is a subjective principle. The idea that he has won Grammys is an objective principle. We won’t argue over whether he won Grammys. This is objectivity. This notion alone brings about the reality of an objective morality. If we can’t steal without causing harm, and we can’t enslave without causing harm, and we won’t argue over this being immoral, then it is based on an objective morality.
The other place of interest is perspective. This one is as simple as the first. If you have the perspective that there is no possibility of an objective morality, then there is nothing to stop you from taking what you want and doing what you want without limitations on your behavior. You have no guide, no standard, no measuring stick. Nothing is off limits. This will inevitably produce strife, recklessness, chaos, pain, heartache, and suffering of all sorts. Anyone that’s lived for any amount of adulthood time knows this. Therefore, the perspective must be that there is a standard by which we all live. There must be an objective morality. Or at least there must be the perspective of an objective morality. The only real question for many is where this objective morality would derive from. My favorite psychologist, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, once said, “I live as though there is a God.”
As Christians, we believe this objective morality comes from God and God’s word to us. But again, there is this perspective thing that creeps its head into the church. For instance, Calvinism. Calvinism is the belief that God already knows everything, everything has already been determined, and your life is a predicted outcome of circumstances and events that will not change God’s predetermined mind as to who enters the kingdom of heaven. The premise was that one should live hoping to be that soul. There is a case to be made that this is factually true. However, the problem with this line of thinking is obvious. If your perspective is that God has already chosen who enters heaven, then it doesn’t matter how you live. There again, you find yourself having no limitations on your behavior, leading you right back down that hole of despair and brokenness. I must say that if there is not a single source of objective morality from which you pull your belief system from, you are bound to be misled into a way of thinking that is not grounded in fact or anything helpful to society. Again, for me, it is God. The system of God and Christianity leads me to a place of being the best version of me if I follow the teachings. I firmly believe the denial of an objective morality is the denial of evil, and we all know evil exists. God has never steered me wrong before. I don’t expect Him to anytime soon.
I can remember as a kid, we went to Showbiz pizza. It was basically a Chuck E. Cheese. I was probably around 7 years old. I go to the bathroom. As I’m about to walk out, a woman walks in. I look at her, with full confidence and say, “You’re in the wrong bathroom. This is the boys.” She said, “No, it’s not. Check the sign.” I looked at the sign and to my horror, it said “Ladies.” And to make it worse, there were some kids I didn’t know nearby and saw the whole thing. They started laughing at me.
I then knew what it felt like to be shamed. Shamed for going into the wrong bathroom. No, this is not a blog about Target. I avoided that meaningless nonsense altogether. If you don’t know which bathroom to go in, we don’t have much to talk about.
Throughout life, I’ve seen people be shamed repeatedly. Sometimes it’s warranted. Like when they knowingly committed an awful crime and are only sorry that they got caught. Shame should be the reaction. But most of the time, it is not warranted.
When birth control was invented, improved, and became affordable, this caused more women to be able to enter the workplace. And, as predicted, many men had an issue with this. And also predictably, these women were shamed for not wanting to stay home. The problem here was that those that were shaming them for wanting to go to work were not aware of their daily issues.
All of this took place in the 1960’s. Birth control. More women entering the workplace. And men becoming more and more absent.
Originally, men being absent had a real reason, the war. Whether it was WWII or the Vietnam War. But this wasn’t even the worst of it. President Johnson read a report called the Moynihan Report and made a drastic response to it. President Johnson then proceeded to incentivize single mothers for being single mothers. These women would get more money and not have to work as long as they had children and had no man in the home. So they had as many children as they thought they could handle. The results were staggering, yet also somewhat predictable. There was an explosion of babies that grew up not knowing their fathers. But if you thought this only affected the black community, wrong. Prior to this policy, 8% of white babies were born to single mother homes and 25% of black babies were born to single mother homes. After this policy, white families born to single mothers rose to 25% and black babies born to single mothers rose to 75%. They both TRIPLED. And here you have the beginning of the epidemic of fatherless homes. Crime statisticians had plenty to do following this radical response to a report.
As a result of this, mothers were left to figure this out on their own. So with birth control becoming an affordable option within reach of almost any woman that wanted it, they were now able to go and work and not try to rely on the man, who would often use their position of breadwinner as a power play to mistreat their wife. The shaming began… by who? Men. Towards who? Working women. The very men that were walking out on their families were shaming women for bettering themselves. For obvious reasons. They were losing power.
Following the American Revolution, Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, John Adams, and said, “In the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.” To which the future President of the United States replied, “We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems.” Of course men were furious at women working more.
Thus began the nonstop shame. Working women were ridiculed everywhere. Eventually, there were more female lawyers, more female representation than male in almost any university in America, and more men ditching their responsibilities than ever before. At some point, the table turned completely. Women began meeting men that were staying home and taking on their duties as husband and father. Men were providing, but not abusing. They were protecting but not dictating. They were directional but loving. This new man was something women longed for but hadn’t seen in a while, if ever. But he came along and caused many women to simply want to be a mother and housewife.
I read the transcripts from Harrison Butker. He’s a Catholic, speaking at a Catholic school, about Catholic issues. To expect anything other than that is very delusional. The response from the “Love is Love” crowd was anything but loving. Having said that, I don’t agree with his stance on IVF or birth control. But I also didn’t raise hell about his speech. Because Catholics all have the same stance on birth control and IVF. But in the flip of a switch, the shaming that once was abhorrent to society, was now ok as long as it was aimed at women who wanted to stay home and be wife and mother. This cannot be ok.
Shaming a woman for being a working woman, CEO, Attorney, (insert any career here) is uncool, self-righteous, and just mean. Along with that, shaming women for wanting to be a wife and mother only is equally as wrong. It is just as noble to want to make a lot of memories with your children as it is to make a lot of money for your family. So when Butker applauded the women for their accomplishments and also, at the same time, acknowledged that some of them may end up wanting to stay at home, there was literally nothing wrong with this.
And what was America’s response? Butker’s women’s jerseys are sold out. Apparently, they really do want to be a wife and mother as long as they have a man that will handle the other stuff and not be abusive along the way.
Leave the shame out. Let people be who they are. Even when (especially when) you don’t agree with them.
During my time in the music industry, I ran into so many people who looked as though someone had taken them out back and whipped them repeatedly. They looked dejected, worn down, and defeated. For some, it took over. They lost their record deals, their families, and in some cases, their lives. I had a couple of good mentors in the industry that pointed this out and told me to be careful of this happening to me. As a result, I learned from some of the best and managed to figure out how to manage the stress of the industry.
At the time, I was learning how to survive the music industry, but the principles that I was learning from others and what God was showing me was more universal than just the music industry. What I learned in that time was how to cope with being in a visible position. This applies to any visible position. Music artist, TV personality, pastor, professional athlete, CEO, any visible position where people tend to view you in a higher social status and tend to “brown nose” to get close to you in hopes that they too will be viewed in this higher social status.
One thing I learned is that everyone will compliment you. Constantly. “You’re the best singer ever!”, “You’re amazing!”, or “If you don’t make it, I’m moving back home!” These were some of the things I heard through the years. A couple of things I learned from this. First, we were never meant to take on that much praise. Verbal encouragement is a necessary dichotomy. In the right doses, it’s needed. Too much, and it’s costly.
The reason for this is that compliments were designed to benefit the giver. As we know, God is a giving God. So God made us in His image. Therefore, when we give, we benefit. It’s His design. From a physiological angle, God designed it so that we release a neurochemical called oxytocin whenever we either do something generous for someone or even when we witness it. It’s a feel-good chemical. And it only gets released by kind, generous acts and touch, like when you shake a hand, pat on the back, or hugs. So again, God made us to give. Therefore, the compliment benefits the giver. The compliment is a burden to the recipient. We weren’t meant to take on large amounts of praise. As you see, this is why it’s a necessary dichotomy.
This is what kills most people in visible positions. It is incredibly easy to begin to wear the accolades thrown in your direction. Everyone wants to be near you. They want to throw compliments at you hoping you will return the favor and invite them into your circle. It feels good when they say kind things about you. And what many do is they put those compliments on like a coat and wear them around. Not realizing that this coat is poisonous. It begins to erode your sensitivity to what’s right and true. You begin to think you are the reason for your success, not God.
The only way to properly handle all of this is to A.C.T. First, we must Acknowledge. We must acknowledge that the compliment is for the giver and a burden to the recipient. We just discussed that. The next thing is to Collect. When we are given compliments, we should collect them and proverbially set them to the side. Don’t display false humility, “It’s not me, it’s only God.” No one wants to hear that. Just say thank you and set it to the side for later. Collect all of the kind things that people are saying about you.
And lastly, Transfer. When the dust settles on the event, and you are finally able to get away and get alone for a few minutes, take all of those compliments you set to the side earlier, get alone with God, and offer them up to Him saying, “Look at what they said about YOU.” See, those compliments were meant for God, not you. If you keep that perspective, you prevent yourself from ever believing the lie that they are about you. Then you remove the burden of the compliment. Jesus said to cast all of our cares and burdens onto Him. Here’s your chance.
I’m firmly convinced that this is what killed Elvis. He was getting it from every direction. And I don’t believe it was intentional. But I believe that no one ever taught him how to manage this and he just went on instincts. And left to our instincts, we will believe what people say about us. He believed it to the point where he became almost untouchable. He fired a bodyguard who was his close friend before he ever became famous. This guy had been with him from the very beginning and in 1976, one year before Elvis’ death, Elvis fired him for caring about Elvis and suggesting that he was taking too many pills. He had become “too big.” Elvis did not know how to handle the pressure. He never turned it over to God. In defense, Elvis did make an attempt. He would get the band together before every show and sing hymns. This was his way of refocusing before a show. But it wasn’t enough. He died… from those pills.
If you or someone you know is in a place of visibility, pass this on to them. If the place of visibility and power isn’t handled correctly, it will get to you and destroy you. We must maintain that the gifts are from God. Therefore, the compliments are for God. If you’ve never tried to A.C.T., then give it a try. I dare you.
Recently a teacher at a Seattle, Washington high school asked a room of tenth graders to identify themselves racially and sexually, which is abhorrent by itself. But then the teacher scolded a student for unfairly referring to himself as straight. The teacher noted that if he is straight, then that implies to be gay is to be crooked. The teacher told this same student that he was a “product of the patriarchy”, as if to imply transgression on the student’s part.
There is a strong push to bark at people that appear to be a “product of the patriarchy.” This is driving me insane because of the science and history that flow directly in the face of this phrase and notion. The mere hypocrisy of blistering someone verbally for something they can’t control by someone who believes they are being oppressed over something they can’t control is astounding.
Where to begin… well, let’s start with the fact that the patriarchy itself is not a bad thing. Patriarchy is how we got here. It’s how we got the greatest nation on earth. It’s how we got the least bad system of governance on earth. So it can’t be all that bad. There are certain systems of matriarchies that no one seems to be quick to refute as competent. But only for the purpose of identity over quality, which is, itself, a most irrational way of thinking and providing goods and services. Somehow the good or service is more credible because of what someone looks like, regardless of if it works or not. This removes merit.
What we know about hierarchies in general is that it is the least bad system created and that it will always displace the people at the lowest echelon of the hierarchy. This is a good thing and a bad thing in the same sentence. The only real question is how to take care of those that are displaced by the hierarchy. Some believe government programs are the answer. I know that if I ran my business like the government runs theirs, I’d be out of business. Others believe the fellow man, the citizen should pick up the slack. What’s ironic about this issue is that the same people that believe the government should regulate this are the same people that want socialism, where every member must carry their load or it doesn’t work, which points back to it being their fellow man that helps the lowest member of the hierarchy out of those depths of despair. This alone should tell you which is most likely the right solution.
Then you have to dive into the idea of matriarchy and patriarchy. Neither of which are inherently bad. Areas governed by women work when they are suited for the biological tendencies of women. This primarily happens in countries where the men are either insufficient or absent due to other needs being met for the community.
So we are back to patriarchy. The term “a product of the patriarchy” implies malevolence and toxicity in the mere existence of a patriarchy. This obviously denigrates men as a whole for being born with an xy chromosome. We have to at least recognize that the only time a patriarchy becomes a bad thing is when it denigrates into being based on power. Until it is based on power, it is based on all the things that make a society thrive, resources, distributions, protection, and growth (among other things). According to the website “Woman Against Feminism”, the matriarchy is an individual-based system while the patriarchy is a child-based system. It is centered around child survival and growth.
So now we get into the issue of men. So men are the problem? Statistics show in opposite-sex couples, when the male is either working only part time or not working at all, that couple is significantly more likely to get divorced than a couple where the male works full time. However, the opposite is not true. If the female works part time or not at all, there is no difference in the likelihood of divorce. So this statistic only applies to how much a man works. Why? Men need to be productive and feel as though they are wanted and needed. And production is one of the core ways a man feels wanted and needed. The breakdown of that leads to both men feeling useless and falling into severe depression as well as women feeling as though they’ve been left alone in the workload for the family and subsequently want out. Oh, but there’s more.
Dr. Sarah Hill believes she is on the cusp of something that will most likely lead to a research study. We have known for some time that the overall level of testosterone in men decreases when they get married. We also know that this overall level of testosterone decreases again when the couple has children. Now take the current research on a woman’s brain when she’s on the birth control pill. We have learned that the pill replaces progesterone with a synthetic form, progestin, which is the name given because it is not biologically identical. This progestin also replaces the area of estrogen increase during a normal cycle for a woman.
Dr. Sarah E. Hill
What does this mean? The progesterone phase of the cycle is when the body tells the brain that it could possibly be pregnant. So women gain weight, they want less risks, they avoid contaminants, and so on. Another side effect is that they desire fewer masculine qualities in their mate. They have found that if a woman on the pill believes she is with a desirable, attractive man, when she comes off of the pill, she is more attracted to him. Likewise, if she believes she is with a less desirable and attractive man, she is less attracted to him when coming off of the pill. The effects of being off of the pill magnify in either direction, depending on which way they were bent to begin with.
Now take what we know about couples’ likelihood of divorce if the man is working part time or not at all, combine this with what we know about women desiring less masculine men as a result of the birth control pill since the 1960’s, and put that with the current social climate of women working more than they ever have and men contributing much more to the day to day domestic tasks, and even some being stay at home dads (which we no know makes them more likely for divorce). What Dr. Hill believes is that this new social climate of men doing more domestic tasks and less working at their job is significantly leading to the emasculation of men and one of the reasons there are T centers on every corner of a city.
Men being men is what got us to our desired destination as a country. Men protect. Men serve sacrificially. Men are genetically physically bigger and stronger than equal women. The family is by far the strongest and best unit the world has ever seen. This all comes crashing down if we don’t stop crushing men and their natural instincts and tendencies because you feel as though they are a “product of the patriarchy.” Men are not the problem. Patriarchy is not the problem. Catering to one’s feelings in the face of biological and scientific facts is the problem. Being afraid to tell the truth is the problem. Being immersed in an echo chamber of social media rants where you only ever see what you agree with… is the problem. Don’t blame this on men no more than we can blame this on women. This transcends gender. And the more time we spend on what is not the solution, the longer our society decays before it either crumbles or we find the actual solution, which many were trying to warn us of, was right in front of us, and it wasn’t gender, age, nor race.
The United States of America and everything that is right about it is a product of the patriarchy. But you won’t hear that in a classroom in Seattle, Washington.
Why is Christmas many people’s favorite time of year? Even non-religious people, it’s their favorite time of year. What makes this time of year different for those that aren’t actually celebrating Jesus’ birth? I have a theory.
We have all heard the songs, “love is all you need” or “you are all I need” and we have all chosen to believe this. Celine Dion, Rodney Crowell, and The Beatles sang about this. The problem is, it’s not even close to the truth. If you said, “God is all I need” you’d still be wrong. Here’s why:
We were designed to be social. We were created to have social interactions. Without these social interactions, we begin to lose our minds. Let me explain from a psychological viewpoint.
The Stanford Prison Experiment: In 1971, a psychology professor at Stanford University led a research team conducting an experiment on human behavior given pack mentality versus isolation. Everyone involved was a willing participant in the research and was told they could leave at any time. They split the group into guards and prisoners. They told the guards to keep the prisoners in line. Eventually, the guards took their jobs as power-wielding tyrants seriously and began using psychological tactics to keep the prisoners from escaping. The experiment was supposed to last 2 weeks. It only lasted 6 days because both the guards and the prisoners had all but forgotten they were willing participants and felt forced into their current positions, which caused extreme psychological stress to the prisoners, and later the guards as well. The isolation caused their minds to lose their grasp on reality. The reality was that they were just college students pretending to be something else for an experiment but instead they had grown to believe they were actually prisoners.
Kalief Browder: Now if that was the effect after 6 days, imagine being isolated from reality for 2 years. This was the case with Kalief Browder. Browder was a common kid, getting into small theft trouble in the streets of New York. One day he was arrested and charged with a crime he did not commit. Without any evidence, he was charged and sentenced, based on his prior history. He was sent to the Rikers Island jail system. There, he was being bullied. So he fought to defend himself. In doing so, they put him in solitary confinement. He spent 800 days in solitary confinement. Studies show that if one is in solitary confinement for more than 30 days, they will suffer severe psychological damage.
After his release, the case gained national attention. Browder appeared on The View with his lawyer. Rapper Jay-Z reached out to him. He was gaining national support. Nothing but love. But love was not enough. Upon his fifth suicide attempt, Browder was finally successful in 2013. The isolation had destroyed him permanently. Love was not enough.
Oxytocin: There are four “feel-good” chemicals that flow through your brain. Endorphins, Dopamine, Serotonin, and Oxytocin. Of the four, oxytocin is the only one that does not have a negative side. Endorphins mask pain, but the pain comes back. You can easily become addicted to dopamine. Serotonin can be tricked into being released. But oxytocin requires generosity and/or physical touch.
So the way oxytocin is released is when there is physical touch and when there is a random act of kindness or an act of true generosity without expectation of reciprocity. So when you pat someone on the back or shake their hand or hug them, oxytocin is released. When you do something kind for someone, you get a release of oxytocin, they get a release as well, as well as anyone who witnessed it. Oxytocin fights addiction and boosts your immune system. We are DESIGNED to be generous, social beings. Love is not enough. I know, “But you said God is not enough?” Hear me out.
Adam and Eve: God created everything in the world, every living thing. Then He created Adam. At this moment, there is no sin. There is no competition for God’s attention. There is only Adam and God. Adam literally had everything he needed in that moment. And somehow, in the midst of such perfection, God still said, “It is not good for man to be alone.” Why?! He had God. He had love. If that is all we need, then there was no need for anything else in that moment. That’s just it, we needed more, because of how God made us. It’s the relational aspect of how we are created that causes us to want to be close to God, which was the original design. I don’t want to force my kids to hug me. I want them to want to hug me. That aspect of us requires more than love and more than God. It requires each other.
What we find is that when we are separated from each other, the enemy begins to tell lies that we begin to believe which destroy us. When we are isolated from God’s other creations, we lose the ability for rational thought. But when we do something for someone else, we better our own physical body and brain. We unlock what God created for us by being socially interactive.
So, is love all we need? No. Is God all we need? Apparently not. We need God and God in each other. This is the only way we thrive the way God intended. I know it doesn’t sing well, but it’s just the truth. So this Christmas, embrace the time of giving generously and joyously but with a new outlook on it. It is what we all NEED. And maybe we can start acting like it’s Christmas year round.
