I think this is the lie I hate the most. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out whether you’re discriminated against or not. Any time a person is judged and found guilty for a crime they committed he or she is then discriminated against, rightfully. Their rights, freedoms, and privileges are taken away in accordance with the seriousness of the crime. When an identity—ethnic, national, biological, social, or otherwise—is judged and found guilty, discrimination naturally follows. It’s a vicious cycle that sinful humanity has been caught in ever since Cain and Abel. Paul confronted it thousands of years ago (Col. 3:11, Gal. 3:28). In fact it is primarily Christians who are always at the front-lines of fighting discrimination. The Quakers of early America refused to call Indians “savages” but instead called them “children of the forest”. Christians like David Brainard gave their lives to reaching the Natives. It was Christians like William Wilberforce and Captain John Brown who fought for the abolition of slavery. In the fear based discrimination that followed the abolition of slavery it was Christians like Martin Luther King Jr. who fought against these foul judgments against black people, calling on us to quit judging one another by their biology. This fundamental principle of Christianity has been around for a long, long time because the world never learns. Today it is still caught in this vicious cycle of judging people by their biology. Just in the last few years, the term male privilege has surfaced and now everyone’s talking about it. For decades men have been in the hot seat and I suppose now, the judgement has been pronounced. Men are unfairly privileged. But privilege, by definition, is something given. Who is giving men all this privilege? Why, men of course. This judgement is de facto an accusation of discrimination against men. See if that accusation isn’t being played out in the language and attitudes of the world around us right now. It’s everywhere. Men are guilty as charged. Of course the Bible has long held that men are guilty, and we agree that they are guilty. That is not the issue. The issue is who it is pronouncing the judgement. Because this is a judgement, discrimination naturally follows. Take away their freedoms, their rights, their privileges. God pronounced the judgement once and for all: all are guilty and fallen short (Rom. 3:23). And we all lost the privilege of Eden because of it. Any judgement from those already condemned (John 3:18) is blindness at best, hypocrisy at worst. This charge is a charge specifically based on biology, or maleness. That is why it is not of God, because God charges all. God shows no partiality to anyone (Rom. 2:11). What about femaleness? Haven’t men always been discriminatory toward women? No. Not for as long as they have been giving to them, sacrificing for them, loving them, marrying them, living with them, and sharing the same bed with them. Discrimination is judging someone guilty and taking away things as punishment. There is a world of difference between that and treating someone arrogantly or condescendingly. Men have always been guilty of being insensitive, condescending, arrogant, and selfish towards everybody, not just females. But while they have always been prone to arrogance, they have always loved femaleness, in fact they too often worship and idolize females. They too often have killed for females. But never in my exploration into history have I seen men of any society judge females as criminals. How could such a society even exist?
This is why the modern narrative says that women can’t be accused of discriminating against men–it’s the men who are guilty, and not the women. Do you see the lie yet? It gives women license to discriminate against (punish) men and to show partiality toward women. The court of law has the right to take away the freedoms and privileges of a criminal without fear of punishment because this is justice. It’s a God-given authority (Rom. 13:1). America is founded on this principle of “justice for all”. But in pursuit of justice for women, the male has been tried and found guilty. But what crime did the male commit? What crime did black people commit that forced them to sit in the back of the bus? There was no crime other than being born black. It took a lot of work and the death of some great leaders to overcome the falsehood of such a notion. But here we are, yet again, dealing with the same old sin of self-righteousness and judging people based on their biology. Now it is a crime to be a man. We are the first society ever to hold maleness as a crime.
I’ve noticed that when you pry into the accusation to look for any logic many proponents will retreat into a more manipulative tactic by playing the sophistication card, “Well we aren’t talking about the individual experience of men but rather an institutionalized-systemic-kind-of-privilege-that-tends-to-cater-to-certain-attributes-of-being-a-male.” This is basically admitting that they are wrong. It is also changing the argument because this “systemic privilege” is not the lingo on the placards, banners, and TV stations being shoved into everyone’s faces. It is male privilege that is being yelled into our ears. It’s also a dishonest attempt to take the argument ‘above your head’ so-to-speak which is highly indicative of a Marxist tactic for manipulating the uninformed population—make them think you’re smarter and they are stupid. Ridicule is one of the most powerful weapons of Satan. Proponents then might point to a host of examples which I have found to be little more than a list populated with the various ways that men are out-doing women. It doesn’t occur to these people how incredibly biased these lists are. Everyone has bias and it is based on what people value the most. It goes without saying that money is one of the highest values if not the highest. So inevitably, we find the fact that the top ten most wealthy individuals in the world are men is in this list. Or the infamous pay gap. Obviously there is unevenness here between men and women. But somehow these differences make a gigantic leap into the concept of male privilege, even though 8 of the 10 richest men on earth are also Americans. What about American privilege? That fact is irrelevant to the list. Another high value social commodity is self-glory and self-entitlement. With a generation encumbered by a borderline narcissistic entitlement you can be sure that there will be facts such as women not being allowed to go topless in public (while men are) in the list. Criminal statistics will be included. Rape crime stats will be included. Domestic abuse stats are included. And then the gigantic leap into the accusation of social misogyny is made. Meanwhile on the other side of things, the men’s rights movement has its own list of how men are clearly not privileged: women live longer, 98% percent of workplace deaths and injuries are men, the draft forces all men to register and go to war if called, etc. Even though credible researchers of statistics will try and try to tell us how incredibly complex and difficult it is to parse the numbers into meaningful conclusions (most men will never report domestic abuse against them for example) people are still riding statistics like white stallions in an end of days apocalypse and making sweeping accusations against entire demographics and people groups. They are doing little more than compounding hell on earth. They’re practically bringing the apocalypse on themselves.
Men suffer. They are not privileged. Life is hard for them. There is some interesting data involving civilian workforce participation rates that I came across recently. While these statistics get thrown around in the political arena all the time like mud on a children’s playground, it is worthwhile to examine these for ourselves. The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides us plenty of data on the issue of labor in America.
The trends between men’s participation and women’s participation rates is telling. Women’s participation in the workforce has been growing consistently year after year since the 50s. Nothing particularly wrong with that, and we could perhaps be happy for women. But when we see how men’s participation rates have dropped consistently decade after decade after decade, then you know something is seriously wrong.
By participation the BLS means those employed or unemployed (those working or actively seeking work). Overall, the participation in the workforce is in decline. If the participation as a whole is declining while women’s participation is growing steadily then clearly there are more men falling out of participation than women entering into it. Women are not making up the loss of men’s participation. Obviously, women have had favorable conditions for decades because their participation rate has been growing for decades. The conditions for men on the other hand has only gotten bleaker for decades. Strangely, it’s only in the last column where we find an actual equality and it’s in the negative. But it’s also a projection for 2025, and what that was based on I have no idea.
Why is this?
Jobs in manufacturing, mining, agriculture, other more male-specific jobs have been disappearing. Service-providing jobs have been exploding. The BLS tells us that 80% of America’s jobs are in the service industry sector and that that percentage is going up fast. Fifteen years ago it was 70-75%. In 2004 it was 76.8%. Why has it grown so much? Because of these: Healthcare, Social Services, Professional, and Educational jobs–the jobs women have been flocking to. The rest of the service-providing jobs are either in decline or not growing. The male-specific goods-producing sector (mining, construction, manufacturing) makes up only 12.7% and is declining. The agricultural sector—the farmers, fisherman, foresters, hunters—makes up a whopping 1.4% and is declining.
Whatever the politicians may be doing with these statistics, the overall picture is incredibly bleak for men. Men, meanwhile, are flipping off their future and checking out of society–and checking out of the female-catered service-providing job market. They can do this, I suppose, because their mother has a room or basement in her house and plenty of money. Or, their father has room in his trailer. What else can they do?
No, I don’t believe in male privilege. Males get their rear ends kicked everyday, society tries to mow them down from childhood, boys are taken from their perfectly capable fathers because of courts favoring women in divorce (I was one of those boys), women criticize them and blame them everyday for all the social problems, jobs (the ones that remain) give them no favors, and no one’s thanking them. The very accusation itself is a misandric one that promotes discrimination. The good ones, of course, will turn the other cheek, because they can handle it. They know that it wasn’t Eve who was put into the garden to work it for Adam’s sake, but it was Adam who was put in there to work it for Eve’s sake. To those who have sweat and bled for us, to the millions of men who have died for the freedoms in America, I thank you. To the millions more disabled and suffering vets, thank you. Thank you for showing us all what “male privilege” is really about.
USAToday reported that single and childless women under 30 are out-earning their male counterparts in the United States biggest metropolitan areas. “The women out-earn men in 39 of the 50 biggest cities and match them in another eight.”
That report was based on the 2008 U.S. Census.
The worst thing about this lie is that it is destroying our women. The pressure on women (and girls) to succeed is higher than ever before and they are more unhappy than they’ve ever been before—in spite of all their gains.
As with all lies however, they eventually reveal themselves.
“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.” Luke 8:17
One of the most satanic things you can do is interrupt or destroy the relationship between a father and his children and specifically, between a father and his sons. This is not because it’s a worse evil than destroying the relationship between the mother and her children but because of a particular truth:
And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children [sons] and the hearts of children [sons] to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction. Malachi 4:6
The Hebrew prophets understood very clearly that to destroy the relationship between the fathers and their sons meant the utter destruction of society. That’s utter destruction as in total-annihilation-destruction. A doomed object type destruction. An extermination type destruction. The Hebrew word is cherem which is sometimes translated as “a curse”. It’s worth looking into. It was a simple, straightforward truth that humans have understood for thousands of years—don’t mess with dad and his boys. It’s a bad, bad, bad idea.
If Satan is a destroyer it follows that this would be one of the most “satanic” things you could do, especially if your goal was to destroy people and their land.
I bring out this point because this is exactly what has been happening in the last fifty or sixty years, and what I’ve seen happen to me personally as a son taken away from his father. Some elitists like to argue that statistics don’t mean anything when it comes to the extraordinary imbalance in child support (90% of which goes from fathers to mothers) and custody cases (80% of custodial parents are mothers). Men’s rights groups have been driving these statistics into modern politics like a railroad nail with a sledgehammer. Some have argued that the system has literally been enabling women to have “a marriage without the man”. That is, household support from a working man but without the man. An actual incentive to divorce. Unfortunately these men’s rights groups are rarely ever taken seriously because of the lie at work that they are the privileged ones. Also unfortunate is the fact that divorced mothers are not actually gaining $6,000 a year in child support by going after this pseudo-marriage scheme. They are losing tens of thousands of dollars a year that the husband would be contributing to the household. Worst of all, the children are losing tens of thousands a year that dad would have contributed to the household.
Professors Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas W. Allen wrote a well-known paper, “These Boots Are Made for Walking”: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women. This is a frequently quoted paper in the realm of men’s studies. Here’s what they concluded from their research:
We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce, particularly when there is little quarrel about property, as when the separation is long. (p. 158, emphasis mine)
This is a system purported to be about “the child’s best interest.” The reality is, the child’s best interest is nowhere in sight. The system also lies to women and actually encourages them to divorce by telling them that it “won’t be so bad” for them or the children and that “it will only be difficult for awhile” but soon everyone will be “just fine” after a nice and neat “co-parenting” scheme is worked out. The idea of “co-parenting” is another lie. It is incredibly corrupt and yet few realize it or will have any knowledge of it whatsoever until they should actually get there. And since no one ever plans on getting there what reason is there to bother with learning about such a system? Let me tell you how well this all worked for myself and my own family.
I have never been divorced, never been married. In fact I’ve never even had a significant other in my life outside of a flippant two month relationship. People often wonder how I do it; but the simple answer is, I don’t truly know what I’m missing. I suppose it’s for the better. I’ve never had to deal with the government over custody issues or child support responsibilities. Children are awesome, and I love being around them, but I have serious questions about bringing any into this dark hour of the world. But I’ll tell you what I did get—I got the male privilege, along with my two brothers, of being taken away from my father at an early age. I was six, my older brother was seven, and my younger brother was three. My mother, a naive eighteen year-old, jumped into marriage with my father without much guidance or forethought. Seven years into it and three boys later, she wanted to divorce him. The intelligence of the court system thought it in our best interest to give us over to her. My father had not committed adultery, lied, or committed any crime. Not perfect by any means, my father was still a very loyal, nice, and hard-working man. He was a very average Joe, not college educated but an honest, contributing member of society, serving in the military who held a good job. A godly man even, with aspirations of serving in ministry. My mother was an attractive mid-twenty year old never lacking in “choices”. She was confused and quite unstable in the relationship arena. She had already had a thing going with a married man—and her next husband—while separated from my father.
My father fought to the last marital breath to save the marriage and the family. A noble act I would say. The courts took his three sons and gave custody of them to the mother, a confused and insecure single twenty-five year old girl getting entangled with married men. Three boys, two over four years old. The biased tender years doctrine hardly applied if it was still active in the 80s. It might as well have been an act of hell, for that is exactly what those three boys brought for the next couple of decades. Looking back at it, what the courts did was the single, most stupid human thing I have ever witnessed in my life. I love my mother, but she simply had no clue.
She went on to become an ambitious college student, gone much of the day and when at home, always studying. My brothers and I would be beating each other to a pulp, and she would just continue studying in the next room. I have no fond memories of time spent with my mother as a child. She busied herself with her ambitious goals of education. We lost a father and missed a mother. How did it come to this?
Meanwhile my father tried to scrape up what was left of his time with us on the weekends taking us camping, hiking, fishing, and helping us with things anyway he could. I learned how to build an engine in my late teens from him. Yet, for him the limitations and realization that his dreams were shattered were more than he could bear, like a perpetual knife in his gut I’m sure, and he slid into the abyss of alcoholism. His health went down the hole as well with asthmatic problems his whole life. When my mother remarried we were given a step-father we didn’t want nor liked. He left his own wife to marry our mother. The two made a well-to-do income together for the time that their marriage lasted, buying a big home and nice cars. In spite of that, my father still had to pay child support. And we continued to raise absolute hell. The loyalty and honesty of my dad was rare—he never once failed to pay child support to my mother regardless of how unfair life was to him. Nothing ever got better for him. His own sons even began to bring great grief to him for he was no longer their authority, guide, or protector. He was no longer their father. My younger brother—the one screaming uncontrollably as a four year old that fateful day, “I don’t want a new dad, I want my own dad!!!!”—he took to drugs and became a meth user. Maybe it was because of all the Ritalin the therapists were shooting him up with all because he couldn’t focus in school? He overdosed twice, nearly killing himself. My older brother fought. With everyone. He got kicked out of school. Counseling was a fail, every time. He ran away and joined gangs and started gangs. I’ll never forget the name of the gang he started with other lost teenage boys—CMF—it stood for “Crazy Mother F*ckers”. It didn’t last long before he was in jail as a convicted felon for the next five years. We cost taxpayers a lot in those days. My older brother was a misunderstood youth. He had no trust for law or the government, after all, they took his dad away. Now the government felt they needed to lock him up in a correctional facility. My brothers and I never learned how to respect or honor my father because, I suppose, my father’s honor and respect had been robbed of him. My brother even became abusive to him. It took me thirty years to figure out that my father, in his dilapidated state, deserved respect and honor. I didn’t learn that from the society I grew up in, to be sure. We were all suicidal at one point or another in our lives. So much for the elitist claim that the co-parenting scheme “tends to lead more to well-adjusted children”.
My father’s life deteriorated into a completely failed state—left by his wife, robbed of his sons, alcoholism, bankruptcy, loss of his home, confined with asthma and a bad lung to a literally rotting trailer on a social security check barely able to take care of himself, where he waits to die. He could never get back on his feet, and no one cared. He was not a very prepared or trained man having lost his own dad as a teenager. He was humble and just wanted to live a simple life. Society took it’s fill of him. The same society told my mother she needed to be successful. She achieved that successful life, complete with a six figure income by her forties. It just took two failed marriages and three failed sons to get there. Her family life was a disaster and as the years go by it grows on her almost like a disease. Nobody warned her about that, apparently.
Male privilege is a lie and part of a devilish scheme that destroys men and their sons. It also destroys women. You couldn’t sear the notion into me with a hot iron. Yet I won’t hold it against anyone either because, though I am at such an enormous objective loss in life, I do not feel at a loss. And that’s because of That Which Dwells Within which no inept or corrupt political scheme can ever touch. Naked we come into the world, naked we shall exit it.