the apex fallacy, by your own logic Barack Obama, Kamala Harris “prove” that American blacks are a privileged group.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Explain what part of the article you are commenting on.

suicide,workplace fatalities,homicide rates,boys trailing behind girls

I don’t know what argument you are trying to make. But if you mean to ask what is causing all that, read the article I linked to that discusses it. You can’t solve those things if you refuse to recognize their real causes and instead attack nonexistent bogeymen.

If you are instead confused about how intersectional privilege works (it is not the black or white fallacy you seem to think it is) or how we verify it exists, see my article on that.

Voting right-wing is destructive of your own interests and thus profoundly irrational. It classifies you as a dupe and a useful idiot. You seem sold on the mythology and delusion that you get to ignore all evidence and declare everything else dogma, when in fact you are the one espousing fallacious dogma, and your insane reasoning has rendered you immune to all the evidence refuting it.

I can’t rescue you from your insanity. You have to get yourself out.

But key to doing that is not only learning critical thinking, but actually applying it, to all your own beliefs first, and to everything evermore.

Here are the starter kits:

A Primer on Actually Doing Your Own Research

A Vital Primer on Media Literacy

How Not to Be an Idiot

And then practice-sets:

How Pseudo-Rationality Grounds Conservative Worldviews

Shaun Skills: How to Learn from Exemplary Cases

An Anatomy of Contemporary Right-Wing Delusions

As for where compassion and open mindedness actually takes you (it’s the opposite direction you’ve gone) see:

That Luck Matters More Than Talent

How Far Left Is Too Left?

How to Do Men’s Rights Rightly

If you disagree then how tf does 1% rich powerful men automatically give 99% of men “privileges”? It doesn’t! I could bring up suicide,workplace fatalities,homicide rates,boys trailing behind girls etc etc

But i have learned early that facts,logic and reason have no effect on dogmatic ideologies ! You dishonest liberal faggots believe what you want to believe! So there’s no point for me to try! All I can do is vote right and hope a 20-30 yr political dominance erodes the liberal dominance over media&education, in my country you libs have been losing power for a decade and counting!!

So yea, welcome to the dustbin of history!! Tradcons are also gynocentric but they are the lesser evil and liberal faggots( pathetic hetero males) prove it time &time again… No dialogue is possible here because to libs your religious dogma is reality. We have a place for ppl disconnected from reality, lunatic asylums! Get help, try to talk to the working poor, depresed teen boys/men, homeless and vets. Maybe you’ll develop something resembling empathy, compassion and tolerance… You know? The things you closeminded hate mongering libs claim to have

I am not sure what you are referring to. Did you read the article you are commenting on?

I have a whole section on this.

And no, it is not biological. It’s totally a cultural construct. I document this extensively across this article and the linked articles within, especially in Part 1 of Barely Thinking Ape which is directly on the toxicity of fake gender-norming.

So I think you need to actually read these articles before commenting on them next time.

I would need a reason to care. There are millions of YouTube videos and thousands of YouTubers talking nonsense about evolutionary biology all the time.

Why should anyone care about this one? Isn’t referring anyone listening to that drivel over to TalkOrigins enough of a response to it?

Unless you mean to hire me to do a direct critique? If paying attention to that guy is worth your money, perhaps it might be worth my time. Sometimes not. But if you ask I’ll look into it and quote you a rate if I think it’s worth addressing.

That’s all a good analysis.

So we actually have people at the time talking about how they wanted precisely this outcome. https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/child-welfarechild-labor/widows-and-waifs/ , https://www.americanyawp.com/text/23-the-great-depression/ and others review it pretty well, I can’t find the quote I had seen before but it was even stated quite directly by policymakers, including conservative policymakers who had accepted the logic. Yes, it was initially targeted at groups like widows etc., but expressly to avoid them having to go into the workforce, exactly as the later welfare reform expressly wanted them to do even if they were single, widowed, etc. This change is both because black people gained access and because women got some independence and so society decided to punish them. The point is that the idea was expressly that it was okay for women to not need to work so they could spend full-time care with their children. And, yes, it’s very good that the programs were expanded (though now they’ve been decimated). The assumption was that the women were never going to be the breadwinners. So brutal capitalism has found a way of being even crueler now that that assumption has changed, which manospherians (and other people who are less of dunces) have confused for it being feminism’s fault.

I bring this up because it goes to show the depths of the perverse cruelty of our present culture. While the idea of the poor becoming dependent and lazy has always been there, we had some ability to overcome it. Today liberals and leftists need to try to argue that Moms will totally go work even if welfare is sufficient and it totally doesn’t breed dependency, but what even that admits to the right is the idea that if it were different it’d be okay to let the poor die and kids suffer . But as awful as the 1930s were, they had greater humanity (for white women) and recognized that, if one outcome of the welfare system was mothers being able to be full-time moms, that would be fine .

Yes, the rationale was always ultimately to help the children primarily, not to give people the ability to experience the joy of parenting, and yes, it was in a sexist context, but I still think it’s important to see the way the rationale changed. People once accepted that it was okay if welfare let some people not have to enter the job market.

They will never once acknowledge that child support is an issue of responsibility to the child. It’s not a feminist issue.

I think this may have something to do with their constant conflation of alimony and child support (which I covered in my article on Stardusk/Thinking Ape). Barbar shows he knows the difference (Ape does not; he just acts like they are the same thing), yet argues as if there isn’t one. Indeed, he doesn’t even distinguish (in practice) alimony from property settlement (e.g. he screenshots an article about Michael Jordan’s $168 million divorce settlement, which was neither alimony nor child support, but a simple dissolution of partnership settlement that would be the same if Jordan split up with a business partner and they had to split the valuation of the business, and the scale of it is peculiar to American aristocracy, not anything average Joes encounter, where the issue is having a roof to live under, not which yacht you get the keys to).

By the by: Welfare systems in the United States were expressly started to allow women to be stay at home moms.

I’m not sure that’s entirely true. The Mother’s Pensions started with widowed mothers (thus, single moms) and then to abandoned women (also single moms, and then to reduce the necessity of women turning their children over to orphanages). They rarely included married women. So they were always targeting single mothers (and more particularly, children). And as such they really were just poverty programs (from the earliest of times the Christian church ran a pension system for widows on the same point, but manosphere Christians don’t believe their religion used to be Marxist).

One might ask why then there were no widower pensions, or children’s pensions for married parents, and the answer is sort of what you say, I think. But that didn’t last long. Within decades of mother’s pensions becoming widespread, the Social Security Administration created programs also serving impoverished and unemployed men, and absorbed the entire mother’s pension system. By at least the 1970s it included single fathers (in fact, “dads, grandparents, foster parents, and anyone raising kids under five can receive apply for support for the kids in their care”). The only funds exclusive to women were for pregnancy and nursing, which of course, only women do (if you adopt the manosphere rejection of transmen as men).

By the way, I am stealing “The Thanos Effect”. That’s such a good, succinct example of how miserable folks like that are. And Thanos, hilariously, has a level of emotional intelligence and cognitive brilliance most of them won’t have, and he still wasn’t happy because his massive character faults never let him actually do it.