A Hand Not A Handout

Last month, our local newspaper printed an editorial pitching a caregiver tax credit. They ominously stated that there was “a reckoning coming” because the state's (and country's) population was growing older and with increased longevity came higher levels of infirmity. Older residents required more medical care as well as more help with daily living and in the vast majority of cases, that care fell on family members.

The editorial further stated that the emotional, physical and financial burden of providing that care was weighing heavily on generations of residents. As a caregiver for my elderly mother, I can certainly confirm that fact. In the past year, my mother's chronic pain has only gotten worse and doctors offer few realistic solutions to improve her quality of life. As a result, I have to spend more and more time staying home to care for her instead of having a life of my own. Then there are the many trips to the emergency room that last for hours on end.

My mother always goes to bed late but is an early riser so I might get four hours of sleep and that causes fatigue for most of the day. She's very bored with life and instead of working on her hobbies or doing something productive, she'll just sit in front of the television. Lately, my mom asks to tag along whenever I run errands just so she can get out of the house. The trouble is, she sometimes suggests going to a restaurant or store during our trip so I'll have to spend money unexpectedly. I do all the cooking and cleaning around the house and this year, I've had to manage her finances because she kept making mistakes in her check book. My parents were never that great with investing their money and my mother is still burdened by a large equity loan they never should have taken out in the first place.

Needless to say, all this leaves me very little free time. I last got together with friends four months ago and whenever I'm away from my mother for long, worry sets in because she's a fall risk. While my brother enjoys being married and raising a family, I'm treated to hearing my mom cry out in pain at all hours of the day and night. For her birthday, I took her out to a nice restaurant while my brother just gave her a phone call. Yes, caregiving does have quite a lot of burdens that average people never even think about.

The editorial also mentioned caregiving's cost to employers by making the case that many people wind up having to quit their jobs to care for a family member and that can cost businesses productivity especially when they lose great workers. At my job, the higher-ups could care less about us because they think we're all replaceable no matter how productive and efficient we are. They have no problem seeing good workers walk out the door because they can always hire a goof-off for less money. Since the company is owned by a private equity firm, the short term bottom line is far more important than retaining dedicated employees who ultimately save the company money in the long term.

At the crux of the editorial is a proposed tax credit for $1,500 and a respite voucher for another $1,500. They admit that's not a lot of money but say it could go a long way for the people who need it most. Actually, that kind of money is insulting because it really doesn't do much to alleviate the real cost of caregiving but legislators often propose measures that don't measure up. The real issue is how much of our hard-earned money we lose in taxes to begin with.

When looking at my old pay stubs, 2020 was my best year by far. For a few months during Covid, our company gave us hazard pay and since our industry was deemed essential, we could work any hours we wanted to. I'd routinely work 11 hour shifts 6 days a week and the overtime bumped my measly hourly wage up to something that was more respectable. Unfortunately, all that extra money meant my taxes went up too and since I was single with no dependents, the government taxed me into poverty. It was money I could've used to buy a new roof for the house or a new car or to get my mom a stair lift. What our legislators propose for caregivers certainly doesn't buy any of those things but buzz words like “tax credits” and “relief vouchers” sound positive and it gives the citizenry the impression that our state is doing something.

An AARP study cited in the editorial claimed most residents supported the tax credits and relief vouchers along with paying spouse caregivers. Once again, singles don't rate as important as married folks. For now, the proposal is stuck in committee but instead of a handout, what I need the most is a helping hand. In light of that, how about the state of Massachusetts allow me to keep more of my money and let me decide how best to be a caregiver?

Reality Is Reality

Recently, I watched a documentary about a music video television station from the Boston area called V-66. The man behind this venture felt he could do a much better job than MTV and thanks to a lot of hard work and innovation, V-66 started to make a name for itself during the mid-1980s. Of course, it helped that V-66 was a free over-the-air station at a time when some communities in New England still lacked cable TV.

For all the buzz V-66 generated, it only lasted about a year and a half before being sold to the Home Shopping Network. The station's owner explained V-66 was losing money and if he wanted to avoid going into debt, he had to make the hard choice to pull the plug on his creation while there was still time. In his words, “Reality is reality.” While the station's demise was sad news for Boston area music video lovers, V-66's investors still made a tidy profit.

Sometimes in life you can have all the hope in the world but it doesn't get you very far when your good intentions smash right into the brick wall of reality. The words from V-66's owner echoed in my mind when I thought about my current situation as a Catholic single.

Reality: I just don't know where to go to meet other singles. Bars and nightclubs are actually terrible places for meeting people especially if you're shy and looking for someone who shares certain core values that mainstream society rejects.

Reality: The part of the country I live in tends to be very liberal politically and most residents have a local quirkiness that just turns me off.

Reality: I encounter a heck of a lot of elderly people in my travels but eligible women close to my own age are a rarity. Sometimes several months will pass before I even see someone that's attractive (and I'm not looking for a perfect 10 either).

Reality: Almost everyone my age carries a lot of baggage with them which means I won't likely find a significant other who is equally yoked.

Reality: Much younger women are off the table. There's too much of a generation gap and at my age, they remind me of the daughter I never had.

Reality: Online dating is a joke. It's very difficult to get to know someone when you're not talking to them face-to-face but the selection found on some dating websites leaves a lot to be desired.

Reality: Getting to know someone in real life takes a long time and unless the person is very open and honest, you'll never know how a relationship might turn out. There are plenty of miserable married people who say they'd be much happier if they were single and alone.

Reality: Even if I found a woman who shared the same values, goals and desires, it is personality that makes all the difference.  The people I get along with most in life actually have very different values and religious beliefs.

Reality: I'm getting too old for the married life I used to dream about. Is raising a family even possible when statics show very few men in my age bracket have kids? Would I even have the energy?

Reality: I've been alone for so long, someone entering my life would need to be very patient and understanding but when I look at most of my friends' relationships, there's only disharmony and resentment as they get older.

Reality: While I'm good at saving money and avoiding debt, I've only worked dead-end jobs. That's a big red flag for the vast majority of women. Unemployment is even worse and there are times when I've quit a job with nothing to fall back on.

Reality: Caregiving for my elderly mother continues to take an enormous toll. I can no longer up and go somewhere whenever I feel like it. Dating someone who lives far away is pretty much off the table and I have so very little free time to begin with.

Reality: I just don't seem to fit in anywhere. I'm too liberal for conservatives and too conservative for liberals. I'm not a cafeteria Catholic but don't fit in with trad Catholics either. While I enjoy certain hobbies, music, movies and TV shows, their fans just annoy me.

Reality: It's hard enough to make and keep friends so how am I supposed to find a wife? I've been burned by a lot of people I've cared about while other friends just quietly disappear.

Reality: There might be a great woman out there that I have a lot in common with but because she lives thousands of miles away in a place I've never heard of, there's no way we'll ever meet.

All these realities don't give me much hope that I'll ever find a wife or even a girlfriend and while a miracle could still happen, I think it's highly unlikely...and those are pretty bad odds.

Valentine's Day Reflections On Ten Years Later

This February marks the ten year anniversary of Long Lost Black Sheep. I created this blog out of frustration for the way the Catholic Church treated its singles who wanted to get married. After reading other blogs on the subject, I felt it was time to share my perspective knowing full well that what I had to say might not be embraced by many traditional Catholics since I refused to shy away from being critical of our clergy. They had neglected people like me for far too long and if singles weren't being given bad advice, they were treated as if they were invisible. I wanted to challenge our spiritual leaders to do better and help out whenever they could. After all, the future of the Catholic Church depended on it whether they realized it or not.

Over the past ten years, I did manage to meet with our regional bishop and spoke to him at great length about the subject. I also hand delivered a letter to Cardinal O'Malley but sadly, not much of anything ever came of it. The bishop recommended I join a Catholic dating website, and the Cardinal sent me a form letter that failed to address anything I talked about.

I also used this blog to chronicle many of my personal experiences growing up in the Catholic faith. I especially wanted to highlight some of the different parishes I belonged to and share stories about my days in Catholic school. I figured capturing these moments in time from long ago might provide valuable lessons but unfortunately, this aspect of the blog has fallen by the wayside over the years.

Interestingly, the most popular entry on this blog by far is the one about disgraced former Bishop Fenwick chaplain Fr. Jim Nyhan. A Google search about this ex-priest usually leads most people right to this website. All of the other content on Long Lost Black Sheep doesn't have anywhere near the numbers as that particular blog entry.

Lastly, if there were any subjects that had nothing to do with Catholicism or being single, I'd still blog about them just to get my observations out there. Over the past ten years, many of those other Catholic singles blogs have disappeared but Long Lost Black Sheep soldiers on even if it's become an increasing struggle to find the necessary free time to write. Working the night shift for many years has ruined my sleep patterns and the demands of caregiving for my elderly mother grows with each passing year.

I know I can be judgmental and divisive at times but I hope there are readers out there who get something useful out of this site. Most blog entries generate no feedback whatsoever. Every once in a great while someone will post a thoughtful comment but more often than not I hear from the “peanut gallery” who make snarky remarks or ask intrusive questions. Keep in mind, I moderate all comments and if someone crosses a line, their words never see the light of day.

Over these past ten years, I followed the bishop's advice and joined a Catholic dating website but the experience was not that great and a portion of this blog highlights some of the drama. Long Lost Black Sheep would never have been popular on the now defunct CatholicMatch forum but to my surprise, a couple of my biggest critics grudgingly agreed with me that the Church needed to do more for it's younger singles who seek marriage.

During my time on CatholicMatch, I only dated one woman for a few months and what began as a wonderfully hopeful experience ended very abruptly. It's left me confused, wary and highly doubtful that I'll ever find anyone to be in a relationship with.

This Valentine's Day, I pondered all the words of encouragement people have given me over the years. “God will answer your prayers.” “You'll eventually find someone.” “There's someone for everyone so it's only a matter of time.” Such sentiments seem very hollow right now even if they were well-intentioned.

So much time has been lost that my dream of falling in love and getting married feels all but dead. If only there had been some kind of help for Catholic singles when I was in my 20s or 30s or 40s.  If only the people I talked to about being single had actually taken me seriously.

A New Liberal Mascot

Each weekday, a Boston-area college radio station that I regularly listen to pauses their musical programming for an hour to air the syndicated show Democracy Now! What's labeled as underground journalism or alternative news free from corporate influence is actually nothing more than far-left propaganda. Host Amy Goodman (whose gravelly voice is unbearable) pushes a liberal agenda by not only selecting topics and guests that further her favorite causes, she manipulates the very language of her reporting so that it's biased against conservatives.

While talk show host Rush Limbaugh clearly stated his political leanings, Amy Goodman pretends to be nothing more than an objective investigative journalist just doing her job to uncover the truth. Like a coward, she often lets her guests make some of the more inflammatory statements that push her agenda while she simply nods in agreement.

Ironically, Amy Goodman's disdain for what I'd call western capitalist values regularly places her in the same camp as those who would like nothing more than to destroy many of the freedoms she supposedly fights for. Her early reports on America's involvement in the Ukraine War had her siding with Vladimir Putin because how dare the west try to secretly influence a former Soviet republic.

Of course, the biggest target of Democracy Now! in recent years has been Israel. Amy Goodman's sympathy for oppressed people is so strong, that she allies herself with those who embrace radical Islam. In her warped left-wing mind, white western people must be wrong and brown people from exotic lands must be correct. She disproportionately criticizes free western nations like Israel and the United States because she can. There's not as much zeal when it comes to highlighting the atrocities of oppressive dictatorships or intolerant Muslim fanatics, however.

Amy Goodman also links the rhetoric of President Donald Trump to an increase in hate crimes. Of course, she talks with various “experts” on the subject to hammer that point home but would the shoe fit if it were on the other foot?

In May of last year, Yaron Lishinsky and Sarah Milgrim were killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washinton D.C. by a gunman who shouted, “Free, free Palestine!” upon being arrested. The young Jewish couple had just left an event that was focused on building a coalition to support Gazans. Clearly, this was a hate crime and all the rhetoric the left had spewed against Israel played a part in their deaths but would Amy Goodman take any sort of responsibility for this shooting? Of course not. Democracy Now! featured a Jewish guest who briefly offered condolences but then proceeded to blame the shootings on Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Several comments on left-wing websites were more blunt saying Yaron and Sarah got what they deserved and more “Zionists” needed to die.

Right after this shooting, I thought a new liberal mascot could be “Not Me” from the comic strip Family Circus. When the parents in that comic accused their children of mischief-making, the little ones denied it by saying, “Not me!” and an invisible phantom by that name was drawn as the cause of all the trouble. My idea seemed to gain even more relevance with the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk.

I never heard of Charlie Kirk before September 10^th of 2025 but news of his murder really bothered me. Firstly, it was surprising to see the large audiences he attracted on college campuses because I had long written off academia as being too liberal. Here was a man who often spoke of moral values that sometimes aligned with the Catholic Church's most controversial teachings and he was actually changing hearts and minds. Secondly, the shooting was all about silencing a voice that liberals didn't agree with. How the left reacted to the death of Charlie Kirk was very telling.

In the immediate aftermath, everyone seemed shocked and saddened but very quickly, the left's ugly side would be revealed. Some mockingly asked, “Charlie Kirk who?” With the identity of the shooter still unknown, more than a few liberals took joy in posting comments and memes that said conservatives were now sweating because the shooter might be white. Then they began to cherry-pick Charlie Kirk's comments to paint him as a white supremacist, anti-woman and anti-gay. No doubt some of these statements were taken out of context and this prompted gay YouTube personality Amir Odom to create a video that debunked the biggest lies told about Charlie Kirk. In fact, Amir credits meeting the conservative speaker for inspiring him to launch his own YouTube channel. I wasn't sure what to believe since I was unfamiliar with Charlie Kirk's views, but it became clear that many on the left abandoned decorum in order to celebrate this man's death. Since he was killed while talking about gun violence, they called it poetic justice. A few people on YouTube were so disgusted by the celebration of Charlie Kirk's death, they pledged to give up being liberal.

Some on the left engaged in “what-about-isms” by noting the right's lack of sympathy for the June 14, 2025 shootings of Melissa and Mark Hortman and John and Yvette Hoffman. I think a big reason for this disparity was the fact that Charlie Kirk was nationally known and his murder was captured on video in front of a large crowd but if we are to engage in what-about-isms, what about Yaron Lishinsky and Sarah Milgrim? Their deaths were quickly forgotten by the media because it didn't fit a certain narrative.

As a clearer picture of Charlie Kirk's shooter started to emerge, the left continued to twist the facts. They claimed since Tyler Robinson was raised in a pro-Trump household and even dressed up as Trump for Halloween once, he must be an extreme right-winger. They gleefully asserted Charlie Kirk was killed by "one of his own" and that it was an inside job even though children routinely rebel against their parents' moral beliefs.

Soon they concocted a cockamamie theory that Tyler Robinson was a far-right “groyper” who followed the teachings of Neo-nazi Nick Fuentes. Amy Goodman loves to criticize many of Trump's statements by prefacing his quotes with the words, “Without proof, Donald Trump said...” In the case of the Charlie Kirk shooting, this so-called underground journalist reported that Utah's Republican governor claimed the shooter had leftist ideology but did not share any evidence then she stated, “There's also been speculation Robinson may have been influenced by a far-right movement known as groypers which is tied to the white nationalist Nick Fuentes.”  We should rename her show Hypocrisy Now! for having such double standards about things not proven.

This outlandish groyper theory was starting to fall apart as more information emerged about the shooter but that didn't stop late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel from promoting it during one of his anti-Trump monologues. With the prompting of the FCC, he was suspended by the ABC Network. Liberals saw this as a freedom of speech issue with many feeling Jimmy Kimmel did nothing wrong. The talk show host returned to the airwaves a few days later to cry crocodile tears without ever acknowledging how inappropriate his groyper remarks were. Some liberals even accused conservatives of behaving like the “snowflakes” the right often criticized. In other words, “It's okay for the left to be overly sensitive and employ cancel culture tactics but how dare the right stoop to our level.”

Society seems more fractured than ever because two incredibly large groups of people hold dear very different values but in my experience, liberals tend to think they're so much more enlightened than conservatives. When complaining about this divisiveness, they refuse to look in the mirror and consider that maybe, just maybe they're part of the problem too. “Not me!”

The Church's “Useful Idiots”

One story that's made the rounds in the local news this holiday season concerns a controversial nativity scene outside St. Susanna Parish in Dedham, Massachusetts. Replacing the baby Jesus is a sign in the manger that reads “ICE was here.” Another sign lists a phone number for reporting ICE activity in the area. Also missing are the figures of Mary and Joseph but a note says, "The Holy Family is safe in the Sanctuary of our Church."

The display was created in part by St. Susanna's longtime pastor, Steven Josoma who said he wanted to highlight the fear of separation among immigrant families adding, “It's to get people thinking about how immigrants are treated, especially during the holiday season.” Many have shown their support for this nativity scene but many others have condemned it. The Boston Archdiocese has even called for its removal but Fr. Josoma said the display will remain until further notice.

My first impression of the situation? I didn't totally disagree with what Fr. Josoma was trying to do BUT (and this is a big but) I wondered if he has ever fought so passionately for the Church's more conservative moral beliefs like choosing life or practicing abstinence until marriage. After a little bit of online research, I found my answer.

Father Josoma actually has a history of creating provocative nativity scenes. One manger on gun violence featured signs with the death tolls of specific mass shootings while another on the environment showed a manger flooded by rising sea levels. A previous display on immigration placed baby Jesus in a cage. Fr. Josoma has stated such displays weren't political statements but “a moral call to arms.” CJ Doyle of the Catholic Action League strongly disagreed saying this year's nativity scene was sacrilegious political theater from a dissident priest with a long history of crackpot publicity stunts adding that he is using his position as a pastor to promote his left-wing political ideology. The website Boston Catholic Insider largely falls in line with this assessment.

Whatever the case may be, I think Fr. Josoma's recent attempt to get people "to think" has sown the seeds of division and discord more than anything else as evidenced by the many online arguments regarding this nativity scene. Detractors claim the display is inaccurate because the Holy Family were not refugees but rather returning to their hometown for the census as required by law. Supporters argue the nativity embraces Christ's call to care for the very least of us. Detractors say we need to render unto Caesar by not ignoring illegal immigration. Supporters accuse detractors of being MAGA elitists who only care about white people. And it goes on and on with each side digging in.

There are those among us who want to water down the Catholic faith to just two phrases: “love thy neighbor” and “don't judge.” Even though some of these people have rarely set foot in a church, they're quick to cherry-pick certain Bible passages in order to make the detractors of this nativity scene look bad. Disagree with Fr. Josoma's message and they'll call you a Christian hypocrite even though immigration is a complex issue.

This controversy reminds me of a Facebook post from one of my cousins who was raised Catholic but then turned her back on the faith. She forwarded the following from the Facebook page Occupy Democrats:

Right off the bat, this post is very deceptive. They place a photo of the Pope directly above a letter he didn't write to make it appear as if Leo XIV himself were publicly criticizing Donald Trump. In actuality, the letter was written by a bishop...but nowhere in the post will you find his name. They do say this bishop was appointed by Pope Leo so they make the leap that this must be a “HUGE rebuke” of the president and ICE.

At the bottom, they thank the Pope for “standing up for true Christian values.” Now I'm not the smartest person in the world but I suspect a Facebook page called Occupy Democrats wouldn't be so kind if Pope Leo promoted some of the more conservative values of the Catholic Church.

It's been said that Vladimir Lenin coined the term “useful idiot” which means a naive person who is manipulated into supporting, promoting, or defending a cause, ideology, or leader without fully understanding the harmful, hidden, or self-defeating consequences of their actions. By only showing the more liberal side of the Catholic faith and ignoring other aspects of its moral teachings, our religious leaders are playing right into the hands of those who want to see the Church weakened or destroyed altogether. Courting these people certainly won't change their negative opinions of organized religion but it will cause confusion among devout Catholics who have already sacrificed so much for their faith...and that will ultimately hurt our Church.

Where Japan Leads, The Church Follows

The Mass I usually attend was once fairly crowded but over the course of a few years, the number of parishioners has drastically thinned out. Often in 2025, I'd see one whole section of the church empty or with only three or four worshipers sitting in the pews. The parish is almost entirely made up of old people and witnessing such a sharp drop off in attendance has me thinking of what's been going on in Japan.

Of all the countries in the world, Japan has the highest proportion of elderly citizens and as of 2022, a little over 29% of the population was above the age of 65. That number is expected to climb in the next few decades. Japan's seniors also live a very long time and the country is home to the largest number of centenarians on the planet. While all this is going on, the nation has also been suffering from a low fertility rate. Since 1974, the number of children being born from each woman in her lifetime has remained below the replacement threshold.

Economic factors are usually cited for this downturn. Japan continues to suffer from a decades-long economic slump and regular employment has seen significant decreases over the years. On average, temporary and part-time jobs pay 53% less each month when compared to regular employment. With such financial insecurities, many young people feel they can't afford to have kids. Poor work / life balance and a lack of affordable daycare also contributes to couples putting off having children.

Another interesting aspect of the aging of Japan is the blame some place on the nation's young people. They claim newer generations have created a low desire culture where both sexes express little ambition to court each other. The unflattering term “herbivore men” is used to describe young males who are not interested in getting married or even having a girlfriend. “Parasite singles” typically describe young unmarried women who continue to live with their parents so they can enjoy a more carefree lifestyle.

Some have suggested Japan's young people no longer have enough places where they can interact. Others theorize there's a growing division between the sexes about what's expected of them when it comes to dating and relationships. High levels of anxiety might also scare young men and women away from each other. Whatever the reasons for this apparent lack of romantic initiative, rates of virginity among 20 and 30 year-olds are still increasing with a 2022 survey finding about 40% of unmarried men in their 20s have never been on a date while 25% of young adult women said they never dated.

Rural villages have been hit the hardest by these declines in young people with empty houses and closed schools becoming commonplace. Government incentives hoping to encourage young adults to move to these rural communities have had little success. One artist from the village of Nagoro wanted to make her aging community look more active so she created scarecrow-like dolls to fill the void. Perhaps my church should have some of these dolls placed in the pews to make Mass feel more crowded.

Japan is a prime example of the dire consequences that eventually arise when we fail to encourage and support our young people on their difficult journey into full-fledged adulthood. Over the years, I've brought my concerns regarding Catholic singles to my pastors, the regional bishop and the Cardinal but none of them considered what I had to say to be a priority. One pastor in particular insisted as people got older and thought more about life and death, they would ultimately come back to church. Fast forward to 2025 and it's obvious that hasn't happened. It won't happen either because more and more people feel they can do without religion.

Much like Japan's incentives to convince young people to move to those rural villages, the Church's various campaigns to increase its membership appear to have missed the mark. This is especially clear when I look at all those recently empty pews.

What's A Guy To Think?

YouTube's algorithm for generating recommended videos must be aware that I'm single because a lot of the content in my sidebar focuses on dating, relationships and women. These recommended videos claim to have special insight into how the opposite sex really thinks but after watching several of them, I feel downright depressed. Why? Instead of offering helpful advice on how to find genuine love in the ever confusing dating scene, these videos highlight the “harsh realities” men face when seeking romantic relationships with women.

One of these YouTube channels is called Entrepreneurs in Cars and it typically features a guy driving around while he shares his opinions on the opposite sex. This particular content creator warns men against dating a “modern woman” because no amount of care or attention a guy brings to the relationship will ever be enough to satisfy her. He sometimes uses the term hypergamy when explaining how women tend to date and / or marry men of a higher social status.

He also claims women often overestimate their “sexual value” as they get older and tells men to avoid dating females who are pro-choice, have slept around, or carry a great deal of emotional baggage because these qualities run counter to a family-oriented mindset found in traditional relationships. Oddly, all of these warnings lead the host to suggest that if a guy just wants to have fun with a woman for a little while, then that's okay as long as both parties don't get too attached. I find it ironic that the host of these videos places a lot of importance on traditional values but then lets men off the hook by condoning the occasional sexual romp.

Another YouTube channel that often pops up in my sidebar is called PsycheDepth and videos from this content creator typically feature black and white cartoons of men and women while a British-accented narrator gives long lectures on the nature of romantic relationships. These are some of the most depressing videos ever with titles like: “How Women Turn Good Men Into Monsters With Contempt” “Why Does Sexual Desire in Women Die After Love” “Why Most Women Betray Loyalty Without You Seeing It” “Talking Kills Attraction” “Why You Shouldn't Try To Understand Women”. Even the thumbnails for these videos have pretty atrocious titles like: “Women Are Selfish” “You'll Never Make Her Happy” “Women Are Evil” “Why Being a Man Isn't Enough Anymore” “Her Tactics Are Deadly” “Her Words Are Poison”.

The narrator claims that no matter how kind-hearted a man is, he needs to behave a certain way to be successful at dating because a woman might say she wants a sensitive, communicative man who will treat her as an equal, but on a subconscious level, she is hardwired to be turned off by those qualities. Basically, the genetic predispositions of our ancestors make women desire a strong, confident leader and not someone who takes her feelings into account by asking, “What restaurant would you like to go to tonight?” This deep-seated lack of attraction for nice guys is supposedly why so many women wind up with jerks.

According to PsycheDepth, men need to wall off their true emotions and create a certain distance because women truly value mystery and scarcity not openness and utility. If you don't “maintain your frame” with the opposite sex, they will walk all over you because without even being aware of it, women run countless psychological tests on men and failing these mental evaluations causes a loss of interest. Apparently, men aren't entitled to be full emotional beings because that would show weakness.

One particular video makes the case that marriage itself is just a bad idea for men because they are always at a disadvantage in such a union. PsycheDepth even suggests replacing the outdated concept of marriage with a contract that's similar to a business deal where both parties' expectations are clearly spelled out and they can go their separate ways without much difficulty. I sometimes wonder if this YouTube channel is part of a secret plot to sow distrust among the sexes and destroy the American nuclear family. With more and more videos being churned out each month on this channel, a friend joked, “...or they're just trying to make money.” I can believe that given all those awful clickbait titles.

As bad as these videos are, the comments are much worse. Broken-hearted men describe their relationship horror stories and rejoice in being alone and unattached. One guy says women don't love you for who you are. They love you for how you make them feel. Another claims women are always on the look out for someone better. Many men lament all the effort they put into their relationships only for their significant others to get bored and leave. There seems to be a lot of hurt out there and videos like these certainly don't help to bridge the divide between the genders. In a recent poll of Gen Z men, having children and raising a family was their number one goal. For Gen Z women, that expectation came in dead last.

The advice from these content creators runs counter to how I imagined dating and relationships would be but now I'm not so sure what to believe. Thinking back to my parents marriage, they managed to avoid many of the pitfalls discussed in these videos but then again, they embraced traditional values and not modern ones. During my time on CatholicMatch, I did see a certain amount of distaste for "nice guys" and some members of the opposite sex felt the art of courting boiled down to the man having to do almost everything on a date while the woman waited to be impressed. As a sensitive male, I refuse to play these stupid games. If I'm going to be rejected, then I'll be rejected for being myself because wearing a false facade for the rest of my life is just too tiresome and not worth the trouble.