Some may notice that I’ll write about children, parenting, biblical issues, church issues, relationships, and some current events. But you may notice that I tend to lean towards and often revisit issues of men’s health. It’s not that men are more important than women, couples, and children. They’re not. It’s not that men are smarter or dumber than women. IQ levels have remained rather steadily similar across cultures and time. It’s because while the whole world is willing to talk about the help that women (rightly) need, such as areas of attempted suicide or breast cancer, no one is addressing the growing problems that plague men and boys. The conversation is very one-sided. I’m not asking for the side to switch, just to show both sides.
Awareness and Budget Comparisons
Take a look at breast cancer awareness vs. male suicide awareness:
Breast Cancer Awareness: Saturated, normalized, well-funded, and embraced by culture (I have two Breast cancer awareness bands on right now)
Male Suicide Awareness: Underrepresented, stigmatized, and critically lacking in broad public engagement.
Or maybe we can look at how many new cases of breast cancer vs. new cases of prostate cancer there are each year, and the correlating federal health budget for each:
New cases: Prostate cancer new cases are about 91% of breast cancer new cases (255,395 vs. 279,731).
Federal health budget: Prostate cancer funding is roughly 78% of breast cancer funding ($319.8M vs. $410.5M).
Or we could look at federal health budgets for breast cancer vs. male suicide. You’ll see that male suicide is 90% of the total deaths from breast cancer. But the budget for male suicide is < 1% of the budget for breast dancer. Dr. Richard Reeves might call that a Gap!
Any way you view it, it’s a problem. And many are rightfully calling it a crisis. Surely those in academia are seeing this and doing their part. Certainly they have an avenue to bring awareness to this issue and are willing to do so… right?
The Chance For Exposure
Ladies and Gents, step right up. I present to you Exhibit A! The reason I write about men and boys’ issues. I have had hope that the Association for Psychological Science (APS) wouldn’t be so ideologically captured. And for the most part, compared to the American Psychological Association (APA), they’re not. It’s rather difficult to be more ideologically captured than the APA. But here, with exhibit A, we see the blatant move to turn their heads and act like the elephant really isn’t so big. “Maybe if we just ignore it and pretend the elephant isn’t there, it will just go away.” Well, I’m sorry to report, it won’t, because of people like me.
The article is titled, “Science Counters Education Inequality.” In this article they cover educational gaps in society. They covered SES gaps, race gaps, and differences in STEM, reading, and math. They noted, “Women remain underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields.” And even while highlighting math, they said, “They’re normally as skilled as boys or even better. The only issue is that they tend to be even better at reading even if they’re good in mathematics.” Every paragraph illuminated ways in which we should close gaps for girls and women. How we should be working towards girls advancing, and the issues that women face. They covered educational inequality—for females.
The Real Inequality
If you’ve read anything I’ve written, you already know where I’m going. They obviously ignored some keys points. They ignored that:
There is a hiring bias in favor of females in STEM.1
While there is a small gap in favor of boys in math, boys are an entire grade behind girls in English.2
Which gap is larger, a slight lead, or an entire grade behind?! They saw gaps in education among race, STEM, and SES, but outright refused to acknowledge the largest gap in the U.S. and the world in education, gender.
The gender gap in education is the largest of any other demographic comparison on earth. Boys are significantly behind in many areas. Possibly as a result of:
Feminized classrooms, calling boys who can’t sit still dysfunctional and in need of a diagnosis. Boys are wired to seek, risk, find adventure, and test boundaries. Sitting still simply isn’t what they are wired to do.
Maybe it’s because of a teacher bias in favor of females.3
Perhaps it is society’s paradoxical nature, condemning what it quietly perpetuates, insisting that boys suppress their struggles, “Figure it out” and “Get over it”, as if their pain were a nuisance rather than a need.
Regardless of the cause, the reality remains unmistakable: men and boys are in crisis. The evidence is undeniable. Yet when the APS was handed the chance to confront it, they turned their backs like cowards. As if moral responsibility were optional. As if truth itself could be banished by refusing to look at it. But truth doesn’t vanish; it waits, patient and unyielding, exposing the cowardice of those who pretend it’s not there. They had a moment to choose courage over comfort, and they chose comfort. I shouldn’t be surprised by their retreat. But it’s possible the lingering surprise is proof I still expect more from those who claim to seek truth. They didn’t just miss the mark, they threw the target in the trash. If Dr. Richard V Reeves were there, he’d be white-knuckled and asking what on earth they were thinking. Scratch that, he wouldn’t have to ask. We both know they saw the opportunity, recognized it for exactly what it was, and still, intentionally decided to parade out Exhibit A in willful blindness.
I guess they believe if they just go ostrich-style, we will just shut up. Well, they severely underestimated my stubbornness.
Stay Classy GP!
Grainger
References
1 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
2 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
3 Terrier, C., & Terrier, C. (2020). Boys lag behind: How teachers’ gender biases affect student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 77, 101981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.101981
Seven Clues the Counseling Industry Has Lost Its Mind
I’m playing basketball when the referee makes the worst call I’d ever seen. This particular ref was known for being terrible. I just shrugged and began calling out our next defensive formation. The ref gave me a technical foul (this is bad in basketball). While that ref had a reputation for being terrible, I had a bit of a reputation too, for being a hot head. This led me down a path to consider what basketball would be like if the refs weren’t terrible. So guess what I did. Yep, I became a ref. And 18 years later, I don’t regret it. I’ve been able to referee high school, college, and minor league pro basketball all over the country. And I love it. But I got into it because of the severe deficits I saw and hoped to become good at it in order to pave the way for other younger refs coming in.
I still ref, but that’s a side hustle. It’s my “self-care.” I’m primarily a counselor. And one of the primary reasons I got in was because of the deficits I saw in the industry. There were so many incongruencies I could see from my everyday experiences that I had to get in and figure out what was going on.
Here are seven things I’ve noticed that have gone wrong in counseling, along with my advice to professionals about how to put them right:
Over-emotionality
Assuming there’s a diagnosis
The client is viewed as an annuity
Validation at all costs
Rumination
Weather Man Syndrome
Feminization
1. Over-Emotionality
The counseling industry has overemphasized the need for feeling. I’m not negating the validity of feelings. I’m suggesting that when making decisions, feelings are the last thing that should enter your mind. Rationality, practicality, who all these decisions will affect, these need to enter your mind. How you feel can help guide at times, but feelings alone are a terrible decision maker. If you make a decision based on a feeling, when the feeling changes, the decision changes with it. This explains why people who get married because of passionate desires get divorced fairly early in their marriage. They married because of a feeling. Then when that changed, their decision to be married did too. Anyone who has been married for any amount of time knows that the early feelings of infatuation in marriage go away relatively quickly.
How It Should Be
Acknowledge and address feelings. The counselor should give them their proper weight. Feelings detect, guide, and lead us to dangers to be aware of as well as opportunities to take advantage of. A counselor should hold that in juxtaposition with rationality and allow the client to experience this new perspective.
2. Assuming diagnosis
It is obvious that certain fashionable conditions are over-diagnosed (and drugs are over-prescribed for them). I’m not making light of these conditions, and I’m not suggesting they don’t exist. I’m suggesting that 14% of all boys in America between the ages of 5-17 do not ALL have ADHD. How is this diagnosis up from 9% just recently in 2015? Because it’s not actually true that more boys than ever have ADHD.
Boys are wired to run, risk, explore, and seek adventure, more so than girls. Boys are more physically active during recess: 22% as opposed to 10% for girls. And because we don’t know what to do with that, we pathologize it for 3 reasons:
That makes the parent not feel so bad about their kid
It helps the teacher out because she doesn’t know what to do either
Someone receives a kickback from big pharma for recommending medication.
How It Should Be
Not everyone needs a diagnosis. It’s ok to be rambunctious, and rambunctious kids don’t need to be labeled “too hyper.” You can be socially awkward and not be labeled neurodivergent. Then there are the iatrogenic effects of diagnoses; when the act of diagnosis or treatment causes “the condition” itself. We give these kids a diagnosis, they realize they’re “not normal”, and the rumination begins. This causes more problems than the original symptom they came in with. I’ve seen it. It’s devastating. And medication should only enter the conversation as a last resort, not a first option.
3. The client is viewed as an annuity
Too many counselors are seeing too many clients for way too long. I realize that not everyone can benefit from Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT), but many can. Here’s the problem—this doesn’t pay for that trip to Cabo. It only pays for a trip to Costco. I know counselors who are seeing clients who have been with them for more than 2 years. This should be rare, but it’s not.
How It Should Be
I have yet to achieve this, but my goal is to be able to tell a client on the first session approximately how many sessions this will take to achieve their stated goals, with relatively good accuracy. Clients need an end game. They need to know hope is around the corner. Bringing them in for more than a year for the same issue doesn’t provide hope. It provides the practitioner enough money for an all-inclusive vacation.
4. Validation at all costs
This one is prevalent. Counselors are encouraged to validate at all costs. The client comes in and says her family doesn’t accept her because she now identifies as a kitty cat. We are now to validate her feelings as rational, sane, and beneficial to her overall health. Nope. I can’t. I won’t be mean. I won’t be overly contrarian either. But I won’t be telling that client that her “identity” is normal and that everyone around her is nuts. Not happening.
How It Should Be
If you are my client, what I will validate is that you are hurting. I will acknowledge the confusion you must be experiencing. I will help figure out where the confusion started and provide scientific evidence for why this confusion doesn’t have to debilitate you, then help you recognize it and begin to reframe your mentality. Counselors should not be validating falsehoods for the sake of the client’s feelings.
5. Rumination
At times, a counselor will let a client ramble on about all their problems without any direction towards healing. This is not therapy. This is rumination. Problems need to be dealt with in a structured environment to move towards healing; endless rambling about problems is not healing. The client doesn’t even realize this is happening. They just come in thinking, “I’m supposed to talk about my problems, so here I go.” And the counselor just lets them deliver unfettered rumination.
How It Should Be
It is the job of the counselor to be the professional. The counselor needs to interject when discussion turns into self-indulgent rumination. This can be done without confrontation. We just turn our focus to a point the client just made. We zero in on something he said that will lead us to a core cause, and that helps us address the symptoms. Move towards healing. Not rumination.
6. Weather Man Syndrome
Counseling has become prey to Weather Man Syndrome. I can be wrong about everything I tell you and there’s little to no consequence for me. Misguided counselors end up like the proverbial weather man who gets it wrong at least half the time while everyone still treats him as an accurate authority. Iatrogenic effects are as prevalent in mental health as they are in physical health. But there are warning labels on pill bottles. Counselors don’t come with those. We call it “informed consent”, but that’s not a real warning. We as counselors can do some real damage and so many are out there just throwing noodles against the wall hoping they make enough money to afford their favorite Airbnb this fall.
How It Should Be
There should be clear warnings of the possible side effects of receiving mental health counseling/therapy. Digging up old feelings is dangerous for some. We must be careful. Talk about this up front.
7. Feminization
I could write an entire article about this alone. I’ll just say this; we have gotten to a place where the normative experience for clients is a totally feminized one. This approach alienates half of the couples who walk into our offices, particuarly for couples counseling. The wife feels great about this. The husband looks at his watch every 5 minutes hoping we get out of there before the game starts. Why?
Women communicate to relate.
Men communicate to exchange information.
Women process negative emotion face to face through social communicative relation.
Men process negative emotion side by side through action and honor, allowing them the time to form the words needed to communicate the necessary information. A man will hear bad news and go fix a lawn mower he will never use and can’t actually be fixed.
So when a couple comes in and is expected to relate face to face, it shouldn’t come as a surprise when it doesn’t work for the man. There’s more to therapy than talking face to face.
How It Should Be
When I see men, I get them to do activities with me. We throw darts, putt on green strips in the office, maybe go outside and throw football. Then they open up. We must make counseling spaces inviting for men if we expect them to begin speaking to counselors about their problems.
Conclusion
Therapy doesn’t have to be stigmatized and it doesn’t have to be experienced as distressing. For individuals who have had unsatisfactory therapeutic experiences, I encourage continued engagement with other clinicians. Maybe you haven’t found the right therapist; maybe there are more competent practitioners who are more effective. There are others like me who are willing to address patient needs with cognitive empathy, constructive challenge, evidence-based science, and common sense. The tiny handful of us still willing to say out loud that there are only two sexes get slapped with the “iconoclast” label. Fine. Say what you will. But I won’t pander or lie to clients, and neither will any professional worth the title.
Grainger holds a B.S. in Psychology and is currently earning his Master’s in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at Liberty University. He’s an active men’s ministry leader and pastoral counselor with over 5 years of experience, currently seeing clients in both faith-based and clinical settings.
Karina holds a Master’s degree in Behavioral Science with concentrations in mental health, counseling, marriage and family therapy, career development, and child and adolescent therapy. She has a robust research background and is board-certified in brain health, ADHD, sensory processing, and wellness. She, too, actively sees clients in clinical practice.
Together, we represent both the psychological and pastoral lenses on today’s mental health landscape. We are deeply committed to truth over trend, accountability over blame, and growth over grievance. In this article, we explore how communism has historically undermined the structure and values of the American family. Combining historical evidence with lived experience, Karina’s firsthand memories of life under communism and Jason’s work as a counselor, we expose how communist ideology weakens faith, parental authority, and generational bonds. Our shared commitment to protecting the American family drives this important conversation.
What you are about to read is Grainger’s reflection on the historical agenda to dismantle the family, paired with Karina’s lived testimony of the very communism some in Gen Z now idealize; an ideology that seeks to unravel the foundational merits of the family.
Grainger
I’ll get right to it. No fluff. The attack on the family isn’t new. And it isn’t accidental. It was intentional, particularly by proponents of communism.
Even before the Communist Manifesto, Robert Owen, founder of the “Yankee Utopians”, wrote that the absurdity of religion and marriage, founded on individual property, were total monstrosities.1 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels often wrote about the destruction, dissolution, and abolition of the family. Marx once wrote,
“The hallowed correlation of parent and child is disgusting.”
The Russian Orthodox Church had long prohibited divorce. But with the Bolshevik rise to power, that prohibition was eliminated, causing an explosion in divorce rates. The dismantling of the family opened the door for Lenin to implement his system of terror. Very early on, it was understood that marriage was the greatest impediment to implementing communism in any society.
Bolshevik theorist Aleksandra Kollontai wrote:
“But the joys of parenthood will not be taken away from those who are capable of appreciating them. That is, from those mothers and fathers who happily accept that the best educators are not the parents, but the collective, not the sanctuary of the home, but the supremacy of the state. The children would be reared by society. Children would be wards of the state.”
Margaret Sanger
Then there’s Margaret Sanger, who is not winning “Mother of the Year” anytime soon, according to her son, Grant. She is best known for her quiet campaign to eradicate the Black population. Critics twist her infamous line, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population” in an attempt to preserve the reputation of someone they call a hero. Unfortunately, in 1926, this hero went on to give a speech to the Klu Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, likely repeating such rhetoric.
But who was she? Well, besides being an openly neglectful mother, she joyfully told her husband she would be sexually free whether he liked it or not. Such “freedom” was a movement championed by Emma Goldman, who was eventually deported by President Wilson. Margaret’s first of many affairs was with Goldman.
After destroying her marriage, she went on to destroy other marriages, having numerous affairs with men across Europe, including H. G. Wells, who was infatuated with the “Candid, fair, and honest Joseph Stalin.” Wells was also an admirer of Lenin.
When the racial eugenicist herself wrote a June 1935 article titled, “Birth Control in Russia”, this was the first clear indication of the ideological blueprint she wanted to embed in American consciousness. She originally began American Birth Control League, later renamed Planned Parenthood, to rid the earth of “Idiots, morons, imbeciles, and the mentally and physically defective.” What a Mother Teresa she was. Ironically, Sanger was startled by how many abortions were taking place in Russia. She was for eugenics and birth control, but not abortion so much. She eventually made the statement,
“A functioning Communistic society will ensure the happiness of every child and will assume the full responsibility for its welfare and education.”
There, she leaks her true intention of the child being property of the state.
But abortion had already spun out of control, to the point that Stalin himself, one of the deadliest men in world history, had to ban abortion after observing the catastrophic population decline. And Sanger’s mission to export this ideology to America was unwavering. The family, once a cornerstone of civilization, had become a liability to communism. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union had declared the family a “formidable stronghold of all the turpitudes of the old regime.”
Educational Infection
Ralph de Toledano, a historian who studied Columbia University’s interest in communism with comprehensive tenacity, wrote,
“The primary method [to wage warfare on Western civilization] would be to saturate Western culture with the miasma of unrestrained sex. The destruction of the West, from which a Marxist utopia would arise, was to be achieved through a mass brainwashing of neo-Marxism, wrapped up in what euphemistically became known as Critical Theory.”
Toledano identified the two greatest obstacles to a Marxist utopia are God and family.
The architects of Communism’s infiltration of the West declared the primary focus was the education system, getting naïve American parents to hand over their children to the universities for ideological reprogramming.
Kate Millett
Introducing Kate Millet, a student at Columbia University, where she earned her PhD and wrote her most famous book Sexual Politics. She grew up deeply troubled. She frequently had psychotic episodes that included several attempts to kill her sister, Mallory.
I’ll leave you with this enlightening bit of information. To show you where this issue really is, here is an excerpt from a gathering among university professors, led by Kate Millet, where she led a chilling chant. Millet’s sister, Mallory, detailed the following chant at an event she attended:
Kate Millet (KM): “Why are we here today?” the chairwoman asked.
Group (G): “To make revolution,” they answered.
(KM): “What kind of revolution?”
(G): “The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
(KM): “And how do we make Cultural Revolution?”
(G): “By destroying the American family!”
(KM): “How do we destroy the family?”
(G): “By destroying the American patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
(KM): “And how do we destroy the American patriarch?” she probed.
(G): “By taking away his power!”
(KM): “How do we do that?”
(G): “By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
(KM): “How can we destroy monogamy?”
(G): “By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution, abortion, and homosexuality!”
Columbia University’s Red Legacy
By the 1960s, Marxist ideology had a firm grip on universities, namely Columbia University, which is now no surprise. What did Columbia U produce?
Early faculty at Columbia was John Dewey, whose work was admired, praised, and eventually implemented by the Bolsheviks soviet education system.
2005: MEALAC controversy- professor and students accused of hostility to pro-Israel students, also anti-Israel bias and Jewish student intimidation uncovered
2007: Iranian president, while holding Holocaust denial and Israel’s right to exist, was asked to speak at Columbia.
2010: BDS. Ultimately there was no divestment but Jewish students reported feeling very unsafe, with no recorded response.
2016: pro-Palestinian events begin to increase. Posters everywhere comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Student-wide call for intifada. Jewish students filed complaints regularly to no response from university,.
2023: after 10/7, intense protests began. Pro-Hamas vitriol filled the campus. Students set up Gaza solidarity encampment, pro Hamas students occupied buildings and refused to allow Jewish students in, increased violence, including property damage, physical altercations with police, assault on Jewish students, and even discovery of a swastika on campus.
The Effects of Marxism on the Family
Karina’s Experience Under Communism:
In the early 1950s, after the Bolsheviks had financially stripped the wealthy upper class (in the name of fairness and equality), they repurposed private homes and buildings to force people into communal living. The highest achievable honor became getting an apartment of your own. People applied and waited for years to receive one. Many, like my paternal grandparents, even married each other to secure an apartment that was pending approval for my grandmother, they did end up falling in love later.
I was born in the former Soviet Union in the early 1980s to a small Jewish family. My parents shared a 600-square-foot apartment with my father’s parents. We shared one bathroom and one kitchen, and the living space was communal. (This living arrangement was actually considered wealthy and upper class.) Most families had to share living spaces with strangers.
The Red Attack on Men
As Marxist ideology spread in the 1960s, patriarchy was cast as inherently evil, men as the root of all social ills, and the solution as simple, remove the man. This was fertile ground for implanting policies to ensure the demoralization of men.
Karina
For a man, life in the Soviet Union was bleak at best. Once school was over, the options for higher education, work, and the future were predesigned and prewritten for everyone. You only had 2–3 rational choices, and all of them required government micromanagement. No matter what you did, where you went, or how you lived, you were watched, managed, and “parented” by the government.
By nature, men are providers and protectors. Men have roles that ground a family system and support the healthy development of its members. But take away a man’s right to provide and protect, and all that’s left is misery. The only other option—what my father chose—was to fight the system and run. However, that risk carried deadly consequences, literally. Going against the government meant:
Joining the black market, which in our language was capitalism. The black market operated on a supply-and-demand system. Most of it was run by men, but my mother was involved too, as were several women at the time. Supplies were brought in from Poland and other nearby countries and sold privately.
Practicing religion—any religion. There was only one god, and it was the government.
Reading, listening to, or watching American music, movies, and books.
Denouncing the government in public.
Protecting children against the government run and managed school system.
What made life in the Soviet Union even more unbearable was the cognitive and emotional abuse, manipulation, and control of children. Once a child turned six and was sent to school for an education, the indoctrination began. Children were taught from first grade to build loyalty and unquestioning love toward the government—only the government. My mother was desperate to keep me home as long as she could, hoping we’d get our refugee papers before I started first grade. However, that didn’t happen, and she had to send me to school. Parents who quietly hated the Soviet Union dreaded the day school started for their children. No one was excited, no one was cheerful—it felt like going to a funeral. Children were taught to tattle on their parents if they heard any anti-communist conversations, spies in our own home. The entire school system was carefully developed to ensure complete compliance and order.
Do I look happy on my first day of 1st grade?
Should a 1st grader look that worried?Look at the other children
Karina’s Personal Experience:
My father couldn’t protect me. He understood that I was now the property of the communist party. Everyone knew, but the risk of change was so high most people just couldn’t handle the stress of planning asylum or a refuge.
Helplessness eats away at our will to live from the inside. In a communist, government-run society, men are ideologically minimized and almost completely controlled to ensure the survival of the country. They close their eyes, bow their heads, and walk into their own demise—dragging their families with them.
My grandfather, a loyal communist, pledged his entire life to the system. He barely worked, barely provided, and reported anyone he knew who was involved in the black market. That is, until his own son and daughter-in-law, my parents, got involved. My father paid him off to keep his mouth shut, and that was the very first time my grandfather felt the power of a tiny bit of freedom. Years later, he finally denounced communism—but not before ruining lives in the name of the idea that everyone should be equal, included, and judged.
Grainger:
There it is. The communistic utopia, manifest before our eyes.
Moynihan Report
It should come as no surprise that President Johnson implemented social programs that inadvertently incentivized single motherhood. But Daniel Patrick Moynihanwarned about the risks of government programs unintentionally undermining the family. In his report, he wrote that the emerging matriarchal structure developing in many low-income Black households could lead to further marginalization of men and generational dysfunction.
“A community that is centered on the female, with men increasingly in roleless positions, is likely to find it difficult to sustain stable family and community life.” — Moynihan Report, 1965
No one listened. The unintended consequence was that financial support became easier to access without a male partner present. The father became disposable. As of the 1965 release of the Moynihan report, 3% of white babies were born to single mothers and 23% of black babies were born to single mothers.2 This number, following this policy, jumped quickly to 8% for white babies and eventually, in 2023, was listed as 28% of white babies born to single mothers and 70% of black babies born to single mothers. This shows race was not a factor. It affected everyone.
Why the Father Matters
In one study, one significant finding was that youth living in fatherless homes have the highest levels of incarceration rates. However, 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.3
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, fatherless males are at a significantly greater risk of suicide, mental illness, and becoming a father as a teenager.4
Daughters of single parents without the father involved are:
The facts are sobering: The campaign to eliminate fathers in America, and thereby weaken the family, was not only strategic, but devastatingly effective. We are living in the aftermath of a carefully orchestrated ideological takeover.
We must decide whether we have the courage and the clarity to rebuild what was torn down, starting by rebuilding and prioritizing the family.
Karina’s Conclusion:
The minute socialism or communism enters a conversation, life as we know it begins to unravel. The core idea behind both—essentially two sides of the same coin—is to dismantle the most successful and natural system known to humanity: the family. Like animals and plants, people need a healthy structure to grow and evolve.
Communism wants to be your parent—that’s what it ultimately comes down to. It wants to raise you, control you, and keep you “safe.” It is the ultimate hungry and selfish parent: one that gives you life only to dominate you under the guise of protection.
That’s our 4 cents. Stay Classy GP!
Grainger & Karina
1 (All quotes and citations were from the following book, unless otherwise cited)
Kengor, P. (2015). Takedown (1st ed.). WND Books.
2 Moynihan, P. D. (1965). The case for national action: The negro family. U.S. Department of Labor
3 Harper, C. C., & McLanahan, S. S. (2004). Father absence and youth incarceration. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14(3), 369-397. https://10.1111/j.1532-7795.2004.00079.x
4 Seidel, F. L. P. (2021). The proclivity of juvenile crime in fatherless homes: An urban perspective (Psy.D.).
Post-president legacies are a strange thing. By the time Reagan was out of office, he didn’t know who or where he was, mirroring Joe Biden’s experience. W. Bush backed out of the spotlight just long enough to return by forming friendships with Clinton and Obama in an attempt to show solidarity for a country they all love. Jimmy Carter had one of the best post-president legacies, offering his time for humanitarian causes. He was often mislead by his feelings to ignore facts, the same dysfunction that soured his presidency, but his efforts were driven towards peace and love for other human beings, causing him to be very loved by most Americans. As it turns out, Obama may go down as having the best post-president legacy in history, other than maybe George Washington.
I was not a fan of much of what Obama did (and did not do) in office. The entire time he was in office, I felt like he was regurgitating buzz words for the demographic party that further ensured division. The democratic party drew the hard line that “we’re over here and you stay over there”, and Obama seemed forced to fall in step. I didn’t get the sense that he was saying exactly what he wanted to say. He wasn’t promoting ideas he really believed needed to be emphasized. He was a champion for ideological dichotomy.
He always struck me as someone who was very common sense oriented, level-headed, and a deep thinker. But during his presidency, his actions, and often inaction, were very divisive, lacked evidence necessitating emphasis, and was void of issues that were important to most Americans. But they lined perfectly with every flyer posted by the democratic party and their super PAC donors.
What is Obama Up to Now?
Now he’s out of office and doing podcasts. The recent podcast with his wife and brother-in-law, Craig Robinson, came out and got mixed reactions. The first thing many Americans lamented was highlighting that he called for men to have gay friends so if their son comes out, he has someone to look to. In context: He was not highlighting sexual orientation. He was highlighting diversity in friend group. Don’t just have a bunch of guys in your circle that look and think exactly like you. Challenge each other and yourself. That was his point. But leave it to hardline conservatives to refuse to remove the side blinders and focus on what was not being focused on. Yes, the right can be ideological too.
Obama Talks About Men and Boys
The focus of this podcast was on young men. Right away—that’s new! Since when did someone care about boys and men? I am of the belief that Obama cared the entire time but was not allowed to address it, except the one time he did in a speech, and received backlash from his party. After their slap on Obama’s wrist, he never did it again. But listening to him here, it is clear this is something on his mind. It is also clear Michelle (Misha- as Craig called her) has read research and is equally as concerned about where boys are headed.
Other Criticisms
Some have criticized the podcast as them saying what needs to be fixed about boys so that it benefits girls. They have two daughters. What other perspective would you expect from girl-parents? I’m a girl dad and I thought the same thing. My daughters need good men to marry. But even that criticism has no merit. Obama literally said,
“We have spent so much time talking about what boys do wrong that we have failed to say what they did right.”
Obama’s Marriage
Obama covered the laughable rumors that their marriage is in peril. Michelle did openly state that there was one time during their long marriage when she thought it was about to end, but that they worked through it. She did not cover when that was. Obama shared openly that he did not know his father and was raised by a very young single mother who did her best but was ill equipped to raise a young man. So he knew the importance of having a good father and set out to be that for his daughters.
What They Really Got Wrong
There were at least three times when they (really Michelle) were way off in their approach to issues with young men and boys. They basically kept referring to boys’ natural tendencies, like risk, adventure, and aggression, as broken and how they needed to be more like girls. This is so incredibly false. You will not convince a dog to purr. It just doesn’t know how. At one point. Michelle made the statement,
“I think it’s time to look at stepping away from sports and looking towards the arts, theatre, music, to give them an outlet for their feelings.”
Wrong. It’s not that the arts are bad. They’re not. I was in the music industry for 15 years. It is a great outlet for expression and the people I became friends with were very good people. But stepping away from sports is a terrible idea. Sports brings out the best in boys and young men. Camaraderie, teamwork, adversity, resilience, all get built in sports. The only idea in this part of the conversation I liked was that boys and young men need to diversify their interests and find outlets for expression. That’s true.
With all of that, Obama did attempt to keep the focus on the idea that we are pathologizing boys and young men, rather than allowing or creating spaces where they will thrive. Michelle quoted Obama as saying that the education system in its entirety is feminized, having no space for boys to be boys. Thus, instead of allowing boy traits to shine, we pathologize them because they can’t adhere to guidelines of sitting still the same way girls can.
My Assessment
Overall, the theme was clear. Young boys and men are suffering. Whether its due to failed parental strategies of trying to make them be more like girls, or even a more systemic dysfunction of making all learning spaces feminine and wondering why boys are
“People are capable of having two thoughts at once.”
No one is calling for attention to women’s issues to end. Only that we open our focus to both males and females.
So I understand Dr. Richard Reeves’ enthusiasm for what Obama had to say in this podcast. I hope we hear Obama’s emphasis on boys needing a community of men, not just a good father, to steer them in the right direction. I believe that’s true. However, I also hope we stand firm against Michelle’s approach to feminize boys, as if that’s the path to true morality.
All in all, with Obama talking about issues among men and boys, which was most likely very important to him the entire time, having been raised without a father, if he keeps this up, he may go down as having the best post-POTUS presidency ever..
Stay Classy GP!
Grainger
1 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
I’m in church. Something hits me. Gratitude. My daughter looks up at me and asks me if I’m alright. I’m fine. “Then why are you crying?” I wasn’t crying. But a tear did form and drop. And now my face was wet. And my daughter was worried.
See, I’m a large, masculine man. I don’t display emotional pain. I just grit my teeth and move on. So this had my daughter worried. The truth is, I’ve been tearing up at church for years. She just never noticed. But it’s the only time I do. Why is that?
Thanks for reading Tidbits of Audacity! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Jordan Peterson once said:
Be the strongest person at your father’s funeral.
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
That’s me. A few years ago my father almost died and I was the “strong one” in the moment. My daughter flipped her car and was worried. I was strong first, then the emotion of realizing I could’ve lost her hit me later.
I’m seeing a current call for more men to cry. I’m seeing it often. Men are saying they don’t want to feel emotions. Women are saying that they love it when their man cries. So who is right? The answer is… Yes.
Where is the Balance?
There is a need for men to become more emotionally intelligent. Most men find emotions binary: happy and pissed off. Learning the array of emotions makes a man more effective in assessing problems. It also helps a man better understand his wife.
A man needs to be able to express emotions. But here’s the catch,
They aren’t going to express it in a communal fashion like women do. They’re going to express it alone.
They aren’t going to do that right now. They must first take care of the issue at hand. Then they can be concerned with their emotions.
On the other hand, if a man is shedding tears every time something pulls at his heart strings, he isn’t very useful in his God-given capacity.
When sh*t hits the fan, people turn to the most stable person in the room. The one who manages emotions. They know that guy will make a sound decision not based on emotion. But if that dude is in the corner crying, he’s not worth much in that crisis.
So When Do We Cry?
Women cry when they are happy, sad, frustrated, anxious, joyful, angry, pretty much any given emotion. Men cry when they are overwhelmed. So for all the women that are saying, “I wish men would cry more, I wish they would release their emotions more”, I say be careful what you wish for. You’re asking him to be overwhelmed more. If a man is too weepy, he is no good in a crisis. If he is crying, he is overwhelmed about something.
Remember, male suicide is 4 times higher than female. One could propose that this is because they bottle up their emotions. And they might be right. One could also say that few care if men are ok. They would be right too.
There’s a balance. We definitely need to be more emotionally aware. No one questions that. But we also need to be able to control our emotions. Put them in their proper place; in service to us, not the other way around. Men do have a desire for control. Not to be tyrannical with it. But to protect with it. If I am in control of a situation, this means everyone around me is safe. If I am crying, I am not in control. This is why men carefully select times to cry. Having said that, if a man never cries, this is also a problem. We must find emotional homeostasis. Balance. Don’t be completely stoic. Don’t be completely emotional. Be what those around you need in the moment and be the other as soon as possible.
Ladies, be ok with him not being just like you. He’s different than you are. And that’s ok. Appreciate the difference. Love the difference. And understand that men are wired a certain way for a reason. And men, be that strong man everyone turns to at your dad’s funeral. Then later, get away and let it out. Don’t hold it back.
Much of society is shouting that we need more male counselors. They desire more men, but not the masculinity that comes with them. So what’s the problem? Why aren’t there more male counselors? Let’s dig into that.
Recently, on a plane, a lady was getting frustrated with a 90-year-old man getting his bag down slowly. The old man looks to her and says, “I am not obliged to take part in your anxiety.” The whole plane smiled in relief.
We have all been around a Karen like this. And in public discourse, the fear in everyone was natural and expected. The relief was too. However, in professional walks of life, it is the opposite. You are vilified if you don’t affirm such anxiety.
Why in the professional setting and not normal discourse? One plausible explanation is that “professionals” believe they are smarter than those inferior beings not in professional settings. Another is the fear of liability. The backlash both professionally and personally is scary to many. Many are scared to death to hurt anyone’s feelings. But in everyday life this is not a fear.
My Experience in Counseling Training
I was in a group counseling class with other future licensed counselors. I led the very first group. Following the session, everyone else gave feedback. The feedback I received was all aimed at who I am, not what I did. It went something like this:
You are a man, so you need to be careful as a counselor.
Because you are a man, you are very intimidating
Men in counseling is not really a good thing, so I didn’t like the session
If you want to be a successful counselor, you need to act more like a woman.
I specifically requested behavioral examples. Some would be honest and say, “It’s not really what you did, more just who you are.” Some would say, “The way you spoke, you know, like a man, was scary.”
I realize that counseling is a feminine profession. But I must ask the question, why? Because men don’t communicate verbally? Because men don’t want counseling? Or is it because few care about issues with men, masculinity, or the stance that men can take care of themselves?
There may be another explanation. While in this class, I heard “I have 4 children and they all have ADHD and ASD!” She smiled and everyone looked excited and celebrated with her. I was almost shocked at the celebration of the two most over-diagnosed conditions in America. Both because we are celebrating dysfunction and because they are over-diagnosed. So the chances that they have an accurate diagnosis are very low. None of that mattered. Only affirmation and validation mattered. Another said, “Everyone needs therapy because everyone has trauma.” This was from a 22-year-old female who has no idea when and when not to talk. She never heard, “You have one mouth and two ears. So listen twice as much as you speak.” This girl got it backwards. And oh the wisdom coming from her lips. Again, everyone validated and affirmed. No one challenged either statement.
You might be thinking, “Why didn’t you challenge it?” Good question. Being a man, I am already at a disadvantage. We have already seen what these ladies really think about me. My challenge would go unheard, not welcomed, and met with vitriol. No male spoke up. They knew better. They saw what the psycho-Karen squad did to me. But I know this, men don’t easily affirm nonsensical lies. Men push back. Men are not afraid of confrontation and challenging. Therefore, a man would say, “Hey, did you know that the statistical likelihood of one mother having four children with ADHD and ASD is 0.7937% on a good day? And knowing it is severely over-diagnosed, the stats are probably much rarer than that?” But this wouldn’t serve the purpose of the counseling industry. To merely affirm and validate through femininity. Maybe, just maybe, this is why there aren’t more men in counseling.
Each day of this week-long intensive course, only feminine characteristics were celebrated. Masculinity was scorned as broken. The professor played a very sweet, soft, feminine worship song each day as class started. I realize that starting with worship is probably a good thing at a Christian school. It sets the tone. I get it. But every day? We get no strong, mighty songs? Why? The answer to all of the questions so far is simple. Men. Don’t. Matter.
As it stands, unless you are a very feminine man, it is an uphill climb. You are not wanted in the class among “professionals” or future professionals. You are not accepted for who you are. You are not welcome in psychological spaces. You are viewed as the one they must “tolerate” on their way to proper, soft, feminine, easily triggered, affirming of falsehoods, counseling. So you must know that it is a battle. It is not for the weak (Well, it kind of is, actually). If society is interested in doing something about the mental health epidemic among men, they have a weird way of showing it.
If there are to be more male counselors, we may have to attempt to provide an incentive for men to go through the difficult, arduous process of becoming a licensed counselor. We must welcome masculinity, as long as it is utilized correctly. We must be ok with challenge. The industry needs men for this very reason. We need more men that are willing to challenge falsehoods, present a masculine perspective, and be there for other men and boys in their crisis.
So, ladies, who do you choose? If you choose the Olly Murs on the right (after), you are in the extreme minority. Yes, most women chose the Olly on the left (before). I conducted a small survey that reached just over 300 people. The results were polarized: 100% of the females chose the before Olly and 100% of the males chose the after Olly.
I’m not about to blow your mind with any radical insight, but I will let science and experience give us some intel on why most women choose the before Olly. When I showed this to my beautiful wife, who is a bit more visually inclined than the average female (you wouldn’t know it looking at my ugly self), she quickly said the before Olly was much better looking. But why? What’s even more bizarre is how every dude said the after Olly looked better. But why?
Why Did Men Choose After?
When men see the before Olly, they see a lazy guy who sits around and eats chips while others are working hard. He sees an apathetic lack of ambition. When men see the after Olly, they see success. They see achievement. Men see the after Olly as diligent and determined. They see one less thing for women to dislike them for. There is an approachability bias in society when it comes to gender differences in body image. What isn’t talked about much is the level of body dysmorphia and muscle dysmorphia1 among men. It’s higher than you realize. Body Dysmorphia Disorder (BDD) affects approximately 2.9% of the US population. Of that population, 60% are female and 40% are male. That equals to around 3.8M men and boys in America. It is traditionally understood that women have great support for each other in the area of BDD. Men, on the other hand, are afraid to even say it out loud for fear of being called weak. So, in order to avoid this, some work out until the feelings of BDD are gone.
That’s not the only explanation. Men also are hardwired to achieve. To hunt and gather. To protect. You can’t protect anyone if you’re weak. Men traditionally compete for resources, including, but not limited to, the attention of the most fertile women in the community. This is basic evolutionary biology. This may explain why men see the after Olly as better, but this does not explain women’s preferences. Women are generally more attracted to masculinity for protection, provision, and procreation. Evolutionarily speaking, this made sense. So why would 100% of women say that the before Olly was better looking?
Why Did Women Choose Before?
When you ask women this, the answers vary. Some say the after Olly looks aggressive. Some say he looks like he spends too much time in the gym and doesn’t have time for his other relationships, including romantic relationships. Some say that the before Olly looks warm, approachable, sweet, caring, humorous, and emotionally available. There are various explanations for this. Some women have been hurt by narcissistic men who care more about their image than their character. Some women have been abandoned when men go through a physical transition, giving them an aversion to an above average muscular physique.
Another explanation is that testosterone in men decreases when they get married.2 Their testosterone decreases again when they move into fatherhood.3 So, the before Olly looks more like a married father than the after Olly. Now couple that with the fact that, as Dr. Sarah E. Hill, PhD. has noted, women who are on the birth control pill desire a less masculine man. So women desire the man that isn’t slobby, but isn’t cut. They want the man that will meet their emotional needs before any physical needs. They desire a man that they don’t have to fear will display too much aggression.
Put this altogether, and you have some ideas as to why 100% of women said the before Olly was more attractive and 100% of men said the after Olly was more desireable. This is yet another display of just how vastly different the two genders are (yes, I said two). This gives me and my dad-bod some hope. Hope that my wife won’t find herself desiring the super-cut meathead at the gym anytime soon. Now, where did I put those chips?
Stay Classy GP!
Grainger
References
1 Phillipou, A., & Castle, D. (2015). Body dysmorphic disorder in men. Australian Family Physician, 44(11), 798–801.
2 Holmboe, S. A., Priskorn, L., Jørgensen, N., Skakkebaek, N. E., Linneberg, A., Juul, A., & Andersson, A. (2017). Influence of marital status on testosterone levels–A ten year follow-up of 1113 men. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 80, 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.03.010
3 Gettler, L. T., McDade, T. W., Feranil, A. B., & Kuzawa, C. W. (2011). Longitudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases testosterone in human males. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – PNAS, 108(39), 16194–16199. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1105403108
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 Failed Experiment of Removing Strong Men From Society
I recently read a total hit piece on men. The author was the business name. As I was reading, it was blatantly obvious it was written by a woman, without even knowing the name of the author. No male would have ever written something this far-reaching and full of lies. Before I continue, this publication does great work in the field of gender and has written great pieces about the truth about gender that aren’t very popular in academia, university, and mainstream media. She just reached for something to grab a hold of in the category of why men are taking women’s spaces as it relates to gender… and missed. The writer proposed an Entitled Displacement Theory, which seeks to understand men through the lens of Margaret Sanger1, if you’re asking me. The writer made several points. I’ll respond to each one.Subscribed
1. All men feel they lost status dominance. This is a collapse of traditional male hierarchies. Most men do not care about status dominance in reference to women. Men, per research2, care about status among other men. This is basic evolutionary psychology. A male hierarchy (patriarchy) is not a bad thing. Only if it devolves into being based on power is it a bad thing. Until then, it is a very solid, fruitful, thriving entity. Have men abused this in the past? Absolutely. Do most men abuse it now? Not even close.
2. Manosphere: online grievances. statements like “women don’t want nice guys anymore”, “modern women are hypergamous and selfish”, and “feminism has destroyed family values” may or may not be a neutral observation but it is definitely not a “battle cry for a return to dominance through manipulation, withdrawal and outright hostility.” They are true statements based on observation. Society is now recognizing that the idea of “toxic masculinity”, emasculation, and the wussification of men was a failed experiment. Most men knew it would fail. But we just waited for society to catch up. Weak men are of no use to society. Men are biologically designed to protect and provide (at least help provide).3 This is seen in the biological shifts that happen post puberty. Men get stronger, bigger, and even more prone to risk and exploration. This was nature’s design. Men were (are) to go out and find food, protect the family from an external threat, and women were (are) designed to protect the children from themselves and internal threats, like sickness. Again, evolutionary biology has a lot to say about this. Have men abused this in the past? Absolutely. Do most men abuse it now? Not even close.
3. Autogynephilia as a way to make more money and regain dominance. This “psychotherapist” either has no male clients or very weak, spineless clients. Men who suffer from autogynephilia are not even thinking about money. In fact, I would surmise that most men who suffer from autogynephilia probably struggle to manage their finances well. This hypothesis is based on personality traits that are commonly found in those with autogynephilia and their proclivities towards an aversion to conscientiousness (a diligent, dutiful person), which is the primary predictor of success. Yes, some successful men suffer from autogynephilia. Among those, the primary issues include ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences), or an adult relationship that has been traumatic. Not money or power.
4. Misogyny as inclusion. I can agree that men do not belong in women’s spaces. I cannot agree with this post on why. Straight men do not want to erase women. I don’t think gay men do either. Gay and straight men have different motivations for loving women. The males who find it appropriate to invade women’s spaces, sports, prisons, bathrooms, are also suffering. It is typically either autogynephilia or gender dysphoria (GD). These men do not even come close to representing most men. What they do represent is a small group of loud activists who pulled at the heartstrings of those that cannot separate empathy from good judgment and are unwilling to draw a line between good and bad, right and wrong, for fear that they hurt someone’s feelings and may cause a two part reaction, a) they feel bad for causing the negative emotion among the sufferer and b) they are forced to deal with their own self-guilt for existing (usually existing as a straight, white, far-left female). There’s research4 on this too. Wanting to invade women’s spaces is not misogyny, it’s sickness and unresolved trauma committed by an extreme minority of men.
5. Narcissistic collapse and identity invasion: “If I can’t own her, I’ll become her to take back my dominance over her.” I debated on even giving this any attention due to the severely preposterous nature of the claim. Most men do not want to own anyone. I mean, do I have to elaborate on this for someone with common sense and sufficient comprehension of social adequacies?
The feminist response was “fight back.” Fight back against what, exactly? In our country, women have complete power over the bedroom in relationships. In America, most nurses are female.5 Most teachers6 and assistant professors7 are female. Most people attending college are females.8 Conversely, most people dropping out of high school9 and college10 are males. Most (94%) prison inmates are males.11 Most lonely12 people are male. Most people successfully committing suicide are male.13 What other catastrophic demise among the male population would you like to see in order to have successfully fought back against men who are trying to find their place in a society where men are undervalued, mocked for being male, and are receivers of misinformed vitriol merely for being masculine?
As it currently stands, women are tired of nice guys because nice guys aren’t strong guys. The utmost virtue in a man is that he is capable of fierce danger but has the wisdom to know when to use it. Modern women are selfish in some ways, but not in all ways. And feminism has destroyed family values. Because feminism does not want equality, it wants superiority, “We were oppressed, now it’s your turn!”
Did men cause the rise of the feminist movement? Yes. Did they abuse the fact that they are bigger and stronger? Yes. Did this cause a seismic shift in gender roles? Yes. Did society overcorrect due to emotional dysregulation that never was dealt with, absolutely.
So where should we be on the spectrum of possible gender neutrality? The first and best place to start is to allow men to be men. Allow them to open doors, pull out your seat, and serve you like you are the queen they always wanted. Allow men to risk. Simultaneously, men should look for the qualities in women and let them flourish rather than mock them or suppress them. The answer to the issues mentioned in the male-hit-piece is not to apply an exaggerated reductionist viewpoint of “evil man want power”, otherwise known as the Masculine Replacement Theory. But rather the answer is to foster a conversation on how both can see the other side, deal with the ACEs, the emotional baggage that brings on autogynephilia and GD, and the misunderstanding that men want power. Men want to be respected and needed. That’s about it. Men struggle to understand why a woman can say they are upset but not know why while women are perplexed as to how a man can be sitting calmy, thinking of absolutely nothing. The lack of understanding is causing both the male-haters club to continue and the feminists who write hit pieces like this to have a crowd. No, men do not want dominance, control, money, or unrestrained power. They want to be appreciated for who they are rather than being attacked for it. Men and women should work to appreciate the difference in each other and utilize them to our collective benefit, not looking for reasons to exacerbate the division.
1 Kengor, P. (2015). Takedown (1st ed.). WND Books.
2 Bleidorn, W., Arslan, R. C., Denissen, J. J. A., Rentfrow, P. J., Gebauer, J. E., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2016). Age and gender differences in self-esteem—A cross-cultural window. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 396–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000078
3 Killewald, A. (2016). Money, Work, and Marital Stability: Assessing Change in the Gendered Determinants of Divorce. American Sociological Review, 81(4), 696–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416655340
4 Napier, J. L., & Jost, J. T. (2008). Why Are Conservatives Happier than Liberals? Psychological Science, 19(6), 565–572. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40064955
I’ll never forget the story I once heard Christine Caine tell about sending her daughter to kindergarten. She comes home from her first day and she’s crying. Some boy called her stupid and it hurt her feelings. Caine’s husband sits her down and says, “Let me tell you what I think. I think you’re very smart. And I think you’re very beautiful, just like your mom.”
The next day she comes home from school with a smile on her face and says, “Hey mom, that boy tried to call me stupid today and I told him that he’s wrong because my dad says I’m smart. Then he tried to call me ugly and I told him he was wrong about that too because my dad said I’m beautiful just like you, mommy!”Subscribed
The little girl was almost elated to tell this story. Why? Because she realized she had an antidote for vitriol. She had a way to fight back and win. She was armed with the necessary tools to withstand great adversity (for a 5-year-old).
Caine told that story to point out that sometimes we need to remember what our Heavenly Father says about us when the lies from the world start creeping into our minds. And that’s so true. I’m going to take a slightly different angle here.
To me this screams inoculation over isolation (I must give credit where credit is due. I read that phrase in an article by Dr. Steve Stewart-Williams. He is an accomplished psychologist and author). If she had never heard those words from that boy, she would’ve gone through time having been shielded and not having built a resistance to hurtful words. By that point, she would have built up this unrealistic notion that people don’t say hurtful things to each other and once this hurtful rhetoric is encountered after years of believing it didn’t exist, the let down is significantly stronger than it would have been if she’d learned it sooner. This would have caused greater stress.
As it stands, she learned it early. And was able to apply what she learned the very next day. The feeling that came over her in the wake of this new empowerment was driven by dopamine (the proper amount) and a sense of self achievement, self-efficacy, and proper cognitive alignment as it pertains to her identity.
This is what has crippled an entire generation. Mom and dad bubble-wrapped them and when they entered the real world and found out they really weren’t that special, it wrecked them, thinking it was certainly their fault. They had been able to make mom and dad happy and now somehow, they can’t impress certain people, like the professor or the new boss… “What’s wrong with me?!”
Keeping children isolated from what the world offers is the wrong way to go about it. It only delays the inevitable and causes more pain than if they’d learned it sooner.
It reminds me of a client Dr. Jordan Peterson had who came in and could not overcome certain hurdles in life. She was in her late 20’s and was dealing with issues like not being able to finish college. Couldn’t keep a job. Couldn’t set boundaries with her stepmom. Somewhere in the conversation Peterson noticed that she couldn’t wrap her head around the idea of death, animals being used for food, and the processes of both. It was just too much. Peterson immediately knew what to do.
He asked her to go to a butcher’s shop with him. She needed to see the meat hanging. She needed to know what was out there. Exposure therapy. They went. She cried after walking 5 feet into the shop. So they left. They went back again. This time she stayed and touched the meat to gain a realistic acknowledgment of what she was witnessing.
At their next session, she asked to go to a slaughterhouse. She wanted to gain a deeper understanding. This blew Peterson’s mind. This someone who could barely think of the idea, much less someone who would willingly attend something of this nature. Dr. Peterson couldn’t arrange that but was able to get into a funeral home where they were embalming a body. So they went. Again, it was hard to watch. But she did.
What happened next was amazing. She finished college. Got the career she wanted. Made a phone call and drew a healthy boundary with her stepmom. Everything fell in line. Now that she knew what the world actually had to offer, she was able to properly assess where she stood in the hierarchy of achievement.
When I was a child, my mom didn’t see how long she could keep me away from chicken pox, she gave me an inoculation so that my system knew what it looked like in order to fight it later.
If we wait to allow them to see what the world has to offer, they won’t have the luxury of learning this under our guide as parents and instead learn the truth of the matter and coping mechanisms from those they are around, which may or may not be beneficial. The child is much better off learning the truth of the world while they can ask you about it rather than asking their dorm roommate who may use unhealthy coping mechanisms.
Our children don’t need isolation. They need inoculation. Don’t hold all the information back. Of course I’m speaking of age-appropriate info. We don’t need to let a 5-year-old in on the mental issues of a psychopathic narcissist that murdered his wife and children. But they do need to be placed in a situation where they can hear hard things for their age and know that if little Johnny says something that doesn’t line up with what mom and dad said, they can trust you and no longer need to acknowledge little Johnny’s rhetoric.
