I have read the newest critiques of Jordan Peterson and his ill-advised appearance on 1 Christian vs. 20 Atheists on YouTube. Peterson was so vague in most of his responses that they had to change the name of the show to Jordan Peterson vs. 20 Atheists. Many came away with more questions than answers. Most who watched and commented on it were bemused by Peterson’s refusal to place a stake in the ground. One thing is certain, whoever had the idea to put Peterson on a show entitled 1 Christian vs 20 Atheists did not think that through. It was a terrible idea. Those on Peterson’s team who did nothing to stop it also need to be held accountable. So, to be fair, the criticisms of Peterson in these exchanges are warranted, albeit some felt invigorated to “take him down” as if their worth increased if they were able to successfully dismantle such a brilliant thinker. I have “taken down” a few people in discussions and felt no such invigoration. I felt sadness. And if you feel anything less than sorrow after ruining someone’s day, you should get that checked out.
Jordan Peterson on 1 Christian vs 20 Atheists
So what does Peterson really believe? It’s not as complicated as one might think. First, to know the answer to this, you must know his temperament and personality type. (I laid out a more broad interpretation of who Jordan Peterson is HERE. This post will hone in on spirituality)
He’s Agreeable
Peterson is an agreeable person who greatly dislikes conflict. I know what you thought, “He runs to conflict!” No, he doesn’t. He avoids it like the plague until he has weighed out the consequences of not saying something.
He started his intellectual journey studying the vilest characters of modern history. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, (The Deadly Trio). In this endeavor, he discovered that there were a couple of patterns to their success:
Lies. People were willing to tell lies incessantly and people were willing to blindly believe the lies. What the trio had in common was they were consistently selling lies that people were buying. As a result, Peterson always swore he would tell the truth at all costs.
Silence. For those who knew there were major problems with what was going on in their society, they were silent. Few spoke up. For obvious reasons. They feared being killed for speaking up.
Because of this, Peterson always maintained a position of saying what needs to be said to avoid catastrophic outcomes in the future by telling the truth. It’s even one of the points in both of his 12 Rules books: The first book, 12 Rules for Life, “Tell the Truth, or at least don’t lie.” The second book, Beyond Order, 12 More Rules for Life, “Do not hide unwanted things in the fog.” This explains his need to speak out in spite of his propensity to avoid confrontation. It also explains his willingness to find ways to agree on positions that many think shouldn’t fluctuate. And maybe they’re right. It may not excuse it, but it explains it.
He’s searching
As with most people who reach that place in life where the end looks closer than is used to, we hit this existential crisis of sorts and begin thinking of what it all means in the end. Peterson is there. He began learning more about the Christianity he was exposed to as a child. And in typical Peterson fashion, he made psychological connections that allowed him to process what he was reading. Everything had to have a psychological parallel for him to make sense of it. His seminar on Genesis, Exodus, and the Gospels all had psychological underpinnings which enabled him to competently ascertain the benefits of such a religion. He took it a step further and began to determine that it made more sense that Jesus was who he said he was, and that the resurrection happened than it did to deny it. Logically. Philosophically. Psychologically. He is in search. For the deepest possible meaning.
He’s Humble
It is noted by most everyone that he consistently avoids the direct question of his claiming to be a Christian. And I think I know why. Sure, he has fits of anger and has problems with certain confrontations. He only desires thoughtful debate, and in good faith. Chances are, he went into this YouTube special with a preconceived notion they were not doing this in good faith. Remember, these were probably some of the same people, or the same type of people that thrust him into the spotlight by attacking his positions on free speech back when he was at the University of Toronto. He was incredibly uncomfortable during that period of his life and very possibly harbors some resentment from that experience. So he may have underestimated the level of his PTSD going into this show. But at the end of the day, he is a humble human being. He does not think himself to be better than anyone simply because of his education or status. He desires for everyone to seek to be better versions of themselves each day. That’s all he really wants out of life.
His humility comes as a slight detriment to his current effectiveness in the public sphere. One would have needed to follow him for some time to see what is happening here. He is so humble, that he cannot wrap his head around the idea that God in all of his perfection can love and embrace someone like him. Peterson can’t fathom the idea that all of his failures, slips, thoughts, can be forgiven and wiped away by such an ineffable God. This is his struggle. He will not place the stake in the ground for fear that he can’t live up to it. He, like many academics have opened the door to Christianity by way of reason, intellectual exploration, and cognitive education. What they have all yet to do is walk through the door that was opened. They have stepped into the doorway through reason, but they still need to walk through the door with faith. And that’s where it gets murky. You can’t measure faith. And often, faith looks ridiculous.
Peterson was not the right guy to be doing that show on YouTube. Wesley Huff would have been much better. Peterson is still exploring. Spiritual exploration is messy. It’s murky. It’s plagued with confusion and even cognitive dissonance at times. But at the end of the day, Jordan Peterson wants what we all want. A thriving society of people acting in good faith and learning to become better versions of ourselves. He is peaking through the door of Christianity but still can’t fathom God being accepting of Jordan Peterson in all of his humanity. Therefore, he refuses to claim the tag “Christian.” It doesn’t excuse his inability to have civil discourse with people who disagree with him, but it does explain where he’s coming from. That’s the real Jordan Peterson.
Recently, I have been seeing more posts about patriarchy than I remember seeing in years past. It appears that in most societal circles, it is a foregone conclusion that patriarchy is evil and any forward-thinking non-neanderthal should already know this. So I looked into it. Why is it evil? Was it always evil? Is there a better option?
Definition
It is important to note the definition I will be using for this article. Patriarchy can be defined this way: A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family. There have been branches formed off of this from emotion and protest, but this is the original definition.
So then, what really is a patriarchy? According to the original definition, males lead their families. On the surface, this doesn’t sound so bad. Males are often natural leaders. Their innate ability to assess a crisis intervention with rationality, calmness, and refusal to allow emotion to inform his decision, makes men born leaders. Men have elevated levels of testosterone, which creates more muscle mass and bone density. As a result, men are more aggressive, risk more, are typically taller, faster, and stronger than women. Men go towards danger, rather than seek safety. It has been noted in literature that with sociological and psychological research on gender studies, the axiomatic presupposition is that real gender equality is logically and ontologically impossible.1 The argument made is that patriarchy worked for centuries utilizing the strengths of both genders, rather than an attempt at equality, which cannot become reality. Now before you get into the zero-sum argument, we will deal with that in a minute. And before you get into the “But you’re a man, of course you’d say that!” arguement, women who can see this objectively and set emotions aside are saying the same things this article proposes. You can find such ladies Here and Here.
Benefits
What we know from history on patriarchal societies is that it has been historically successful. We know this because major cultures that dominate much of the global landscape have patriarchal history. Even major religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism come from patriarchal cultures. The innerworkings of patriarchy are that it is child centered. It is based on evolutionary biology. Patriarchy is designed to produce children and raise them to contribute to society. Patriarchy is others-focused. It is a social system of survival. Based on matriarchal societies, we know that matriarchy is individual based. You take care of you. I will take care of me. And we can thrive as a society if everyone does their part.
What Went Wrong
Patriarchy is still not sounding too bad so far. But along the way, things changed. Hierarchies in general are flawed systems. Hierarchies often displace those at the lowest level of the hierarchy. This requires the people, not the state, to lift those from the bottom. Historically, when this is done, the patriarchy survives and offers its finest benefits. As with any hierarchy, it has the propensity to devolve into a power-based structure. This is the entire reason for the U.S. Constitution and amendments. The founders understood this propensity and created documents that were designed to keep such power in check. Prior to the abatement into power-based patriarchy, our country was thriving in most areas. When men began abusing their power, limiting social mobility in women, and refusing to acknowledge women’s God-given abilities and contributions to society, exacerbated by the Margaret Sanger(s) and Kate Millet(s) of the world, touting pluralism, anti-monogamy, and the open intent on destroying the family through actions like promiscuity and prostitution, patriarchy began giving society good reason to abhor its existence.
One study “proved” that there is a bias against women in hiring STEM positions.2 However, this study was done using a sample size of 127. When another group ran the exact same study using a sample size of 1016, they failed to replicate the findings and actually found the exact opposite: People were not biased against women in hiring for STEM, they were biased in favor of hiring women.3
Society spends a great deal of time concerned about the disadvantages girls have in math and science. This is in the face of stats showing us that boys’ disadvantages in reading are a much larger scale. In fact. In the average school, boys are almost an entire grade level behind girls in English.4 The gender gap in college enrollment is now wider than prior to Title IX in 1972, with only 42% of males earning degrees.
The effects of underrepresenting males in attention to health issues throughout society has cataclysmic effects. Among victims of Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH), approximately 75% are female and 25% are male. But try to remember the last time you heard someone suggest we need to address any males being victims of IPH. Yet they make up 1 out of every 4 victims.
Are men important? If you ask around, look around, you would think not. According to recent polling, both sexes think it’s worse for a husband than a wife to have an affair – the opposite of the traditional double standard. We talk often about more women’s health funding, breast cancer awareness, battered women, hiring biases against women, and rightfully so. But we rarely, if ever, hear ways society can help men who are struggling to the point of taking their own lives. Meanwhile, daughters of single parents without the father involved are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 71% more likely to have children as teenagers, and 92% more likely to get divorced.5
One group studied couples separated into two groups. One group, the husband worked full time and the other group, the husband worked part-time or not at all. They found that the couples where the husband worked part-time or not at all were significantly more likely to get divorced.6 However, when the study was turned towards wives, there was no correlation whatsoever in how much the wife worked and likelihoods of divorce. Why the correlation for husbands but not for wives? Men reported becoming depressed from not working and isolated themselves while simultaneously the wives were becoming less attracted to their husband because he wasn’t being productive. Meaning, men need to be productive. But men don’t want to be productive and mocked for it at the same time.
Where To Go From Here
Am I suggesting we should stop focusing on women’s issues and turn the attention to men? Absolutely not. I’ll let Dr. Richard Reeves say it best:
“Gender equality cannot be a zero-sum game. We can do more for boys and men without doing less for women and girls. We can be passionate about women’s rights, and compassionate toward the struggles of boys and men.”
-Dr. Richard Reeves, Of Boys and Men
As Dr. Steve Stewart-Williams pointed out, no one is asking for the spotlight to move from one group to another, we are merely asking that the spotlight shine on a broader population to include both genders.
What if patriarchy was used to serve others, care for others, and resist power dynamics? Would you be opposed to that system? Am I suggesting that patriarchy is the best thing available? No. I am suggesting that it is the least bad system available, and our nation’s history proves it. Only when men abused their power was it a problem. And women stood up to such abuse, rightfully so. This doesn’t diminish the potential that lies within men to lead their families, thus making men better versions of themselves, which helps their family, community, and society thrive. True patriarchy is servant leadership. It is possible. But it will never happen as long as we are in love with a vitriol-filled rage against all things male.
Stay Classy GP!
Grainger
1 Mushfequr Rahman, M. (2021). Why Society Needs Patriarchy: A Scientific and Social Justification. Social Sciences (New York, N.Y. Print), 10(5), 229. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20211005.14
2 Moss-Racusin, C., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109
3 Honeycutt, N., Careem, A., Lewis, N. A., Jr., & Jussim, L. (2020, August 18). Are STEM Faculty Biased Against Female Applicants? A Robust Replication and Extension of Moss-Racusin and Colleagues (2012). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ezp6d
4 Reardon, S. F., Fahle, E. M., Kalogrides, D., Podolsky, A., & Zárate, R. C. (2019). Gender achievement gaps in U.S. school districts. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2474–2508. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219843824
5 Seidel, F. L. P. (2021). The proclivity of juvenile crime in fatherless homes: An urban perspective (Psy.D.). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2628794018).
6 Killewald, A. (2016). Money, Work, and Marital Stability: Assessing Change in the Gendered Determinants of Divorce. American Sociological Review, 81(4), 696–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416655340
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 truthfrom 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.
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
