Longform Essay – Why Do Christian Men Work So Hard?

The Holy BibleThe Holy Bible

Well, the short answer is that according to the Bible, God specifically created man to have dominion over the earth and, “by the sweat of your brow”, protect and provide for both the earth and his family.

The long answer is that working for the benefit of others, gives Christian men a profound sense of self-worth, thereby furnishing mankind with a never-ending supply of God-given advantages through their continuous labors.

And, until very recently, their work was lauded, and respected, the world over, by both Christian men, and Christian women.

That is, until the first-wave of radical feminists began to negatively impact the Christian-based concept of work, when they received the right to vote in August of 1920.

28th President of the United States Woodrow Wilson (1856-1923)28th President of the United States Woodrow Wilson (1856-1923)

The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote and it was signed into law by socialist, feminist, former Princeton University President and academic President Woodrow Wilson.

Although he initially resisted the idea, he finally acquiesced to pressure inflicted by first-wave feminists Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott and Susan B. Anthony  among others.

Since its adoption into law, nearly 100 years ago, the 19th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution has caused America untold trouble, including, with a few exceptions, America’s continued downward spiral away from democracy, and towards socialism.

The most marked political change occurred when these newly franchised female voters began to reject the independent responsibility of Christian men for their families (democracy), and instead, began to vote for federal programs that encouraged the dependency of women and children on the government for their financial support (socialism).

Jeanette Pickering Rankin (1880-1973) - (R) Montana - First Woman Elected to Congress, 1916.Jeanette Pickering Rankin (1880-1973) – (R) Montana – First Woman Elected to Congress, 1916.

This political about-face began, just one year after women received the right to vote, with the passage of the Sheppard-Towner Act in November of 1921.

The initial bill, which was soon rewritten, was introduced by the FIRST woman ever elected to Congress, Jeannette Pickering Rankin (R) Montana. It was also supported by feminists Grace Abbott and Julia Lathrop. The final rewritten bill was introduced soon after and passed.

This law was the first of its kind, and provided federal funds for maternity and child care, thereby denigrating the traditional role of husband, as the sole provider for their wives and children. as not quite good enough.

Despite its repeal just eight years later, it was to begin the flood of social programs (in support of women and children) with which we are living today.

The passage of this federal decree also began the fraudulent, feminist entreaty that anyone, including the government, was more capable of caring for women and children, than were Christian husbands/fathers. 

This singular act of feminist political persuasion would become the fictitious foundation for the ideology of radical feminism for the next hundred years. Basically, its essence would revolve around the underlying premise, that Christian men are incompetent.

And so, for the first time in over 2000 years, Christian men were suddenly, and unjustifiably, deemed incapable of performing the jobs with which God Himself had bequeathed to them, as fathers, sons, husbands to become the protectors and providers for their families.

Suddenly, Christian men’s intentions, beliefs, responsibilities, priorities, motivations, inclinations, and eventually even the work they undertook to provide for their families, would come under assault by millions of newly empowered female voters.

Christian men, who were following God’s plan, to the best of their abilities, would eventually become fair game for, not only the first-wave feminists, but for the second, and third-wave, of radical feminists to come.

1920 - Women Voting 1920 – Women Voting

Astoundingly, having acquired the right to vote, millions of Christian females, through their “bleeding heart” voting patterns, were no longer on the same path as their men, but were instead AT-ODDS with the successful priorities of Christianity and Christian men, as these selfish women pursued their own socialist agenda.

And sadly, one hundred years later, we can clearly see that rather than gain anything of true value for themselves, these women would in fact, lose the most important components of women’s lives, for generations to come – their faith, their Christian husbands, their families, their sexual dignity, their personal integrity, their children to abortion, and ultimately, their souls, while unwittingly, pursuing the irrational, anti-Christian, feminist concept of “independence” (including sexual promiscuity), from the men who loved them the most.

In addition, it must be acknowledged, that one of the main reasons that these foolish, feminist female voters failed to improve their own lives, was that when they substituted the ideology of radical feminism for the tenets of their Christian faith, they ultimately, and simply, became pawns, for the few, but influential socialists, who were more interested in moving the political landscape of America from right to left, than helping to “advance” women.

Church Charity EventChurch Charity Event

Initially, most of the first-wave feminist voters viewed the governmental social programs they approved, as simply an extension of their church’s faith-based, charitable work, when in fact they were NOT.

The truth was that there were no similarities between the two, mainly because, unlike the churches, the government programs were funded by money coerced from taxpayers, under the threat of prison.

Additionally, unlike the church’s financial accountability to its benevolent members and benefactors, the government was totally unaccountable to the taxpayers for the use of their money.

Predictably, as the feminist’s influence increased, due to their newly acquired right to vote, more federal welfare programs were instituted in support of women and children.

In this short-sighted rush to advance the “needs” of women, they continued to further undermine Christian men, and their critical responsibilities, as husbands and fathers.

This new female, political power bloc continued to expand as more women voters banded together to place political pressure on elected officials to provide more and more federal funds in support of women and children.

And, wanting to garner these new female voter’s support, most politicians did their bidding. So, as a result of these “nurturing” female voters, and the political activism of their feminist leaders, Christian men’s God-given, and ultimate, responsibility for their families welfare quickly eroded.

As it turned out, the Sheppard-Towner Act would prove to be the first baby step towards the radical, second-wave feminist’s success in negating Christian men’s MORAL influence on our culture, just 40 years later.

This corrosive agenda was achieved through the creation, acceptance and implementation of radical feminism’s “liberating”, “Sexual Revolution” for millions of female baby boomers during the late 1960s and early 1970s.

By the 1960s, the veil of first-wave feminism’s Christian “do-gooder” facade had slipped away, revealing a second generation of blatantly non-Christian feminists, who secretly abhorred Christian men, and everything they stood for, and wouldn’t stand for.  

These females would prove to be more difficult to stop as 74 million young, college-age, baby boomers became their pawns.

Homeless woman and children And her husband is? Oh. That’s right. She doesn’t have one.

So, although the feminist ideology began very innocently during the 1920s, the ultimate outcome proved to be cataclysmic.

Due to the advocacy of the second-wave of non-Christian feminist leaders, a profound political shift to the left occurred. These anarchists continued to push Christian women away from independent family living based on the financial contributions and responsibilities of a Christian husband, and towards dependency on government for income.

The federal government was now providing income, as “husband”, to the “female head of household”. And, as a result of this traumatic shift in allegiance, we are today, left with a huge sub-culture of “liberated”, “emancipated”, divorced and single females sustaining themselves, and their children, on government handouts, sans husbands.

What was to be a temporary “helping hand” in the 1920s has become a permanent, and depleted, way of life for generations of women and their children.

As this steamroller of strident females strode forward out of the 1920s Christian men would eventually, and just as unfairly, be portrayed in the 1960s, by the second-wave of lesbian-led, non-Christian, feminist leaders, as “domineering” and “oppressive” purveyors of “patriarchy”.

Now, according to this next generation of feminists, Christian men were not only incapable of providing for their families adequately, as portrayed by first-wave feminists, but we were portrayed as not having their wives’, or their children’s, best interests at heart either.

To this end, the young, female, baby boomer pawns foolishly disregarded or discarded, their “patriarchal”, “oppressive” and “domineering” Christian husbands/fathers by the millions, in an all-out feminist effort to “be all that they could be.”  

Fifty years later, and with 20/20 hindsight, we can see what they’ve truly become instead – “liberated” and “emancipated” whores, divorcees, adulterers, thieves, drug addicts, alcoholics, bearers of illegitimate children and voters for abortion, birth control and same-sex marriage.

Wow! Let’s all cheer for these wonderful contributions to the American way of life! NOT.


And so today, due to their poor choices as purveyors of radical feminist ideology, the female baby boomers find themselves, in their declining years, condemned to the continued “care” of an assortment of heartless governmental agencies.

They are living on a mere pittance of what could have been theirs, if they had just remained with their devoted, life-long, hard-working, dedicated Christian husbands. What fools.

During the second-wave of feminism’s reign, we have witnessed another convoluted outcome of their feminist “knowing” concerning Christian men and their motivations.

As the disappointing results continued to mount concerning the personal failures of women trying to live an “independent” feminist lifestyle, the feminists and their socialists cohorts (at the prospect of being exposed as frauds) chose to arrogantly push forward and simply get nastier and louder.

To this end they now DEMANDED that the failed feminist lifestyle, and the children it recklessly produced, were all entitled to be supported by government programs. In fact, they even, shamelessly, had the nerve to brazenly re-label them as entitlement programs as well.

In order to provide continued cover for their failures, this second generation of feminists aggressively condemned Christian men’s efforts as husband and fathers and now demanded that women and their children had the right to be supported by the government, forever! 

And this was to be accomplished by any means possible, including the use of any coercive, legislative governmental hocus-pocus method possible. Especially if it separated the feminist’s nemesis, the hard-working Christian men, from their hard-earned income.

More specifically, as long as these radical, anti-Christian feminist women, and their children, were supported by the taxable income extorted from the Christian, working man.

Winston ChurchillAt this point, their destructive agenda was no longer hidden by the smoke screen of “feminism“, it became flat-out, bold-faced socialism, as defined by the redistribution of wealth – from those who worked for their money, to those who did not.

To this end, radical feminists/socialists sugar-coated the process once more and morphed the traditional Christian marital responsibilities of a husband, to support his wife and children, into a gigantic political sledgehammer.

Using the tax codes, they reinvented this traditional “marital” relationship, placing the government between the fictitious spouses – the unemployed “wife and children” and the working “husband.”

And just for good measure, the political hacks associated with the feminists/socialists, added the “lazy nephew”, “the drunken uncle” and the “addicted aunt to the fictitious working “husband’s (the hard-working Christian man) family” responsibilities as well.

So, today, not only is the real life, Christian man working to support his own family, but he is also working, for six months out of the year, to support with his tax dollars, thousands of other people’s dysfunctional “family members” and their self-destructive extended family members as well!

Taxpayer Christian Male Taxpayer

At this point the question should no longer be, “Why Do Christian Men Work So Hard?” but “Why Do Christian Men Bother to Work At All?”

Well, the answer remains the same. It is because God created Christian men to work and they will continue to do so, despite the odds stacked against them.

And, for anyone to try to take advantage of this innate, God-given drive to work, is nothing but a disgrace!

The fact that these entitlement programs were specifically designed to punish Christian men for undertaking their God-given directive to work, rather than to reward them, is even more troubling. It’s like killing the goose that laid the golden egg! What is the point?

Well, for both the feminists and the socialists, the source of their vindictive madness is truly irrational jealousy but for different reasons.

For the socialists, their jealously is laced with an obsession for political power, but for the lesbian-led, non-Christian feminists, their jealousy is laced with an irrational, baseless, obsession for pure revenge.

No one could have created a more profoundly unfair, and self-destructive, socialist political system than these two groups of wackos.

And sadly, if the first and second-wave feminists had left well enough alone, the socialists, who had so few adherents, would never have succeeded in driving the country farther and farther into socialism.

Only with the ignorant help of millions of Christian, “bleeding heart” female voters, have the socialists managed to push the country over the edge – economically, spiritually and politically.

And, sooner rather than later, there will be hell to pay.

As the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism, is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Despite this reality, these irrational feminists/socialists were still not satisfied with simply destroying the good reputations of Christian men as fathers/husbands, and then later, stealing their hard-earned cash through unprecedented taxation, they weren’t done yet. 

As a result of their continued political “successes” the feminists/socialists brashly undertook a concerted effort to not only vilify Christian men personally, but to demean them again by attacking the work these men did as well!

This time, these twisted feminist/socialist females assailed the very work Christian men undertook at God’s directive, claiming suddenly, that work itself was actually bad for people.

You might ask, “How could anyone give voice to this ridiculous premise?” Well, as the feminist’s media successes mounted, so did their unmitigated gall.

In order to cover their ulterior motive of irrational revenge against Christian men and their priorities, the non-Christian, second-wave feminists once again raised the “do-gooder” flag that was used so “successfully” by the first-wave feminists.

These second-wave feminist leaders had learned from experience that the guise of “do-gooder” was key to rallying their “bleeding heart” female troops behind their agenda.

And in doing so, these very same radical, second-wave feminists/socialists convinced yet another generation of gullible young women, to accept their assertion that Christian men’s “work ethic”, was just as bad as the men themselves! It was tantamount to slavery! 

feminists hate men symbolThis underhanded, misguided and misandrist assault on Christian men continues to this very day as non-Christian feminists/socialists continue to cynically demean Christian men’s physical contributions to mankind, while attempting to make political points with the “sisterhood” of voters.

In their warped, and twisted, efforts to get the upper-hand on Christian men, these sardonic feminists began to stigmatize, and denigrate, hard-working Christian men, by referring to them as blue-collar, country bumpkins, proletariat, country western ignoramuses, bourgeois, or rednecks who “cling to their guns and religion”, or worse.

So now, according to radical feminists/socialists, not only are Christian men incapable of providing for, or lovingly protecting their families as husbands/fathers, but their physical work is unworthy of respect as well.

I ask you this, “What’s left for these insatiable female, feminist/socialist vampires to devour?”

This latest feminist/socialist assault on the value of Christian men which claims that work is bad for people, was actually initiated by the first-wave feminist “do-gooders” in connection with prison inmates. 

And, until these radical, feminists/socialists interfered with the Christianity-based prison system, it functioned quite well.

Prisoners breaking rocksHard work, which was man’s lot in life according to the Bible, was once again a key ingredient to the traditional success of American prisons.

Hard work was considered by Christians to be a restorative component of life and a critically important rehabilitative aspect of life in general. And this point of view was of particular importance with regards to prison life.

But, that all stopped, when, despite the positive outcome of the use of hard labor in prisons, this premise was condemned in the 1930s by, surprise!, the feminists/socialists. And instead, hard work, endured while in prison, was suddenly deemed to be “cruel and unusual punishment.”

“Oh no! Look how the prisoners sweat and strain while working hard!”

Swinging pickaxeAgreed, the criminals probably worked harder in prison than they had ever worked in their lives, with many working in quarries or building railroad beds. But, “cruel and unusual punishment?” NOT!

Crucifying, tar and feathering, beheading, draw and quartering, bamboo shoots under nail beds, tongue torn out, hands loped off, the rack. Now those could be deemed “cruel and unusual punishment” by today’s standards, but swinging a sledge-hammer, or a pickaxe, all day? Come on! There are good guys who actually choose to do that for a living!

But, for these feminist/socialist prison reformers, such as Thomas Mott Osborne (1859-1926), (a closet homosexual and son of a first-wave feminist, which explains a lot), the concept of hard labor was unbearable.

And granted, it wasn’t pretty to witness, but, the Christian men who ran the prisons for decades knew that this form of hard work would prove to be redemptive for the prisoners, and beneficial for society, just as God commanded it to be.

Through hundreds of years of experience, this approach proved to be effective, primarily because the prisoners did not want to return to a life defined solely by pointless hard labor.

But, just as importantly, it was also effective because it benefited society as well, since most prisoners were “scared straight” while in the penitentiary (from the Christian word penitence) and most chose never to transgress again.

And wasn’t that the entire reason to send criminals to prison in the first place? – retribution and repentance, NOT coddling and catering to.

When the feminists/socialists interfered with this time-honored system of punishment, as veiled “do-gooders”, they reduced hard labor’s effectiveness, as an efficient form of punishment, as well.

After the institutionalization of their feminized “reforms”, prison life was no longer something to be avoided at all costs because the disincentive of hard labor had been virtually eliminated.

In fact, in today’s prisons, where no one really “works”, the prisoners are instead seemingly “rewarded” for going to jail, as most prisons have acquired the same amenities as many fancy cruise liners – gyms, libraries, good food, computers, basketball courts, laundry service and housekeeping!

In fact, with conjugal visits, the criminals have everything they had outside of prison and, in many cases, much more.

No wonder the recidivism rate has skyrocketed under this feminized prison system. The criminals are not truly in jail, they are actually on vacation!

Where is the incentive to stay out of jail when the jails are like hotels and the prisoners are treated with kid gloves? There isn’t any!

The elimination of hard work in prison has been a loss for both the prisoners and the community. This irrational form of “touchy-feely” punishment is joke and its implementation has solved nothing, and in many cases, it has only made matters worse.

Kirkbride-Plan Dr. Thomas Kirkbride

The next attack on the time-honored concept of Christian men’s restorative and positive work ethic as something good, took place at the large, state-run, mental asylums.

In 1844, Dr. Thomas Kirkbride developed a plan to build state mental asylums, which would house the mentally impaired, and thereby eliminate the common practice of housing the mentally ill in jails, private homes and basements of public buildings.

Kirkbride plan Kansas State Kirkbride’s Plan – Kansas State Insane Asylum

Kirkbride’s practical approach proved to be very successful. He designed large, V-shaped, main buildings for the asylums, which allowed for ample fresh air and sunlight.

His buildings were built, and his mental health concepts were adopted and implemented, in 42 states.

Most of the asylums were constructed in the countryside, on huge pieces of bucolic public property. The patients were fed, clothed and cared for by a professional staff of doctors, and supervised by caring nurses and aides, all of which dramatically improved the patient’s lives and living conditions.

For well over a century, under Dr. Kirkbride’s Christian-based principles of the restorative nature of work, competent patients were chosen to work in the vegetable gardens that fed the patients; clean the buildings that housed them; grow and plant the flowers in the greenhouses; maintain the grounds; do the laundry for the patients; work in the kitchens that fed them and become handymen for the buildings.

Just as Dr. Kirkbride had proposed, these activities provided positive therapeutic benefits, as well as physical exercise, for the patients. The Protestant work ethic was applied to these individual’s lives and the Christian patients were glad to be of some use, even if their contributions were minimal.

Former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt in 1946Former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt in 1946

This too changed when feminists/socialists, such as former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962) and

Pearl S. Buck - Author of The Good Earth - 1940sPearl S. Buck – Author of The Good Earth – 1940s

author Pearl Buck (1892-1973), joined others in support of national mental health reforms.

Granted by 1946, many of Kirkbride’s state institutions had deteriorated due to budget cuts and the loss of patients who were discharged due to the discovery of antipsychotic drugs.

But, for those who remained, life changed as well.

It was eventually decided that among the reforms, the “forced labor” of the patient “gardeners”, “farmers”, “cooks”, “handymen” and “cleaning ladies” was considered tantamount to slavery.

When the patient’s working contributions were first publicly demonized, and finally eliminated, the patients were left to wander the buildings, and the grounds, with nothing much to do.

That may be fine for a short vacation, but, doing nothing forever, achieves nothing, and in fact destroys many.

These radical feminists/socialists “do-gooders” reversed the successes that Kirkbride had achieved through therapeutic work. And, the fact that the patients were no longer “needed” just added to their emotional and mental distress, rather than diminished it.

Frances Perkins, socialistFrances Perkins, socialist

This new, and negative view of Christian men’s work ethic as being bad for people, was once again advanced when feminist/socialist Frances Perkins, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Secretary of Labor, chose to turn this irrational premise into law. 

Perkins is solely responsible for the initiation of the federal government’s first, large-scale, social programs.

Her efforts include the creation of the Social Security Act in 1935. This was initially established as an, “Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance” for surviving Civil War veterans and their wives and children, but it once again insinuated that Christian men were incapable of planning for the future care of their families adequately.

To many naive female voters Perkin’s program was just another form of Christian charity. But, charity, it was NOT!

As a government program, it instead, undercut the church’s primary role as the principle source,and provider, of public charity. Vetted Christian charity whereby requests for support were easily verified by parishioners and neighbors.

And it instead, set a diabolical precedent, which eventually led to the behemoth government welfare systems, that eventually rewarded able-bodied people (thanks to “bleeding heart” female voters) for NOT working and, without ANY accountability or verification of true need, whatsoever.

Granted, Ms. Perkins “reform” was, once again, begun with good intentions. But, just as with the prisoners and the mental patients, it proved to compromise the very people it was designed to help, trapping its enrollees in a never-ending cycle of deprivation, dependency and depression.

Each of these three systems – prison, asylum and welfare – would soon become corrupted by socialist opportunists, and rather than restore men’s human dignity through good, honest work, the radical, feminist/socialist “do-gooders” unwittingly created instead, a sea of shiftless, aimless, bored, troublesome and dependent government “clients.”

The feminization of each of these formerly successful institutions has done nothing but increase the number of individuals these systems must contend with, causing our jails, asylums and welfare rolls to burst at the seams.

So, despite what these feminists/socialists claim – WORK IS GOOD! And it is especially good for Christian men. It’s good for their minds and bodies and it’s especially good for their very souls.

Christianity was the inspiration for the development of the “Protestant Work Ethic” and this work ethic remains the God-given basis for the unprecedented improvement of the human condition on earth, as defined by an honest day’s pay, for an honest day’s work.

Hardworking, honest, trustworthy and responsible Christian men, both employers and employees, gave rise to the extraordinary success of mankind’s greatest triumvirate on earth – Christianity, Capitalism and Democracy.

And, through this collaboration of effort, these good Christian workers, developed a triumvirate for greatness, combining the honesty (Christianity), the hard-work (Capitalism) and the personal liberty (Democracy) together, thereby creating our illustrious Western Civilization.

To deny the importance of work is to deliberately deny men their rightful place on earth, and their well-deserved rewards, as determined by our Creator.

As a result, ANY individual, especially a radical feminist, who denigrates the concept of good work should be condemned.

The fact is that we all benefit from their labor, and work makes Christian men feel good about themselves which benefit everyone.

Monsignor Ray Lopatesky explains why. He points out that the Creator Himself was a worker, and as such, specifically imbued His human creation with that same attribute.

Msgr. Lopatesky has compiled six reasons why Christian men work so hard. And, once read, it becomes clear why no one should ever discourage anyone from acquiring the rewards and blessings that hard work elicit, despite the inherent possibility of failure, because the ability to do hard work is literally a gift from God.

Msgr. Lopatesky’s insightful list follows:


1.  Work Fulfills Three Purposes
It should glorify God, serve the common good and further the kingdom of God. Our work is what God uses to change the world for His glory.

2.  Work Gives Us Insight into the Nature of God
The opening lines of Scripture say, “In the beginning, God created.” God is a worker. From the beginning of the Bible, we are faced with the inescapable fact that work is a part of God’s character and nature. As I have read, vocation is, “integral, not incidental to the nature of God.”

3.  We are Made to Work – It is Ordained by God
In Genesis 2:15 we read: “The Lord, God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” God gave us the task of ruling over and taking care of His creation. This cultural mandate, given in Genesis 1:28, is our original job description. Like God we have the ability to work, make plans, implement them, and be creative.

4.  Work is Honorable – It is a Gift, Not a Curse
All professional and all kinds of work, assuming that they are legal and biblically ethical, are honorable before the Lord. There is no dichotomy between sacred and secular work. All work brings glory to God and a potential source of fulfillment.

5.  Work Provides an Opportunity for Witness
You manifest a powerful message, both verbally and non-verbally, of a supernatural approach to work. The world needs this witness to the reality of Christ and the difference He makes in His followers.

6.  Work Gives Us a Lifetime Mission
Genesis 3:19 reminds us that “by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground.” God intends that humans are to work as long as they live, whether paid or volunteer. Retirement shouldn’t mean the end of meaningful, purposeful work. Our vocations are for a lifetime.

Until the radical feminists/socialists interfered, honest work was the lifeblood, and pride, of all Christian men. But, after nearly 100 years of uninterrupted disparagement, this is no longer the case.

What a tragic loss for everyone, but especially for Christian men, as is exemplified by the following poem which explains the vital importance of work to thousands of generations of Christian men.

Although Eliza Cook (1818-1889) was a first-wave feminist, the demonization of the concept of work lies not with her, but with future generations of feminists.

Miss Cook’s generation of Christian women still held honest and productive work of any kind, in high regard. She wrote the following poem in 1850, which describes this pride of work among Christian men, as defined the Protestant Work Ethic.


Work, work, my boy, be not afraid,
Look labour boldly in the face;
Take up the hammer or the spade,
And blush not for your humble place.

Earth was first conquered by the power
Of daily sweat and peasant toil,
And where would King’s have found their dower,
If poor men had not trod the soil?

Hold up your brow in honest pride,
Though rough and swarth your hands may be,
Such hands are sap-veins that provide,
The life blood of the Nation’s tree.

There’s honour in the toiling part,
That finds us in the furrowed fields;
It stamps a crest upon the heart,
Worth more than all your quartered shields.

There’s glory in the shuttle’s song-
There’s triumph in the anvil’s stroke;
There’s merit in the brave and strong,
Who dig the mine and fell the oak.

Work, work, my boy, and murmur not,
The fustian garb betrays no shame;
The grime of forge-soot leaves no blot,
And labour gilds the meanest name.

There’s duty for all things, my son,
Who act their earthly part aright;
The spider’s home threads must be spun-
The bee sucks on ‘twixt flowers and light.

The hungry bird his food must seek-
The ant must pile his winter fare;
The worm drops not into the beak,
The store is only gained by care.

The wind disturbs the sleeping lake,
And bids it ripple pure and fresh;
It moves the green boughs until they make,
Grand music in their leafy mesh.

And so the active breathe of life
Should stir our dull and sluggard wills,
For we are not created rife
With health that stagnant torpor kills?

I doubt if he who lolls his head
Where Idleness and Plenty meet,
Enjoys his pillow or his bread,
As those who earn the meals they eat.

And man is ever half so blest
As when the busy day is spent,
So as to make his evening rest
A holiday of glad content.

God grant thee but a due reward,
A guerdon portion fair and just,
And then ne’er think thy station hard,
But work, my boy, work hope and trust.

This incredible pride in a job well done is what’s so desperately missing in America today. Mankind was blessed, not condemnedby our Creator with the rewarding capacity to work.

And, it is no accident that prisoners, mental patients, welfare recipients and others continue to cause trouble. They have been “rewarded” with nothing to do, by radical, feminist/socialists, and as a result, are crippled in their potential to find honest work. In doing so, these women have denied men their rightful path to acquiring self-worth, self-confidence, self-reliance, self-satisfaction and salvation.

Only a fool would discourage a man from working to his fullest capacity, and yet, that’s exactly what these radical, feminists/socialists have done.

It’s time to reconsider, and reexamine, their preposterous proclamation that working Christian men have gotten everything wrong.

When in fact, It’s the Women, Not the Men, who, once again, have gotten nearly everything VERY wrong.


4 thoughts on “Longform Essay – Why Do Christian Men Work So Hard?

      • And in your opinion, ma’am, how to make the prison labor remain relevant in face of automatization and other technological leap of human labor?


      • Prison labor should NEVER be viewed as simply providing labor. It is, first and foremost, a much needed source of punishment for those who seek to destroy civilized living. And therefore, it will NEVER become irrelevant within a Christian community, despite the prevalence of labor saving and economically efficient machines and robots. Bad men MUST be punished for their crimes or good people will suffer the negative consequences of the judiciary and prison’s leniency.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.