Posted on

7 Reasons to Be a Loser

My brother told me a story about his son’s soccer league. They were 8-year-olds. His team did not win a game all season. They were simply the worst team in the league. At the end of the season, they received a trophy just for being in the league. As they were about to get into the car to leave the complex, my brother told his son to give him the trophy. After he did, my brother told him that he did not deserve this trophy and that he would throw it away when he got home. He explained to his son that when he earns praise, he will receive it. But he would not receive praise for doing nothing to earn it. His son understood and quickly moved on like it never happened. That response was only possible because the son had received praise when it was warranted prior to this conversation. So it was no big deal when dad removed what the son knew he didn’t deserve.

There is now 20 years of research that show that unearned praise is quite harmful to child development. We know that when children receive an award they deserved but learn that everyone received the same award, the value of the award is significantly diminished, if not destroyed. We now know that when children receive an award they did not deserve, they are more likely to suffer from depression as a consequence of the guilt and shame of unearned praise. This is a lose/lose situation.

There is now 20 years of research that show that unearned praise is quite harmful to child development. We know that when children receive an award they deserved but learn that everyone received the same award, the value of the award is significantly diminished, if not destroyed. We now know that when children receive an award they did not deserve, they are more likely to suffer from depression as a consequence of the guilt and shame of unearned praise. This is a lose/lose situation.

I have seen many teenagers struggling with the transition into adulthood, whether it’s college or right into the workforce. They arrive thinking they will have immediate impact and will not have to experience adversity. Things come fast for them. Want a date? Swipe right. Hungry? Doordash! Then when adversity happens, they miss a deadline and the boss is furious, or they turn in a paper late and think it’s ok but the professor knocks points off of their grade, they cannot figure it out. They had been celebrated for just existing. What changed? What changed was their parents aren’t there to save them and overprotect them anymore. They must now integrate into the real world. This serves no one.

Two Big Losers:

Lincoln

Lincoln’s losses (in chronological order): Lost his job early in adulthood. Was defeated for legislature. His business failed. His girlfriend died. Defeated for speaker, congress, then rejected for land officer. Defeated for US senate. Lost VP nomination. Defeated again for senate in 1858. In 1860, he becomes the 16th President of the United States. He then went on to become one of the most influential leaders in the history of the world. He lost, time and again, and was better for it.

Jordan

A young man in North Carolina tries out for his high school basketball team as a sophomore. He is cut from the team. He tries out again the next year and makes the team. Goes on to play at the University of North Carolina. Gets drafted by the Chicago Bulls and goes on to be the greatest basketball player of all time. Michael Jordan has been quoted as saying that he has missed over 300 possible game winning shots. He failed in baseball. But here he stands, the GOAT. His losses motivated him like no one else.

We should all be ok with losing. Losing does something in us that sticks with us. We rarely can remember all of the wins, but we can always remember the losses. Let’s look at benefits from losing.

7 Reasons to Be a Loser:

  1. Growth. Once you lose, you begin to grow. You develop problem solving skills. Anger management skills. You begin seeing the possibilities out there and you become more competent.
  2. Emotional Intelligence. Now that you’ve lost, there are a myriad of emotions you must deal with or they will destroy you. In dealing with them, you learn to become emotionally intelligent, which serves you, your family, and your community in the long run.
  3. Resilience. Now that you’ve lost, grown, and experienced muiliple emotions, you now possess somewhat of an immunity to the devastation of losing. You grow resilient. Inoculation over isolation. You now know what it’s like. It didn’t kill you before, it won’t kill you now. You become stronger overnight.
  4. Motivation. Now that you’ve gained some resilience in th face of adversity, you become movitated to overcome. Staying where you were is not an option. Losing again is off the table. You perfect your skills, making you more attractive to the job market and more beneficial to your community. This is where Jordan spent his time, allowing his losses to fuel him for the next game. He worked and worked until…
  5. Success. Once the motivation kicks in, it almost certainly leads to success. This was the case for Jordan. And although it did not happen quickly, it eventually led to Lincoln’s success. It is hard to find someone who genuinely believes that Jordan and Lincoln weren’t two of the most successful people on the planet.
  6. Progress > Perfection. Now your expectations are more realistic. You realize you won’t achieve perfection. But you can achieve progress. Becoming a better version of you today than you were tomorrow is all anyone can ever ask for. The progress comes through failure.
  7. Identity. Now that you’ve experienced all that, you realize that failure is an event, not a person. You may have failed at something, but you aren’t a failure. That’s very different. With this realization, you can rest in the fact that you will try your best, win some, lose some, and never stop moving forward.

Here’s the thing, if all we ever do is coast through life winning, or at least not losing, we enter the real world completely unprepared for the adversity we are sure to face. In this context, losing isn’t only not a bad thing, it’s a good thing to lose. Parents, let your kids lose. Let them taste the “Agony of defeat.” Let them get their feelings hurt because they didn’t get a trophy. Though it is tough to see them struggle, it is a very beneficial long term strategy.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

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

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

#notadragqueen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Where is the Middle?

Where is the middle?

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

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

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

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

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

What does the middle look like?

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

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

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

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

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

So what happened to the middle?

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

Why is this relevant to the left pulling stronger?

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

Why are feelings bad when making policy?

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

So how should this work?

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

Why is this not happening now?

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

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

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

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

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

Posted on

We Have Work To Do

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Best Two Presidential Candidates?

The founders were on to something when they left England. They left a situation where they knew it was wrong and couldn’t last. They left a monarchy. They had already seen what a pure democracy did. The mob rules. Two wolves and a sheep decide what’s for dinner. Every night. So pure democracy didn’t work. Monarchy didn’t work either. The rulers corrupted the church and caused an alliance between church and state so powerful that no one could stand against it. This is the reason they sought to keep it separate. To put a check on the government, the church, and ensure freedom to worship without such corruption looking over their heads. If you can’t tell me how to worship, then you can’t tell me to worship or not to worship.

This leaves them with brainstorming possible solutions. Fortunately, they eventually came to the correct solution. A republic: a representative democracy. Alexander Hamilton stated, “But a representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable.”

Ronald Reagan said it best…

However, this can only come about if it truly represents the people. And the way this was ensured was to document that those governing only do so by the sovereignty of the consent of the governed. Meaning, the people being governed are those who chose the government. Those who make rules, enforce rules, and execute rules, only do so with the consent of the governed. This is what it means to be in a representative democracy. When people far away from the meeting itself needed to be at the meetings, they would send a representative to speak on their behalf. Whose behalf? The governed, who gave consent.

This representation keeps both the government and the governed in check. The first check in the constitution was consent. This checked the government. The second check in the constitution was the sovereign being excluded from government. That’s a check on the governed- us. In this manner, neither can have too much power. See, Athens didn’t last nearly as long as Sparta for one main reason, Sparta had divisions of the government and Athens did not. In Athens, the government was the governed and it was all ran by the people entirely.  

Ok, enough with the history lesson. What does this have to do with the presidential candidates? Glad you asked. If you were to poll Americans, the overwhelming majority would say that Trump and Harris are NOT the best two options we have for president in this country. Most conservatives and liberals would rather someone less divisive. Someone that will unite the country. But that is definitely not what we have.

What we currently have in our country are two people running for president that the majority of the “governed” did not “consent” to. This is a massive problem. Politicians have routinely been accused of lying. Why? Because they say they are going to represent us in order to get our vote, then once elected, they do the opposite, which is always what they intended on doing anyway. It is rare to see a politician truly vote and lobby on behalf of the people that elected him or her. Recently, there was a group of politicians that got together to discuss the future of the area they served, and one stood up and said, “You expect us to listen to these people that don’t know as much as we do and just do what they want?” To which the speaker said, “Yes. That’s exactly what a representative democracy is.” This happened this year, 2024. Someone had to be reminded publicly that they represent people. They didn’t just get elected to do whatever they wanted. They got elected to represent us. That’s tragic.

If we don’t begin holding the “government” accountable to the “consent of the governed”, the government will only get bigger and bigger until it’s too big and we no longer have a republic, but rather an oligarchy or aristocracy. While an aristocracy is labeled as the better of the two because of a lack of corruption, neither are good, because they do not keep each other in check. As it stands, we have two candidates that were not chosen by the “governed”, but by financial elites that believe they know better than the entire country. The “governed” must get louder, or they will be silenced.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Objective Truth Hurt My Feelings

Here is a fair question. How is that we have both a massive rise in mental health cases like never seen before and more mental health professionals than ever before? If we have more mental health professionals than ever before, then we should have fewer cases of mental health issues. That’s the logical assumption. But that’s not what’s happening. We have both an increase in mental health cases and more mental health professionals than ever before.

So how did we get here? To answer this question, we must look at the differences in the overall value structure in societies before the mental health crisis explosion and after. Because what we value is what we will espouse, pursue, and emit into the world. Our values point us towards an end goal, whether we realize what that goal is and regardless of whether it is a positive and uplifting goal or a negative and destructive one.

The value and belief system of yesteryear is one of simplicity. Boys and girls grow up in school together, use different bathrooms, understand that their issues are different, and respect and appreciate the inequality of boys and girls. The values and beliefs of the past espouse the notion that where I lack, my neighbor will fill in the gap until I can stand again on my own. The community raises our children. If there was a problem with a teacher, we were instructed that we were the problem (if indeed we were, and we were most of the time). We all play a part and live closely by the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In the midst of this, if someone in our community was out of line, we stepped in to help right the wrong. If it hurt your feelings, so be it. You were better for it afterwards. Men could accomplish things that their wives couldn’t. And likewise, women could accomplish things their husbands couldn’t. And that was ok.

The values have shifted. Now, boys can go into girls’ bathrooms. Girls can join the “boy” scouts. Read that again. Now girls believe they can do anything a boy can do causing boys to react citing they can do anything a girl can do, neither of which is correct. Today’s values say take care of yourself because you can trust no one. Today’s belief system says that you can’t say anything to my children or there will be consequences. If there is a problem with a teacher, it has to be the teacher’s fault. Today’s golden rule is “He who has the gold makes the rules.”

Wives believe they can do absolutely everything their husband can do, allowing for no individualism, cooperation, negotiation, and contribution by both parties. As a result, this goal of “equality” emasculates their husband and leaves him feeling useless and worthless, which contributes to divorce. Men and women simply are not equal and appreciating that and utilizing one’s strengths where their partner is weak, and vice-versa, makes a relationship thrive long term. There is so much science that proves this.

Today we are so afraid of hurting anyone’s feelings that are willing to allow a total falsehood to control the narrative of human existence. We will deny thousands of years of objective science, thousands of years of learning and figuring out which way is the best way, and thousands of years of believing that we are not the highest being in the universe so that one person won’t have their feelings hurt.

How did we get here? We removed objective truth from our society. When I throw a ball in the air, it will come down. If a fetus has XY chromosomes, it will be male. Subjective versus objective can be explained this way: Merle Haggard is a great singer. That is a subjective truth. I believe that but my wife doesn’t. Merle Haggard has won multiple Grammy awards. That is objective. Regardless of how my wife feels about that, it is a verifiable, objective truth.

Some objective truths that we have let slip away include differences in sexes, appreciating the two genders, the family system is the best unit on earth for sustaining a society, the best possible environment for a child to be raised is in a low-conflict home with two biological parents, and the fact that religiosity balances, sustains, and causes any society to flourish. It promotes well-being, community, helping those in need, and unselfishness.

But we are so afraid of hurting someone’s feelings that we ignore these facts and tell outright lies. By “we”, I mostly mean mental health professionals. Although “we” as parents and societal members can also be included. And by outright lies, I mean telling society that a child being raised in a single-mother home is the same as being raised by two parents. My children don’t get to be in this category. I am divorced and remarried. That hurts my feelings. But it is a fact, regardless of how I feel about it. Or that males should be allowed to compete in female’s sports because we don’t want to hurt their feelings of being confused and qualifying for a mental health disorder, according to the DSM-V manual. This is where feelings override solid facts that point you towards healthier living. Healthier living requires that we die to one belief in order to make room for another. That requires that we hear something uncomfortable and are forced to acknowledge it and evaluate it for validity.

Regarding religiosity, when you believe you are the highest order of being in your universe, you are aware of your humanity, aware of the mistakes that you can and have made, and this frightens you. Therefore, you are either frozen in fear and refuse to take risks, or you are completely nihilistic about it and take far too many risks. Neither are good. When you believe in a higher power (God), you understand that you make mistakes but follow the One who doesn’t. You are willing to take risks, but not catastrophic risks. You understand that you have an ultimate goal to reach for, thereby making you better each day than you were the day before. You acknowledge your shortcomings, but chase the perfect One, which only makes you better, which makes your family better, which makes your community better, and so on.

We MUST return to a belief in an objective truth. Facts. Facts that say that discipline reroutes a child to success from where they were otherwise headed. Gentle parenting does not work. Facts that include teaching children that they are not the most important person in the universe and the world isn’t about them. It’s about others. Children are growing up believing they are so important that when they find out that they really aren’t, it is causing a mental health breakdown. These are measurable, scientific facts. There is an argument for and against objective morality. You can read that HERE.

Once we return to facts, even if it hurts someone’s feelings, objective truth, belief in something higher (God), we will begin to see the mental health crisis start to subside. Until then, we still have more mental health cases and more mental health professionals than ever before, which makes no logical sense. Bring logical sense back.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger