They want the community/collective to replace the nuclear family.
The historical reality is that straight men build societies and nations. They are the drivers of culture. Things are changing but the historical facts are what they are. These people are anti straight male. They are the same people who argue against having to read books by old dead white men. How can you have an equal society when one group of members is 99% responsible for its existence in the first place? In other words, if one decides to major in English, given the fact that most of what will be read will be by white men, it gives the impression of white male superiority. Thatās not āfairā so you have to balance out things by replacing white male authors with authors of different backgrounds even if it means reading literature of inferior quality.
When BLM talks about keeping LGBTQ people of color safe, they mean safe from straight black males.
Seems? Straight men are the enemy, white or black. Why would they want a man raising his son to be independent and ready to succeed in a competitive world when they want a world where everyone wins and gets free shit? We are toxic.
Most people do not even know who the three founders are. Most people donāt know what BLM does with its money. Most people have not even read what BLM wants.
I think my inferences come from their wording which seems intentional. For example, disbanding western traditional families. I would phrase it as elevating non traditional families as equals.
I agree that we should all be valued as equals, and action needs to happen to make that goal a reality, But if Iām the writer, Iām going to use inclusive non divisive writing.
What does disrupt mean? They see the system as designed by straight males, for straight males. In order for them to succeed, they need to create a new system. The nuclear family is part of the straight male system. What is the most important thing a boy needs to grow up and be a success? A father.
Disrupt means that they want to disrupt the societal notion that ONLY a nuclear family is acceptable. Seems like your interpretation is āthe problemā.
I disagree that THE most important thing for a boy to grow up and be a success is a father. You might want to rethink that one, or expand on it quite a bit.
Hey Chris, Apparently the Police have changed their mind and can now investigate the crime.
Didnāt mean to come across angry at you, Iām just sick to the gills of these hypocritical issues going on and not getting the attention they deserve.
Just a week or two ago an Aboriginal 17 year old threatened to punch a cop in the jaw. The cop arrested him swept his feet from underneath him, when he resisted. The Aboriginal suffered minor injuries, a few bruises and scrapes. It was headline national news on every Australian network.
Also, the fact that they not only do not mention trying to promote traditional family structures but they donāt even use the word father. They use mother. They use parents. They donāt use father.
Being fatherless is the best predictor of being a criminal.
They also didnt write what you said. Again, seems like you have a problem with your own interpretation.
And id argue that abuse, violence int he home, drug use, and numerous other forms of shit-parenting are better predictors than simply being fatherless.
I would say to come to your conclusion, that I would have to generously read their website. It is pretty easy to argue that the writing is intentionally divisive. It is a guess on my part that the writing is meant to stir up the other side. Could be intended to fire up their side, but for bad reasons, or it just be poor writing.
I think you and I agree on what should be the position. Iām only arguing that the website is divisive.