Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan: “Politicians are using trans rights as a bartering ram for something else”.

queenofknives, it's not a concept that I outright propose either but more an answer to the question of how a high level of socioeconomic involvement in the costs of parenting might work out if that system were to 'place worth' in child rearing. If it were to be mandatory, it would be positively dystopian and I'd begin packing immediately (though I imagine that, under the wider system that would implement this, I might find a large wall with an unfriendly guard waiting at the border). I agree that it could and likely would face serious issues. Just as a point of note: I wasn't proposing any specific targets for children (e.g. academic scores) but rather evidence that plenty of opportunities for development were afforded to every child supported by this system.

My personal view on the costs associated with being a parent is that, as long as the causes of reproduction and birth control (including abortion) are available, it's a choice. I don't believe society should leave a parent completely to fend for themselves (e.g. denying free at the point of provision education or additional supplements in welfare payments) but the day-to-day raising of a child is both the right and the responsibility of parents for as long as they wish to continue raising that child. I don't believe wages for housework are a good idea because every household has to maintain their home. Why shouldn't I, for example, receive compensation when compared to a childless couple since I have to do 100% of my housework? I realise this view may be rather controversial on Mumsnet.

Note: by 'costs', I mean everything from financial outlay to personal time.

But when they say critical thinking, they don't mean things like logical fallacies or poor argumentation. What they mean is that they teach the students to understand everything they learn through a critical theory lens. It's explicit in our provincial social studies programs for example, though I expect most of the teachers are unaware - before they teach narrative history, they teach it thematically, and the themes are things like "culture", or "empowerment".

what if parenting were turned into a profession?

Gronky I have to admit I instinctively recoil from this idea. My first thought is, okay, well then what happens when Stonewall captures Parenting? In essence, would we not be handing our children over to the state? Do we trust the state that much, that we would be willing to do that in return for a salary? How would it work out? Would you have any authority over your own family life or would it be a uniform system imposed by the state? Would parents become interchangeable units? Would children? What happened when there was a change in government? Would it be like education, where each successive government felt they had to fuck up everything the previous government had done?

I'd wonder about any system that took us even further away from what I'd consider to be a more fundamental connection with each other - if our most intimate, private relationships are mediated through a centralised state authority, what might the possible consequences of that be? I'd also worry about bringing financial reward into the mix. We don't raise children because they bring us a profit - and I'd argue we shouldn't. (What would happen if you followed all the parenting guidelines but your child didn't meet the targets? You lose money? You lose your right to raise the child?)

Many SF writers of last century tackled the 'problem' of motherhood by imagining a centralised Parent that would remove the need for a depended-upon mother. I don't think any of the schemes were viable or really desirable. My idea would be to think back to a more communal way of raising children, to start thinking more in terms of community. I realise this is very vague, compared to your plan! I would also pay wages for housework, which might have some of the effects you're after by allowing mothers to be at home with young children and raising the status of SAHM.

I feel like there are too many possibilities for your scheme to go horribly wrong. You would have to work hard to convince mothers of this one, I think!

@queenofknives Yes, DM is very straightforward on the Trans issue - thankfully he's gay, I think that let's him away with saying lots of things he'd otherwise get ignored or slated for.
I think he's overdone the botox a bit!

But the angriest social justice people just cannot get it. You explain a trap, they immediately fall into it. You describe a logical fallacy, they immediately commit it. It's clear that social justice indoctrination degrades people's critical faculties to the point where they can only emote and sloganeer

queen

That's such an accurate description. The mindless slogans. The puritanical self righteousness. The authoritarian demands. Like Andrew Sullivan says, 'We're all on campus now.'

I think it has to be both, but I don't think there should be some kind of ofsted for parents (can you imagine!)

Certainly, I don't think a binary question requires a binary answer. On the Ofsted point, what if parenting were turned into a profession? That is, parents could choose to raise their children privately, with the state only offering the level of support it does at the moment while only interfering to the point of safeguarding but also offering the opportunity for public parenting support. A parent could register, be supported in producing a body of work to demonstrate competence and then be rewarded with both direct financial compensation (amounting to a genuine professional salary) and transferable training opportunities for when they wish to re-enter the workforce. As part of raising their child(ren), they would then feed back what steps they have taken towards their child's development, with a points system for specific approved activities (e.g. cultural enrichment), similar to the CPD of some professions.

I realise that, on first reading, this may sound bonkers but I think that, if the state were to provide such a high level of support for parents, it follows that they should expect the best possible return on their investment (i.e. well rounded, well educated citizens) as well as value for money.

I also wouldn't say he's in awe or admiring of the fact that women have babies, although Rogan certainly waxed lyrical about it! I agree that he doesn't address the fact that many jobs that women choose are lower paid in this interview, and perhaps that reflects his lack of deeper insight into women's issues, as was discussed earlier in the thread. But generally, I think you'd be misrepresenting DM if you were trying to argue he doesn't address important, controversial issues.

And the more the Democrats push these ideas, the more they are pushing voters towards Trump. People don't want to admit they're voting Trump because of the unhinged response and insults that come their way. They'll just do it quietly and it'll be done.

Yep. I have no doubt that Trump will be re elected because of this. And it really shouldn't be a surprise to democrats but it will be. They need to start listening to people instead of throwing their toys out of the pram when they lose. I live in the US but don't have a vote. If I did, I definitely wouldn't vote for trump, but I'm not sure I could bring myself to vote Biden either. There has to be a better option. If I voiced this opinion to some people I would be labeled a racist and probably ghosted lol. But honestly, I think that most rational left leaning people are like Rogan but too afraid to say it.

DM has quite a clever take on the Trans issue, to say it is sooo interesting, and we need to have proper discussion, which I would agree with but unfortunately anyone calm enough to have a proper discussion is not coming to the fore as yet. It puts him nicely on the fence.
Is it misogynistic to say women have babies. But it's all very well to be so in awe and admiring of the fact, but not come up with any suggestion as to what women will live off whilst having these babies.
And that women choose different careers from men - but not address that jobs popular with women are, surprise, surprise, lower paid overall.

That would require critical thinking

I teach critical thinking skills and it's always struck me that most people are naturally very good at it once given some direction (and permission to actually explore ideas). But the angriest social justice people just cannot get it. You explain a trap, they immediately fall into it. You describe a logical fallacy, they immediately commit it. It's clear that social justice indoctrination degrades people's critical faculties to the point where they can only emote and sloganeer. It's depressing. Especially because they are invariably the loudest people in the room.

Seeing the reactions makes you re-evaluate

I think this is true. I wonder if some of the most vocal Social Justice acolytes understand how their tactics are alienating millions of voters? I think not. That would require critical thinking, self reflection and exposure to views beyond the echo chamber. There is zero evidence that any of those conditions exist.

Seeing the reactions makes you re-evaluate. Just as seeing the whole trans debacle has made me realise how much some men really do hate women - ("the greatest patriarchal unmasking you can imagine" - JCJ), watching the American "left" melt down over the last few years has basically proven right all that stuff about "sneering Hollywood elites" American conservatives have been going on about.

In both cases I thought there was some truth, but it was being somewhat overblown. But the current reality is now clearly worse than what I used to regard as feminist/conservative caricatures.

Some of the shrillest, most fanatical voices on social media are enraged because Joe Rogan dares to host an eclectic, interesting guest list. Instead of the left wing circle jerk who dominate CNN et al. When they can't exert narrative control, the wheels come off the pram and denunciations follow. It's laughable.

Bending back to the original topic (sorry), just watched this interview and discussion with Glenn Greenwald, talking about what on earth the American "liberal" establishment's problem is with Joe Rogan.

They spend some time going into the whole "transphobia" and Abigail Shrier thing.

Glenn appears to be gradually coming around - he's recognising how ridiculous so many "transphobia" claims are, and he is accurately addressing the actual points of the arguments that have come up on Rogan's show (fairness in sports, potential harm to children).

As he says, Rogan and his own views are far less interesting than the reaction to him, and what it reveals about others...

The answer given is, quite accurately, I think: "the most important thing he lacks is the willingness to exclude everyone else from the debate who isn't a part of that culture."

Sunset Well, quite. Kehinde Andrews is insufferably woke. He didn't even prepare for the debate, just spoke off the cuff in a rambling style, and had no coherent argument. At one point he declared that universities were the most racist, white supremacist and bigoted places on earth! And if we didn't know that, then we can't have been to university. Universities! I thought that was so insane. He's a university lecturer, apparently the creator of the first 'black studies' course. But the university is such a racist institution that his daily life is one of horrendous oppression and terror, such that the very idea of free speech sounds to him like fascism.

Honestly, I thought he was unhinged. I've read a lot about how woke theories have taken hold of sensible people but it still amazed me that someone so incoherent and clearly paranoid could be treated as an authority on anything. It was a little bit disturbing.

We thought we were getting a treat and had no idea that the mum was probably delighted to get an hour to herself!
Totally, I remember looking after my cousins and a neighbours kids during the holidays so the parents could work, the neighbour was so happy and we had so much fun!

Why on earth shouldn't people read Mein Kampf? There are other reasons for people to read it other than they are literal nazis themselves Or do they think people are so weak-minded that they'll be swayed by Hitler's writings? Ffs.

Funnily enough as kids we couldn't be too naughty as any of the "parents" could tell us off.
Yes! Hahaha! I remember that well. "Go and play up your own end!" being the cry of the grumpy people on our street. And if someone had a baby, the girls would go round and clamour to be allowed to take the baby out in the pram. We thought we were getting a treat and had no idea that the mum was probably delighted to get an hour to herself!

In working class communities, child rearing was something of a communal activity. If one mum wasn't up to it, kids often had friend's mums who helped out. Everyone looked after babies. I think as society has progressed and we've lost that communal element, it's much harder on mums as they don't have the support network. They can't just hand the baby to a neighbour, or let the local kids take the baby out in the pram.
This right here 👏 brings back happy memories, we all had each others backs and the community pulled together. Funnily enough as kids we couldn't be too naughty as any of the "parents" could tell us off.

I remember hearing this question in some form during a debate about whether raising children is a public service or a private endeavour.

I think it has to be both, but I don't think there should be some kind of ofsted for parents (can you imagine!) I do think, though, that part of the burden on mothers is the breakdown of traditional communities and the way many families now are individual units where the mother is cut off from many sources of support. In working class communities, child rearing was something of a communal activity. If one mum wasn't up to it, kids often had friend's mums who helped out. Everyone looked after babies. I think as society has progressed and we've lost that communal element, it's much harder on mums as they don't have the support network. They can't just hand the baby to a neighbour, or let the local kids take the baby out in the pram. You see women posting on MN all the time who only have their partners to rely on, and it's overwhelmingly stressful if the partner doesn't step up.

I think maybe women could have a bit more access to the world of work and public life while still also having kids if we had held on to those community networks and that sense of shared responsibility for children. (I'm not saying that was a perfect system, at all - just that mothers need support.)

Yep. At one point she said "I don't talk about trans issues" when she had literally spent the last five minutes reeling off example after example of TRAs having a go at women. I don't disagree that all the examples were awful but I thought, god, at least be honest, that's what you're talking about! And maybe try to have some perspective and imagine that you and your friends are not the only victims of this, and that you are literally calling for these same tactics to be used against people you don't like! It was just really stupid.

I do think JB has worked on some good campaigns and that's great. But I listened to what she had to say and thought, no, I don't agree with this. I listened to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and thought, there is someone who knows exactly what she's talking about, and is an excellent clear thinker. She defended free speech and Kehinde Andrews yelled 'mein kampf' at her. But JB wouldn't have a problem with that, because she stated over and over again she thinks people should be cancelled if they don't go along with the woke orthodoxy (unless they are feminists). It was all honestly a bit sickening.

I'm sorry, JB occasionally talks some sense, but in general she uses exactly the kinds of tactics that the people she complains about use.

I'd have to agree, and I used to really respect her.

If a society is expected to play a greater role in supporting those rearing children then, equally, should those rearing children have the quality of their rearing assessed and shaped by the society providing that support (potentially against the wishes of the parent)? I remember hearing this question in some form during a debate about whether raising children is a public service or a private endeavour.

Wrong thread!!