the problem is how are you going to convince people to believe in a religion which they simply don't believe in? All of the benefits of religion she mentions could potentially be provided by some other belief system, but that would take a long time to establish in the same way that Chistianity was established in European/western societies.

@@ario4795 Well even the people who claim to be christain dont really believe! Nothing good required religion lots of terrible horrific things have only been done because of religion, religion is a negative thing!

not sure why his mother couldn't have taught him to not hit girls. or to not hit anyone?

@@ktwashere5637 The point is,most Fathers demonstrate kindness, co.passion and love towards their nothers. Which in turn shows the little boys to be gentle with girls without anything having to be said.

@ktwashere5637 it's not just about telling words, it's also seeing how the father treats mother as a model of how to behave. School also tells the words but without example/practice/witness, these things often don't register long tem, especially by small kids.

@@joane24 Yes, I know. I have taken many childhood psychology classes in my day.

@@Leo-mr1qz I can imagine since you're a teacher, that was to another commenter.

Mary Eberstadt comes from the perspective of universal being grounded in the divine, the alpha and the omega, beginning and end. And the narcissistic hedonism and western race from love and responsibility for others is hardly a "freedom". Ya got some purging to do. I'd read Mary again. She is coherent.

Sometimes we have to call it what it is. It’s unfortunate. You are overwhelmed by that.

its so true. Women my age (GenX) saw our mothers give up their ambitions for their husbands only to see the husband then abandon the family and be left as the family breadwinner. I would never ever get myself into a position of relying on a man to take care of me.

Both my parents went to university and graduated, and both worked in their chosen field. It didn't stop my mum from having kids, in fact she had us early - she had to prolong her studies for a few years due to raising small children, but she graduated and worked in her profession nevertheless. But it was different times. Even when I was in my early 20-ties, it was still common to finish college with a ring on your finger, or at least shortly after. It's all a matter of attitude, and there's nothing inherently wrong with women's being educated and able to work, in fact it should be so. It doesn't have to prevent having a family, it's really a matter of attitude. I think it's really important, a great social and cultural progression, and something to be protected for women to be able to be educated and have open doors for a career. People forget that the past wasn't always so great as it seems in nostalgic imagination. And we can still have good values along with being educated.

its illegal to say 'white lives matter' in some parts of the UK, **** off paul, lol

Or how about better productive worker

Certainly there are two sides of the coin. If it were all bad, it wouldn't have become so wildly popular. Over time, however, people drifted increasingly away from ever wanting to bear children, from lasting and meaningful relationships, and most recently from the sexually dimorphic human body itself. In doing so they have lost some of what it meant to be human. In theory, perhaps the best of that culture could be preserved consistent with the liberties afforded by the pill, but that is not what is currently happening.

READ YOUR history & herstory dears and dudes

This woman is more tone-deaf than Tyra Banks....Mary, speak with a black lesbian for at least an hour and get back to me.

Most men end up being celibate when monogamy isn’t the societal norm. They simply aren’t attractive enough based on shallow metrics to attract multiple female sexual partners. So most of those men lose out and have little or no sex at all when committed relationships are thrown out as a cultural norm.

@@katiez688 I can see that point for sure. It seems practical. I happen to be someone who believes that the brainwashing of church and the mass media can have serious deleterious effects upon the mind over time, but I see what you are saying. I'm not sure if it is the idea that men aren't attractive enough or whether it is the idea that some just don't meet enough women to build up a working network.

Identity Politics happens across the political spectrum. The only people I don't trust are those who claim identity doesn't or should matter, or can ever be completely separated from politics. Identity is clearly very important to humans (always has been) and so naturally will manifest itself politically.

I can only assume you have a protestant background with the arrational view of faith as believing in blindness without evidence. This is simply the fallout from the Reformation where Luther , much to his surprise, removed ..with the help of German princes.... Christians from Christ in the sacraments he instituted in the church. And Catholicism introduced the genius of western philosophical realism...not blind faith .. into the world as well as natural law which incidentally sits at the foundation of the US Constitution. It is the only radically reasonable and coherent worldview on the planet. And by the way I, as a Catholic am a classic liberal as is Dr Jordan Peterson incidentally, and affirm the rights and responsibilities of rational free willed moral agents. You very much need to read some coherent philosophical foundations or your mind will wander and float disconnected from reason. God, incidentally... IS REASON. Here's a very good book for grasping reality as former atheist Philosopher Ed Feser discovered while trying to show how foolish Christianity was to students. He found out what they had actually argued. He's now a major voice in favor of the way, the truth and the life. Good luck... not that there is any such thing as "luck" as Socrates showed. www.amazon.ca/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525

I don't think you get the salutary role religion plays in society. Think for themselves? Yes, and crucially, no. Yes humans can theoretically think for themselves, but do you think a cohesive society can sustain itself over time on that basis? The conservative argument, with which I agree, is that thinking for oneself places too much of a burden on a population. Societies need customs, traditions, meaning imbued rituals, guideposts, ways of doing things that work and model and are passed down from generation to generation. We do a huge disservice to a generation by removing all of these 'irrational' claims and telling them to 'think for themselves'. Leaving each individual to freely reinvent every wheel that comes along is, I suggest, extremely cruel. The big contribution that religion brings, not just Christian religion, is the the understanding that 'truth' is an objective and transcendent thing, and in that it agrees with the Western enlightenment tradition and scientific enterprise. God or no god, we are part of something larger than ourselves. Identity politics, on the other hand, totally subverts that basic epistemology, and says the only 'truth' is in the subjective assertions of the 'self'. Religion, at least, offers answers to the question of 'who am I' that can place a person in a genuine and shared community, which identity politics cannot. It can only lead to social chaos.

I can only assume that your religious experience or reading only includes protestant sola scriptura sources. Catholics are the ones who introduced reason into the world by appreciating Socrates, Plato Aristotle and natural law reasoning including I might add, sound arguments that demonstrate the existence of God from reason and evidence alone. Those arguments , existing since before Plato have never been refuted although there have been some pretty entertaining failures like Hume's self refuting Fork Rule .. which breaks Hume's self refuting Fork Rule. And you will have no success refuting former atheist materialist professor, philosopher Ed Feser who gives a quick version of the argument I'll post. And it hasn't apparently occurred to you that if there is no transcendent God who literally IS BEING itself, and therefor REASON, then human reasoning has no rational foundation. I've studied the history of western philosophy and the arguments for theism and natural law which were developed in the Catholic universities by your ancestors and which for instance comprise the US foundation for its constitution in natural rights. Your view is very common, typical, but it frankly shows an utter unfamiliarity with even the subject matter, rather like atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell, an atheist fave. He did not even know the first line of the classical proof of the existence of God which is not "Everything has a cause", which leads to the question "So what caused God then", But rather "Everything that comes into existence has a cause." Such ignorance on such a question is unforgivable... like the illiterate Dawkins , Dennett et al, and rather disgusting to behold. In any case, for at least your self respect , you should be able to refute or at least be able to identify something other than fideistic protestant fundamentalism and to be able to engage at the level of reason about the nature of causality. Sorry if I'm a little bruising here, but I find such frank naivete and philosophical ignorance pretty galling and very disrespectful to the greatest minds in human intellectual endeavor , like Aquinas. Your ancestors back then were probably Catholics so .. having free will.. which cannot be coherently denied.. they no doubt are having a little 'chuckle over this and wishing you well. You might well be on the verge of the most amazing intellectual adventure of your entire life and find answers to the very deepest of issues that will resonate deeply with your every best wish and hope. Along with rigorous thought that you didn't even know existed. For a real laugh catch Bertrand Russells world famous BBC debate on the existenc of God with history of philosophy Phd and Jesuit priest , Frederick Coppleston. Note that Russell feels he has to deny the existence of the universe to follow his logic. He later denies causation until something caused him to reconsider... and denied the existence of Bertrand Russell. you can't make this stuff up. So here are some links that can turn the lights on in life and the cosmos and the meaning of meaning. All in robustly argued positions from reason and evidence, not religion. Cheers . Forgive any impatience I manifested here. I find it so boring and tiring. Prof Ed Feser .A proof of the existence of God from reason. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kJuAncyElrOufWw.html Prof. Feser responds to the illiterate new atheists who are even less educated than the old ones. www.amazon.ca/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525 The famous BBC debate... the accents are awkward... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ncqfidp5ytm3eJ8.html

"Identity Politics is inevitable in diverse, Liberal societies" Uh huh, and look what's happening now....instead of achieving an equal society it's created a divided society. "If you want an absence of Identity Politics you need either an absence of diversity or an absence of Liberalism." Why an absence?...what's that's going to achieve?..... absence of society?. You may as well do that to put everyone out of their misery. "Liberals at CIS aren't ready to swallow this bitter pill" Hmmmm....and yet the postmodern lefties can't swallow anything at all because it's offends them.....the truth hurts them too much.

@Nikos Antikythera Realism isn't cynicism. You can't do away with Identity Politics without either removing Liberalism or diversity, neither of which are very likely to happen (although Liberalism is more likely to disappear than diversity). Christianity is dying in Western countries and it isn't coming back. Eberstadt as good as admits this when she concludes her speech by saying ID-Pol won't go away unless the root causes - of which she identifies the decline of religion as a major factor - can be reversed.

The only authentic liberalism , and the one I espouse as simple sanity as does Mary Eberstadt, is precisely the rational free willed natural law understanding she promotes. You don't even get what identity politics is.

I agree. The end result will need to be a very tightly-controlled society (which the digital web easily can accomplish already), and so the liberalism will be going away long before all the various cultures morph or get along.

@GardenMonk Well, you sure told me oh enlightened one. I won't argue with someone who is so far up their ass they miss the point entirely.

Yes humans have always been tribal, and historically speaking there have been many wars that displays that. Regarding your point on radical individualism, I could argue that socialists would also wrongly assumed humans to be radically collective.

@@MrMattias87 _"I could argue that socialists would also wrongly assumed humans to be radically collective."_ And I'd agree. Both Communism and Liberalism are wrong about Human Nature. Conservatives should always aim to carefully balance the needs and interests of the collective with those of the individual, rather than favor one to the detriment of the other.

You're missing the point about "identity" politics. Of course we are tribal as Harvard's Heinrech shows as the west broke from clan tribalism with the Catholic proscribing of cousin marriage and incest. The invented term of "gender" as identity is insanity and anti-human to the core, necessarily imposing tyranny as all perversions must. The western mind is floating on a sea of garbage.