+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10
Results 91 to 93 of 93


  1. #91
    ^^^ (Cont'd)

    #2. "Traditional" Families Are No Better Than Any Other Type Of Family

    As fellow columnist Kathy Benjamin pointed out last week, nuclear families have never been the norm in all of history. Probably because they would've been laughably impractical in olden times, when everything was covered in measles and Pa's gun couldn't reload fast enough to kill all the rampaging packs of werewolves. But there's a reason it caught on, right? Like, it has to be the best way to raise a child, right? We wouldn't pick that structure totally arbitrarily, would we?

    Yes, we kinda did, since studies consistently find that the mama/papa/baby-bear family structure is no better than any other type. In fact, it's "non-traditional" family "styles" that seem to have the best luck: One study found that children of single mothers in multi-generational homes tend to be the best at not drinking and smoking in high school (which is another reason Rand Paul's weird comment about absent fathers is super wrong), while the children of parents in a homosexual relationship tend to get the best grades and have fewer behavior problems -- that is, once you control for financial disparity. Because, once you really start digging, you realize that your parents' income is a bigger indicator of your future success than anyone wants to admit.

    Because even though there's nothing wrong with "non-traditional" family structures, they end up disadvantaged anyway because of all the ways society is trying to screw them. According to a study by the Department Of Housing And Urban Development, nuclear families built around heterosexual relationships are more likely to receive favorable treatment when searching for housing, which is an indicator of the types of struggles that "non-traditional" families face. And people tend to assume that single parents can only fuck up their kids, partly because people on the news keep saying it's true -- even though it's super, super not.

    Basically, we all decided that there was one "good" type of family, and then put up huge roadblocks to sabotage the success of other, "alternative" family structures. Which makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. And speaking of self-fulfilling prophecies ...

    #1. Your Life Is Defined More By Luck Than Hard Work

    You know the American Dream: work hard, dream big, get rewarded. Or, in nerdy terms, you start out as a low-level NPC, but through hard work you keep leveling up your bank account until you reach a limit break and the law no longer applies to you. Every single argument we've talked about in this article is based on the idea that there is something of a level playing field for families. If you're a good parent to your kids and teach them the right shit, then it doesn't matter how much money you make or where you live -- they'll have the tools they need to succeed.

    Ha! Wouldn't that be nice. No, it turns out that who you are is less important to your success than who your parents were: Statistically speaking, a rich kid who drops out of college is likely to end up doing better in life than a poor kid who sticks around long enough (and takes out enough predatory student loans) to graduate. A big study of over 800 kids in Baltimore, from first grade to their late 20s, found pretty much the same thing: Only 33 of the kids -- that's 4 percent -- managed to climb out of their income bracket, or get college degrees. You can work your ass off to raise kids, and you can break your spine trying to be a good and honest person, but in the end, dumb luck decides whether or not you ever claw your way out of the bottom of the poverty pit.

    As for why, I mean, there's all kinds of speculation we can do. Most jobs require extensive networking, and since low-income kids learn different social skills than kids in high-income families, they're probably finding themselves with a huge disadvantage on that front. Then there are unpaid internships, which are considered a career-necessity by rich kids and a hilarious fantasy by 20-year-olds who have to pay for their own gas and cellphone. In fact, you know those "troublemaker" entrepreneurs I mentioned a couple entries ago? They also tended to come from wealthy families.

    Of course, this doesn't mean that hard work doesn't help. I don't know anyone who's doing well in life and hasn't broken their goddamn back, every day, for years. But there are a ton of other folks doing the same goddamn thing and not getting those same opportunities. Luck is just a way bigger part of it than anyone wants to admit. In fact, I think we're so addicted to this meritocracy myth that every lie in this article is just another attempt to hide the fact that the line between rich and poor has a barbwire fence built over it.

  2. #92
    Former Johns Hopkins Chief of Psychiatry DESTROYS ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner

    TPIWriter | 96,571 views

    Dr. Paul R. McHugh, is a brilliant former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital. He has written more than 125 peer-reviewed medical journal articles and has published six scholarly books. When it comes to former Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner’s recent changes, he has things to say which will make liberals furious!

    McHugh reaffirms the obvious – changing the sex of a human is not possible. And, instead of a liberating sexual movement, those who think they are transgender are actually suffering from a life-destroying mental disorder. Wow!

    Take a look at what he has to say…

    While the Obama administration, Hollywood and major media such as Time magazine promote transgenderism as “normal,” said Dr. McHugh, these “policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.”
    “This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality,” McHugh wrote. “The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”

    The transgendered person’s disorder, said Dr. McHugh, is in the person’s “assumption” that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. It is a disorder similar to a “dangerously thin” person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are “overweight,” said McHugh.

    This assumption, that one’s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective “personal truth,” said Dr. McHugh. As a result, some states – California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – have passed laws barring psychiatrists, “even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor,” he said.

    The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings “spontaneously lose those feelings” over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”

    “And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,” said Dr. McHugh.

    The former Johns Hopkins chief of psychiatry also warned against enabling or encouraging certain subgroups of the transgendered, such as young people “susceptible to suggestion from ‘everything is normal’ sex education,” and the schools’ “diversity counselors” who, like “cult leaders,” may “encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery.”

    Dr. McHugh also reported that there are “misguided doctors” who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, will administer “puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous – even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility.”

    Such action comes “close to child abuse,” said Dr. McHugh, given that close to 80% of those kids will “abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated ….”

    via CNS News

    This sort of shocking life change should not be celebrated. We should have great sympathy for people struggling with this illness, as it is quite bizarre to willingly go through such massive surface-level changes.

    Clearly, this doctor’s comments will annoy many liberals and transgender-activists, but it’s the truth.

  3. #93
    I've been polyamorous for almost a decade

    By Laurie Penny October 12, 2017 | 12:56pm | Updated

    Polyamory, if you believe the newspapers, is the hot new lifestyle option for affectless hipsters with alarming haircuts, or a sex cult, or both. A wave of trend articles and documentaries has thrown new light on the practice, also known as "ethical non-monogamy" ? a technical term for any arrangement in which you're allowed to date and snuggle and sleep with whomever you want, as long as everyone involved is happy. Responses to this idea range from parental concern to outright panic. Sleeping around is all well and good, but do we have to talk about it? Have we no shame? What's wrong, after all, with good old-fashioned adultery?

    Having been polyamorous for almost a decade, I spend a good deal of time explaining what it all means. When I told my magazine editor that I wanted to write about polyamory, she adjusted her monocle, puffed on her pipe and said, "In my day, young lady, we just called it shagging around." So I consider it my duty to her and the rest of the unenlightened to explain what it is that's different about how the kids are doing it these days.

    The state of polyamory today

    The short answer is: It's not the sleeping around that's new. There's nothing new about sleeping around. I hear that it's been popular since at least 1963. What's new is talking about it like grownups. It's the conversations. It's the texts with your girlfriend's boyfriend about what to get her for her birthday. It's sharing your Google Calendars to make sure nobody feels neglected.

    The Daily Mail would have you believe that polyamory is all wild orgies full of rainbow-haired hedonists rhythmically thrusting aside common decency and battering sexual continence into submission with suspicious bits of rubber. And there's some truth to that. But far more of my polyamorous life involves making tea and talking sensibly about boundaries, safe sex and whose turn it is to do the washing up.

    Over the past 10 years, I have been a "single poly" with no main partner; I have been in three-person relationships; I have had open relationships and dated people in open marriages. The best parts of those experiences have overwhelmingly been clothed ones.

    'How very millennial'

    There's something profoundly millennial about polyamory, something quintessentially bound up with my fearful, frustrated, over-examined generation, with our swollen sense of consequence, our need to balance instant gratification with the impulse to do good in a world gone mad. We want the sexual adventure and the free love that our parents, at least in theory, got to enjoy, but we also have a greater understanding of what could go wrong. We want fun and freedom, but we also want a good mark on the test. We want to do the right thing.

    All of this makes polyamory sound a bit nerdy, a bit swotty ? and it is. I find myself bewildered when online trend pieces going for titillation clicks present polyamory as gruesomely hip or freakishly fashionable. Polyamory is a great many things, but it is not cool. Talking honestly about feelings will never be cool. Spending time discussing interpersonal boundaries and setting realistic expectations wasn't cool in the 1970s and it isn't cool now. It is, however, necessary.

    There is so little that makes ethical sense in the lives of young and youngish people today. If there is an economic type that is over-represented among the poly people I have encountered, it is members of the precariat: what Paul Mason memorably called the middle-class "graduate with no future." Even the limited social and economic certainties that our parents grew up with are unavailable to us. We are told, especially if we are women, that the answer to loneliness and frustration is to find that one, ideal partner who will fulfill all our emotional, financial, domestic and sexual needs. We are told this even though we know full well that it doesn?t work out for a lot of people. Almost half of all marriages end in divorce.

    Challenging the doctrine of monogamy

    Paradoxically, as the moral grip of religious patriarchy has loosened its hold in the West, the doctrine of monogamous romance has become ever more entrenched. Marriage was once understood as a practical, domestic arrangement that involved a certain amount of self-denial. Now your life partner is also supposed to answer your every intimate and practical need, from orgasms to organizing the school run.

    Polyamory is a response to the understanding that, for a great many of us, that ideal is impractical, if not an active source of unhappiness. People have all sorts of needs at different times in their lives ? for love, companionship, care and intimacy, sexual adventure and self-expression ? and expecting one person to be able to meet them all is not just unrealistic, it?s unreasonable. Women in particular, who often end up doing the bulk of the emotional labor in traditional, monogamous, heterosexual relationships, don?t have the energy to be anyone's everything.

    I don't expect anyone to be everything to me. I want my freedom and I want to be ethical and I also want care and affection and pleasure in my life. I guess I'm greedy. I guess I'm a woman who wants to have it all. It's just that my version of "having it all" is a little different from the picture of marriage, mortgage and monogamy to which I was raised to aspire.

    Not all polyamorous relationships work out ? nor do all conventional relationships. We're making it up as we go along. It would be helpful to be able to do that without also having to deal with prejudice and suspicion.

    It's easy to see where the suspicion comes from. The idea of desire without bounds or limits is threatening. It's a threat to a social order that exerts control by putting fences around our fantasies and making it wicked to want anything unsanctioned. It's a threat to a society that has developed around the idea of mandatory heterosexual partnership as a way to organize households. It's threatening because it's utopian in a culture whose imagination is dystopian because it's about pleasure and abundance in a culture that imposes scarcity and self-denial. Freedom is often frightening ? and polyamory is about balancing freedom with mutual care. In this atomized society, that's still a radical idea.

    Extract taken from "Bitch Doctrine" by Laurie Penny, published by Bloomsbury, out now $24.99.
    Last edited by Joescoundrel; 10-20-2017 at 07:21 AM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Visitor count:
Copyright © 2005 - 2013.