Taking the Red Pill- the importance of being aware of your own best interest

[[be...]]

FG:

 

I have to step in with my personal experience. My dad (a doctor) cheated on my mom with one women (he eventually married her and cut us out of his will over nothing but being cruel, drunk and mean spirited) and abused us kids when he got drunk. So mom kicked him out of the house and got the big D. All four kids went to college and even I got my MA and all of us are nice people (except for bro John, but that's another story) and will all have/had high paying jobs and are filled with religion (it works for me!), love, compassion and tolerance. So what did my mom do as a single mother that was bad? Was she bad for society's sake? BTW, I never met a person who did not like my mother. She is kind beyond belief. So she was a single educated woman and paid for college except for me, as I got a full scholarship. So, not one size fits all. I think making a blanket statement about single mothers is simply wrong! If we lived with my father, it would have been bad all around. He would never pay for college and would continue to abuse us. We were all terrified of him. He died still drinking. I think that's what killed him, but I only care that he is dead. That made my day. So living with a single dad is better?

 

Betsy

[Guest [mu...]]

If you were truly interested in finding the truth you would make an attempt to present a counterargument instead of getting upset and threatening to leave. I like to hear opposing views but if all you can say is that you reject all instances of injustice with a passion and you have no information to back up your ideology that just leads me to believe that you only wish to form opinions based on emotion without any regard for the facts. How do you think that is going to help solve any problems?

 

I didn't leave this thread because I'm afraid of the truth, I left because it's pointless to discuss "truth" when we can't even define what that means. You have defined truth only as that which is statistical, emotionless, and "uncomfortable." Any arguments in favor of truths gleaned from direct human experience are automatically rejected and labeled as "blue pill." How can I argue with that, especially when any attempts to do so are cast off as emotional and therefore invalid? I'm not stifling any truths, because I have yet to see any presented.

 

It's worth mentioning here that all of the world's great spiritual lineages and teachers would consider what most of us call "truth" and "reality" to be the profound illusions, and that the only "red pill" in human existence is that of enlightened non-dual awareness (which may indeed be the most uncomfortable truth of all, at least from the perspective of the ego!) Of course, this can't be proven with any scientific process or youtube videos, but only through direct lived experience. So, what then? Do we throw out these truths? Demand statistics? While we're at it, where is the evidence that protracted benzo withdrawal is true? We'd better be prepared to really prove it with tons of stats to back up our claims! Anecdotes don't count! Emotions and lived experience don't count! Correlation is not causation! Do you see the problem here?

 

You're playing a game that you've made up, FloridaGuy, and while you've invited us to play too, you haven't accepted the fact that some of us disagree with your rules. Emotional responses and direct experience are not always blue pills, and statistics and logic are not always red pills. Some red pill truths go down bitter, but others go down easy, and make our hearts swell with the beauty and wisdom they contain. If you cannot acknowledge this, then I'm afraid I find your game too boring and limited to be worth playing.

 

I'll part (hopefully for the last time!) with these words from Robert Rabbin: “Here it is, my opinion: existence, creation, the cosmos, whatever the hell you want to call this incomprehensible mystery in which we live and of which we are a part, this thing is so huge, so vast, so complex and multi-dimensional that no one, no one, not even the latest guru du jour, not any scientist, saint, or sage, not any writer or artist, not any one who ever lived at any time in any place — no one knows nor can say the whole truth of the whole thing. They can only say, Hey, I’ve got my hand on one cell of this enormo-gigan-tic beast of being and it feels like such and so.”

 

P.S. "Modern feminism" is not one thing, LOL. There are many, many different schools of feminist thought, including stay-at-home mom movements. Molyneux is selling you some very biased and reductionistic ideas of his own, and I'd ask you to follow your own advice when listening to him: "you MUST be critical of just about everything because other people don't always have your best interests in mind, even if they claim that they do."

[[Fl...]]

FG,

Civil would be acknowledging that as civilized human beings men hold equal responsibility in this equation... So if they are absent and it is not for a good reason (such as being deceased) we probably need to be addressing that side of things at the same time.

 

Don't be obtuse. No one mentioned men shouldn't share responsibility. Speaking critical of the choices that some women make is not being critical of all women and has nothing to do with absolving men of responsibility. Again, if you have a complaint about deadbeat dads as it pertains to this discussion, please share. But if all you are going to do is throw up smokescreens to avoid addressing the topic we are discussing I will assume that you have no valid counterargument and you have no real desire for truth, which is the topic of this thread.

 

 

[[az...]]

Me, obtuse ?

 

 

I think you'll need to hold up a mirror in front of your own face for a summation of that definition-

 

Now face it toward yourself and look into it...

 

There you go.

[[Fl...]]

" ... statistics tell us that women in general were happier back when most of them concentrated on raising a family."

 

What statistics are those FG, could you please share your source?

 

Sure- http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

 

Keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, but it is interesting that women report being less happy over the past 30 or 40 years, which is the same period of time when they have moved away from the home and out into the workplace.

 

I don't mean to veer off topic and cloud this lively discussion in any way but that statement kind of popped out at me because I remember some of the magazine ads from the 60s and 70s for benzos and they were specifically geared towards women and often portrayed them as "the harried housewife."

 

I don't know the exact stats but that's about the time when we started seeing a big shift with women moving into the workplace. I would imagine if they were to market benzos to women today they would be marketed a lot differently.

 

Can you tell me if he has children? Just curious.

 

Chinook

 

I believe he has one daughter.

 

So what did my mom do as a single mother that was bad? Was she bad for society's sake? BTW, I never met a person who did not like my mother. She is kind beyond belief. So she was a single educated woman and paid for college except for me, as I got a full scholarship. So, not one size fits all. I think making a blanket statement about single mothers is simply wrong! If we lived with my father, it would have been bad all around. He would never pay for college and would continue to abuse us. We were all terrified of him. He died still drinking. I think that's what killed him, but I only care that he is dead. That made my day. So living with a single dad is better?

 

Betsy

 

Again, if you are an exception to the rule that is great and if there were more of these we wouldn't have to have these kinds of discussions. If your mother was able to raise a well adjusted family despite that she should be commended. But unfortunately the stats say that children from single mother households are more likely to become incarcerated, less likely to graduate high school and college, more likely to live in poverty,  and these are just a few of the negative consequences.

 

Should we as a society take a positive view of single motherhood because a few good women managed to beat the odds, or should we look at this with a critical eye and try to make people accountable for their decisions to possibly help reverse this trend?

 

 

[[Fl...]]

I didn't leave this thread because I'm afraid of the truth, I left because it's pointless to discuss "truth" when we can't even define what that means. You have defined truth only as that which is statistical, emotionless, and "uncomfortable." Any arguments in favor of truths gleaned from direct human experience are automatically rejected and labeled as "blue pill." How can I argue with that, especially when any attempts to do so are cast off as emotional and therefore invalid? I'm not stifling any truths, because I have yet to see any presented.

 

When we don't know the truth or if there is some debate over it we have to test it by studying the subject and creating statistics that give us a better idea of what we are looking at. Does it account for every single detail? No, but it does give us an idea of whether or not we are looking in the right direction.

 

It's worth mentioning here that all of the world's great spiritual lineages and teachers would consider what most of us call "truth" and "reality" to be the profound illusions, and that the only "red pill" in human existence is that of enlightened non-dual awareness (which may indeed be the most uncomfortable truth of all, at least from the perspective of the ego!) Of course, this can't be proven with any scientific process or youtube videos, but only through direct lived experience. So, what then? Do we throw out these truths? Demand statistics? While we're at it, where is the evidence that protracted benzo withdrawal is true? We'd better be prepared to really prove it with tons of stats to back up our claims! Anecdotes don't count! Emotions and lived experience don't count! Correlation is not causation! Do you see the problem here?

 

I see the point you are trying to make but I still think you are missing mine. I'm not arguing that everything is absolute or that anecdotal evidence has no place. Protracted withdrawal is a bad example because it has not been properly studied. So ALL we have to go on is our own experiences.

 

In the case of the single motherhood, there is tons of data that points to it being harmful to children and society. In a case like this what should we rely on to formulate an opinion? Data that strongly suggests that there is a problem that could be corrected, or an emotional plea that tries to convince us that we should look the other way?

 

You're playing a game that you've made up, FloridaGuy, and while you've invited us to play too, you haven't accepted the fact that some of us disagree with your rules. Emotional responses and direct experience are not always blue pills, and statistics and logic are not always red pills. Some red pill truths go down bitter, but others go down easy, and make our hearts swell with the beauty and wisdom they contain. If you cannot acknowledge this, then I'm afraid I find your game too boring and limited to be worth playing.

 

I agree with this. What I don't agree with is the fact that you simply refuse to acknowledge statistics and logic if it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

P.S. "Modern feminism" is not one thing, LOL. There are many, many different schools of feminist thought, including stay-at-home mom movements. Molyneux is selling you some very biased and reductionistic ideas of his own, and I'd ask you to follow your own advice when listening to him: "you MUST be critical of just about everything because other people don't always have your best interests in mind, even if they claim that they do."

 

I agree, but if you study feminism you can see how it has evolved in a certain direction over the years and (in general) it is pretty far removed from where it started. Lots of women are even starting to realize that the ideas that are promoted by the movement today do not necessarily have their best interests in mind.

[[Fl...]]

Me, obtuse ?

 

 

I think you'll need to hold up a mirror in front of your own face for a summation of that definition-

 

Now face it toward yourself and look into it...

 

There you go.

 

That's a school playground rebuttal.

 

I would love to hear a good counterargument to any of my points that you disagree with, but these blue pill debate tactics are getting old. If you have an argument stop attacking the message, stop attacking me and show me where I am wrong.

 

I like to change my opinions as I gather new information. mutuuraia and abdc have brought up some interesting points to ponder. I hope you will do the same.

[Guest [mu...]]

Arrrrrgggg, how do I keep getting sucked back into this thread?

 

What I don't agree with is the fact that you simply refuse to acknowledge statistics and logic if it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

I don't refuse to acknowledge them, but I do have a healthy skepticism and critical mind when it comes to interpreting them. Life is very complicated, and statistics and logic are limited instruments.

 

Let's take your statements about single motherhood, for example. First, we'd have to look at the actual studies so that we can determine whether or not all variables (such health, education, economic status, presence of siblings, physical location, age of the mother, age of the children when the father left, etc) are taken into account. Do these statistics hold true for single mothers who have help from others (friends, family, social programs, schools, etc)? Do these statistics hold true for those who are wealthy or well-educated? Do these statistics hold true in other countries, or is this mainly a problem for single mothers in the U.S., and if so, why? What about two-mom households? Single father households? Divorced households? What about the single moms who raise awesome, well-adjusted kids, such as those discussed on this thread? Do we have any studies about what some moms are doing <i>right</i>, or are we only interested in what other moms are doing wrong?

 

Let's say we're sure (hypothetically speaking) that single motherhood is terrible for everyone: how would you reverse this trend, exactly? By shaming and vilifying? By forced abortion? By cutting off all social services? Do you really think cutting off welfare will help prevent pregnancies any more than cutting off disability payments would prevent illness? Shit happens, and life is complicated. Isn't the true measure of any society to be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members? Could we perhaps looks beyond statistics (gasp!) and treat each mother as a unique individual in a unique situation (double gasp!) and maybe find out what she might need help with?

 

Keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, but it is interesting that women report being less happy over the past 30 or 40 years, which is the same period of time when they have moved away from the home and out into the workplace.

 

I think you can apply your own critical thinking skills to this one, FG. A lot has changed in the past 30-40 years beyond "women in the workplace."

 

If you study feminism you can see how it has evolved in a certain direction over the years and (in general) it is pretty far removed from where it started. Lots of women are even starting to realize that the ideas that are promoted by the movement today do not necessarily have their best interests in mind.

 

I have studied feminism. It is far from being a single movement. Would you care to provide a list of the feminists you have read and studied so that I can see where you're coming from, and perhaps suggest alternative sources?

[[az...]]

Me, obtuse ?

 

 

I think you'll need to hold up a mirror in front of your own face for a summation of that definition-

 

Now face it toward yourself and look into it...

 

There you go.

 

That's a school playground rebuttal.

 

I would love to hear a good counterargument to any of my points that you disagree with, but these blue pill debate tactics are getting old. If you have an argument stop attacking the message, stop attacking me and show me where I am wrong.

 

I like to change my opinions as I gather new information. mutuuraia and abdc have brought up some interesting points to ponder. I hope you will do the same.

 

I'm not well; I'm in the middle of a R/T. Figure it out for yourself.

[[be...]]

 

 

So what did my mom do as a single mother that was bad? Was she bad for society's sake? BTW, I never met a person who did not like my mother. She is kind beyond belief. So she was a single educated woman and paid for college except for me, as I got a full scholarship. So, not one size fits all. I think making a blanket statement about single mothers is simply wrong! If we lived with my father, it would have been bad all around. He would never pay for college and would continue to abuse us. We were all terrified of him. He died still drinking. I think that's what killed him, but I only care that he is dead. That made my day. So living with a single dad is better?

 

Betsy

 

Again, if you are an exception to the rule that is great and if there were more of these we wouldn't have to have these kinds of discussions. If your mother was able to raise a well adjusted family despite that she should be commended. But unfortunately the stats say that children from single mother households are more likely to become incarcerated, less likely to graduate high school and college, more likely to live in poverty,  and these are just a few of the negative consequences.

 

Should we as a society take a positive view of single motherhood because a few good women managed to beat the odds, or should we look at this with a critical eye and try to make people accountable for their decisions to possibly help reverse this trend?

 

FG:

 

I take your point well, as that is why in my state our taxes are so high. Also federal ones. But it is a merry-go-round that never ends. Single mom sometimes mean single daughters and single granddaughters. All with kids. Our local and only poor city has a very high HS drop out rate and in this case, maybe only this case, the kids have multiple fathers and the more kids they have, the more money they can get from the gov. That means our tax paying money. I avoid that city because there are too many gangs and drug dealers. So point well taken, but not in my mom's case. She worked very hard to get a nice career. Now I am waiting for some bashing.  At least you won't be alone.

 

Betsy

[[...]]

FG:

 

I take your point well, as that is why in my state our taxes are so high. Also federal ones. But it is a merry-go-round that never ends. Single mom sometimes mean single daughters and single granddaughters. All with kids. Our local and only poor city has a very high HS drop out rate and in this case, maybe only this case, the kids have multiple fathers and the more kids they have, the more money they can get from the gov. That means our tax paying money. I avoid that city because there are too many gangs and drug dealers. So point well taken, but not in my mom's case. She worked very hard to get a nice career. Now I am waiting for some bashing.  At least you won't be alone.

 

Betsy

 

Noone's going to bash you, Betsy, you're just stating a piece of the pie.

[[...]]

Arrrrrgggg, how do I keep getting sucked back into this thread?

 

 

But I'm soooo glad you do! 

 

Man, I'll say it again, what mad writing skills you have, Mutuuraia, what a gift!  Thank you for putting into words so many of my thoughts - and more eloquently and *much* faster than I ever could!  Much respect! 

 

So now that you've made it so easy for me, I'll cherry pick the points that I hope FG will address and he can kill two birds with one stone.

 

 

 

What I don't agree with is the fact that you simply refuse to acknowledge statistics and logic if it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

I don't refuse to acknowledge them, but I do have a healthy skepticism and critical mind when it comes to interpreting them. Life is very complicated, and statistics and logic are limited instruments.

 

 

Most studies and statistics, from my standpoint, are nothing more than ugly, big blue pills dipped in red paint.  As I mentioned earlier, mainly garbage in, garbage out.  They hold very little water with me.  Here, as backup to my reasoning.  I'd encourage everyone to have a listen to them when you have some time.  Very easy to listen to and extremely eye-opening.  Red pill.

 

This one is on nutritional studies:

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=149076.msg2003185#msg2003185

 

And this one is an excellent lecture on how to read a medical study:

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=159671.msg2134159#msg2134159

 

FG, we're typically in total agreement with this type of thing but not this time.  This time you seem to be applying so much red pill weight to these so-called stats and basing your whole argument on them.  Stats which are provided by Stefan Molyneux!!!  Graph after graph after graph of them (one hour's worth) without him even citing any sources.  Is that alone not a big red flag (note, I said flag, not "pill", lol).

 

I'll repeat here that I'm not necessarily suggesting that every single thing he claims is an untruth (exactly what Mutuuraia says).  Yet you seem to be gobbling it all up without batting an eyelid.  See your comment above in blue

 

 

 

 

Let's say we're sure (hypothetically speaking) that single motherhood is terrible for everyone: how would you reverse this trend, exactly?

 

Yes, do tell!  Meaning, what exactly is your beef?!

Molyneux, remember, proposes that women just wise up as to whom they decide to make the father of their children.  And then everyone will stay married and all will be hunky dory.  That's it.  That's exactly what he says.

 

 

 

 

[[...]]

I'll part (hopefully for the last time!) with these words from Robert Rabbin: “Here it is, my opinion: existence, creation, the cosmos, whatever the hell you want to call this incomprehensible mystery in which we live and of which we are a part, this thing is so huge, so vast, so complex and multi-dimensional that no one, no one, not even the latest guru du jour, not any scientist, saint, or sage, not any writer or artist, not any one who ever lived at any time in any place — no one knows nor can say the whole truth of the whole thing. They can only say, Hey, I’ve got my hand on one cell of this enormo-gigan-tic beast of being and it feels like such and so.”

 

Excellent, excellent! 

Thanks for sharing.

[[Fl...]]

Some good points here. I'm out right now but I look forward to a addressing them when I get time.

[Guest [mu...]]

Awww, thanks ABCD! I really do have to bow out from this thread though... I'm supposed to be using what precious and limited "brain time" I have to be editing my husband's book this week - not debating on BB! Someday I hope to have the cognitive capacities and energy for more activities again, but honestly, I'm really impressed that I've been able to debate this much. I have definitely healed a lot.

 

One final point before I go: I looked into the statistics about single mothers producing offspring with less money, less education, and higher rates of incarceration. What's important to realize is that the women who are most likely to become single mothers are overwhelmingly uneducated and poor to begin with. It is well known that those who have uneducated and poor parents are more likely to be poor and uneducated themselves as they become adults. So, what is the "truth" of the matter here? Should we really place all the burden and blame on single mothers for what is clearly a complex socio-political issue? Instead of cutting back on social services and criticizing single mothers, shouldn't we instead be focusing on issues of economic inequality and equal opportunities for education? The truth is rarely as simple as some would have you believe.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brycecovert/2012/07/16/the-rise-and-downfall-of-single-mothers/#2bdff9af7df8

 

OK, take care everybody....

 

 

[Guest [mu...]]

FloridaGuy: You should check out Camille Paglia's writing on feminism. She's very edgy and critical of feminism (yet is still very much a feminist), speaks many uncomfortable truths, and is concerned with men's rights issues and male perspectives. I think you'll like her. Personally, I'm holding out for a "unique person movement," in which we abandon these dichotomies and start to view each human as a unique entity having a unique experience. My sense is that we'll get there someday, but of course, I've got no statistics to back that up. Take care.

 

 

[[co...]]

I love Camille Paglia! She's able to say things about feminism that a man would get shredded for. Lots of good stuff here, wish I had time to join in more. I'm glad you're back, m. You should stay as it seems everyone has gotten past any anger and frustration and making good points. Who knows, I bet we can find some agreement if we can bend just a little. Maybe just pick one topic and see where it goes? That was the point of my question earlier, just trying to stir the pot and see what falls out.

[[Be...]]

Why is it "the woman's right to choose" if she decides to terminate a pregnancy but a man's responsibility to support the baby if she decides not to abort it? The man gets no say so in either situation. Isn't this a double standard? To becksblue, I work in the construction industry and men are BRUTAL to each other, to the point where I have broken up several fistfights.  They will savage a weak male boss in a heartbeat! They're not treating women differently, that's how they treat perceived weakness. Also, they are no doubt very frustrated because although they can settle a dispute with physical aggression with a male coworker, they know there is no way in heck they could with a female, as most men are taught not to hit a woman. Believe me, abusers of women are held as the lowest of low by most men. Men with women coworkers and bosses must walk on eggshells and try to go against thousands of years of natural selection and instinct.

 

I worked with a very kind and non-aggressive male boss at my last job and other aggressive men (and malish women) used to talk about him behind his back.  It made me so sick.  I don't think I understand men?  Please explain to me what the bold sentences mean?  Perceived weakness?  Why would men want to attack weak people and women?  Walking on eggshells with women?  Natural selection and instinct?  I do know that most men do fight, but why?  Why can't men be more cooperative with each other?  Women tend to be more cooperative with each other.  More productive and good work occurs when people listen to each other and their ideas?  It seems that men don't like to listen to other men's ideas or women's?  It's counterproductive.  I worked in construction as a woman and every day was pure hell, which is why I needed to be on the benzo's.  Men, and the tough aggressive women, were brutal to me.  I've heard men say, if women want to be in the workplace then they have to compete or something like that.  In other words, if I work in a man's industry, then I have to be like them.  Also, took the red pill years ago and woke up to the truth and realized that men use women for sex all the time.  I used to think men who were sexually attracted to me were interested in me as a person when I was younger, when all they wanted was to have sex with me.  No one taught me when I was young in my teens that men use women for sex all the time.  Very hurtful when I wanted to get to know a guy and all he wanted was to have sex with me and then kick me to the curb.   

[[Fl...]]

I don't refuse to acknowledge them, but I do have a healthy skepticism and critical mind when it comes to interpreting them. Life is very complicated, and statistics and logic are limited instruments.

 

I agree, you have to consider the source. But it doesn't seem like you want to even consider the idea, let alone the sources of the information that was used to arrive at that conclusion.

 

You keep bringing up the idea that life is complicated, the arguments I make are reductionistic, you want emotions to be considered, you can't stand inequality, etc but none of this addresses the point.

 

Let's take your statements about single motherhood, for example. First, we'd have to look at the actual studies so that we can determine whether or not all variables (such health, education, economic status, presence of siblings, physical location, age of the mother, age of the children when the father left, etc) are taken into account. Do these statistics hold true for single mothers who have help from others (friends, family, social programs, schools, etc)? Do these statistics hold true for those who are wealthy or well-educated? Do these statistics hold true in other countries, or is this mainly a problem for single mothers in the U.S., and if so, why? What about two-mom households? Single father households? Divorced households?

 

Here are the sources for the stats from the video I posted awhile back. There are hundreds if not thousands of pages of data and I don't have time to read it all but these are the sources he used to support his opinion, and most of them appear to be government statistics.

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44011-youtube-the-truth-about-single-moms/

 

What about the single moms who raise awesome, well-adjusted kids, such as those discussed on this thread? Do we have any studies about what some moms are doing <i>right</i>, or are we only interested in what other moms are doing wrong?

 

For the purposes of this discussion we are interested in the individual and societal problems that arise from single mother families, and more importantly the extreme visceral reaction and rejection of ideas that the topic invokes that I am arguing is a result of blue pill thinking.

 

Let's say we're sure (hypothetically speaking) that single motherhood is terrible for everyone: how would you reverse this trend, exactly? By shaming and vilifying? By forced abortion? By cutting off all social services?

 

That's a good question.

 

To be clear though no one said it is terrible for everyone. The stats show that children and mothers do not fare as well in single mother households and society ends up having to pick up some of the tab in a lot of cases but as you can see it isn't a 100% predictor of poor outcomes so there are plenty of exceptions. That still does not negate the point however.

 

In my opinion the first step to solving this problem is to look at the problem with a critical eye. As it stands you can't even suggest the idea that we should be critical of single mothers in certain company for fear of being berated and chastised and that isn't very conducive to identifying and solving problems.

 

Do you really think cutting off welfare will help prevent pregnancies any more than cutting off disability payments would prevent illness?

 

That's a very poor example. Pregnancy is 100% preventable, and many illnesses are not. That is why women bear a lot of responsibility in this because they have the power to choose to use contraception and to avoid having sex with the wrong kinds of men. OF COURSE THIS DOES NOT ABSOLVE MEN OF RESPONSIBILITY! But women are the ones who have to bear the brunt of the consequences if something goes wrong and as such they are the first line of defense.

 

Shit happens, and life is complicated. Isn't the true measure of any society to be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members? Could we perhaps looks beyond statistics (gasp!) and treat each mother as a unique individual in a unique situation (double gasp!) and maybe find out what she might need help with?

 

Maybe the solution lies in approaching the problem from multiple angles. I think the first thing that needs to be done is to hold women accountable, which society does not currently do. I don't believe that more government welfare is the answer (that money will eventually run out) but I am sure that private charities could play a role in addressing the problem from the other end. 

 

I think you can apply your own critical thinking skills to this one, FG. A lot has changed in the past 30-40 years beyond "women in the workplace."

 

It has, but the fact remains that women's self reported happiness has been steadily decreasing during the same period of time when women were supposedly getting more of what they said they wanted. It isn't a smoking gun to indict any one thing but it should be enough for women to start questioning whether the things that they wanted were really beneficial to them.

 

I have studied feminism. It is far from being a single movement. Would you care to provide a list of the feminists you have read and studied so that I can see where you're coming from, and perhaps suggest alternative sources?

 

I have not studied specific feminists but I have been around these discussions enough to know that you are correct in saying that there is no single feminist movement. There has however been a trend toward radical feminism in recent years. That brand of feminism is more about supremacy than equality and isn't good for anyone involved.

 

Now I am waiting for some bashing.  At least you won't be alone.

 

Betsy

 

That's the problem. You should not be criticized for having an unpolular opinion. Sadly that is one of the ways that blue pill folks keep their stranglehold on truth.

 

Most studies and statistics, from my standpoint, are nothing more than ugly, big blue pills dipped in red paint.  As I mentioned earlier, mainly garbage in, garbage out.  They hold very little water with me.  Here, as backup to my reasoning.  I'd encourage everyone to have a listen to them when you have some time.  Very easy to listen to and extremely eye-opening.  Red pill.

 

You have to be extra critical of sources when there is money involved. I think we all learned that lesson the hard way with this benzo debacle. But if all studies and statistics are garbage, how do you suggest we go about forming opinions on important subjects?

 

FG, we're typically in total agreement with this type of thing but not this time.  This time you seem to be applying so much red pill weight to these so-called stats and basing your whole argument on them.  Stats which are provided by Stefan Molyneux!!!  Graph after graph after graph of them (one hour's worth) without him even citing any sources.  Is that alone not a big red flag (note, I said flag, not "pill", lol).

 

The sources are cited in the text below the video- https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44011-youtube-the-truth-about-single-moms/

 

I'll repeat here that I'm not necessarily suggesting that every single thing he claims is an untruth (exactly what Mutuuraia says).  Yet you seem to be gobbling it all up without batting an eyelid.  See your comment above in blue

 

Not at all. I don't agree with everything he says.

 

Yes, do tell!  Meaning, what exactly is your beef?!

Molyneux, remember, proposes that women just wise up as to whom they decide to make the father of their children.  And then everyone will stay married and all will be hunky dory.  That's it.  That's exactly what he says.

 

See my reply to mutuuraia above.

[[Fl...]]

Becks- I have lots of thoughts on your post but I have to break from the forum for tonight.

 

I will try to reply in detail tomorrow but I wanted to say that it mainly boils down to the masculine/feminine polarity I mentioned earlier.It's easy to write off masculinity as being violent and uncooperative but I can assure you that it all serves a purpose. Everything we do has a reason and most of it boils down to reproductive strategies and the acquisition of resources to ensure survival.

[[Be...]]

I'll be interested in reading your replies, FG, or any other male who can wake me up about the masculine/feminine.  I'm older and still clueless about men and why they do and say the things they do.  I truly don't understand them.  I've never been married.  I have two male friends I've known for over 25 years and still don't understand them or how they think or why they say the things they do and both have rather short tempers.  I wonder if men are just as "lost" about women and how they think and feel?  Why are we so different?  Does it contribute to the high divorce rate?  Men and women are so different.  I still can't wake up to the truth about men.

[[be...]]

I'll be interested in reading your replies, FG, or any other male who can wake me up about the masculine/feminine.  I'm older and still clueless about men and why they do and say the things they do.  I truly don't understand them.  I've never been married.  I have two male friends I've known for over 25 years and still don't understand them or how they think or why they say the things they do and both have rather short tempers.  I wonder if men are just as "lost" about women and how they think and feel?  Why are we so different?  Does it contribute to the high divorce rate?  Men and women are so different. I still can't wake up to the truth about men.

 

Me too. I still don't "get" men. I think both sexes have a different gene pool. I prefer ours.

[[co...]]

Mutuuraia, I can't speak for all men and you know how generalizations go, but I'll try. Take away all of modern civilization and who winds up ruling? The physically strongest, regardless of their character. The mentally strong will not rule but will wind up second in command. Rarely will the physically strongest also be the mentally strongest, but this is the only time when real change can occur. Whether or not you believe in evolution (I don't), natural selection is a very real process. There is a competition to spread genes, and the weak will lose. The mentally strong will realize this first and begin to create weapons to equalize things. Because you are a woman your competitive instinct is not as strong. Although women compete to a degree, they are not forced by nature to compete to the level men are because ANY woman can get a man to spread her genes but any man cannot. Ask yourself why 99.9% percent of rapes are men raping women. Just as a quick example, women call it "Getting hit on" men call it "Getting lucky". This is all I have time for now, I have a million things to do but I'll be back, I promise.

[[co...]]

Whoops, I'm sorry. My comments should be addressed to Becksblue.

[Guest [mu...]]

I agree, you have to consider the source. But it doesn't seem like you want to even consider the idea, let alone the sources of the information that was used to arrive at that conclusion.

 

You keep bringing up the idea that life is complicated, the arguments I make are reductionistic, you want emotions to be considered, you can't stand inequality, etc but none of this addresses the point.

 

I thought the point was arriving at truth and correct action?

 

I do not disagree with the conclusions that children raised by single mothers are more likely to be incarcerated, poor, and uneducated. I also don't think this idea (or talking about it) is as shocking or taboo as you seem to imply that it is. What I do disagree with is the idea that these statistics represent the whole story, and that we can draw any solid "truth" from them. We have to ask ourselves more questions first, such as those I pointed out yesterday. For example: what women are most likely to become single mothers in the first place, and why? Apparently, 92% of all single mothers (of any race) have no college degree, and are also more likely to be living in poverty. We also know that those who are raised in impoverished and uneducated households are substantially more likely to be impoverished, uneducated, and incarcerated as adults, regardless of whether or not there was one or two parents present while they were growing up. The next question we must ask ourselves therefore, is this: is being raised by a single mother truly the main issue when all variables are considered, or could economic inequality and lack of education be the more pressing problems here? Should we be focusing all of our attention on preventing pregnancies (a strategy that has never yielded good results in this culture), or should we instead work to lift our most vulnerable members in society out of poverty and into higher education, therefore breaking the cycle?

 

Can you see how complex this is, and why we can't reduce a single set of data points to "truth"? What else could be at play here? We need to think critically and go deeper. What is it like for women (and men) to grow up knowing they are unlikely to ever escape poverty? What is it like for them to grow up with unequal opportunities for advancement and a lack of quality education? What are their emotional states, their fears, vulnerabilities, hopes and dreams? Do they have money for birth control or access to free condoms? Do men refuse to wear a condom? Do women feel comfortable saying "no" to unprotected sex? Do they want a child? If so, why? Do these women have access to options such as abortion or adoption, and do they feel secure (physically or morally) in pursuing those options? If you're concerned with truth and real-world action, ALL of these aspects (social, political, economic, cultural, emotional, physical, spiritual, etc) must be considered. Statistics can be manipulated to prove anything. Click-bait videos and relying on statistics alone can only ever give us a piece of the puzzle, never the complete picture, and never the whole "truth." Are statistics important to consider? They can be, absolutely. Are they the whole story? No. Is Stefan Molyneux's video the whole story? Nope, not even close.

 

Well, I believe I've wasted enough time and overtaxed my poor brain enough on this thread, LOL. Quit sucking me back in, people!

 

Also for your consideration, is this. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/05/meet-the-cult-leader-stumping-for-donald-trump.html Please be sure to follow through on investigating the websites mentioned here as well.

 

Good luck.