Posted on

The Lies of Unconstraint

When Feelings Replace Law, Tragedy Follows

Renee Good

Before we get into this, anyone who knows me knows that I do not take loss of life casually. I do not like it, nor do I celebrate it. This is a tragic situation any way you look at it. I truly have sympathy for someone going through what Good’s wife is going through, as well as the witnesses to such a traumatic event. Prayers are up.

Having said that, this case is difficult, but somewhat predictable. It involves what Thomas Sowell calls the Conflict of Visions. In this book, Sowell refers to two primary ways of looking at the world. Unconstrained and constrained visions.

Unconstrained Vision:

In the unconstrained vision, people are viewed as capable of perfection. Institutions make people evil. People should collectively gather to make each other perfect. When perfection isn’t achieved, it’s because there is a systemic evil preventing this perfection from being achieved rather than fixed human limit.

Constrained Vision:

The constrained vision says that people are imperfect. Perfection will never be achieved. Individuals must work to be the best version of themselves, thus leading to a better society. We must acknowledge and accept that we will never be perfect and must embrace liberty inside of boundaries. Because people are self-interested and imperfect, no system can eliminate trade-offs or achieve ideal outcomes. Social stability depends on traditions, rules, incentives, and limits that restrain human behavior rather than transform it. Progress comes through managing imperfection, not overcoming it.

This case puts these visions on display. There are three topics I’d like to cover here:

  1. Assumption of superiority
  2. The inability to draw a line
  3. The humanity of both the officer and driver of the car.

Assumption of Superiority

Another great book by Thomas Sowell was, The Vision of the Anointed. The book characterizes the “Anointed” as a class of elite intellectuals who, having generously conferred upon themselves superior moral insight, conclude that they are better qualified to make decisions for individuals than those individuals are to make for themselves. These superior beings have decided that if they say it, then it must be true. And if you disagree, then you must be braindead, heartless, or outright evil. As a result, if they claim a moral high ground on any given issue, you must get out of the way because they know what you don’t. Why? Because they said so.

Wokal’s piece on leftist prerogative covers this and is spot on. These elites yell “I’m a doctor” and we are all to relinquish all rules, laws, and civil engagement. We just allow the tyranny of the fringe to step in as the arbiter of all things right. There’s no discourse required, no facts, no data, just “I’m in charge, move!” The end.

Where is the Line?

Another problem is drawing the line. The problem is when you ask to draw a line, you won’t get one on the far left. It’s a result of the unconstrained vision. There are no boundaries.

For instance, it was “Let people love who they want. Love is love.” This, in some countries, has become, “Minor attracted persons have desires and children are capable of the full range of love we have to offer. Love is love.”

Where is the line? Where do we say enough? At what point is it too far?

When I ask those on the right, they are rather quick to draw that line. Sometimes too quick. But on the left, I rarely get a straight answer.

So is violating the law willingly too far? Some claim Martin Luther King Jr. violated the law. He did so peacefully. Never by striking a law enforcement official with a vehicle.

“But Jesus violated the law?” Only Jewish law, that he fulfilled. Not the law of the land, which was Roman law. So no, he didn’t violate the law (In fact, part of the point of the crucifixion being so critical was that it was an illegal execution).

I’m still looking for the line. The line that says, though it’s sad that someone lost their life in an altercation, the primary culpability has to reside with the person initiating a violent altercation.

The line has to be that using a vehicle to both stop and strike someone has to be… TOO FAR.

The Humanity

Another aspect of this is the life that was lost. There’s so much sadness surrounding this. She was told it is perfectly ok, good, acceptable, and even noble, to protest a group of children that don’t exist. She was told that telling anyone to leave our country for any reason is bad. Again, it’s the feeling one has about a single life superseding the betterment of society as a whole, that has agreed to a set of laws that we are all to live by.

Let’s talk about humanity. Let’s talk about the 33 stitches the same ICE agent received after being dragged by a car recently. This event causes PTSD. Maybe, he was quick to act based on that. You could make the argument that given the possible PTSD he should not have been working in this stressful environment. That’s fair. But if you drive your car towards me and I have my pistol, I will shoot to save my life also.

Facts

Then there are the facts laid out by Daniel Carr:

  • Blocking the road is illegal. In this case, it is also interfering with a federal operation.
  • The officer on the passenger side walks to the driver’s side to detain the driver for such unlawful actions.
  • The driver accelerates and strikes an officer with the front left of her car.
  • The officer, believing his life was at risk, shoots three shots. Much less than typical in a scenario like this (If you want to know why when they fire, they shoot multiple shots, go spend a day with them). These shots are protected and expected both by Minnesota law and federal law.

Preceding Lies

It is sad that there is a life gone. What’s truly sad is that someone has lied to her and told her:

  • It’s justified to stop federal agents from removing illegal Somali non-citizens who are draining financial resources from the government in a fraud scam.
  • She was told that feeling a certain way justifies solving it using violent means without consequences.
  • She was told that public policy must match how she felt at any given time and we all need to just “get out of the doctor’s way.”

Masculinity didn’t cause this.

Patriarchy didn’t cause this.

Misogyny didn’t cause this.

Lies caused this. Refusal to follow the laws that have been drawn and agreed upon by society caused this.

Unfortunately, this situation falls into the predictable “feelings vs. public policy.” Just because it feels right, doesn’t mean it is right. And as I’ve said before, feelings and public policy can both be good and still not match.

I fully support one’s right to protest legally, which means peacefully, according to the First Amendment. MLK did that. Jesus did that. Renee did not. To me, the saddest part of the story (after the death of a human) is that Renee was fed enough lies that she was willing to put her life on the line for children that didn’t exist, leaving her own child motherless in the wake. I will tell the truth, even and especially when it hurts. The alternative is much worse. And the truth is, this could have been avoided by not believing and following every emotional plea one hears.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

How Perspective Shapes Determinism Through Compatibilism

The Free Will Debate

L-R, Socrates, Descartes, Daniel Dennett

This is in response to a 3–part series written by Dr. Steve Stewart-Williams. This post is a bit more philosophical than usual. I’m not smart enough to have real philosophical conversations, but I can converse on the subject of free will and how it applies to our everyday lives. Please know that this is written from the perspective of a Christian. So my angle is often from my belief, both intellectually and experientially, in the Judaic God.

We are in the process of looking for a house to buy. If you have ever done this, you know the next statement. It has been tumultuous to say the least. The ups and downs of buying a home is not for the weak of heart. In the midst of it, my wife takes a deep breath and says, “God already knows what house we will end up getting, He already knows what we desire, and He already knows what He desires for us, which is greater than we could imagine.” This was her way of coping with the stress.

This sparked a thought, just how much of this should we hold on to? Is it true that God already knows? The answer is yes. And here lies the biggest question: If God already knows, does this mean we are determined in our choices? Because if He already knows, this suggests determinism. But if we are determined to act, why wouldn’t we act solely in our own best interest, forsaking all others? Good question. Let’s tackle it.

Determinism vs. Libertarian Free Will

Dr Steve Stewart-Williams (SSW) addressed this issue in a robust 3-part series. First he tackled the issue of determinism, and more specifically, hard determinism vs soft determinism. Hard determinism can be viewed as the reluctance to accept anything as reality and that we are all merely in a sub-reality playing parts in another’s game. I’d like to leave that right where it is. Soft determinism (compatibilism) offers something more closely identifiable in that free will and determinism are compatible. This is in slight conflict with libertarian free will in that libertarian free will strictly rejects determinism and rest solely on the idea that we choose.

Definitions:

  • Determinism: everything we do is already determined.
  • Libertarian Free Will: rejecting determinism. we have the ability to choose.
  • Compatibilism: freedom doesn’t require that our actions are somehow neither caused nor random. It requires only that our actions flow from our conscious desires, intentions, and reasoning processes. On this view, we have free will as long as we’re not unreasonably coerced or constrained by outside forces.

Dr. SSW briefly addressed the idea of mind versus matter and how this argument is not the same as the free will argument. And that’s true. I still think it’s a good place to start. Descartes was an early dualist. But he wasn’t the first.

  • Pythagoras (6th century BCE) already hinted at a distinction between the soul and the body.
  • Plato argued that the soul belongs to the realm of unchanging Forms (truth, justice, beauty) while the body is part of the mutable, deceptive physical world.
  • Aristotle wasn’t so separatist in his view. The soul (psyche) and body (matter) were distinct but not really separate.
  • Descartes built dualism into the scientific framework. Physicalists later formed in rebuttal to his theory of substance dualism.
  • Carl Jung eventually highlighted such dualism in modern psychology. He also introduced the idea of spirituality as a result of his dualistic views. We are more than the matter that can be measured. We are made up of physical matter as well as archetypes and collective unconscious, structures in the psyche, disctinct from brain matter. This gives rise to my perspective on this issue.

Compatibilism

In part 2, he tackles compatibilism head on. Dr SSW writes:

Most compatibilists and most hard determinists agree on all the important facts. They agree that contra-causal free will is impossible; they agree that people frequently act voluntarily and without coercion; and they agree that it’s often useful to hold people responsible for their actions. The only real disagreement is about how to define free will. And that’s not very interesting.

Compatibilism strikes me as the most convincing view. It echoes the repeated disputes among early psychologists who tried to crown a single master key to the mind. Some swore by behaviorism, others by the machinery of the brain. Still others by conditioning or by self-understanding. One camp invoked genetics as destiny. Another pointed to the shaping power of environment. The trouble is that each holds a fragment of the truth. To all, I say, Yes!. The same pattern shows up in debates about free will. Certain moments in our lives are shaped by forces that run deeper than conscious choice. Such as our DNA, the temperamental leanings we inherit, the quiet impulses that orient us long before deliberation begins. In those moments, our decisions feel tethered to determinism.

Yet the outcomes of our choices unfold plainly before us, reminding us that we do in fact deliberate. We act from a conscious center, selecting what seems meaningful or right in the moment as we understand it. This is the footing on which we ground the very idea of holding someone responsible for what they do. Compatibilism makes the most sense to me.

Moralism

In part 3, Dr SSW dives into the moral argument. He writes:

If we don’t have free will, we can’t hold people responsible for their behavior.

If free will is an illusion, why bother being good?

If our behavior is determined, then rewards and punishments might influence people’s future actions. If it’s not – if it’s simply random – then they can’t. So, rather than undermining accountability, determinism seems to be the only hope for accountability.

Upon the treatment of criminals, he quotes Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen:

Free will as we ordinarily understand it is an illusion generated by our cognitive architecture. Retributivist notions of criminal responsibility ultimately depend on this illusion, and, if we are lucky, they will give way to consequentialist ones, thus radically transforming our approach to criminal justice. At this time, the law deals firmly but mercifully with individuals whose behavior is obviously the product of forces that are ultimately beyond their control. Someday, the law may treat all convicted criminals this way. That is, humanely.

My response here is, first, it is not obvious that criminal behavior is beyond their control. Secondly, I’m for restorative justice in almost every case. However, there are those that are more of a liability to society than a contributor. At that point, what’s best for the entire society may not be great for that individual. This is another arena where we must separate our feelings from that of good public policy. Feelings and policy are capable of both being good simultaneously and still not match.

Life Application

Lastly, he quoted Rousseau as saying:

I may think that I have rationally demonstrated my will is not free, but I can never succeed in believing or living as if this were so.

This is where the argument takes a severe turn for me. Because the free will argument dabbles into the conversation of objectivity vs subjectivity. If everything is determined, then everything seems to be subjective. And if everything is subjective, we have no gauge towards meaningful interactions.

Here is an excerpt from my new book, What is a Man:

[The reality in this argument has two places of interest. Verbiage and perspective.

Verbiage

In verbiage, we find that many believe that everything is subjective. No two people agree on absolutely everything. Therefore, there cannot be an objective set of values and morals. But the verbiage is off. The term objective morality never says that two people must agree on everything. It merely states that values and morals can exist outside of individual opinion. So, for example, there are no cultures in which you can steal someone’s property and it be widely accepted. It is objectively wrong to harm another human (outside of defense). I once read some philosophy on this subject and saw two good points of view. First, let’s look at slavery. While there are still areas of slavery in the world today, no one will openly state that it is a good thing or a moral thing to be a slave owner. Everyone inherently knows it is wrong.

Therefore, the objective morality around slavery exists. And if it exists anywhere, then it exists. It is the common-sense theory. There are certain common-sense areas where there is objective morality. Another point of view is that when two people disagree over something, it is something subjective. Some say Peyton Manning is the greatest quarterback of all time. Others would argue that he is not. This is a subjective principle. However, Peyton having won two Super Bowls is an objective principle. We can argue over whether he’s the greatest quarterback of all time, but we won’t argue over whether he won Super Bowls. This notion alone brings about the reality of an objective morality. If we can’t steal without causing harm, and we can’t enslave without causing harm, and we won’t argue over this being immoral, then it is based on an objective morality.

Perspective

The other place of interest is perspective. This one is as simple as the first. If you have the perspective that there is no possibility of an objective morality, then there is nothing to stop you from taking what you want and doing what you want without limitations on your behavior. You have no guide, no standard, no measuring stick. Nothing is off limits. This will inevitably produce strife, recklessness, chaos, pain, heartache, and suffering of all sorts. Anyone that’s lived for any amount of adulthood time knows this. Therefore, the perspective must be that there is a standard by which we all live. There must be an objective morality. Or at least there must be the perspective of an objective morality. The only real question for many is where this objective morality would derive from. My favorite psychologist once said, “I live as though there is a God.”

As Christians, we believe this objective morality comes from God and God’s word to us. But again, there is this perspective thing that creeps its head into the church. For instance, Calvinism. Calvinism is deterministic in the belief that God already knows everything, everything has already been determined, and your life is a predicted outcome of circumstances and events that will not change God’s predetermined mind as to who enters the kingdom of heaven. The premise was that one should live hoping to be that soul. There is a case to be made that this is factually true. However, the problem with this line of thinking is obvious. If your perspective is that God has already chosen who enters heaven, then it doesn’t matter how you live. There again, you find yourself having no limitations on your behavior, leading you right back down that hole of despair and brokenness.]

This is where the entire argument lies for me. Our perspective, and its effect on the quality of our lives. Dr. SSW noted a study where they found that when consequence was removed, people were nudged toward selfish, greedy, and unethical behavior. He noted that the study was flawed, but I think the point stands.

This can be viewed from the original sin lens. It’s now in our nature to do harm, wrong, bad. Therefore, if we are nudged in a manner that removes consequence, we dive towards selfish ambition. The tenets of God’s teachings are to deny our nature and take on His nature. This is what leads us to a more peaceful life and helps those around us thrive as well. Without this directive, our nature leads us in a path contradictory to our innate goals.

Conclusion

In the end, the perspective we carry shapes the arc of our lives. The question becomes how to use what we understand to grow into a sounder, steadier version of ourselves over time. When a perspective begins to wound us or those within our reach, it’s a signal that the lens itself needs changing. Perhaps God already knows the full story, but I don’t. Living as though I do only blurs my judgment. Whatever is fixed lies outside my grasp. What I can influence is how I meet the moment before me.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Responsibility: A Solution No Policy Can Write

The Lie of Structural Salvation

In my book, What is a Man, I leaned heavily on men to be the man they were designed to be, fathers, husbands of but one wife. Be the man that works hard for his family, comes home to a faithful wife, and serves her in every way. One who finds out his girlfriend is pregnant, and doesn’t run away, but runs towards. At least part of the solution to the abortion issue, in my estimation, is men sticking around and not leaving their ladies feeling helpless and alone. We could get into all the other reasons, which I won’t, so don’t try. But a large portion of the problem stems from men not being men.

Solutions

Like this issue, the issue of solutions to societal problems has a similar twist. No one disagrees that certain things are worse than they’ve ever been. In some cases, things are better than they’ve ever been, but this can be argued. But on the subject of problems, the Monday-morning quarterbacks are quick to diagnose. With the best of them.

  • Sects of society are greedy.
  • There are too many poor people in America.
  • Inequality is at its worst.
  • Homelessness must be eradicated.

Macro

But we all fall short on solutions. Many, including the great Richard Reeves, look to public policy for solutions. This is where, much like covid, the cure is worse than the disease. Public policy can only be written, voted, and executed by the government. The government regulates behavior under conditions of conflict. When policy becomes our primary solution, we have missed the entire point! What is being framed as a structural deficit is often a developmental one. Covid taught us that, though history taught us that many times over.

The government does not produce meaning, attachment, competence, or character. Actually, the government does not produce anything. It cannot model responsibility or cultivate resilience. Its function is governance, not formation. And psychologically speaking, entities designed to manage conflict trend towards tyranny, not growth. When we outsource solutions to the state, we bypass the family, the community, and the individual psyche, which is where the actual work of human flourishing occurs. Problems of the human condition cannot be legislated into health, they must be developed into it.

Micro

So what is a viable solution? People. Hearts. Discipline. Perseverance. Resilience. Work. Compassion. Self-sacrifice.

Where it really gets off course is bringing Jesus into it. I hear it all the time.

“If you don’t show compassion to the poor, then you’re not following Jesus.”

And on the surface, that’s true.

We love to use the teachings of Jesus to influence public policy. Except he wanted nothing to do with public policy.

“Give to Caesar what’s Caesar’s. Give to God what’s Gods.”

“But wait? He said take care of the poor. He said if someone asks you to go one mile, you go two. He said if someone asks you for your shirt, give them your jacket too. Jesus was interested in sociology.”

Almost. He was interested in people. But from the individual out, not from society in.

Sociologically, problems are viewed as societal, affecting individuals along the way. If the societal issue gets resolved, the individual will be better. The problem with this line of thinking is, what if the institution or system never figures it out? Then we are completely dependent on the system to rectify our shortcomings in life. When we view problems as individual issues, from the inside out, then we are capable of flourishing regardless of systemic fractures.

The apostle Paul wrote this regularly. He consistently wrote about how he could be jailed, but not silenced. They could try to break his spirit, but they would not succeed. Viewing his problem sociologically, he would’ve fallen to extreme despair. Hope remained alive in the idea that he had autonomy, even in chains.

Individual > Government

My contention is that Jesus said the things he said, addressed the things he addressed, to the individual, not the society. He was not instructing the government to feed the poor. He was instructing us to do it. He didn’t tell the government to help those in need, he instructed us as individuals to do so.

Any reliance on a system, institution, or government, is relying on an outside entity to ensure your own personal well-being. It assumes that meaning, safety, and order can be outsourced to an external structure rather than cultivated through agency, virtue, and responsibility. History shows an extended rebuttal to that assumption. Systems do not love, institutions do not sacrifice, and governments do not exist to make individuals whole. They manage, they regulate, they constrain.

When we treat these abstractions as guarantors of our inner stability, we confuse governance with guidance and authority with wisdom. The result is predictable disappointment. Such entities fail us not because they are corrupt in every instance, but because they were never designed to fulfill existential needs.

This is where I lean on the church. If the government is not to be that, then we are. This applies more pressure, but it’s pressure for which we have received mercy and grace. If we fail, the government steps in.

So the ball is in our court. Step up, or watch tyranny take over.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Overcorrection

Imbalance Empowers Extremes

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles:

I recently read a great article concerning the plight of boys and young men. It hit home because I’m dealing with this issue in my own family. My oldest bonus son is a self-made millionaire. He’s extremely intelligent, hard worker, and pretty positive guy. He also has almost zero theory of mind. He’s not narcissistic. Just completely unaware there are other people in the world. Therefore, his only logical arguments are online. Then, in his attempt to persuade me into his web of conspiracies, he was met with facts, reason, and experience that he didn’t expect. Then he resorted to, “You just don’t know, you haven’t been educated on the issues.” To which I retorted with education. Now he either steers clear of me or listens intently.

He’s convinced that:

  • Israel (the country, not people or religion) is the reason for all global woes.
  • Nick Fuentes is a brilliant mind speaking for his generation.
  • Charlie Kirk’s death was an entire conspiracy.

He sounds like a male Candace Owen. But Wokal Distance laid this idea out well.

The Path of Thomas Sowell

How we arrived here is similar to the path Thomas Sowell took. When Sowell looked at the issues in the world and primarily in America, it appeared that the rich had taken from the poor, namely the black poor. This had to be dealt with. And to Sowell, the solution was Marxism. The utopian delight. Manage all production. Control all means. Then distribute fairly. To him, it made sense. To Sowell, it was the only alternative presented. And that is precisely where we are. With no alternatives, the course of action is overcorrection. And overcorrection looks like Fuentes, Tate, and Alex Jones. And until someone finds societal homeostasis, they will continue to rise.

These young men, like my bonus son, are looking for an alternative and no one is presenting one. They see that the government is too big. They see that woke-ology doesn’t work, it only stifles businesses. They see that worrying about everyone’s feelings incessantly drives mental health cases up and progress down. But so far, the only solutions presented are the existing ones. Capitalism! No, socialism! No, democratic socialism! (Note that the only one of those three that hasn’t killed millions is capitalism).

Gynocentricism

But maybe more importantly, Wokal points out that the gynocentric zeitgeist we find ourselves in is the real culprit. My wife noticed this recently at a church gathering. We were having a small group gathering and some women kept making comments that displayed beliefs centered on ideas that masculinity, men, and male spaces are inherently malevolent. She almost couldn’t believe her ears. She hears this rhetoric all the time at the high school where she teaches, but not in a church in the Bible belt.

Generational Theory

In Wokal’s post, there’s mention of a catastrophic distrust of institutions. This lines up with the Strauss and Howe Generational Theory. In this theory, it posits that we go through four societal (or generational) turns. The distrust of institutions began the 3rd turn around the early 1980s. We have been in the 4th turn for a while now. This is marked by societal upheaval. Survival. They rolling over stones to find the answer, even if the stone hurts someone along the way. The good news, we should be returning to the 1st turn in the next five years, according to theory.

I mentioned in my post, Gen Z’s Breaking Point, that we have a new group of young men who are over the nonsense they’re being forced to accept. Most of the GenZ men I see are still making sense, common sense. But the ones overcorrecting are grasping onto guys like Fuentes as the lesser of all evils.

The Rise of Peterson

One more excellent point made in the article by Wokal was that Jordan Peterson rose to fame on the position that men are good, needed, and capable of responsibility, protection, and production. He told men to stand up straight. Make your bed. Be early to interviews. Negotiate early and often. Treat yourself like someone you’re responsible for helping. Men gravitated to the call. Peterson was calling them up, not calling them out.

Then Peterson fell ill. This left a void, a void that Tate and Fuentes saw could be filled with an overcorrection of masculinity, conspiracy theories, and righteous anger at the wrong things and people. They swooped in with promises of a better future. But overcorrections always dissolve, they never sustain.

Solutions

There are many possible solutions to this crisis. One real solution is to stop apologizing for what it means to be a man and start insisting on it. One should be capable of danger but wise enough to know when to use it. Not reckless, not violent, but formidable. A man should be the strongest person at this father’s funeral, but willing to express emotions when grief hits. A man handles the crisis first. He stabilizes the chaos. Then, when the threat has passed, he becomes gentle, attentive, and emotionally present for his wife and children. Jason Wilson calls this “The man the moment demands,” and he’s right. What we’ve done instead is shame men into paralysis, telling them their strength is suspect and their masculinity is dangerous unless constantly restrained.

We must be willing to tell men and boys that it’s ok to be a man. That it’s not just ok to be masculine, it’s necessary! Strength is good. Roughness has a place. Humor matters. So does restraint, vulnerability, emotional expression, and clear communication with our wives and children. This is not a contradiction. It’s balance. It’s psychological regulation. It’s Emotional Homeostasis. With this, we must stand against the gynocentric narrative that feminine is the only way forward. It’s one way forward. Masculine is also the way forward. When you suppress one and moralize the other, you don’t get a healthy society. You get confusion, weakness, resentment, and instability. A society that refuses to cultivate strong men is not compassionate. It is reckless. And it is setting itself up to be overwhelmed by the very chaos it pretends to manage.

Gynocentricism has created the very men it fears. There’s a rise in men, but the wrong men. Chaos is recruiting, and it’s becoming successful. We have taught boys to hate themselves, then wonder why they flock to the extreme opposition. Disoriented men are easy targets. Empowered men are unstoppable.

If we want our boys to see Fuentes and Tate for what they really are, vultures thriving on click-bait, contrarians with no real solutions, insecurity hiding behind the masculine façade, we must show them what it means to be a man.

I know a guy who wrote a book about this very subject. Maybe you know him too.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

NYC’s Gateway Drug to Communism

You Can Ignore History, But it Will Still Send You the Bill

Woke up, had an omelet, cup of coffee, and realized, I chose every bit of that. That freedom is under attack in front of our very eyes.

How did we get to a place where we are having to remind people the disastrous outcomes of socialism? Primarily because the newer generations did not learn about the ills of the socialism. They learned about how awesome it is. They apparently left out the part where it has yet to work anywhere in the world at any time in history. Pretty big thing to leave out. And they’re afraid to admit the connection between socialism and communism.

There are two primary issues I want to discuss here so that we understand that socialism is the gateway drug to communism and why so many are concerned that New York has embraced communism:

  1. Socialism and communism are almost interchangeable
  2. Understanding New York’s own history with socialism.

Let’s briefly take a look at the differences and similarities between socialism and communism.

Differences

Definition

  • Socialism: an economic and political theory where the community or state owns and controls the means of production, such as industries and natural resources, rather than private individuals or companies. The central idea is that this collective ownership will lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and a more egalitarian society, with an emphasis on cooperation and social welfare.
  • Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war, aiming for a stateless, classless society and leading to a societal system in which all property is publicly owned, and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. (You can find the differences here, but you have to squint).

Government role

  • Socialism: The state plays a central role in regulating or owning industries.
  • Communism: The state is meant to eventually “wither away,” leaving no private property, class distinctions, or government at all. (So they regulate their way into total domination, got it)

Economic Role

  • Socialism: Redistribution of wealth to reduce inequality.
  • Communism: Total equality. No private ownership, no classes, no money. (distinct but the same result; reduce inequality means total equality)

Transition Stage

  • Socialism: Marx viewed socialism as the transitional phase between capitalism and full communism.
  • Communism: Communism is the final goal after socialism’s “temporary” government control. (so socialism is the gateway drug for communism, got it)

Similarities

Despite their subtle theoretical distinctions, both systems share several key principles and outcomes:

  • Collective Ownership: Both reject private ownership of the means of production.
  • Class Struggle Narrative: Both view history as a struggle between the rich and poor (bourgeoisie vs. proletariat, insert any binary friction here).
  • State Control: Both rely on government control or heavy regulation of the economy to achieve equality.
  • Wealth Redistribution: Both prioritize economic equality over individual liberty or market freedom.
  • Hostility Toward Religion and the Family: Marx and later communist regimes often viewed religion and the traditional family as tools of oppression that distract from loyalty to the state or the collective. Religion in socialism is seen as selfish and not conducive to an equal society.
  • Outcome in Practice: Both tend to centralize power in the hands of a ruling elite, suppress dissent, and produce economic stagnation.

Now that we’ve connected the dots of socialism and communism, let’s look at the argument for socialism’s (communism) implementation into the U.S., including where it has worked and not worked, the comparison to Nordic countries, and New York’s own history with socialism.

Where it has been tried, in various forms, and failed:

  • Soviet Union (1917-1991). Over 20 million dead as a result.
  • Maoist China (1949-1976) Over 45 million dead as a result.
  • Venezuela (1999-present). 7 million citizens fled
  • Notable mentions: Cuba, North Korean. (They’re really doing great these days)

Where it has worked:

Literally nowhere. Except in areas of Nordic countries. Nordic? I’m glad you brough that up.

The Nordic Comparison

Sweden (among other Nordic countries) is often hailed as the standard the U.S. should follow. They have about 10 million citizens. The U.S. has over 330 million. Sweden is highly homogenous. Very little diversity in culture, job market, and existential views. Comparing Sweden to the U.S. directly as national systems is like comparing a neighborhood to a continent. You can’t expect the same mechanisms of trust, coordination, and scale to behave identically. The diversity alone in the U.S. is enough to rule out anything that resembles voluntary, adequate, and consistent contribution to society. So that argument is out.

When Soft Socialism Collides with Hard Math

Then there’s New York. The city under the spotlight. The newest socialist experiment. But it’s not the first time New Yorkers tried socialism.

During the 1960s, under Mayor John Lindsay and the influence of progressive policies, New York City embraced what some economists call “municipal socialism.” The city expanded social services at a breathtaking pace:

  • Free college at CUNY.
  • Subsidized housing.
  • An exploding welfare system. By 1975, one in seven New Yorkers was on welfare.

Government employment and unionized city workers grew massively. Each new program was justified as “helping the people,” but they were funded not by growth in productivity, but by borrowing.

By the early 1970s, the rich and the productive were leaving, taking the tax base with them. By 1975, the city had racked up over $10 billion in debt (massive for the time) and was unable to pay its bills.

The Emergency Financial Control Board cut spending, froze wages, and privatized some services. Essentially reversing the socialist policies that caused the crisis. You mean, socialism didn’t work? Socialism has NEVER worked. But it gets worse.

Public services were slashed, police and firefighters were laid off, and whole neighborhoods descended into chaos. Arson for insurance schemes became common. Garbage piled up. Crime soared. The city looked like it was collapsing.

The mindset that led to the collapse was ideological. It left the arena of belief and was now more inculcated, indoctrinated, and innate that government could solve every problem through redistribution, and that private enterprise would always just pay for it.

That’s the core socialist assumption: the producers will keep producing, no matter what you tax, regulate, or redistribute.

Well they didn’t.

As economist Milton Friedman put it:

“New York City is a beautiful illustration of exactly these effects. New York City is the most welfare state oriented community in the United States. It has gone farther in the direction of governmental involvement in attempting to do good than any other city or state.”

“The first defect is trying to do good with someone else’s money.”

New York’s 1970s collapse is a cautionary tale about the seductive promise of endless compassion through government. Compassion without discipline becomes dependency. Generosity without growth becomes insolvency.

The socialist impulse to help everyone is noble in spirit but disastrous in execution because it severs the link between effort and reward. Remove merit, remove individuality. Remove individuality, you remove hope, exploration, creation, discovery, and innovation. Basically everything America stands for. New York’s brush with bankruptcy was their way of learning the hard way that utopian economics always ends with arithmetic. We now question who learned.

Conclusion

In the late 1970s, New York’s economic collapse didn’t just cripple one city, it sent shockwaves through the entire country. History is knocking again. Make no mistake, the same script will play out. The same smug belief that good intentions can replace basic economics will bring the empire to its knees. It destroyed New York once, and it’s about to do it again.

Every time government is handed more power, tyranny marches in. Every time feelings replace reason, chaos follows. And every time socialism has been tried, Every. Single. Time., it collapses under the weight of its own delusion.

New York City is sleepwalking toward the same cliff it fell off of half a century ago. Only this time, there may be no one left to catch it. The rest of us will have to watch as the “City of Dreams” becomes a slow-motion nightmare proving, once again, that socialism doesn’t save societies. It destroys them.

I started this out talking about my omelet breakfast. I’ll leave you with this, since you made it this far without your stomach growling from hunger enough for you to stop reading: Walter Duranty, a pro-Stalin journalist, once defended Soviet terror in discussion with George Orwell by saying, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” To which Orwell replied, “So where’s the omelet?”

Great, now I want more eggs! Thank God I don’t have to get them rationed from the government… yet.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Fairness Killed Freedom

A Letter from 2030: The Ghost of Socialism Haunts New York and It’s Coming For the Rest of America

“Socialism is group A taking from group B against their will and giving it to group C.” -Milton Friedman.

Someone found a letter in a time machine from New York City, NY in 2030. Here are the contents.

Dear Emily,

You remember how hopeful we were?

When Mayor Mamdani ran on that “People-powered solution for New York” platform, I truly believed he’d make New York fair again. I was tired of seeing billionaires in penthouses while single moms worked two jobs just to afford groceries. His speeches made me feel seen. Like we were finally going to fix everything broken in this city. I voted for him with pride. I marched, I posted, I argued with anyone who dared to question the new way forward. I was sure we were on the right side of history. Now, five years later, I hardly recognize the place I defended.

The Promised City

  • He told us we’d have “housing for all.”
  • He told us no one would go hungry, that the rich would “finally pay their fair share.”
  • He told us we’d “reimagine safety” and “heal the divisions” of capitalism.

It sounded so moral. So compassionate. And maybe that’s why it worked. Who wants to sound cruel? Who wants to say no to fairness?

But fairness, I’ve learned, is not the same as freedom. And when you trade the second for the first, you end up with neither.

A City Without Beauty

I walk down Broadway now and it feels like the color’s been drained out of everything. The lights still flash, but the signs all say the same thing: “Support the Collective. Consume Equally.” Every restaurant serves nearly identical meals. “Price parity laws,” they called it. No more “overpriced” food. But when everything costs the same, everything tastes the same too.

When Justice Became Control

The first thing that went wrong was the “Wealth Reallocation Tax.” It hit anyone making more than $1 million a year. At first, we cheered, “Make them pay!”

But they didn’t pay. They left. The businesses that employed half the city closed or moved to Florida, Texas, and Tennessee (as you know). The tax base crumbled.

I used to mock people who warned this would happen. I said they were paranoid. But here we are, standing in line for our “monthly energy allowance,” waiting hours for the subway that rarely comes. Living in buildings where the heat only works when the local council remembers to authorize it.

The New Schools

My daughter used to dream of becoming a scientist. Now her school has no science lab. The teacher says “STEM perpetuates hierarchies of knowledge and oppresses women.”

They don’t give grades anymore, just collective performance reports. The kids are told to help each other equally, which means no one bothers to excel. “Ambition is a capitalist illusion,” the posters say. I once thought this was progress. I called it equitable education. Now I see it for what it is:

  • The flattening of potential.
  • The annihilation of upward mobility.
  • The dismantling of motivation.

Faith and Family Forgotten

Churches still stand, but they’re Community Hubs now. Places for Civic Reflection. Crosses and icons are banned because they divide.

Families are treated as private hoarders of privilege. The city offers Shared Childcare Programs where kids are encouraged to broaden their perspectives by spending more time with state mentors than their own parents. When I asked if I could homeschool, they warned me that unregulated education undermines social cohesion. I used to think government would be a safety net. I never thought it would become a cage. They warned me about the tyranny of it. I just never thought it was possible.

The New York I Miss

The hardest part is remembering what it felt like before. The noise, the competition, the struggle. Yes, it was tough. But it was alive. You could walk into a coffee shop with a dream, a laptop, and a little courage, and maybe, just maybe, build something that changed your life. Now:

  • Dreams are treated like threats.
  • Innovation is selfish.
  • Success is suspicious.

They told us we were building equality. But equality built on envy becomes tyranny. And tyranny doesn’t kick down your door with a gun, it hands you

  • a form to sign
  • a ration card to collect
  • a slogan to repeat.

My Regret

I wish I could say I didn’t know. But the truth is, I did. Somewhere deep down, I felt the unease. That creeping sense that giving government more power was a dangerous kind of faith.

But we were tired. We wanted someone to fix it all for us. We mistook dependency for compassion. And by the time we realized what we’d given up, it was too late to take it back.

A Plea to Those Who Still Can

Emily, I realize millions fled our state to go to your state, much like the 7 million that fled Venezuela in 2015. But please don’t let them sell you the same lie in Tennessee.

They’ll tell you it’s about justice. About fairness. About the “common good.” But watch carefully. Every time they say “We’re all in this together,” what they really mean is “You’re in it, but we’re in charge.”

If you ever come visit, I’ll take you to Times Square, or what’s left of it. The mayor renamed it “The People’s Plaza.” The billboards now flash one message in unison: “Unity Through Equality.” And in the crowd below, no one argues anymore. No one competes. No one dreams. Just quiet obedience. The price we paid for fairness.

Yours regretfully,
Daniel
Former believer in a better New York.

My Notes

This story is fiction, for now. But every idea in it echoes something real. The slow erosion of freedom, the replacement of family with state, and the moral confusion that calls dependency justice. The installment of “poor vs rich” will create more class division, leading to resentment and polarization like we’ve yet to see. Oppressed vs oppressor. Sound familiar?

Five Reasons Socialism (and Communism) Fails

  1. Human Nature: People naturally seek to improve their own lives. Forced equality kills motivation and innovation.
  2. Economic Inefficiency: Without profit incentive, resources are misallocated, leading to shortages and waste.
  3. Concentration of Power: Centralized control leads inevitably to tyranny. Those in charge do not wither away but tighten their grip.
  4. Moral Vacuum: Both ideologies tend to replace faith, family, and community with allegiance to the state. This removes societal cohesion of moral conduct. There is no barometer. Only the state says what is right and wrong now.
  5. Erosion of Freedom: To maintain control, socialist and communist regimes suppress speech, religion, and political dissent.

We must remember that Karl Marx envisioned socialism as the best and most natural transition from capitalism to communism. Communism was always the end goal of socialism. We must also remember the only true deterrent is the American family. The family is the last line of defense against total control. When the state replaces parents, faith, and initiative, society becomes weak, easy to rule, but impossible to restore. Guard your family. Guard your freedom. Because once you lose them, there’s no mayor, no movement, and no miracle that can bring them back.

Stay Free GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Forgotten Half

A Book Review: “Of Boys and Men” By Richard Reeves

In case you missed some recent articles:

Richard Reeves’ Of Boys and Men enters into a cultural conversation that has long been muted, if not actively resisted… the struggles of men and boys in modern society. The book, in many ways, is revolutionary for its willingness to state the obvious. There is a crisis among males. Educationally. Psychologically. Socially. Reeves’ arguments invite both appreciation and scrutiny, particularly when viewed through a psychological lens. While he successfully highlights the scope of the crisis, his solutions raise important questions about the interplay of biology, culture, and politics in male development. Here, I propose both praise and criticism of this book.

Institutionalized Developmental Delay

Reeves begins with education, pointing to staggering trends that show boys falling behind at nearly every level of schooling. Fewer men enroll in and graduate from college. They remain at the highest risk of dropping out compared to any other measurable group. Some of this decline has been masked by well-intentioned initiatives aimed at supporting women in higher education. But Reeves notes the imbalance of scholarships and assistance programs that overwhelmingly (and sometimes only) target women.

A particularly striking statistic is that 23% of boys are categorized as having a developmental disability. This label is almost statistically impossible. The deeper question is whether the educational system itself is maladapted to the developmental trajectory of boys. In other words, is it really the boys who are delayed, or the institutions failing to accommodate the normal variations in male development? Reeves and I share the sentiment that it is the educational system that is “delayed.” Developmental psychology shows that boys, on average, mature later in self-regulation, impulse control, and executive function. A rigid, one-size-fits-all educational model pathologizes these differences rather than supporting them.

I love the “redshirting” idea. Reeves’ practical recommendation that boys should be “redshirted”, or held back a year before starting school, aligns with this developmental reality. It recognizes that maturity is less about chronological age and more about calibrating behavior to fit social demands. Psychologist Erik Erikson once described adolescence as the crucible where identity and role confusion collide. Boys may simply need more time in that crucible, and institutions must adapt rather than expect conformity to artificially compressed timelines.

Social Decline and Family Instability

Beyond the classroom, Reeves highlights how boys and men are disproportionately harmed by family breakdown. In 1970, just 11% of births in the U.S. occurred outside of marriage. Today that number stands at 40%. The psychological consequences are profound. Children raised without stable father involvement face increased risks of behavioral problems, school failure, and emotional instability.

Importantly, Reeves distinguishes between race and gender in discussions of intergenerational mobility. While black and white women raised in poor families experience similar rates of upward intergenerational mobility, the same is not true for men. Revealing that the struggle is fundamentally male, and less racial. This observation forces a reframing of inequality. Many of the struggles chalked up to racial disparities are in fact gendered and disproportionately affect boys. The family unit, when fractured, appears to hit men the hardest, possibly because male identity is often more externally anchored, shaped by roles, responsibilities, and expectations that dissolve when fathers are absent.

Despair, Suicide, and the Meaning Crisis

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of Reeves’ book is his treatment of despair. Male deaths from despair (suicide and overdose) are 3x higher than female. While male deaths from suicide alone are 4x hgher than female. Men account for 70% of opioid deaths in the United States. In suicide attempt notes, words like “useless” and “worthless” are repeated with haunting regularity. These are not just personal tragedies, they are societal symptoms.

Psychologically, despair emerges when meaning collapses. Viktor Frankl, the psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, argued that humans can endure almost any suffering if they retain a sense of purpose, echoing the sentiments of Nietzsche. Men who perceive themselves as unnecessary, whether socially, economically, or relationally, are particularly vulnerable. The erosion of traditional male roles (provider, protector, leader) leaves many men lost. Reeves’ book resonates as a warning. Neglecting the psychological needs of boys leads to men who no longer see themselves as essential to the fabric of society.

Biology, Masculinity, and the Politics of Pathology

Reeves is careful to address the biological underpinnings of masculinity. Testosterone, he notes, does not trigger aggression but amplifies it. This distinction matters. Aggression itself is not pathological. It is a natural drive that, when tempered, becomes assertiveness, competitiveness, and protective strength. The problem is not masculinity, per se, but the inability to regulate and channel masculine impulses into socially constructive forms.

Reeves criticizes the American Psychological Association (APA), which has published guidelines that largely ignore male realities while emphasizing female experiences. This reflects a broader cultural trend. Natural aspects of masculinity are pathologized, particularly on the political left, which often denies biological sex differences in favor of purely social explanations. From a psychological standpoint, denying biology is not only unscientific but harmful. To help boys and men, we must recognize their biological realities rather than pretending they do not exist.

Where Reeves Misses the Mark

While Reeves is strong in diagnosis, his prescriptions falter in later chapters. In his attempt to “balance” criticism between left and right, he ends up diminishing legitimate concerns. For instance, he offers a dismissive opinion of Jordan Peterson’s work on social hierarchies and gendered career preferences, despite strong empirical backing. He offers no empirical refutation. Only opinion.

Reeves suggests that men and women would choose diffrent careers if the stigma were deceased. His interpretation of the Su and Rounds1 study doesn’t hold up against other research. For instance, one study that shows that in more egalitarian societies, gender differences in occupational preferences actually widen.2 And another study that found that in very egalitarian communities, when controlling for education, occupational class position, age, social and family status, and income, differences among genders were vastly different.3 In other words, freedom reveals difference rather than erasing it.

Given the statistical likelihood of gender preferences in more egalitarian nations, we can’t dismiss this but maybe we can capitalize on the individuals in each gender that cease to represent the majority and lean on this faction to help close certain gender job-force gaps. Men high in neuroticism, who are also high in empathy, would do well in HEAL jobs. Like women who are more practical and less prone to neuroticism would do well in STEM jobs. Though the majority will not prefer these, those who will can help bring nuance to these occupations.

Reeves also entertains the idea of equality of outcome, which is an inherently socialist notion that undermines individual merit and autonomy. Quoting Margaret Mead as an authority on gender equality may not be the best idea, given that contemporary psychology and economics have moved far beyond Mead’s cultural anthropology. Equality of outcome is not only impractical but psychologically corrosive, as it requires group A remove something from group B without their consent, and give it to group C. That will never work in America.

The Role of Government: Help or Hindrance?

You already know the answer to this. But Reeves goes on to advocate for policy solutions such as legislating more male teachers and expanding paid parental leave. While well-intentioned, these proposals risk repeating the failures of affirmative action. Institutionalizing discrimination in the name of equity. Psychologically, boys need mentors and role models. Mandating male teachers through policy undermines organic, voluntary solutions. Similarly, paid leave initiatives, while attractive on the surface, raise serious economic questions. Reeves never explains how such programs would be sustainably funded, leaving taxpayers to shoulder the burden.

The deeper problem is that government has historically failed to solve cultural and psychological crises. The federal government will never be a viable solution to any problem in our country, outside of national security, federal banking, and housing the homeless. They have proven through history, time and again, to be the worst solution to any problem. The crisis of boys and men is rooted in family, community, and culture. These are arenas where government intervention tends to distort rather than heal. Psychologically, meaning is cultivated locally through fathers, teachers, mentors, and peers. Not bureaucratic decrees.

Toward a Psychological Renewal of Manhood

Despite disagreements, Reeves deserves recognition as one of the few public voices daring to raise the alarm about the plight of boys and men. He’s a pioneer. A revolutionary. His book contributes to a conversation that is long overdue. To move forward, psychology offers several points of guidance:

  • Boys must be given time and space to mature without being pathologized.
  • Masculinity must be acknowledged as biologically grounded and potentially virtuous, not inherently toxic.
  • Family stability is critical. Without fathers, boys face developmental deficits that no government program can repair.
  • Despair is not simply a matter of economics but of meaning. Men must be shown that they are needed.

Reeves reminds us that the boy is always present within the man. Psychological maturity means the boy is still alive within us but is no longer in charge. He’s tempered, integrated, and directed toward purpose. Our challenge, as a culture, is to stop treating that boy as defective and start guiding him toward manhood.

Conclusion

Reeves’ Of Boys and Men is a bold and necessary work, one that illuminates the depth of the male crisis with clarity and urgency. Where he falters is in solutions. Reeves too often yields to fashionable political narratives or relies on government prescriptions. But in identifying the problem, Reeves has accomplished something vital. He has given voice to the silent epidemic of male despair and decline. Psychologically, the task ahead is monumental. Create a society that nurtures boys into men who are not just functional but flourishing.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Manhood is Broken and the Fix is 500 Years Old

To Fix Him, We Must Remember Him

A bit about the writers first.

D.J. Houtz is an author, specializing in short stories, poetry and the spoken word. As he states, “I consider myself a modern day renaissance man. I write, I paint, I craft. I am willing to craft, I am willing to learn, I am willing to discuss.” He holds a certification in Musical Theatre Performance from the American Musical and Dramatic Academy & Conservatory of the Performing Arts in New York City.

Grainger holds a B.S. in Psychology and is currently earning his Master’s in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at Liberty University. He is currently nationally certified in nutrition, wellness, and professional life coaching. He’s an active men’s ministry leader and pastoral counselor with over 6 years of experience, currently seeing clients in both faith-based and clinical settings.

Together they share a love for the arts as well as the vital strengths that man present to society. This is a co-authored call to action for redefinition of what it means to be a man.

During a recent conversation, I had a friend tell me that what appears to be the largest void, change, gap, in the proper comprehensive definition of manhood, had been solved centuries ago. In other words, to solve the future epidemic of what it means to be a man, one need only to look back. I’ll let D.J. Houtz tell you himself.

Houtz

The Unraveling of the Self-Made Man

Man, manhood, manpower. Historically speaking “Man” has been defined as a mix of both biological and social roles. But when has the image of man shifted? When has it been less acceptable to hide your emotions and play the more dominant role?

From the caveman up until the biblical times, man had two roles, provide and defend. Go out to gather resources to help your family and community but be able to defend your people at costs when the time comes. In the times of chivalry, the ideal image of the man was the Knight. Abiding by vows and promises to your king or suffer the consequence of dishonor. The renaissance man, the peak of the image of men in society, in my opinion, was the well-rounded. He was the swordsman, the craftsman, the painter, the poet. He was emotional, dominant, faithful. Not just the one trick show but the jack of all trades. Even if he wasn’t the master of everything, he was that go-to man to get anything done. Man was independent.

A great shift happened during a major time in history. The industrial revolution. This global movement to more efficient and stable manufacturing process was only the start of the downfall of the image of man. As major events across the world sparked war and terror, the man was left as just a shell of its former glory. Man now needed to be a part of a group, club, or movement to be heard. The feeling of independence was now just a thought on paper. Without realizing it, the ability to think and do for yourself was being taken away. As technology advances, many more manifestations of the independence of man were being stripped.

Modern day, we are all guilty of using screens for different purposes. But a major role in the downfall has been using these screens to do for you what you could have done yourself. In the article “Masculinity at the End of History”, Matthew Gasda made an incredible point.

“Today, male adolescence largely lacks that primitive, self-organizing spontaneity.”

By using the instant gratification of being online, we lose the very fundamental bit that made us man. Gasda went on to say,

“American manhood has essentially become schizophrenic: historically determined on one hand and socially deconstructed and defenestrated on the other. Unless American masculinity can historicize itself, it will remain in a state of non-crisis, unable to claim the meaningful, productive aspects of its heritage and unable to explain how it got to where it is.”

We are no longer doing things ourselves. Our images are more of comparison rather than independence. We’ve lost the ability to bond with fellow man. Society and technology has been making it more difficult for this image of man to have independence. We’ve turned into a race of wanting to do better because it makes you look better rather than to do better, which results in being a better person. I firmly believe we, as man, need to stop looking at a screen for comparison or gratification and start looking at a mirror for reflection and independent thinking.

Grainger

The Death of the Well-Rounded Man

I am convinced Houtz is onto something. In the article, Gasda maintains that in crisis, man is useful:

“Masculinity is desperate for a crisis. It is docile, unsure, and formless. At most, it is at the germinal phase of crisis, lacking a catalytic agent to propel it to its full-blown state, which at least can be registered and reckoned with. After all, crisis implies that something is happening, that something is at stake. The uncatalyzed proto-crisis, or the noncrisis, of American masculinity is repressed, unexpressed, yet omnipresent.”

Men were increasingly defined by their professions rather than their ability to embody a wide-ranging cultural literacy. Where once the ideal was to be well-rounded, the emerging economy rewarded being highly skilled at a single trade or technical field. Practicality overtook polish.

The world wars accelerated this shift. Millions of men returned from battle with a new sense of masculinity rooted in survival, hard work, and providing for families. After such trauma, pursuits like poetry or painting could seem frivolous, even indulgent. Strength, reliability, and productivity replaced artistry as the cultural expectations of men. By the 1950s, the American man was often pictured in a gray flannel suit, devoted to his career, his paycheck, and his role as provider, not as a patron of the arts.

This narrowing of culture deepened with the rise of mass media and consumer culture. Men were encouraged to show expertise in sports, cars, or business, but far less often in literature or music. The arts were increasingly feminized in American imagination. Ballet and painting were “for women,” while sports and mechanical skills were “for men.” The well-rounded Renaissance ideal, once admired, now felt distant.

In today’s digital age, specialization has only intensified. The pressure to achieve in specific careers or niches leaves little time for cultivating broader cultural or artistic skills. Men may know every statistic about their favorite sports team or every nuance of a software language, but far fewer could discuss a symphony, compose a poem, or sketch a landscape.

In losing the total man, we replaced it with, “Real men don’t cry” and “I don’t need anyone’s help. I got this by myself.” Both are patently false claims. It’s a balance. I talk about that here: Emotional Homeostasis.

This dichotomy reflects today’s struggle among men. To be emotionally intelligent, men must pull towards the totality and wholeness that is man, not merely the one-trick pony of “Look at all my cars.” The self-made man, complete with nuanced, well-rounded culture, has been replaced by the expert, the technician, the narrowly competent worker. As Houtz noted, the real man, the comprehensive man, as Jason Wilson calls it, has left the building.

We stand at a crossroads. If we want men to be equally valued in love and in labor, admired for their minds as much as their drive, we must return to what once made them whole. The pursuit of science, the appreciation of art, the reading of literature, the making of music, and the wrestling with philosophy. They are the lifeblood of true masculine depth, and without them, manhood itself withers.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Forgotten Half

A Book Review: “Of Boys and Men” By Richard Reeves

Richard Reeves’ Of Boys and Men enters into a cultural conversation that has long been muted, if not actively resisted… the struggles of men and boys in modern society. The book, in many ways, is revolutionary for its willingness to state the obvious. There is a crisis among males. Educationally. Psychologically. Socially. Reeves’ arguments invite both appreciation and scrutiny, particularly when viewed through a psychological lens. While he successfully highlights the scope of the crisis, his solutions raise important questions about the interplay of biology, culture, and politics in male development. Here, I propose both praise and criticism of this book.

Institutionalized Developmental Delay

Reeves begins with education, pointing to staggering trends that show boys falling behind at nearly every level of schooling. Fewer men enroll in and graduate from college. They remain at the highest risk of dropping out compared to any other measurable group. Some of this decline has been masked by well-intentioned initiatives aimed at supporting women in higher education. But Reeves notes the imbalance of scholarships and assistance programs that overwhelmingly (and sometimes only) target women.

A particularly striking statistic is that 23% of boys are categorized as having a developmental disability. This label is almost statistically impossible. The deeper question is whether the educational system itself is maladapted to the developmental trajectory of boys. In other words, is it really the boys who are delayed, or the institutions failing to accommodate the normal variations in male development? Reeves and I share the sentiment that it is the educational system that is “delayed.” Developmental psychology shows that boys, on average, mature later in self-regulation, impulse control, and executive function. A rigid, one-size-fits-all educational model pathologizes these differences rather than supporting them.

I love the “redshirting” idea. Reeves’ practical recommendation that boys should be “redshirted”, or held back a year before starting school, aligns with this developmental reality. It recognizes that maturity is less about chronological age and more about calibrating behavior to fit social demands. Psychologist Erik Erikson once described adolescence as the crucible where identity and role confusion collide. Boys may simply need more time in that crucible, and institutions must adapt rather than expect conformity to artificially compressed timelines.

Social Decline and Family Instability

Beyond the classroom, Reeves highlights how boys and men are disproportionately harmed by family breakdown. In 1970, just 11% of births in the U.S. occurred outside of marriage. Today that number stands at 40%. The psychological consequences are profound. Children raised without stable father involvement face increased risks of behavioral problems, school failure, and emotional instability.

Importantly, Reeves distinguishes between race and gender in discussions of intergenerational mobility. While black and white women raised in poor families experience similar rates of upward intergenerational mobility, the same is not true for men. Revealing that the struggle is fundamentally male, and less racial. This observation forces a reframing of inequality. Many of the struggles chalked up to racial disparities are in fact gendered and disproportionately affect boys. The family unit, when fractured, appears to hit men the hardest, possibly because male identity is often more externally anchored, shaped by roles, responsibilities, and expectations that dissolve when fathers are absent.

Despair, Suicide, and the Meaning Crisis

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of Reeves’ book is his treatment of despair. Male deaths from despair (suicide and overdose) are 3x higher than female. While male deaths from suicide alone are 4x hgher than female. Men account for 70% of opioid deaths in the United States. In suicide attempt notes, words like “useless” and “worthless” are repeated with haunting regularity. These are not just personal tragedies, they are societal symptoms.

Psychologically, despair emerges when meaning collapses. Viktor Frankl, the psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, argued that humans can endure almost any suffering if they retain a sense of purpose, echoing the sentiments of Nietzsche. Men who perceive themselves as unnecessary, whether socially, economically, or relationally, are particularly vulnerable. The erosion of traditional male roles (provider, protector, leader) leaves many men lost. Reeves’ book resonates as a warning. Neglecting the psychological needs of boys leads to men who no longer see themselves as essential to the fabric of society.

Biology, Masculinity, and the Politics of Pathology

Reeves is careful to address the biological underpinnings of masculinity. Testosterone, he notes, does not trigger aggression but amplifies it. This distinction matters. Aggression itself is not pathological. It is a natural drive that, when tempered, becomes assertiveness, competitiveness, and protective strength. The problem is not masculinity, per se, but the inability to regulate and channel masculine impulses into socially constructive forms.

Reeves criticizes the American Psychological Association (APA), which has published guidelines that largely ignore male realities while emphasizing female experiences. This reflects a broader cultural trend. Natural aspects of masculinity are pathologized, particularly on the political left, which often denies biological sex differences in favor of purely social explanations. From a psychological standpoint, denying biology is not only unscientific but harmful. To help boys and men, we must recognize their biological realities rather than pretending they do not exist.

Where Reeves Misses the Mark

While Reeves is strong in diagnosis, his prescriptions falter in later chapters. In his attempt to “balance” criticism between left and right, he ends up diminishing legitimate concerns. For instance, he offers a dismissive opinion of Jordan Peterson’s work on social hierarchies and gendered career preferences, despite strong empirical backing. He offers no empirical refutation. Only opinion.

Reeves suggests that men and women would choose diffrent careers if the stigma were deceased. His interpretation of the Su and Rounds1 study doesn’t hold up against other research. For instance, one study that shows that in more egalitarian societies, gender differences in occupational preferences actually widen.2 And another study that found that in very egalitarian communities, when controlling for education, occupational class position, age, social and family status, and income, differences among genders were vastly different.3 In other words, freedom reveals difference rather than erasing it.

Given the statistical likelihood of gender preferences in more egalitarian nations, we can’t dismiss this but maybe we can capitalize on the individuals in each gender that cease to represent the majority and lean on this faction to help close certain gender job-force gaps. Men high in neuroticism, who are also high in empathy, would do well in HEAL jobs. Like women who are more practical and less prone to neuroticism would do well in STEM jobs. Though the majority will not prefer these, those who will can help bring nuance to these occupations.

Reeves also entertains the idea of equality of outcome, which is an inherently socialist notion that undermines individual merit and autonomy. Quoting Margaret Mead as an authority on gender equality may not be the best idea, given that contemporary psychology and economics have moved far beyond Mead’s cultural anthropology. Equality of outcome is not only impractical but psychologically corrosive, as it requires group A remove something from group B without their consent, and give it to group C. That will never work in America.

The Role of Government: Help or Hindrance?

You already know the answer to this. But Reeves goes on to advocate for policy solutions such as legislating more male teachers and expanding paid parental leave. While well-intentioned, these proposals risk repeating the failures of affirmative action. Institutionalizing discrimination in the name of equity. Psychologically, boys need mentors and role models. Mandating male teachers through policy undermines organic, voluntary solutions. Similarly, paid leave initiatives, while attractive on the surface, raise serious economic questions. Reeves never explains how such programs would be sustainably funded, leaving taxpayers to shoulder the burden.

The deeper problem is that government has historically failed to solve cultural and psychological crises. The federal government will never be a viable solution to any problem in our country, outside of national security, federal banking, and housing the homeless. They have proven through history, time and again, to be the worst solution to any problem. The crisis of boys and men is rooted in family, community, and culture. These are arenas where government intervention tends to distort rather than heal. Psychologically, meaning is cultivated locally through fathers, teachers, mentors, and peers. Not bureaucratic decrees.

Toward a Psychological Renewal of Manhood

Despite disagreements, Reeves deserves recognition as one of the few public voices daring to raise the alarm about the plight of boys and men. He’s a pioneer. A revolutionary. His book contributes to a conversation that is long overdue. To move forward, psychology offers several points of guidance:

  • Boys must be given time and space to mature without being pathologized.
  • Masculinity must be acknowledged as biologically grounded and potentially virtuous, not inherently toxic.
  • Family stability is critical. Without fathers, boys face developmental deficits that no government program can repair.
  • Despair is not simply a matter of economics but of meaning. Men must be shown that they are needed.

Reeves reminds us that the boy is always present within the man. Psychological maturity means the boy is still alive within us but is no longer in charge. He’s tempered, integrated, and directed toward purpose. Our challenge, as a culture, is to stop treating that boy as defective and start guiding him toward manhood.

Conclusion

Reeves’ Of Boys and Men is a bold and necessary work, one that illuminates the depth of the male crisis with clarity and urgency. Where he falters is in solutions. Reeves too often yields to fashionable political narratives or relies on government prescriptions. But in identifying the problem, Reeves has accomplished something vital. He has given voice to the silent epidemic of male despair and decline. Psychologically, the task ahead is monumental. Create a society that nurtures boys into men who are not just functional but flourishing.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

1 Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and Things, Women and People. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884. 10.1037/a0017364

2 Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412)

3 Bihagen, E., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2000). Culture consumption in Sweden: The stability of gender differences. Poetics, 27, 327–349

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Buy Me a Beer
Posted on

Another Disorder Habituating Drugs: A.D.H.D.

When Normal Behavior Becomes Diagnosis

I recently read an article on how ADHD is underdiagnosed. I won’t share the article or author, for obvious reasons. I’m not interested in putting this guy in the line of fire. He’s doing genuine work, with the goal of helping. And as Michael from Passion Pit recently stated, we can disagree with respect, especially if someone is genuinely trying to help those suffering. To be clear, I am not a psychiatrist nor a psychologist. I am a mental health counselor. This is the perspective from which I write.

The author said he would address:

  • How science proves underdiagnoses
  • Why ADHD is more prevalent now
  • Concerns about medication for treatment of ADHD

What I Can Agree On

Some of what he laid out made sense and is likely to be true. For instance, he stated ADHD is 74% heritable. I have no reason to doubt that. This places the heritability of ADHD almost as high as height (80%) and much higher than depression (35%-40%). He gave stats on stimulants, both the lack of findings that they are terrible for you and what happens when some don’t take them. For the most part, I can understand and buy this. This still lines up with a recent article I read that states it is possible for ADHD to be real and true, but to also be overdiagnosed.

The Author’s Diagnosis of Underdiagnosis

He continued with “science” that “proves” ADHD is underdiagnosed. I was left wanting. For instance, he relied on Adderall to determine diagnose prevalence. He said that 41 million Adderall prescriptions were written in 2023, severly lower than those diagnosed. He stated that 8.8% of adults had ADHD. Then linked a CDC report that showed that 8.8% of girls between the ages of 3-17 had ADHD. The latest data we have on adults diagnosed with ADHD is 6%, or 15.5M adults. There are approximately 31 million girls between the ages of 3-17 in America. 8.8% of that is 2.7 million. Let’s take the 15% of boys diagnosed (which I highly question this validity), which is 5.4. million boys. Combine that with the 2.7 million girls, and the 15.5 million adults. That’s 23.6 million people diagnosed.

Therefore, 41 million Adderall prescriptions is severely higher than diagnosis. But let’s assume he means that the 41 million is total but that one person gets 12 prescriptions per year (as he alludes to in his piece), which is also doubtful because they write refills into the prescriptions, not new prescriptions. Then it’s 3.4 million people of the 23.6 million diagnosed with ADHD who are taking Adderall.

Ok, that’s lower. But this doesn’t account for other medications used and behavioral treatment. And to suggest that behavioral treatment isn’t enough is patently false, I can tell you from personal experience. So we’re left wondering, is it one prescription, 4, 6, or 12 prescriptions? Most are 90-day refills. By that math, it would mean that almost half of those diagnosed with ADHD are taking Adderall. So that’s “severly low?” They all must be taking adderall to be considered normal?

But this is where it all takes a severe turn for me. He never addressed:

  • Suppression of science
  • Increase in prevalence
  • Means of calculating underdiagnosis other than Adderall

Supression of Science

It is pretty widely known that the freedom of science is under attack. More and more reports come out each year of studies that get suppressed when they fail to meet a predictable, Marxist ideology (Soh, 2020). If the study, in any way, misaligns with identity ideology, regardless of the fact that these are objective findings, the study is suppressed, and the authors are cancelled and sometimes fired. Just ask James Nuzzo. As an unfortunate result, it is becoming increasingly difficult to trust science is presenting all angles of an issue.

Increase of Prevalence

Next, this article, nor any article I’ve ever read has accounted for the sharp and distinct increase in diagnoses in the last 25 years, and especially in the last 10 years. The only explanation is “we missed it all this time.” Which does not hold up. So in 1998, 6.9% of children were diagnosed with ADHD, and in 2023, over 12% of children were diagnosed with ADHD. It doubled because we just “missed it” all this time? Or did it double because in 1994, the DSM-IV broadened the diagnosis for ADHD, which coincidentally sent a few pharma reps to Cabo on a private plane. I know, anecdotal and not causation. I get it. But the coincidence is remarkable. And much more plausible than “we just missed it.”

Underdiagnosed or Overmedicated?

Here’s another part missing from the “underdiagnosed” club. Even if they’re right, medication isn’t always the answer, and is a problematic solution on its best day. My bonus son came to me the other night and out of the blue said, “You know, I feel like I still have ADHD, but I know how to handle it, keep the symptoms at bay, and control my impulses now after all of the things you’ve taught me. I feel… normal” You know what this says? That it isn’t merely neurological, and maybe not even mostly neurological. It is behavioral. Which means the solution is often behavioral. So what did I teach him? I’ll give you two examples.

Example 1:

When I came into his life, he was 8. When he had something to say, he’d start yelling it in the next room as he was approaching the room he knew his mother was in. I consistently stopped him in his tracks, made him go back into the other room and reenter the room, quietly looking to see if anyone was already talking, refrain from interrupting if they are, and restate what he wanted to say. It took nearly 2 years for this to take hold of him. But he eventually got it. We created a new standard, consistently required him to meet this standard, and over time, he did. They’re Capable!

Example 2:

My bonus daughter has a 4 year old son who simply “can’t sit still.” So he and I, along with another daughter are at a restaurant. He gets on top of something and I tell him to get down. He looked at me like, “who are you?” I tell him again. He still doesn’t get down. I go pick him up, carry him to my seat, and sit him next to me. I tell him he’s not getting up again. He states his disapproval. I set a consequence if he continues. He stops… for 20 MINUTES STRAIGHT! We sat calmly and had a typical conversation. This means, he was capable, but he was never held to this standard. The food comes out, he’s fine and starts telling me how much he loves cheese. I said, “Don’t we all, my man!” They’re Capable!

Conclusion

I am open-minded. I am willing to learn. And I want to be challenged. But if the best you have is that the usage of Adderall is the “scientific proof” of underdiagnosis, forgive me if I’m not convinced. In my experience, both as a father and my clinical experience, behavioral adaptations to most symptoms indicative of societal ADHD still work better than medication. I know because I’ve witnessed it and treated it, personally. I’d now like to get back to talking about things like how pineapple should never be put on pizza.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Soh, D. (2020). The end of gender: debunking the myths about sex and identity in our society (First Threshold Editions hardcover edition. ed.).