A website for a law firm called "The Firm for Men" is quoted in "In child custody dispute, breastfeeding mom is ordered to use bottle 'It’s about using breastfeeding as a weapon against visitation,' said a lawyer for the baby’s father" (WaPo).
Meghan Boone, an associate professor at the Wake Forest University School of Law who studies pregnancy and parenting rights, said... [t]he idea that only women can care for young children — once known in courtrooms as the “tender years” doctrine — has been discredited because it may be considered sex discrimination by men seeking custody.
“You’re not supposed to use the tender years doctrine anymore,” Boone said. “If we’re talking about the need for child to be with mom and not dad, that sounds like tender years.”
If it "sounds like tender years," we'd better not say it!
Why does the article say "the 'tender years' doctrine — has been discredited because it may be considered sex discrimination by men seeking custody"? Where's the editing? Did no one see the ambiguity?! I originally read it to mean that there was what could be considered "discrimination by men seeking custody." But the "tender years" doctrine favors the mother's claim. I thought the article-writer misunderstood, then realized the words could also mean that that men seeking custody may consider themselves to be discriminated against. Who is doing the considering — onlookers judging the men or men faced with the doctrine? This is the problem with writing in the passive voice — "has been discredited because it may be considered." Rewrite.
Okay. The standard today is "best interests of the child," but I think that ought to mean, put the presumption aside and look at these particular parents. Weighing the various factors, how much does breastfeeding count? It may be discriminatory to say "only women can care for young children," but only mothers can breastfeed, and if this particular mother is breastfeeding, how should you configure custody?
So why is this problem surfacing now? Is it part of a larger phenomenon of alienating human beings from our natural body — transhumanism?
पोस्ट्स
६९ टिप्पण्या:
Professor Althouse, I am shocked - SHOCKED - to read your comment that "only women can breastfeed." I just don't know what to say.
" SHOCKED - to read your comment that "only women can breastfeed."
I know you're being jocose, but, for more than one reason, I'm changing "women" to "mothers."
Breastfeeders are a more specific category than women.
As you can see in the last sentence of the post, I really do want to make a topic out of the ongoing process of alienating us from our natural body. This is a much larger topic than just transgenderism, and I hypothesize that all this newfound interest in transgenderism is part of the larger, more all-encompassing trend toward transhumanism.
“Not the mama!”
Time for the patriarchy to take back society. Ban no-fault divorce. Tolerate, but discourage homosexuality and bring back the closet. Stop pretending that trans is anything but a psychotic delusion. Encourage everybody to attend sane, orthodox church or temple. Allow men to discipline their children again. (This is what many of the child custody battles are about.)
When I was young, that phrase “women’s liberation” seemed so lyrical and compelling. Decades later, I understand what women were demanding to be liberated from: marriage, family and child bearing.
This is Satanic. How did people get drawn into this devil worship? (Answer: Satan convinced us we’d get laid a lot.)
"It’s sickening that the law comes down on a mother and child. That baby is not property!"
This will not register with the "My body, my choice" people. (I was going to write "come as a surprise", but on second thought there will be no recognition of the disconnect.
If the primary concern is the baby, then either the mom gets all custody, or the court orders mom to pump and freeze breast milk.
Lawyers will present whatever arguments they can. That's what their clients expect.
That "most-liked comment" is horrid and terrifyingly oblivious. The father is not "trying to make the child adjust", or if he is why is the mother any different? They are each trying to fulfil their role of responsibility in raising the child.
Obviously, every child must "adjust" to his parents.
Breastfeeding is only one portion of the nurture (or damage) that can occur in the first few months and years up to three. Small children also need calm continuity, absence of traumatic events, acquisition of language skills, and a father and a mother to model sex roles.
In virtually all cases, the father does the abandoning, but most particularly in the underclass.
The father's rights movement almost exclusively addresses the concerns of the small percentage of cases where a non-underclass father wants more time with his children. Ironically, non-responsible adults get ample free access to lawyers, courts, counseling, and taxpayer funded efforts at family reunification, while financially responsible adults can bankrupt themselves trying to gain mere access to see their children.
Just the facts here. No opinion.
How do people work this out?
----
My guess is thatyhey usually don't.
Why is this becoming a thing now?
Well, historically relatively few couples broke up before they stayed together for at least 4 years (post-breastfeeding). From my reading long ago, divorces/break-ups tend to happen in clusters, such as at 4 years, 7 years, and 12 years. People seem able to suppress their differences and disputes for a few years. Some argue this is an evolutionary adaptation that facilitates the survival of infants.
In today's language, the virtuous woke insist that the proper term is chestfeeders.
"She sat with a baby heavy on her knee
Yet spoke of life most free from slavery
With eyes that showed no trace of misery
A phrase in connection first with she I heard
That love is just a four letter word"
In Omaha, the judges were very much against joint custody. Back in the 80s, I recall one Omaha judge say, “I’m not going to have that kid living out of a suitcase.”
Today I understand that in Lincoln, two weeks with one parent is the standard.
@Ann: “know you're being jocose, but, for more than one reason, I'm changing "women" to "mothers."
Breastfeeders are a more specific category than women.”
From Breastfeeding magazine: “In women who have not been pregnant, or who have not been pregnant recently, simply stimulating the nipples over a certain period of time will induce the body to produce prolactin and the brain to produce oxytocin. The time frame and amount of stimulation necessary varies from woman to woman and even from session to session.”
all this newfound interest in transgenderism is part of the larger, more all-encompassing trend toward transhumanism.
truer words never spoken. It's ALL part of the plan
I really do want to make a topic out of the ongoing process of alienating us from our natural body. This is a much larger topic than just transgenderism, and I hypothesize that all this newfound interest in transgenderism is part of the larger, more all-encompassing trend toward transhumanism.
Pretty much. It's a large part of why the Church opposes "reproductive technologies" such as IVF, as well as surrogacy: they separate reproduction from the human acts and relationships which accompany it, turning it into something no longer human.
When a gay couple pays a Romanian woman to impregnate herself with a turkey baster full of their semen, carry the child to term, and then give it up to them so the two can "start a family," she is no longer as a mother and a woman, but as a machine to produce a product.
When a couple facing infertility pays a lab to create embryos and then puts 4-5 into the woman in the hopes that one will stick, then it's no longer human reproduction, but something else entirely.
I guess no one can see that a woman who wants her child strictly raised on breast milk can pump, store and provide it to the non-lactating parent of her child.
If that’s the mother’s choice, why isn’t it her responsibility?
Breastfeeding impacts two people, yet the excerpts only mention the infant. A woman isn't a spigot. Take away the baby for a day or a weekend and the breasts must be pumped to relieve the pain and keep the milk flow consistent.
Yes, I agree that this is a tactic now because transgenderism disassociates a woman from her biology.
Also, don't divorce while raising infants. This is an unbelievably difficult time for both parents and the relationship. Go to counselling and get some sleep.
"...but only mothers can breastfeed, and if this particular mother is breastfeeding, how should you configure custody?"
And what of the ancient trade of wet nursing, nothing but the conceits of modernity forbids it.
You’re saying gender affirmation surgeries are a step along the transhumanization process? That normalizing gender surgery acclimates us to other forms of radical alterations, such as brain implants? What about joint replacements? Organ replacements? Freezing breast milk? Just trying to understand….
Tina Trent: In the cases where the father hasn't abandoned the child, which must be the case here since he is trying to get custody, the large majority of divorces are initiated by the woman. So, it most likely that the woman has decided that child must endure all the difficulties of divorce in order to alleviate whatever problems she perceived in marriage and living as a family.
Why is there pushback recently against using breastfeeding as a reason to give sole custody to the mother? Perhaps it is because arguing that the mother must have sole custody to breastfeed implicitly endorses the idea that breastfeeding is better than formula. Many mothers choose to use formula rather than breastfeed, therefore this line of reasoning indicates that those women are not good mothers. We all know that we are not allowed to make any arguments that make women feel bad about their choices.
It’s about the trans agenda. #UnsaidThings
My ex left me w/a 21month old and a barely 7month old. I was still nursing.
It came as a shock to me- this “I love you, but I’m not in love w/you anymore” reason for leaving(he’d been cheating for months and left us for her).
Damned straight I used my breastfeeding as an excuse not to be separated from my children overnight so that he &the younger model w/no children could play house. I didn’t know this woman who would “mother” my children &I sure as hell didn’t like her. Even when stress dried up my supply of milk- I was “breastfeeding”. I wouldn’t change a thing.
I was fortunate in that I’m not vindictive or the type to disparage. He “got” every weekend, as long as they came home for Sunday: for Mass. my stipulation. All these yrs later(almost 30) I am becoming a tad snide. It sucks- having kept bitterness at bay only to have it creep into my mind (&sometimes off my tongue!)when the struggle of raising shared children is over. All I can say is- it was no picnic.
Funnily enough, after 3marriages- these 2lovers reconnected and she’s wifey #4. And since our granddaughter was born in November- she’s now living the role of Grandma, too. Isn’t life weird?
It’s not always about the man: it could be about his new woman.
I learned a long time that criminal law is assholes acting nice in court. Family law is nice people acting like assholes in court. This is just another example of that truism
Bitter Clinger: I was more interested in just providing information about how different socio-economic factors are in play. I don't think we are disagreeing. I also think of breast-feeding as only one of several crucial aspects of nurturing infants -- socialization and language formation being just as important.
To Ann's point, I am enraged that every time I walk into a new doctor's office now, any doctor, I have to check a box indicating that I "identify" as a female. If the doctor can't figure that out, I want a different doctor. And that has everything to do with degrading both men and women for political ends.
Knowing who filed for divorce would tell me who was being more unaccommodating.
[t]he idea that only women can care for young children — once known in courtrooms as the “tender years” doctrine — has been discredited because it may be considered sex discrimination by men seeking custody.
My bold type.
So. The fact that men might think they're being directed against is, on its own, enough reason to change a policy that was put in place because it appeared to be best for the child? On no evidence, just men's feelings?
I know a guy, a very attentive and responsible father, whose vindictive ex-wife did all she could to limit his access to their (older) kids. He fought like a tiger for joint custody. I supported him in that fight.
Furthermore - I was working full-time when our oldest was a baby and my husband stayed home with him, and neither that child nor our other two ever had formula - not once, including when I had to travel for work.
In other words, breastfeeding for a child you aren't holding can be worked out, and men can be nurturing dads. But neither of these things is easy or, probably, all that common (thank you to Tina Trent, as usual, for her cogent comment), and I would shy away from having a one-size-fits-all policy.
Does the woman work in a place where it's difficult to pump and store milk? (If so, hard to understand how she considers her breastfeeding status to be dispositive...) Does the man have a life situation that actually supports having a baby around, solo? (If not, hard to understand why he wants that level of custody now, rather than trying to arrange that they will renegotiate when the baby is a little older - but I am absolutely in favor of [good] dads' being strong and regular presences in their children's lives from babyhood; moms of babies and dads of babies have different styles and both are important.)
Finally - my grandfather worked as a family court judge in my hometown. I wouldn't take that job for ten million dollars.
Shouting Thomas said...
“Time for the patriarchy to take back society.”
Shouting, how many times must I remind you? — stop hitting on my girl.
Important contribution to bonding…
https://youtu.be/Cyxqcvp5C5M
I can conclude from a very unscientific survey of my tenants that children (especially boys) seem to do much better when they live with single fathers rather than single mothers. It doesn't really matter how well-educated or financially secure these women are. It doesn't even matter if the father is a total d*ckhead or a miserable loser, the kids are still better off.
It is very obvious that single mothers (and their children) need men.
First, what Mr. Wibble said is similar to things I've said before about how innovations like surrogacy IVF (even, dare I say it, gay adoption) turn children into commodities and are generally a bad idea. So, Mr. Wibble is one hundred percent correct. You said: "I really do want to make a topic out of the ongoing process of alienating us from our natural body. This is a much larger topic than just transgenderism, and I hypothesize that all this newfound interest in transgenderism is part of the larger, more all-encompassing trend toward transhumanism." I see the connection now, but hadn't thought of it before. This claimed ability to make ourselves whatever we want to be rather than what we are, is common. And there is probably an interesting conversation to be had about what prompts people to claim that only by changing what they are (in the transgenderism context, chopping off an organ you were born with) can they be what they 'truly' are. It certainly involves a refusal to accept reality. And it's interesting that the strongest push for this appears to come from the same people who are anti-gmo (i.e. it's OK to artificially manipulate humans but not the food we eat).
Reading Anthony Giddens' Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Right now Marx is talking about how capitalism alienates people from their species-being. He sounds an awful lot like Mr. Wibble above:
[Althouse says] I really do want to make a topic out of the ongoing process of alienating us from our natural body. This is a much larger topic than just transgenderism, and I hypothesize that all this newfound interest in transgenderism is part of the larger, more all-encompassing trend toward transhumanism.
[Mr. Wibble responds] Pretty much. It's a large part of why the Church opposes "reproductive technologies" such as IVF, as well as surrogacy: they separate reproduction from the human acts and relationships which accompany it, turning it into something no longer human.
When a gay couple pays a Romanian woman to impregnate herself with a turkey baster full of their semen, carry the child to term, and then give it up to them so the two can "start a family," she is no longer as a mother and a woman, but as a machine to produce a product.
When a couple facing infertility pays a lab to create embryos and then puts 4-5 into the woman in the hopes that one will stick, then it's no longer human reproduction, but something else entirely.
Birches- always an exception. Maybe many… my ex left me and wanted a divorce, but I didn’t get any child support since he didn’t file. I finally had to file. Not that his support was anything great b/c his mom did his book work/taxes and could turn a number like a flipped quarter. He told me if I ever asked for more- she’d fix it so I got less. He was self-employed for much of our kids’ lives.
I am easily cowed. Which I suppose is why I’m so good at my job ;0)
"I have to check a box indicating that I "identify" as a female"
I always leave that stuff blank. They're welcome to ask me to my face. They never do.
Ann Althouse said...
Not transhumanism.
Dehumanism.
The reason the globalist hate the US so much and teach our kids to hate the US is because the US was founded on the principle of Natural Rights.
The principle that something supernatural made humans equal and born with inherent value and integrity is antithetical to the desires of the globalist regime.
Look at every single policy being pushed by the WEF Regime around the world.
They want poor slaves.
Birches said...
Knowing who filed for divorce would tell me who was being more unaccommodating.
We know who files for over 80% of divorces.
Most men are not the problem here.
The biggest problem with society now is that
1. ~30% of children grown up in a married nuclear family.
2. About 50% men do not have children.
That means about 70% of women have 70% of the kids with about 20% of the men.
Is the problem with the 20% of the men or the 70% of women?
I recognize this is slightly off topic, but a Trigonometry vlog earlier this week covered a similar topic on parental rights. It that discussion, the dad not only lost custody of the children but all his belongings and was incarcerated simply by having the mom call into an anonymous tip line suggesting the dad was violent and thinking of harming his children. I think what happened to him could become the new "swatting", but with more reliable destructive harm.
Lem Former Twitter Aficionado said...
It’s about the trans agenda. #UnsaidThings
The trans agenda is a part of a much bigger effort.
For most of human history a very small number of men had access to most reproductive age females.
The only access most men had to reproductive age females was through war and conquest.
It was traditional marriage that broke this cycle and distributed happiness more evenly.
The trans agenda is just tagged in there with welfare and government subsidization of single motherhood. Rather than be in a harem of a ruler women are in a harem of government subsidy.
This allows women to go have sex/children with the man they really want, which is obviously the high testosterone marker male.
These are typically labeled "Chad's/Tyrones."
Women like being mistreated and miserable. It is a biological imperative because miserable mistreated women reproduce more.
This is the underlying reason for single women and predator/rapist men supporting the Regime.
Years ago I read a statistic that said the most common year of divorce (separation leading to divorce) was during the 1st year after the 1st child was born. I found that shocking, and have not been able to find the stat again when I go looking. But in my own immediate experience, I know of about 5 such cases. If it's true then there may we quite a number of divorces/separations where the baby is under 1.
Here is a wild stat per my prior post.
https://www.goodto.com/wellbeing/relationships/relationship-news/break-up-after-baby-513710
Meade said...
Shouting Thomas said...
“Time for the patriarchy to take back society.”
Shouting, how many times must I remind you? — stop hitting on my girl.
You need to ask your girl why she spent so long supporting the destruction of traditional marriage and why she voted for obvious Chad's/Predators like Bill Clinton.
This entire episode of societal degradation was a movement driven and spearheaded for decades by women like Ann Althouse.
And of of the bedrock truths of this world is that women in general absolutely refuse to take responsibility for anything they do.
In the end it comes down to Daddy issues.
Lots of hobbyhorses being ridden today; not many people reading the article.
Divorce law is irrelevant here. They were never married. It sounds like they had a brief sexual relationship, and then the man broke up with her shortly after the baby was born.
His lawyer says that she is "using breastfeeding to try to salvage a relationship that is over." Watch for the comments to flip from "the woman is bad for initiating the breakup" to "the woman is bad for resisting the breakup."
For all the people blaming homosexuality, reproductive technology, or the "trans agenda," stop running away from your own beliefs. There are no gays, no trans people, and no IVF here. This relationship was exactly what you say society needs: two hetero non- trans people putting the p into the v. You own this situation.
So stop changing the subject and explain why your belief system failed here. These people did what you wanted them to do, and yet here we are; why?
Explain why you think a baby produced from a brief hookup by two people who barely know each other is more human and more deserving of love than a baby conceived in a doctor's office between a long-term married couple.
Explain why God prefers that a baby be raised by two parents who hate each other and fight through lawyers, rather than a loving gay couple.
Actually, it's probably better that more commenters haven't read the article. We'd be hearing about how the real problem is race-mixing.
This claimed ability to make ourselves whatever we want to be rather than what we are, is common.
It's a logical result of pushing evolution over creation, and the general decline of religion in our society as a whole.
If we weren't created perfect by God, and are instead just the random result of evolution and genetic chance, why not embrace "forced evolution"?
If you're distressed now, wait until they start making designer babies.
So. The fact that men might think they're being directed against is, on its own, enough reason to change a policy that was put in place because it appeared to be best for the child? On no evidence, just men's feelings?
Because this never happens, right?:
So. The fact that women might think they're being directed against is, on its own, enough reason to change a policy ... On no evidence, just women's feelings?
or
So. The fact that Black people might think they're being directed against is, on its own, enough reason to change a policy ... On no evidence, just Black people's feelings?
The dad can hire a wet nurse on weekends.
Shouting, how many times must I remind you? — stop hitting on my girl.
A church musician, like me, gets a lot of attention from the old ladies. I have at least a half dozen 75 year old admirers.
Ann will have to get in line.
Understandable. The country is doing so well dealing with the adult children of single moms. /s
https://rightwingnews.com/top-news/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty/
"When a gay couple pays a Romanian woman to impregnate herself with a turkey baster full of their semen, carry the child to term, and then give it up to them so the two can "start a family," she is no longer as a mother and a woman, but as a machine to produce a product."
It ain't just gay couples. Lots of well off couples don't want the inconveniences, physical effects and time required to carry a child.
Handmaidens of the rich.
'It’s sickening that the law comes down on a mother and child. That baby is not property!'
Then dads shouldn't have to pay child support.
Easy...
Then dads shouldn't have to pay child support.
Dads are simply splooge stooges who don't have any rights.
Tom T. said: "For all the people blaming homosexuality, reproductive technology, or the "trans agenda," stop running away from your own beliefs. There are no gays, no trans people, and no IVF here. This relationship was exactly what you say society needs: two hetero non- trans people putting the p into the v. You own this situation" Maybe should read the whole post and not just the article it's commenting on. Ann Althouse explicitly invited the conversation when she said "As you can see in the last sentence of the post, I really do want to make a topic out of the ongoing process of alienating us from our natural body. This is a much larger topic than just transgenderism, and I hypothesize that all this newfound interest in transgenderism is part of the larger, more all-encompassing trend toward transhumanism." And maybe read the comments more closely, I did and I saw no one "blaming homosexuality, reproductive technology or the trans agenda" for the particular problem presented, instead they followed up on Ann Althouse's invitation to address "the ongoing process of alienating us from our natural body." But that's just me, maybe I'm reading the room all wrong.
@ hombre - Your link has statistics saying that children of single mothers do a lot worse than children of married couples, including messing up the people around them by committing crimes. But there is a nurture/nature problem. Perhaps it's not that growing up without a father is so bad as that men who quickly become absent fathers have some lousy genes that are passed on to their children. In fact, the article at the link says that children of widows don't do any worse than children of married couples.
I suppose the split the difference solution is that those children have lousy genes but they would be kept in check by married parents.
Transhuman as in transgender spectrum. Transhumane as in wicked solution.
DIE is Diversity (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry), Inequity, Exclusion.
Better to opt out, than to cancel. Good. Then women and men are equal in rights and complementary in Nature, nature. Reconcile.
Tom T. said...
Lots of hobbyhorses being ridden today; not many people reading the article.
You do realize your entire post was completely about your own personal point of view right?
I was in agreement with your post for about the first couple sentences. Then...
Were you actually trying to be ironic?
"Ann will have to get in line."
Okay but what I don't get is why you and Achilles and Chuck and a few others can't seem to quit getting into her line. You obviously don't like her, actively disrespect her and you come here primarily to make disparaging personal remarks about her. You've done it for years.
When you say you want the patriarchy to take back society, how far back do you want to go? Pre-19th amendment far enough for you? Or do you need to go back to a time when female Americans were widely viewed as being the legal property of their their father or husband?
Because if that's the case, you might have better luck using your powers of persuasion on bloggers other than Professor Althouse.
Just saying you might find your time better spent commenting on other bloggers' blogs. How about some of those many 75 year-old ladies standing in line for you?
Surely one or two of them writes a blog on which you could personally profit by commenting.
But there is a nurture/nature problem. Perhaps it's not that growing up without a father is so bad as that men who quickly become absent fathers have some lousy genes that are passed on to their children.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/absence-fathers-story-elephants-men-gordon-j-macrae
gahrie said...
"Then dads shouldn't have to pay child support.
Dads are simply splooge stooges who don't have any rights."
No, even splooge stooges have rights. For example, just as stooges who are careless with their ova still have legal rights, splooge stooges have the right to keep their genetic material to themselves.
@Meade
I like and admire Ann. Always have.
Your response is quite chivalrous. Feminism exists to manipulate men in this way. While feminism pretends to be about ideas, it works by invoking men’s chivalrous response.
As Ann has said, yes, I’m an asshole. Ironically, gay men friends in NYC and SF are responsible for this, They showed me how men were being manipulated by this white knight response. The way in which I’m an asshole is that I stopped being manipulated by this invocation of chivalry.
Ann’s refusal to engage in censorship over my asshole refusal to succumb to this call to my chivalrous response is one of the reasons I like and admire her. That takes great intellectual integrity.
We're also losing the bubble with some of the formerly domesticated "white" ethnicities, as the "poor white trash" segment of the population is again breeding freely.
Correlation does not equal causation. You have to maintain an open mind, while looking at the things your numbers reveal, and entertain the prospect that what you think the numbers are telling you ain't necessarily so.
I honestly don't think that marital status is the real problem, at all. Intact family is a marker, not a causative factor. It's just like the idea that putting feckless irresponsibles into their own house would magically transform them into upstanding middle-class types; again, homeownership ain't a causative factor, it's a damn symptom.
I suspect that what would really work would be seen as eugenics, but I wouldn't term it as such. Classical eugenics focused on external appearances; I would propose focusing on actual displayed behaviors. You're violent? You're criminal? Fine; you don't get to have kids, and I could not possibly care less about what hair color, skin tone, or phrenology goes along with those behaviors.
Don't cull the "unfit", because what is "unfit" is a moving target; today's autistic savant that writes computer software was likely yesteryear's idle wastrel dreamer. I would focus the cull on demonstrated antisocial behaviors; simply sterilize anyone committing random acts of unprovoked violence against others. The problem will fix itself in a couple of generations, as it did with many of the European ethnicities.
If you doubt me about all that, go back and look at the rates of interpersonal violence prevalent during the "good old days", and contemplate how that was changed. It was changed mostly because women stopped accepting that crap and ceased breeding with the men displaying it.
Like it or not, the bad old days had their points. One of them amounted to women doing their "hygienic duty" by not breeding willy-nilly with the ne'erdowell types. Since we're losing that, well... Guess what's coming back?
“We'd be hearing about how the real problem is race-mixing.”
You are reading “the room” incorrectly, TommyT. Not a lot of folks here that support policies that were devised by Democrats. No KKK members or supporters, as people on the right aren’t racists and condemn what Democrats founded. Same goes for the Democrats’ Jim Crow horseschiff.
“ I hypothesize that all this newfound interest in transgenderism is part of the larger, more all-encompassing trend toward transhumanism.”
I think the drive to get us to do all this stuff is not so much about achieving a new state —transgender Jem or trans humanist— that we can adopt, experience, “own.” It’s not being done for our benefit! It’s much more about breaking us down; dislodging our sense of ourselves and our place in the world and our self-confidence, so that we can’t push back against whatever they demand of us.
I’m no scholar of Marxism or totalitarianism but I think they seek to alienate the populace, render its members anxious and unable to organize or even argue against (or even be aware of) the oppression and exploitation of the regime. See also “1984.” Obviously.
Jordan Peterson, in his 12 Rules For Life, believes that the mother should be part of an infant's life in the first several years. For this belief, he has been criticized as being against feminists who want to pop out a baby, put them in day care, and continue with their "careers".
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
Tom T.,
"These people did what you wanted them to do"
The hell they did.
Freeman Hunt: wait until checking the box is not optional.
Achilles: as usual, you leave out the vast majority of children born to unmarried parents. Also that it takes two to procreate.
Anyone else see a pattern here?
Takirks: who precisely is referring to skin color here, besides porojetionists such as you and Tom T?
@Tina Trent;
"Takirks: who precisely is referring to skin color here, besides porojetionists such as you and Tom T?"
There's a missing post that that's a continuation from. I presume it's stuck in moderation, or was found offensive.
To explain where race came in, it's as a continuation of the selfsame spectrum of thought spread out, namely that the same sort of mentality that creates preferential choice for the sainted class of "nursing mothers" continues on out to excuse and justify the behavior of other similar protected-class minorities.
Basically, the argument made was that to say that criminality and "poor social outcomes" being correlated with single-mother homes and absent fathers is to mistake correlation for causation; the real issue isn't the intact home, but the mating choices of those single mothers.
They're not making wise choices; the men they choose to sleep with will never be "good fathers", being as they're demonstrably possessed of the heritable character traits that make them what they are, which is asocial thugs. You can argue the genetics of it, the inferred epigenetic influence of environment or family background, but the raw fact is, these single mothers are choosing the men who are not forming intact families with them, who are asocial criminal-class members, and who will father more criminal-class offspring.
In other words, the association of intact families with positive social contribution is a case where people are mistaking a symptom for a cause. The men these women, of any color, are choosing to mate with, are the problem. You breed for criminality, are you surprised then that criminality overwhelms your culture? You get what you reward; the women in those communities all say they want one thing, then demonstrate rather more preference for the "bad boy" types that leave them high and dry, struggling to survive as single parents.
It's a two-way street.
It's all fuzzy emotional thinking, with no attention paid to consequence or actually impartial "fairness". Nobody looks at the effects of these things, nobody cares. Just hoist your preferred group above everyone else, because they can't possibly ever be held accountable for anything, anywhere, at any time. The poor single mother isn't to be held accountable for her situation; nobody wants to go back to that night she spread her legs for the "bad boy" she picked up in a bar. The sad truth is that that unfit male was never going to be the father to her children; that was a poor choice she made, and the effect gets passed on to the next generation.
But, because we dare not question her short-term prioritization of sexual gratification over the long-term benefit to her offspring, here we are. You want good fathers for your children? Take some time to actually find one. Don't reward the "playa" types with children they'll never stoop to support.
A ripped-from-the-headlines example of poor mate selection in action:
https://nypost.com/2023/02/04/kentucky-woman-is-lovesick-for-idaho-killer-bryan-kohberger/
Ever wonder why so many convicted murderers have these groupies? WTF is going on in the heads of these women?
Friend of mine had a relative inside the prison system, and I once had to run his happy ass up to visit the poor bastard. Waiting and watching for the visit to take place was an enlightening experience when it came to gauging the rationality inherent to an all-too-broad part of the feminine spectrum.
One woman I talked to was visiting her convict boyfriend, who was in prison for nearly beating her to death, and having killed at least one (they never found sufficient proof on the other suspected victims...) of her predecessors. I can't remember ever running into anyone so starry-eyed and obviously "in love".
The really scary thing was how rational she initially presented as. That was almost more frightening than anything else I experienced that day, and I don't think I've ever seen anything else that came near that for sheer visceral horror. It was like running into Timothy Treadwell talking about bears... You just knew it was going to end badly.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा