A Masculine Manifesto

The patriarchy is alive and well. Men are the highest paid group in the United States. Over 95% of the Fortune 500 has a man as CEO, and most of the other executive positions are held by guys as well. The richest woman in the world, Liliane Bettencourt, is still only the 14th wealthiest person in the world, and only 11% of the world’s billionaires are women.

Men dominate the global economy.

There are only 15 women in the on the planet who are considered a “world leader.” That means only 7.6% of the world’s nations are led by a female.

Men dominate global leadership.

The U.S. Congress is over 90% men, our executive branch is led by men, 5 of the 8 (soon to be 6 of 9) members of the Supreme Court are men, and 45 of 50 states are led by men.

Men dominate American leadership.

Men are 4 times more likely to commit suicide. Men use a wider variety of drugs, and have higher overall rates of use of illicit drugs and alcohol. Males are close to 4 times more likely to be murdered, and more than 10 times more likely to be killed at work. Men die more often of stress related diseases (and non-stress related diseases as well). Men live an average of 7 fewer years than women. Men are more likely to fight and die in combat.

Men dominate being killed.

There are 1.47 MILLION men in prison compared to 111,000 women. Men comprise over 85% of military personnel, and almost 100% in combat. 52% of mental hospitals, and 97% of VA mental health clinics are filled with men.

Men dominate total institutions.

You see, while we keep hearing about the patriarchy, men are giving their lives for it. The ramifications of public social pressures to be the breadwinner lead men to work longer hours or take more dangerous jobs that pay more money. This causes stress related heart attacks or death by work related accidents.

While women may dominate the service economy now, they also dominate our universities. This means that the “good jobs” of the future that typically go to those with higher education will be filled with women. The calls for women to be wealthy CEOs are rising, but the calls for women to take sole responsibility as the breadwinner are not so prevalent. When a woman fails, she is told how strong and brave she is for even trying. When a man fails, his role as a leader, breadwinner, father, husband, and man is challenged by both other men and the women that expect him to live up to social standards.

The response when a man cannot fulfill this traditionally historical role is to take to substance abuse or a collapse in mental health; possibly even suicide.

Moreover, the media ignores any sort of abuse that men and boys may suffer. 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused. This is very similar to the 1 in 5 statistic for women that is touted by every social justice warrior and public university in this country. Do you hear about men?

Men wear masks to cover our insecurities. When we laugh around others, we may be feeling the most pain. We act toughest when we are the most vulnerable. Men are less likely to have any sort of emotional outlet. When a woman faces a problem, she can call up a dozen friends and pour out her feelings. Men who do this are almost immediately checked and told to “man up,” so we put our masks back on.

Bottling up emotions leads to violent outbursts (over 90% of our prisoners are men – more than half of those are for violent offences). Men are taught at a young age that the only acceptable emotions are anger and aggression. All others are shunned.

Is it no wonder that men are having more difficult times committing to one woman and understanding what love and compassion are?

If a man enjoys art, opera, or poetry, he is labeled as feminine and called a “fag” by his macho friends. Our generations forget that some of the greatest men in history were artists or enjoyed going to plays and musicals. Men are supposed to like women, guns, sports, and cars. All else results in the return of his “man card.” George Washington and Thomas Jefferson studied philosophy while wearing powdered wigs and tights. Abraham Lincoln was shot while watching live theater. If only they were “real men,” right?

In the name of “equality,” our young boys are finding out that they are no longer allowed to buy lunch or open doors for the opposite sex. Having any sort of intellectual conversation has now been deemed “mansplaining” and this notion of patriarchy – which is not felt equally by all men – has become a staple meme in the feminist movement.

Men can be bullied, but men cannot be victims.

We also tend to forget that not all men are CEOs of major corporations. Men in poverty are the most at risk for suicide, criminal behavior, job related deaths, and substance abuse; though CEOs are the ones having early heart attacks and stress related diseases.

What I propose is a radical solution. We should teach men that it is okay to show a full range of emotions. We should teach men that failing is sometimes necessary, and bravery is overcoming adversity, not avoiding it. We should teach men that they are human, they are loved, and they are free to enjoy football or ballet.


The model of true masculinity is Jesus Christ. God became a man who did get angry at times. However, Christ traveled from region to region helping the poor and downtrodden. Jesus respected all women, especially his mother. He was charitable, giving, caring, and loving. He showed a wide range of emotions and avoided any temptation that would have tarnished his character in any way. He stood against the political and religious powers of his day with brazen courage. He spoke truth to power with insurmountable wisdom. He was consistent in all things. He wore no mask.

And neither should we.



Taking God for Granted

Think of all the things we take for granted in life.
The concepts of white privilege and patriarchy are that white males have certain historical advantages that they never actually think about. Things are becoming more egalitarian, for sure. However, Western civilization has been, for better or worse, a product of straight white men exploiting others.
Don’t believe me? When we identify colleagues or even friends, we often clarify the race of minorities, but not whites. You do not hear things like “famous male inventor Thomas Edison…” or “the straight, white Founding Fathers like Jefferson and Madison.” On the other hand, we do that for racial minorities, homosexuals, and women.

In other words, heterosexual and white are default categories. The all-encompassing term to describe all of humanity is “mankind.” Consider the term “straight,” which is the opposed of crooked, which has the negative connotation of deviance. These are taken for granted assumptions typically made by straight, white, men and are often challenged by those who violate one or more of those categories. The reaction from those in the majority is shock and denial of their privileges.

This happens when we take these concepts for granted, and Christians have been doing the same thing with doctrine. From everything from Bible translations to baptism, the modern American Christian has been fattened with privileges that go all-too-often ignored.

Our Christian Founding Fathers were persecuted and murdered for their Faith. The history of the Church is filled with meeting in secret locations under penalty of death from their governments, which still occurs in many countries. What do we, as Americans, do? We use our Christian colleges as an excuse to challenge and “correct” the Bible that our brothers and sisters and the Middle-East are being beheaded over. While we bicker about whether we should wear suits or have drums in a worship setting, Christians around the world are being crucified or burned alive.

We need not fear being used as gladiatorial fodder in the Colosseum of Rome, so we find minor things over which to quibble.

Almost 80% of Americans identify as Christian, but the average weekly church attendance for a believer in this country is 1.7 services per month. Attendance is not low because Uncle Sam is waiting to bust in our doors and imprison those inside, but because to 22% of American churchgoers, watching football has become a priority. Rather than being thrust into the arena to face lions, we can watch others combat live on television. We take our churches for granted, because we have churches to go to.

American Christians have taken church attendance for granted, but have also taken prayer and daily time in Scripture for granted. We can tell you anything you want about what our favorite actors are up to, but nothing about Solomon’s life. We can quote Tom Brady’s QB rating in the 2004 playoffs, but can’t quote a verse other than John 3:16. We have time to text, not call, but text our best friends with every detail of our daily lives, but spend no time having a conversation with our Heavenly Father.

I cannot tell you the number of fellow church members and Church members who gleefully post party pictures on social media with faces distorted by drunken frivolity; forgetting that we are called to be pictures of Christ to our unsaved friends and families. How can a drug addict be helped by someone who is right next to them shooting up? How might an alcoholic have a life change while we sit at the bar sharing shots? With no thought of the repercussions, we indulge in the very same behaviors as those who are lost. How will they ever be found when we throw the map in the garbage?

We do these things because we CAN do these things. We do them because we CHOOSE to do them. We put God’s will behind our own ambitions because we ignore the manifestation of His grace in our lives. We no longer count our blessings, because our insatiable thirst for humanistic pursuits has us spoiled and privileged.

No one is perfect. We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. The difference is that the heroes of the Bible felt regret when they fell from grace. King David never fully recovered from his tryst with Bathsheba. Peter spent the rest of his life trying to make up for his denial of Christ before the crucifixion. Will we do the same, or will we continue to take our privilege for granted?

Check your privilege. It is there, and we must acknowledge its existence. The only way we will be effective at bringing others to Christ is if we throw away our hedonistic lifestyles and BE LIKE CHRIST. If you sin, it’s okay. Jesus’ blood covers Christians for all eternity. However, we must all try to avoid the temptation to flaunt our sin to everyone in our social networks.

Becoming a Christian is an easy decision for most privileged Americans. LIVING like a Christian is incredibly difficult. The first decision is personal, while the second affects the lives of all those around us. Remember who you represent. You are a child of the King of Kings. You are privileged, whether you want to admit it or not. Time is running out for our loved ones who have yet to accept Christ. Do them a favor and dare to be different. Be a rebel. We are already experiencing a revolution, so be revolutionary. Stop taking God for Granted.

The Privileged Pilgrim’s Progress

The subject of “privilege” for straight, white, Christian males is once again rearing its ugly head. Whenever this topic arises, those who are accused of privilege insist that they are not, while those who are doing the accusing refuse to see their own culpability in the structural problems that face the downtrodden in our American society.

I am one who is accused of privilege, but I implore the reader to focus on the message rather than the messenger. I have tried to be objective, though I admit that I come into this issue with biases.

When you account for education, social class, gender, race, etc. the “gap” is incredibly small. A white boy who grew up in the same social class, went to the same school, and got the same grades as a black boy has an equal chance of social mobility.

Historically, whites have absolutely had a leg up. However, post 1965 Civil Rights America, the argument must change. All things are not equal in 2017 (a mere 50 years, mind you), and there are some inherent challenges that older (say, 25-40) blacks face that whites may not. However, there are fewer and fewer excuses for those who are college age now. This is where you’ll point to the “opportunities” and “systemic” issues, and that is where things get a bit more complex. The statistics are not promising.

Blacks are more likely to live in poor neighborhoods with bad schools, but whites who also live in those neighborhoods have about the same opportunity and often end up with the same level of social mobility.

Furthermore, if you want to talk total raw numbers, there are more whites in poverty, abusing illicit substances, on food stamps, living on the streets, and in prison than blacks. More white people are killed by police than blacks. The difference is that rates are higher for blacks.

That being said, the problem with statistical analysis (and this is coming from a statistician), is that numbers do not give you the “why”. Yes, rates of crime, poverty, etc. are worse for blacks, but why? Is it possible that these issues can be resolved by younger generations?

I would argue (and so would many researchers) that the biggest “privilege” that white people seem to have is in their family structure. This is not about skin pigmentation, but a deeper cultural problem.

Single parent households are the biggest predictor of juvenile delinquency and blacks are disproportionately raised in single parent homes. Over 60% of black families are single-parent. The next highest is white at around 25%. This is a staggering discrepancy.

If you want to know why there is inequality, it’s not some systemic social problem like access to education or jobs, its in the destruction of the African-American nuclear family. If you want to point to the incarceration of black males as a reason why there are so many single parent households, I would argue that it is this systemic issue in the black family that perpetuates this cycle.

There are many theories of deviance that point to most deviant behavior are learned by being passed down by peers and older family members. For instance, when an urban black male begins to academically outperform those around him, he is quickly shamed for it. He is called an “Uncle Tom” and is accused of “acting white” or “sucking up to the man.” Prominent sociologist Elijah Anderson said as much in his seminal work, Code of the Street (1999). This same phenomenon occurs in the corporate workplace as Anderson addresses in The Cosmopolitan Canopy (2011).

He writes of two black men who work for the same company.
One is ethnocentric and “plays the game” of white corporate America. He does enough to be respected for his work, but has not risen past middle management. His white co-workers offered to include him in social activities ranging from going to the bar to dinner at their homes. He always declined, and now they no longer invite him. He is bitter, distrusts white people, and is jealous of his more successful black co-workers.

The second man started in the company five years after the first. However, his full assimilation into the corporate culture allowed for a meteoric rise in the company which he now serves as Vice President. The other black people in the company think of him as a “sellout” or “Uncle Tom.”

This is reminiscent of the street. A very large portion of the urban African American population is ethnocentric. They outright refuse to assimilate into the larger culture. By their own design, they create counter-cultural music and use counter-cultural slang. To conform to “white” society—otherwise known as society—is to no longer remain black. Educated, articulate black men are now “white” in the eyes of the streets.

So there is a problem of assimilation. This is not about skin color, mind you. On the contrary. According to research, black immigrants from Jamaica and Africa have a high rate of assimilation to the broader American culture compared to some other groups. They learn English, they dress appropriately, and speak in a way that better represents the ideal American. Black immigrants detest the African American culture as being lazy and ignorant. These immigrants also find themselves in much better socioeconomic situations than blacks born in America (Foner 1997; Morawska 2014; Waters 1994). If American success was about skin color, these immigrants would be in the same situation as native blacks. They are not, because they understand the value of assimilation.

I believe that the research shows that if young blacks who are coming up right now would fully embrace assimilation into the larger American culture, and work harder to maintain their parental responsibilities and partnerships, their children would flourish.

And when it comes to the “patriarchy” or “male privilege”, binge drinking, alcoholism, substance abuse, suicide, being sexually assaulted as a child, and stress related diseases leading to death are all much higher in males.

Males are more likely to drop dead at a younger age from disease or suicide than females. This has always been a factor since Emile Durkheim’s study of suicide back in the late 1800s, and continues today.

And, of course, the gender pay gap myth has been thoroughly debunked over and over and over again by anyone with half a brain. Not to mention that the majority of college graduates are female, so in a few years that majority of the educated workforce will be female. You could show that most of the Fortune 500 companies are run by men, but those are old jobs that were held in a time when they may have been privilege, but for our generation and those going forward, the rise of female college education should put a pause on the argument of contemporary patriarchy.

Again, when you account for race, social class, gender, education, family unit, etc., the “privilege” gap vanishes.

Thus, this is not an issue of privilege. This is no longer the 1900s when there were certainly advantages to being born a straight, white, Christian male. Going forward, this argument will only become more and more archaic.

Learn more by checking out some of the resources I cited in this article:





Foner, Nancy. 1997. “The Immigrant Family: Cultural Legacies and Cultural Changes.” The International Migration Review. 31(4): 961–974.

Morawska, Ewa. 2014. “Immigrant Transnationalism and Assimilation: A Variety of Combinations and the Analytic Strategy it Suggests.” Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 133-176.

Waters, Mary C. 1994. “Ethnic and Racial Identities of Second-Generation Black Immigrants in New York City.” International Migration Review. 795-820

A Conundrum

Let’s pretend that there is an ideology that, if practiced according to its fundamental document, would encourage pedophilia, abuse of women, killing homosexuals, and murder of those who disagree with said ideology.

Let’s pretend that for 1500 years, those who follow their fundamental document have engaged in violent conquest leaving behind a trail of corpses and severed heads.

Let’s pretend that this ideology follows a book written by a man who married a six year old and only became more violent as he aged.

Let’s pretend now that the apostates who refuse to follow the violent, pedophilic, minority murdering book were now seen as the “fundamentalists” of the ideology, while those who continue the 1500 year traditions are called “radicals.”

Let’s pretend that the leaders of countries where these “radicals” have been waging a targeted war decide that there should be a safety measure in place to make sure that the locations where violent pedophiles generally form en masse have less access to their targets.

Let’s pretend that a group within a targeted nation is one that would be slaughtered by these “radicals” if they were in these dangerous locations, and these minorities who would be murdered now protest to fight for the very “radicals” who want to kill them to come over to where they are.

Does this make any sense?

Let’s pretend that there are 20 houses on my street. If one house in my neighborhood was full of people who wanted me dead, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t send out invitations for my cookout to them and their friends.

Let’s pretend that not only did I know that those in that house wanted me dead, but I knew that they had already killed some of my neighbors and even burned a house to the ground with a family inside.

Would it make sense for me to not want them on my property?

The Bias of Unbiased Science

It’s fun to think of the scientist as a person seeking empirical knowledge without bias.
The belief that science is the superior, or even only, means to gain knowledge IS biased; and flawed. How many of sciences findings have been replaced with updated research? The Earth was flat until it wasn’t. The sun revolved around the Earth until it didn’t. Newton’s laws of physics were the standard until Einstein. Einstein’s findings have been surpassed by quantum physics. Pluto was a planet until it wasn’t. The “Big Bang” was the catalyst for the existence of the universe, until it wasn’t. Brontosaurus was a type of dinosaur until it wasn’t. Piltdown man provided evidence of evolution until it didn’t. Fat is bad for you, now it’s good. Butter was bad until it wasn’t.
I could go on and on.
Yet scientists (and those who value science above all types of knowledge acquisition) would have you believe that this is superior to religious texts. In my study of The Bible (KJV ONLY, baby), I have found more verified scientific data than any evidence that has been “debunked” through scientific study.
The TRUTH is that there are so many phenomena that science has no answer to. The Bible is riddled with the supernatural that science either ends up verifying (germs, blood disorders, intelligent design, Earth revolving around the sun, a round Earth) or contains supernatural phenomena that science cannot disprove nor verify.
Most phenomena is supernatural until we come to understand it. Science, as it slowly progresses, verifies Biblical phenomena. It stands to reason, then, that The Bible may very well hold the answers to questions of the supernatural that are true, but have yet to be scientifically verified.
Of course, by no means does that mean that God’s Word is not empirically tested.
We test the teachings of Scripture every day, and we collect data through our experiences that we need only to apply a theory to (in this case, that THE BOOK is always true) in order to obtain knowledge.
Some of us put our faith into a dogma of scientism that is constantly challenged by more current science.
I put my Faith into The Bible that has never been debunked and has only been verified by empirical study.
But what do I know? I am just too biased.

The Myth of Modern Masculinity

Let’s assume that we understand what a “man” is. If using the word to describe those who XY chromosomes offends you, then go ahead and stop reading. This is not a critique of transgenderism or the social construction of masculinity. This is a critique of Christian heteronormative masculinity as it relates to the 21st century.

Men. What has happened to us?

In the home, the workplace, the education system, and churches, men have become the subservient ones. We have become submissive. Chivalry is not dead, but it has been distorted and denigrated. There are many of us who still wish to open doors for ladies and pay for meals. However, we also capitulate to women with regard to finances, discipline of our children, and making sure everyone is ready for church on Sunday mornings.

We have mistaken showing love for giving up our leadership roles.

We fear being labeled a sexist at work, so we allow women to take promotions away from us. We fear being seen as oppressive in the home, so we hand total control of our children to our wives. Why are we so afraid to take control of what God has commanded us to do?

Society has become an emasculating force the likes of which have never been seen. While simultaneously being slammed for our privileged position in a “patriarchy” (a fancy term that is never truly understood by those who use it), the ham-handed media forces television shows and films featuring “strong” women down our gullets. Sometimes these women are business leaders. Other times they are supposed to be physically dangerous heroines that save the day through martial arts or expert weapon usage. Reality does not reflect these vain imaginations, but the idea is to brainwash us into thinking it not only possible, but normal.

It is not. Nor should it be.

Of course, this is not an excuse for men to belittle women. Just because God commanded women to be subservient to their husbands, we do not get to treat women like second class citizens. In fact, God commanded men to LOVE their wives. We don’t love our slaves or servants. We love ourselves, do we not? We should love women with as much vigor as we love ourselves.

How is it possible to do this in today’s effeminate society without compromising our strength and leadership?

  1. We should not compromise our competitive nature for anyone, but we should show everyone compassionate sportsmanship. Win with grace. Lose with dignity. This can be at work, where you fight hard for that promotion, but don’t be dirty about it. Earn it. If you are rewarded, avoid rubbing others’ faces in it. If you are passed up, congratulate the victor. If your main competition is a woman, admire her drive, but do not capitulate. If your new boss just happens to be a woman, treat them with the respect that the POSITION requires.
  2. Make sure to have the final word at home. Many men operate under the “doctrine of separate spheres.” That is, the woman’s sphere is the home and the men’s sphere is outside the home; never the twain shall meet. It is a bit old fashioned, but there is some merit there. Sure, some men end up being stay-at-home dads, but even those who are the breadwinners should know what is happening inside their houses. Regardless of how busy you believe you are, you can still do a budget and help raise your children.

The one of the top cited reasons for divorce is money (along with poor communication). The Bible says “the love of money is the root of all evil.” Thus, finances are clearly important. A true leader understands that they should be in charge of the most important things in any relationship. So you, as the leader of your home, must handle the budget.

There is a ton of research out there that shows that the best thing that can happen to a child is to be raised in a two parent household where they are both loved and disciplined. Moms should never be responsible for doing both while dad coldly closes off his relationship with the child. Mothers are naturally nurturing (sorry, social justice warriors). Men are also naturally dominant (sorry, feminists). Men are physiologically more intimidating. We tend to be larger and have deeper voices. This is a great tool for disciplining a child. In a two-parent home, it allows a “good cop-bad cop” game. Accept it, and use it.

I would like to give a special shout-out to the single parents who must play both roles. Your task is that much more difficult; but should you find a suitable spouse after raising kids alone, allow your new mate to step into the proper role. Men, allow your new wife to love and care for your children. Women, allow your new husband to do the budget and discipline your children. It is always scary to give up power to another, but that is the essence of marriage.

  1. Be the spiritual leader in your home. Men should be the ones who make sure everyone knows that the family is going to church in the morning. Men should be the ones to suggest prayer at the dining room table and before bedtime. Men should be the ones who step into leadership roles at the church. I believe this is where we, as society, are lacking the most. There is a shortage of strong, spiritual men.

We sleep in because of a massive hangover. We stay home to watch football. We once again give our wives complete control over the children, so that mom ends up leading prayer. We fail to study God’s word, and those of us who do often do it so privately that our wives and kids do not see us doing it.

Most importantly, we do not live a spiritual life. Our kids know when we have a cigarette or a shot of whiskey. They copy our language when we cuss out a telemarketer. They mimic to others our tone when we constantly shout. They may eventually find our stash of pornography or overhear a conversation when we talk bad about our pastors. We must take responsibility for our actions, and understand that we are role models for others — whether we want to be or not.

Our number one role model for masculinity is Jesus Christ. He was a strong, spiritual leader. He inspired multitudes of followers. He also expressed his love in a plethora of ways from constant companionship to dying for us. He respected even the lowest on the social acceptability ladder and treated everyone like they were worthy of his time.

If men in our society were to implement compassion with unfettered leadership as Christ did, all of us would be better off. Rather than choosing one path or the other, we need to be more complete. We are not only made in Christ’s image, but we can do all things through him.

At the very least, just try to be a better human being.

Bigger is Badder

What do Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders supporters have in common? They express anger at “big” industries, such as government or business. As seemingly oppositional as these anti-establishment groups are, I would suggest that they are more similar than any would like to admit. It is a force that is not as specific as big government or capitalism, but the overwhelming power of Bureaucracy.


In Bureaucracy written a full century ago, Max Weber discussed his idea of the iron cage that traps all of us in a system of endless efficiency and control. Not all bureaucracies put the cage around people, and some small levels of hierarchy are often necessary to avoid anarchy. Without rules, all members of an organization might act inappropriately without fear of reprisal. Therefore, a rational system must exist. However, once this hierarchy becomes too focused on efficiency, and loses the personal interactions with one another, the cage begins to entrap us.


The rallying cry of the neo-liberalist Donald Trump movement is that the federal government has become so large that the citizens have become subjects rather than employers. They believe that the government tells you what your kids will learn in school and what you can and cannot eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise consume. They spend your money on services that may violate your personal ethical and religious beliefs. We cannot drive, hunt, own a firearm, vote, and even build a fence on your own property without government license.

If you have an issue with any of these directives, you must work your way up through a tangled web of bureaucratic specialists that send you from one department to the next until your head spins and frustration mounts. One unintentional consequence of a bureaucracy is that while an institution increases its internal efficiency, clients may suffer from external inefficiency.


The rise in Marxism in our national discourse – especially among college students – has ushered in an all-out assault on capitalism. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) is the first avowed Socialist in my lifetime that posed an actual alternative to mainstream politicians during his 2016 Democrat Party Primary run. His message of high taxes on the wealthy and a $15 an hour minimum wage is resonating with low income voters.

Employers can now underpay workers because of high unemployment. Cashiers at McDonald’s or Wal-Mart can be easily replaced, so why bother with their happiness? Those corporations have become so large that low level employees rarely if ever meet the head of the company. Each store is a hierarchy of management, assistant management, human resources, and low skilled labor. Each store manager must report to district or regional managers, who report to corporate headquarters, who passes information even further up the chain.

The current capitalist climate is not a celebration of diversity, but silencing those who disagree with elites. Not only has amoral capitalism led to impersonal relationships and low wages, but a level of political correctness and intolerance of “unpopular” personal beliefs unseen in my lifetime. Are you upset by the removal of “Merry Christmas” from stores, forcing workers to come in on religious holidays, or watching people get trampled to death on Black Friday? Capitalism, not government regulation, is to blame.


The Black Lives Matter movement is gaining momentum due to the frustration with the racial disparities found at multiple levels of the criminal justice system – filled with agents of government – from ground-level police interactions to unfair sentencing in the courtroom. However, the bureaucratic power of “the system” allows for cases to fall through the cracks and often hinders the speedy investigation and subsequent trial that Americans are guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment.

Capitalism is not inherently good. Unhinged, unchecked, and amoral capitalism is just as oppressive and intolerant as government. Weber appropriately titled his famous work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. He posited that the Protestant ethic of hard work and spreading of wealth through capital expansion, rather than hoarding, assisted greatly in the capitalist boom throughout Europe and into the United States. What we are missing in our current economic system is that ethic. Rather than entrepreneurs taking enough profit to live comfortably and ensuring that their employees earn a decent wage, big business has become incredibly efficient and bureaucratic.

The Bureaucracy is everywhere, and our entire society has become trapped in the iron cage. Is it no wonder we see civil unrest? Occupy, the Tea Party, Black Lives Matter, Bernie Sanders, and the surprising rise of Donald Trump all provide evidence that Americans are feeling an uneasy shift that they have a hard time identifying. Some blame big government. Others blame big business. However, I believe that the suffering we endure comes from the advancement of impersonal bureaucracies that Max Weber warned about.

Trying to break free from the iron cage should be something we can all unite on, but we won’t because our bureaucracies have become so specialized; so specific, that we argue about which specific system is oppressing us rather than recognizing that all of us are oppressed in some way. We often hear that “bigger is better,” but I would argue that with increasing bureaucracy – bigger is badder.

 About the author: Alexander Simmons is a Sociology Ph.D. student and Graduate Assistant at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He obtained his B.A. and M.A. in Sociology from UNLV as well. His areas of research include Sociology of Religion, Sociology of the Supernatural, and Cultural Sociology. He can be contacted at alexander.simmons@unlv.edu.