Men vs Women: Which are Easier to Befriend?

A dear friend recently asked me a question: Which gender do I befriend easier, men or women?”

Now my weird brain generally works in a way for me to generally answer questions quite quickly. This time, however, before I uttered the answer that first came to mind, for some peculiar reason I stopped myself in my tracks. This particular question brought about a state of cognitive dissonance in me. I was going to answer “men” due what I believe to be true in my own life, but I simultaneously realized a disharmony in my thoughts because the more I pondered the more the answer gradually became “women”.

I have been known to be a social butterfly. During and after college I attained a large number of both female and male friends. Nowadays, I likely have more male friends than a majority of what other males have obtained. The conundrum in my friend’s question is this: The pool of men to befriend AND [even worse] the quality of the pool of men to befriend pale in comparison to that of potential women friendships.

This feeling of disharmony caused to me realize the subtle, potentially rigged system around me when it comes to friendships. For years I have talked and written on the decline of men and how that affects women, children, and the church. What I have failed to realize is how that also affects me. The pool of men willing to discuss religion, politics, history, the sciences, the arts, and deep opinions on social issues in a purely conversational manner is dwindling. If I go into the city in search of conversationalists I predict to find at least 5 times more women with familiarity on those topics than men. So which gender would be easier to befriend?

There are a variety of reasons this has occurred: from the expression of masculinity being suppressed, to male behavior traits being classified as attention deficit disorder, the removal of competition in childhood sports, a feminized Christianity, weak male role models in entertainment, fatherlessness, and many more.

In short, without diving into the hierarchical validity of those reasons, let’s agree that something bad is happening to our men. We can walk into most churches and see the male to female attendance ratio is very skewed in favor of women. There is a decrease in male leadership inside and outside the church. This spreads to other domains where we see a [quantitative/qualitative] decrease of men in the dating scene, the workplace, and in the classrooms. The young adults still living with their parents are mostly men. Women are now more likely to go to college than men. We all know more stable, single women looking for a mate than stable, single men looking for one.

Tim Keller says “the most important relationships for the traditional person are their family, for the modern person it is their lover, and for the postmodern person it is their friends – because their families and lovers have let them down!” We can go a step further for men today by removing the friendship layer (due to their lack of ability to attain them) which leaves them all alone; without family, lover, or friend. Maybe this is one of the explanations for the increased state of despair, depression, opioid use and suicide among men in the world.

I was recently speaking with a Thai woman who expressed that many Thai women avoid dating Thai men because the men are no longer future minded and are prone to leave their women after pregnancy. I recently heard something similar of the Haitian culture. A study came out last month in the UK stating an 11.8% rise in suicide rate of young men since last year.

What is missing in the purpose of men today? One of the answers to that question lies Image result for men defeating dragonsin the awareness of what fills and drives our deepest desires. Men are wired for challenge and to cultivate the world. Since the beginning of time we’ve heard fantastical stories about men seeking the unknown and slaying the dragon. We men hear those stories and it triggers hidden desires within us. We want it. We yearn for it. The story of the archetypal hero fills our soul with meaning because those stories are symbols that remind us of the true purpose of our lives. This meaning is like a reward for our soul because the risk of going into the unknown is Death, but the reward is Life. Hence the adage, “the greater the risk the greater the reward.”

Men can feel the story of Frodo, Harry Potter, Iron Man, Simba, Maximus, Muhammad Ali, Jackie Robinson, Hercules, and many others in their bones. These are male characters who faced hurdles and slayed their dragon. Their dragon represented chaos. The ultimate dragon is salvation (of which Jesus has given to us if we seek it). Other dragons for us can be marriage, family, success, stability, or vitality. All of which have merit. Not only is there a final reward at the end of the search through the unknown, there are also smaller rewards along the journey of seeking the dragon itself. These smaller rewards are not merely arbitrary. We may gain financial success along the way, be selected by women, be admirable and gain value before we even slay the dragon. Are men engaged in this purpose anymore? I believe the answer is no. Not only that, but symbolical stories like these are discouraged as too violent, anti-woman, or outdated.

muhammad-ali-pardon.jpg

Why are men not as future-minded these days? The answer to the lack of future-mindedness lies in self-consciousness. Who are more self-conscious, men or women? Women, and increasingly so. As one popular psychologist says, “True self consciousness is not just seeing, it is meta-seeing. That is, seeing not just with the eyes but also with imagination.”

Imagination is needed for us to be able to see and project into the future that which we do not physically see today. This trait in men in dying out as we are focusing more on the present than on the future [for several reasons]. For all people, but especially for men, conceptualizing the future is important because there we remember that our life’s purpose is not only about today and not only about ourselves. You see, I must be aware that I need to worry about whether I will be hungry today, tomorrow, next week and twenty years from now; additionally, this worry is so not just for myself but also for my wife, children, and my community at large. (To be clear, I am not talking about hunger. I am talking about well-being). There is a mature weight and healthy burden with that awareness. To mature as a man is to take on responsibility. This sense of meaning drives and cultivates the world into flourishing if men step up to the plate.

Now here is the kicker: We see the societal structure today is slowly [consciously/subconsciously] rigging men toward a decline and a self-inflicted absence. Therefore, as men are decreasing toward the bottom of the hierarchy in the world, that same weight/burden – which our fathers and father’s fathers also carried – is now much heavier and overwhelming than our male predecessors carried. It feels heavier because while the man today is deeper toward the bottom there is already a subconscious feeling of being defeated or dead. Try having desire to carry the weight of life when you already feel dead.

Think about it practically – in many recent statistical measures men are on the low end of the totem pole of education, family, dating, and the workplace. On top of that they are told that their inner being is toxic and are indoctrinated by universities, entertainment and the media that the patriarchy is bad. That masculinity is bad. After all that do we still expect men to carry the load of responsibility as if everything is fine and dandy? Men will and have been tapping out of this system. Many of us have given up our journey to slay the dragon because we subconsciously feel dead in a system designed to strip us of whatever purpose we have left.

Now I see how this affects my life when it comes to befriending other men. Satan is quite darn crafty.

I ask you  – So who is it easier for you to befriend, women or men? What are we going to do about the decline of men happening before our very eyes?

Image result for gk chesterton on men

Do Group Identity Politics HELP or HARM Minorities?

Group identity politics is an idea used over the past 30 years to try to defeat social injustice. In this post I will attempt to test rather it is specifically effective for minorities. Before doing so, the concept must be properly defined:

Group identity politics is based on political positions focusing to divide people in society into different groups of shared interest and perspectives. Instead of society being based on the individual, the individual is identified within a particular exclusive group. It makes ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, political party or social class the primary element of our being.

When we look outside at the world, we see an increasingly depraved, polarizing, impatient world that is complex beyond measure. In this broken system, people have been trying to fix the world since the beginning of time. In particular, with the current social issues that have plagued us we are still searching for solutions. Identity politics is the current “potential solution”.

The thought is that by putting people into groups it will empower the people within them and raise awareness against things like racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. That this will help people who have been victimized also come together as victims and rise above the oppressors. Sounds like a plausible solution.

However…the primary question is…..:

Do Identity Politics work?

My 12th grade AP Economics Teacher taught our class a key principle in consumerism – “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”  That is, every choice/solution in life has a cost. That cost may be our finances, time, energy, a human right, a relationship, 431265-Thomas-Sowell-Quote-There-are-no-solutions-there-are-only-trade.jpgquality of relationship, or a life itself. Today we hear chants for social justice. We want things fixed and we want them fixed “immediately”.

A wise approach when considering a new policy, system, or ideology is to consider as many outcomes as humanly possible if it is implemented. The most important outcome to consider above the others is the worst possible outcome.

Before making a decision, asking a question such as: What are the ways in which we might accidentally make things worse with this? Or, if we open this door to make something better, are there other ideas (or consequences) that will walk through that same door now that we’ve opened it?

We use a similar thought process in the engineering world when we conservatively design buildings. We do this in the sports arena when setting up rules to protect players from injury. We even do this when choosing which car to buy or where to eat for dinner. In the fields of mathematics and the social sciences, this process is called game theory.

Sometimes the costs are worth paying but, historically, many of times they are not. Besides Christ, there is especially no solution to any social issue that, if implemented, would not then be taken/used/twisted by the enemies of God several years down the line.

How does group identity politics affect the world?

The world is too complex and “endlessly” diverse for identity politics to function with consistency. It cannot be measured and quantified. It cannot be used as a tool for success on either political spectrum.

Within the Social Justice Movement and group identity politics there is no hint of consistency due to the absence of objective truth. This movement wants to remove any given number of contradictory rules and then tell us all which rules apply at any given moment. Our country cannot reasonably function with these rules.

maxresdefaultIn the same sentence they say, “You cannot understand me because my experience is too different. But wait, you also must understand me because my experience is too different.”

A person’s opinion matters not on the individual level but relative to their identity group. So a gay white woman’s opinion matters less than a gay black woman – both are oppressed by the man-dominated world, both are oppressed by the heterosexual majority, but the black woman has the added victim-hood of racism. The more memberships in oppressed groups you have, the higher you rank on the hierarchy. It plays out everyday.

  • We attack Kevin Hart for homophobic tweets in 2010 but we let white female comedians slide when they’ve used similar homophobic tweets. On the intersectional scale, Amy Schumer, a liberal white woman, gets a pass over Kevin Hart, an apolitical straight black man, because her combined political and gender oppression outweigh Kevin Hart’s single racial oppression.
  • For myself, being a black male I have noticed that I get away with speaking more freely on social issues (race, gender, class, homosexuality) than my white male counterparts.

You see, without objectivity we rely on subjectivity. In a subjective world view, anything goes at any given time. Conversely, anything can be taken away at any given time. Group identity politics is insufficient in covering the marginalized because all people are marginalized in some ways. Everyone is oppressed. In a subjective world, how are we going to say one person’s marginalization trumps another person’s marginalization? Who dictates the hierarchy and the extent of oppression? How far back in time do we account for the oppression of our ancestors? It is not simply black and white or men and women.

  • The LGBTQ community is oppressed too right?
  • Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans are marginalized.
  • Jews and Muslims are discriminated against as well. Look at the complexity of the Crusades, the Israeli-Palestistian conflict, the Holocaust.
  • What about the deeply tense tribal differences between the several Asian communities with all their wars over the past hundreds of years?
  • For the gender fluid white women who will identify as white men tomorrow, will they simultaneously then be classified as privileged oppressors and hierarchically dominant white men?
  • Are white people who grew up poor less marginalized than black people who grew up in middle class families?
  • Do black women and Hispanic women deserve more than white women in the workforce?
  • What about job positions in society that Asians preferentially occupy? Are there too many Asians in the STEM fields? Are we going to put a quota on them?
  • Should oppression of black Africans equal that of black Americans?
  • And what about attractive people who have walked through life more privileged than less attractive people?
  • What about shorter men? Should they get privilege over taller men?
  • What about intelligence versus a lack of intelligence?

This goes on and on until we get to the level of individual people which is exactly where we should be in the first place. The victim system will never be equal. The irony is that it is our SHARED sense of oppression and pain that unifies us, not what separates us. We have each felt pain and caused pain. No one is innocent. Separating off into different groups does more harm than good. The benefit may be a short-termed warm feeling of camaraderie.  However, this does nothing long term for reconciliation and fixing the actual problem.

What do we risk when grouping with identity politics?

  1. We run the risk of being ignored because we have all these other accompanying social ideas and accompanying proposals that are not the same. For example, fighting for racial reconciliation tends to be accompanied by the acceptance of homosexuality. They may be similar looking by the standard of oppression but there are massive distinctions theologically, sociologically, and politically. Some of those distinctions may reduce our own quality of life. Having those accompanying ideas hardens the hearts of people who argue for the fact that there are distinctions.
  2. Some of the ideas associated within identity politics will, in turn, hinder our relationships. It will further polarize people. It will cause further tension between people who identify in seemingly opposing groups rather than unite them as humans.
  3. It will open the door to radical Right wing racists who would also like to play identity politics.
  4. It runs the risk of demonizing people who do not deserve to be demonized. For example, it puts Louis CK at the same evil level as Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby. It puts a white Chipotle manager, who did her job in refusing to serve two black men who Dine & Dash, at the same evil level as white supremacists. Or it simply names anyone transphobic who believes gender dysphoria to be a mental disorder.

(I will stay on that black-white racial tension train for the remainder of this post). Black Americans are being duped by identity politics to carry a weight they are not meant to bear. Black minorities are being pushed to the front of the line [by other identity groups] as a plea for diversity & inclusion when ultimately much of what those groups truly care about are their own agendas. Racial diversity is just the ticket inside the door that, if left unmonitored, allows in other ideologies. People are prone to give in to accompanying ideologies that they cannot defend against for the sake of the continued validity of our own hopes.

What actually works as a solution?

Image: Chris RockWhite privilege is real. We may not agree on the definition – CNN, NAACP, and other sources may have different versions of the definition. It may not be quantifiable. However, it is undeniable that, historically and today, there exists some form(s) of white privilege. This does not mean white people are criminals. There are other forms of privilege that people of color have that white people do not. Our society doesn’t have  a white problem it has a heart problem. As Chris Rock said at the Oscars, “Everything isn’t racist, everything isn’t sexist.”

A true “solution” for racial reconciliation would be to aim for incremental [compounding] improvement. By approaching it incrementally we can more effectively defend away chaotic and unnecessary accompanying ideas that are not needed for the overall goal of racial reconciliation. Let me explain: There is a difference between a person who is a reformer and person who is a revolutionary.

A revolutionary person attempts change in an immediate time frame with little foresight and, in turn, risks damaging the world. A reformer sees a social problem and understands the complexity that fixing it will possibly take hundreds of years. The reformer understands the wise, loving, beneficial patience in an incremental approach. MLK was a reformer. In an increasingly impatient world, we do not do too well with reformers – their ideas take too long. Jesus and the Apostles were also reformers. The world did not treat them too well either.

The solution is a sacrificial approach. Jesus died on the cross for something He did not do. He died for us. For racial reconciliation we all need to be willing to sacrifice for one another regardless of who it is. We must see people as souls, not as a particular social group.

The solution is grace. Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. For racial reconciliation we all need to forgive one another. It is wise to learn from history but we should not let history dictate our current emotions. All people should recognize the effects of history on people today and work through it for the sake of equality.

I recently heard someone say it like this when speaking on corporate repentance in the Book of Ezra, “Sometimes repentance is taking responsibility of sins past and present that are not your own.”

Jesus’ prayer is that we will be one. ONE. He said this because there is a spiritual war that is much more important than any societal or cultural war. It is by fighting the spiritual war together that we also have success in the societal and cultural wars.

The answer is simple in deed, yet complex to carry out. But the answer is good and worth the attempt.

 

The Answer: Why do Black People Tend to Think Whites Are Racist Or Hateful Toward Blacks?

Image result for racism
First things first, the goal in answering is NOT to bring about anyone’s emotion. This isn’t about morality therefore in this discussion it doesn’t matter if anyone thinks a particular treatment is tragic or justified. A psychologist or economist limits their emotion and opinion in their analyses. Yes, they consider it in their notes. But in order for them to see more clearly and objectively they leave as much out as possible. Too much emotion may cloud and control our reasoning, as C.S. Lewis once framed it. So this “answer” is not about justification of riots, protests, cop killing, slavery, buying candy, or talking back to parents.

How am I somewhat objective and qualified?

If you follow me on social media you may notice that I have never talked about race issues. This is because (1) I’d rather write about Jesus; (2) honestly, I’ve grown to feel ashamed and embarrassed that I am black (something that applies to this topic but may be elaborated on in a future post) and (3) it always seemed pointless coming from me. That is, people would think I’m biased because I am black. I would NOT get upset at that either. I can’t really blame others for that natural reaction. If a Boston resident tries to tell me how great Tom Brady is…I’m naturally going to be skeptical because of course that guy loves Brady and The Patriots. However, I am opening up now because I realize much of the stuff I know isn’t known by many whites and what I can say isn’t being articulated by many blacks.

In today’s world, many people on both sides are not good with listening and being OBJECTIVE. In my experience black people get too emotional inside their bubble that they can’t have an objective discussion with white people. There has grown an innate level of distrust. Many whites, whether they care or not, have a hard time as well because they have natural blinders and historical privileges that prevent them from seeing objective as well. There is nothing inherently wrong with either side in their reasons because it’s not really a conscious effort. It’s naturally subconscious. For the past 50 years, most of this is due to the economic and sociological effects of our society.

What do I mean by sociological and economic effects? I’ll explain. This answer will be in 5 different phases: Micro, Macro, Familiarity of Stereotypes, Indifference, and Dr. King’s Frustration.

We’ve got to do a little ground work before we start though:

My professional career is in community and economic development. This is the process and policies by which a nation, state, county or city improves the economic, political, and social well-being of its people. So what my company does is try to bring companies, large and small, to our state. Jobs, capital investment, and revenue are the goal. And darnit we will sell this state the best we can. With statistics, innovation, and persuasion, and more.

Various KEY factors come into play, such as transportation, quality of life, location, money, branding, etc. If you look it up, you’ll see that your own city and county has its own economic development department, chamber of commerce, and other affiliates that are focused on this initiative together. Economic development directly affects the current generation AND the generations long after it. 

Ok now, do we understand that? If so, we can move on.

1. The Micro

Now let’s begin to answer the question of why many black people see whites as responsible AND what is the reason of how much of the black community is where it is today.

We’ve got to go to history of course.

Set race aside and just view it in an Economic development lens. Let’s go back to Tulsa – however, not 2016, but 1921. There was an area in Tulsa that was booming! It was a black community. It was rare because of course the odds weren’t in their favor but they just luckily rolled a 7 with the dice multiple times. As one of the most successful and wealthiest black communities in the United States during the early 20th Century, it was popularly known as America’s “Black Wall Street” until the Tulsa race riot of 1921. They had black lawyers, doctors, teachers, black-owners, entertainment, oil, etc. (Now again, ignore the race factor for now…it doesn’t matter for this analysis piece). Then one night the outside white people grew too jealous, came in and killed many of the successful people and burned down their businesses and streets. It was horrific. They even punished the few white people around for not doing it sooner.

Then the white political and business leaders proactively prevented that community from reconstruction or picking themselves up. This wasn’t hard because due to rights back then black people didn’t have much of that ability anyways.

So think economic development: They are SCREWED for about the next 100 YEARS. For the next 60 years those blacks won’t know about diving into the community and economic development process. How could they? Their schools are IMMEDIATELY affected. Their job structure is shattered. Their families destroyed. They are currently crippled as a society. Not only that but also their kids’, kids’, kids’ are also now crippled. It becomes a generational snowball effect due to that initial occurrence and the laws established for years to come. There was no hope for them and it becomes too hard to thrive. Therefore, poverty in Tulsa. Therefore, violence because that’s all you have and know due to having to survive from being poor and having no good education or possibly/knowledge of escaping. (Although, poverty doesn’t correlate to violence). What happened doesn’t just end in a year…..it resonates within the fabric of a society for years to come in the form of both emotional distress AND economic instability (incorporating education, companies, businesses, families, crime, etc).

In my job, bringing in 1 company positively affects that entire community – their family benefit, the nearby retail and restaurants benefits, the schools benefit, tourism boosts, more companies follow suit, and more. This occurs positively for the next generations in that area as well. Black Wall Street had the opposite case. And it was not a single company. It was ALL of it.

That is  an objective analysis of cause and effect. Again, it doesn’t matter if what happened was bad or good in this analysis. FYI, this happened in other places as well. We must understand this “momentum effect” in this micro example in order to understand the answer in its fullness.

2. The Macro

To keep low with word-count I’m going to bypass the macro. It has similar cadence to the micro piece but without the violence and is, of course, on a larger scale. Please ask me in person or on Facebook if you want that piece as well.

3. Familiarity Of Stereotypes

I grew up around Blacks and Hispanics, but over the past 10 years of my life at least 95% of my friends and acquaintances are white. So it is extremely hard for me to stereotype people in either group because I have lived life with so many different types and I know their souls and hearts. The way society is laid out (because of white flight, economic structure, convenience, and family history) black people have been left to live amongst one another. So those black people naturally HAVE to CATEGORIZE all whites into the same group. That is how a human brain works.  This doesn’t happen to me because I have lived among others.

White people can easily get categorized by what is seen on television, social media, oImage result for racismr in stories told by the older generations. For example, I’m sure none of us know any native Cambodians personally because we don’t live around them. So we naturally group Cambodians into one category of people. Now we know people in Cambodia are all different with various opinions, personalities, languages, and subcultures. However, in our minds we have tendencies to group them together don’t we?

4. Indifference

The disbelief from much of the black community that a shooting or possible wrong-doing will gather positive help from the white community is from past years of “neglect” from that side and their current state of “emotionlessness”. That continual reaction from many white people makes it hard for many black people to listen/trust simply one white person with good intentions, when numerous other whites have failed that quota.
Let me explain.

If my mom had cancer and a stranger had cancer I’d show much more sympathy for my mother than the stranger. I naturally have a different level of connectivity and value for my mom.

One group continues to uniformly state “we should wait for the facts after these shootings before doing anything”. I agree, in theory. In a perfect world we should always wait and diagnose a situation. However, this isn’t a perfect world. Those same people flip-flop depending on what the crime is and who did the crime.

There is no objectivity in our reactions. We all react different and with different poise depending on what it is. The less subjective empathy I have, the more ability I have to refrain and diagnose the situation and wait for the facts. But when it’s my mom or a friend it becomes tough to control.

For the bomber “suspect” at the Boston Marathon – we wanted his head immediately. With a man “accused” of child molestation we want to give him the death penalty once he’s caught. When a college athlete is “accused” of rape we want him immediately kicked off the team before the trial begins. All the while, many in the black people continually watch a black person killed (justifiably or not) and those same people show unwavering objectivity and poise the entire time. That shows a different level of respect and love.

Black people see the immediate reaction of emotionlessness and interpret it as white people not caring.

In Romans 1 we see that God’s indifference is a very scary form of wrath; different from violence. Hate is NOT just someone spitting on another person. Hate isn’t only the KKK hanging someone. Hate can also be passive. Even Satan knows that. Indifference OVER TIME can be interpreted as unloving and hatred. That’s what happens psychologically in the minds of a people. So we can’t blame them that much, can we?

5. When Dr. King was Frustrated

MLK Jr. led protests in a manner that would “shame” those who were discriminating. People like to say his method was non-violence. Not really –  his method was shame and he used nonviolence to achieve it. His tactic was that if he could have people feel ashamed for how they thought and acted, it’ll force them to change. Read his writings.

What’s interesting is that in his later years when King went to Chicago, he tried his same tactics but the white people beating them didn’t feel ashamed at all. It was different from the South. And it scared MLK. When a people aren’t aware enough to have the ability or respect to feel shame toward the treatment of someone else, then that is when something is off. Which begs the question of what the next step would be.

One friend I debated correctly claimed that ‘King’s tactic did work in the South though, because it was more saturated with Christians’. If that is true then it still proves my point: We, as a nation, are less Christian today. Therefore, King’s tactics of shame won’t work as effectively here anymore. That said, our nation is more like Chicago in that King was scared because it was seemingly and hopelessly in a state of chaotic reasoning that shocked him. It left Martin Luther King afraid and scrabbling for a new tactic. That’s where many in the black society would say we have been growing in subconsciously [through the eyes of blacks and whites]. Even in the past 50 years, before social media.

As scripture says, in the last days nations will turn their backs from Christ. America is doing that. Hence my friend’s point flows into this – shame isn’t working here anymore. hat’s why there are frustrated protests (good or bad) and riots (good or bad). That’s the only next step people can think of on the fly. We all have the same natural tendencies when trapped into a corner for so long.

In conclusion, we cannot just look at “today’s” knee jerk reaction of the black community. We must look holistically. This is similar to chaos theory. It’s ALL connected. This isn’t about black on black crime BUT black on black crime is a subset of the results of history. It’s not about Charlotte. Charlotte can be 99% wrong…but it doesn’t matter. The deep damage was already done.

This isn’t out of the blue. It’s a past 300-400 years thing. It’s a 1920s and 1980s thing. Look at old Richard Pryor or Dave Chappelle stand-up and old low budget black films from the 1970s-1990s. They are screaming and crying about the same killings. And no one cared. Listen to R&B songs from that time period. They were constantly crying about it and asking for help and America turned it’s head. They didn’t have Facebook Live to make it public. I’m not making this stuff up. So little by little day by day that people group grew to a particular view of white people. Skepticism. Distrust.

The solution is another story, but when a black person tells a white person they don’t understand or aren’t qualified – They are really saying that you don’t know how they got there and why. Therefore they are not truly known and loved. But if the black person knows that the white person objectively knows this stuff and still wants to love on them…..goodness gracious the effect that will have.

Image result for racism

Dating: 3 Reasons Why Women CAN Make the First Move

Well well well, here we are again – Dating. In the comments section of an older blog post, a woman recently asked me the infamous question: “Is It Alright For A Girl To Ask Out A Guy?”  It’s an age old question that has become increasingly popular alongside the rise of women in 21st Century America. Women are surpassing men in education and excelling in the workplace, financially, gender equity, and leadership. These cultural changes bring rise to variations of this dating question.

As a man, I prefer to make the first move AND ask out the woman. As a cocky, hopeless romantic … it thrills me to do so. That is just me.

To avoid “personal preferences” or “semantics” as much as possible – instead of addressing the topic of women directly “asking out” men – I will address why it may be alright for the woman to make the “first move” or upfront “initiate interest” in the man.

While conventional wisdom has us generally believing it is ideal for a man to make that first move,  we still should ask [on any matter] what type of investigation was previously done for us to come to such a conclusion.

Does it make sense?

Is there a line? Has that line changed?

Are we robotically following a rule because it is all we’ve ever known?

Was the notion modeled during an historical/traditional outdated set up of society/culture during a particular time period?

I mean, historically, how could a woman ask a man out without herself having a job, money, education, or any status of power?

Here are 3 reasons why it may be alright for a girl to make the first move:
  1. Just Because You Make The First Move Does Not Mean He Cannot Lead

There has been this notion that if a woman initiates first, it subtracts from the man’s opportunity of leadership. However, does this reasoning add up? After you tell him you are interested, it can still be the man’s job to agree and maybe pick out the date spot. It can still be the man’s job to pick you up on time, grab your coat, and pay for the date. It can still be the man’s job to guide, protect and cultivate the woman for the duration of the relationship.

Over time, as you define the relationship, you can make clear to him in what you’re looking for in a man as a leader. Tell him what you expect EARLY on. If he continually doesn’t meet that criteria then stop and move on.

Dating with marriage in mind is important, regardless of who makes the first move. We all know relationships where the man asked out first, but turned out to be a sub-par leader to the woman. This must mean that the first move has no direct correlation to the man’s leadership ability or leadership potential.

  1. The Romantic Challenge Versus The Proactive Challenger Fairy-tale

There is a difference between actively pursuing someone and initially engaging someone. The former is over an extended time period while the latter is at a particular time. With both phrases, the person on the receiving end is the “challenge”. It is said that in the initial stage of a relationship, the lady needs to wait patiently and be the challenge sought out by a man rather than being the challenger.

To actively pursue someone takes time and effort in cultivating. Biblically it should be done by the man, with the woman hopefully being receptive to that man’s servitude toward her. This is correct and does not change. Conversely, to initially engage someone is to show that there is simply interest in that person.

Disney movies taught us that it is romantic for the woman to always be the challenge for a man to find and love. Any seasoned married couple would say that Life teaches a very different story. The true challenge of is in Month 2 of dating after you’ve ran out of small talk. The true challenge is loving one another through the numerous faults and weaknesses. The true challenge is liking one another after the euphoria of physical attraction wears off. The true challenge is loving one another after your children appear and your sex life becomes a part-time job.

Doing life together is the true challenge. The true challenge is where the solid, sustaining love is found. That is what matters most. Disney leaves that part out. A relationship should be looked at more holistically, not just the first 2 minutes of, “Hey, I’m interested in you”.

So the woman does not lose her title of the Romantic Challenge just by making the first move. She possibly gains a  lifetime of true love.

3. Relationships Are About You Too

Maybe the woman has a Type A personality and the man has Type B. The social sciences domain have written many articles on men becoming increasingly more passive. Waiting for the passive guy, the oblivious guy, or the Type B guy could take a long while. For Type A women, it seems like eternity. What’s the worst that can happen if you tell him you are interested? You’ll stop over-analyzing and finally get answers, that is what. Some guys say they wouldn’t mind if you did so anyways. 

The situation plays a factor as well. Are you already friends? Is he your sidekick?  Are you strangers? Can you or a friend to invite him to a group event? How much of a “nudge” is needed for the guy to get the hint? It is a case by case basis.

It is natural to like a guy. You aren’t wrong for wanting to ask him out. Whatever you do, be confident not clingy. Be assertive not aggressive. Read the signs: Is he shy, does he remember the details of what you say, does he keep momentum going? In the end, God will provide in His timing no matter what we do or how foolish we do it. Waiting isn’t a bad thing at all, and sometimes that first nudge wouldn’t hurt either.

Donald Trump, Political Correctness, and the Sexiest Woman

trump two

Do you feel that? The emotional anticipation in your bones as you are wondering how something positive could be said about silly ol’ Donald Trump. Impossible, right? Or could it be that a figure as polarizing as he causes your emotion to have a presuppositions on one side or the other?

This was the case when I commented on a friend’s Facebook post a compliment of how Donald Trump may “inadvertently” bring something positive to our country, in terms of political correctness. The feedback from others was quick disregard of anything I brought up. They jumped the gun to assume I was a die-hard Trump supporter of hatred, when that simply is not the case. Just because I say that one musical group has a particular virtue doesn’t mean that they are my favorite. Neither does it mean that there are not many other artists out there who are better.

Their reaction is understandable – so is much of our nation’s reaction to Trump and with any topic or person so polarizing. Just bring up abortion and watch people’s head explode.

But for a second, can we dive deeper? We have to go deeper than Donald Trump and the other candidates. Deeper than the election. Past our feels and past our self. Not that those are bad things, bu to take a second and reflect on whether there may be trend happening that we are a little too blind to see at the moment?

Three points:

1.What is the New Age of Political Correctness?

One may suggest that if I were to say some of what Donald Trump says in my own workplace, I’d be fired. That is correct. Although, that is not the issue; the issue is that I can say something far less controversial at work and still get fired in Today’s society. A celebrity almost can’t say anything on Instagram or Twitter without getting verbally attacked by millions of people. Most stand up comedians now avoid performing at college campuses because the college students boo them at the first offensive joke

Political correctness at its core has good merit, but we are increasingly abusing it to the point of chaos. Our society has turned the action of “political correcting” from a transitive verb into an intransitive verb. That is, it should be applied to a direct object, but in Today’s world it doesn’t need an object anymore. Political Correctness is now a means to an end – You start with the end that you want, and then you work it backwards to fit what you want inside. It is a person without a set principle. As the 1800’s government reformer Samuel Smiles said,  “A man without principles and will is like a ship without compass; it changes direction with every change of mind.”  

This new age political correctness is like a powerful, untamed snake. Who can comfortably live around snakes?

 

2. Why is the new age political correctness dangerous?

If being politically correct has changed to an intransitive verb AND we’re working a means to an end…then any goal that we’re working towards is no longer an actual goal we’re trying to attain because there is no standard since the standard is always changing. Progression is effective only unless it eventually finishes on some known objectivity which it is destined for. Otherwise we are left with an open-ended path that leads people into a bottomless pit of insane, never-ending bickering.

Lets put it this way: Historically, successful societies would base their standards toward what they saw as perfection. Whether it be God, gods, a king, a famous warrior, a hierarchical  governmental system, or some other large historical figure – a morally perfect being or system. They had an end goal to march toward and this kept their sanity intact. Today, the perfect being is bodiless because it has no standard behind it anymore. His every purpose in life is purposeless. Therefore, our guide that we’re marching toward is empty.

When a man secretly adores a picture in the Sexiest Woman Alive magazine, he subconsciously seeks for his wife to look similar to that standard. The man who dislikes his wife for not looking like ANY woman, would be considered foolish and even asexual. Our nation’s thinking is not asexual, but it could be leading to infinite irrationality.

Our desire for growth and improvement may be deceiving us in a way. Our desire for altruism slowly turns into a subconscious desire of egoism. In that, we are wanting everyone to satisfy something at one end and then contradicting ourselves in another end:

The extreme feminist claims that she should be treated just like every man, then she expects for a man to pay for her dinner on the first date.

The atheist and scientific materialist claims that the Bible is false because the Holy Trinity does not make sense, but then they claim to adore the unseeable astrophysics theory of event horizons and black holes.

One ethnic group claims that police are unfairly killing their innocent, then they turn their
head as people in their own ethic group kill one another.

Another ethnic group claims not to be racist, then actively moves far away to areas where they are the only ethnic group around.

As Chesterton famously said, “In an author’s book about politics, he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book about ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.”

Not having an end standard could lead to a society of never-ending contradictions. Madness. Insanity. People in an insane asylum swear that someone is out to get them, though they have no proof to back it up.

 

3. Is  Donald Trump inadvertently good for America’s future?

The ongoing reaction of Trump highlights our increased emotional sensitivity as a nation. Maybe if elected he could miraculously swing the pendulum of political correctness back toward the middle. Wishful thinking, huh? haha.

He is in NO way our nation’s savior. Neither is any other candidate. Trump has said some foolish, horrible things. There is never going to be a candidate, democrat nor republican, who can save us. Everyone can agree that Trump’s style and credentials, or lack there of,  could make him the riskiest presidential choice of all time. However, there are two sides to a risk.


At the same time, lets be honest with ourselves and admit the climate our nation is in right now and not ignore the depth of
SOME of what he’s saying. Lets not let our feelings cloud reasoning and create biases that could potentially hold back our thinking. Let’s investigate what he is saying and truly see if it is plausible or not.

contradictionWe already have uber low attention spans (especially millennials) and limited knowledge of what is going on around us. In today’s world, we are becoming more and more limited in objectivity.  Additionally, most of us are not aware of the geopolitical ramifications of what been going on in the world the past 20, 50, 100 years. Who can say they know about the root of the Syrian conflict going back to 1916? Who claims understanding of the complexities of ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic and economic realities all over the world and how they tie back into our life? We are very limited in scope and knowledge.

There is only one Savior we can cling to who actually comes through for us. He, my lovely friends, is Jesus. The perfect standard.

 

What If My Nephew Was Sex Trafficked?

HUMAN-TRAFFICKING.jpg

Hate, Anger, and Helplessness…

would be my three predominant thoughts if my little nephew was taken from my family and put into the bondages of the sex trafficking world. A criminal prostitution enterprise that is prevalent throughout the world, holding 25 million people as slaves and earning $32 billion per year. Here in Atlanta we’re among one of the hubs. If my nephew were to be abducted, I can accurately envision how my life would ensue afterwards:

The world around me would feel as if it were in flames. Not a day would pass where I had not spent time searching for him. I would go from hotel to hotel and constantly search Craigslist for explicit listings as if I were a potential customer myself – hoping to find something that could potentially lead to my nephew. It would be disheartening to see how most people are unaware of what is going on right under their noses. On our streets. In our society.

My time spent with family and friends would gradually diminish. My family would remind me too much of my nephew so I would avoid them altogether. My friends would irritate me, as their continual attempts of consolation would fail to physically help bring my nephew back any sooner. My friends would only slow me down from my mission of finding him.

My mornings would be spent in silence in order to effectively plan where I’d go searching during my lunch break at work. There would be no more lunch with co-workers or going to the gym after work. Every single second of my day would have a predetermined purpose. My work productivity would decline. Matter of fact, I’d eventually have disdain for my male co-workers. Statistically, the most sex trafficking customers are middle and upper class males. The average victim receives 40-50 customers a night. I would reason, or what we call to be reason in this world, that statistically anyone around me could be my nephew’s customer.

There will be glimpses of hope though: some nights I will dream of him being saved and returning to our family. Yet, to the contrary, the majority of my nightly dreams would be of men on top of him. Electrocuting and cutting him whenever he disobeyed. Forcing him to perform hard labor during the day. I would wake up in sweat and tears many nights. Other nights I’d be too afraid to shut my eyes for the fear of what would be envisioned next. Nightmares would become a kind of ritual.

6389490_orig.jpegDuring the day I’d again dream of him returning. Then I would realize that could welcome other heaps of trouble. My loving nephew who loves playing the drums, wishes The Ninja Turtles were a real, and thought the movie Inside Out was simply “ok” at best…. would never be mentally nor emotionally the same kid again. His youthful vitality and zeal will be shattered by the evils of this world. He may likely have depression, guilt, shame, HIV/AIDS, sleeping disorders, PTSD, etc.

 

If my nephew were taken my spiritual faith could go either direction. Sure I may push in closer to God, rely fully in Him and sing hymns all day. However, if I’m honest, that would be extremely difficult. Most of my time I would likely go the opposite way (I am reminded of a dear friend who wrote a blog post a few years back of her mom being literally days away from dying of cancer. She was emotionally broken but her faith and thankfulness in God was somehow strong. I remember thinking to myself, “Wow, I want that strength, but I would be going completely insane if I were in her shoes.”) It would be very tough to focus on the goodness of God. At the same time, my prayer life would sky-rocket because I would understand how limited I am and the miraculous power God has in saving my nephew. 

If I were given the chance to be face to face with my nephews capturers, would I kill them? I honestly do not know. But physical harm and unforgiveness would be on my mind for sure. That is what makes Jesus dying on the cross so much more crazy. If Jesus is real – if Jesus did die on the cross – and He is real and, yes, he did die and resurrect this means that God watched as we beat His son senseless, cut him bloodied, and massacred his body continually as if He were a piece of trash. Those tears and blood were for us because we needed Jesus to die for the forgiveness of our sins. He”undeservingly” did so because He loves us; especially the children. Jesus also loves the child molesters and desperately wants them to truly follow Him as well. That is grace.

That type of love is supernatural and beyond my comprehension. I guess that is why He is God and I’m just an uncle. That said, if you do not think there are millions among millions of people being sexually abused everyday and sold then you are tremendously mistaken. What are we going to do about this monumental problem?

Hey, everything is alright though. My nephew is fine. Haha, forget about the other 25 million women, children, and men involved in human trafficking. I will sleep well tonight. So will you, right?

Again, seriously, what are we going to do about this?

IMG_2155.JPG