When my wife decided on divorce, our ten year old daughter looked at her mother and said "Couldn't you have waited another few years?" I'll never forget that.
There must be a law that a divorced parent must meet one day in a week with their kids until they grow becoming adults and know what is right and what is wrong, know how to do things correctly.
@@RexOrwell Yes every one has their blind spots and their are those young people who are just to young to understand. It is the media and the professors who know what they are doing and profiting from their exploitation of peoples thirst for something different or anything that isn't boring. They take advantage of their desire to do something important to further their gain.
@@acohen1980 Anything factual - like solid concrete examples - to substantiate your assertion? And also, whilst you're at it, a rebuttal of the academic groupthink she has so graphically outlined...
Wow! Every time I hear Melanie it is like the fog lifts, the sun comes out and everything is crystal clear. Reason. Facts. Self-honesty. This is what the world needs at this time.
I was overcome with such respect the first time I heard this very erudite woman speak.She is so clear thinking and says it all exactly as it is with intelligent ease I wonder and it amazes that people actually deny it. John Anderson was a surprise I did not realize Australia had such a man in our midst.God Bless them both.
John Anderson is the PM Australia never had a chance to vote in ! I love these video interviews he is exploring. Very thought provoking and a must watch for all.
Too many parents let the state raise their kids & assume the government has the children's bests interests at heart. They can't, they'll prioritize THEIR own survival & growth, not the children. Single parents can still raise a 'good kid' but they need to be involved with their kids, lead by example, and insure their children understand right & wrong based on family values, not the states. Melanie is awesome, always appreciate hearing from her.
@@lorizeider5749 Village is as village does really. Right now I'm picturing à village of endless terraces, chisled kite surfers, week-end orgies and a park full of happy children to a ratio of 5 per 1 Phillipina maid. I think that that is a 'village' worth 'fighting' for. I wish I'd had a mom like you.
@@bashisobsolete.pythonismyn6321 schools play a big part in raising our children. I don’t think all parents that send their kids to school hate their kids.
That’s what’s so frustrating about all of this nonsense. Any person who looks at the data objectively absolutely knows that everything we’re being fed is wrong! Thank you for using this/your platform to educate/inform. God Bless
When you have a child, your happiness and well-being is secondary. If you truly love anyone, they come first and not you! My aunt who knew this stayed with my jerk of an uncle until her children were 18 and then divorced him. She truly loves my cousins and proved it by suffering through years of routine, moderate verbal abuse. If it's worse than that, then leave.
Marxism has marched through all our institutions and is close to ruining the West. Anti family anti free speech anti heterosexual anti white anti religion (but supporting islam).
Have you ever studied marxism though? Sounds like you genuinely don't understand the concept of marxism or Marxist society if you think its Anti family anti free speech anti heterosexual anti white anti religion, its literally none of those things. I would genuinely read some books and educate yourself instead of getting your information form youtube videos, you might actually learn something about political theory and different ideologies.
@@jackmaher4466 You dont know that at all. A pure marxist society doesnt exist for a start. America made sure of that. The concept of the people owning the means of production is not by definition a bad thing. Capitalism literally gives 90% of the worlds wealth to hardly any people while the poor die in their millions, it doesnt work. It will get even worse with climate change. Not saying marxism is the answer but again read books about it and understand it, its not some one dimensional oppressive regime, its not facism, its a completely different proposition. the term gets banded around all the time and 90% of the time what they talk about is not marxism. Even socialism, and social democracy especially in countries in scandinavia is seen as the peak of the civilised world, countries that seem to care more for their citizens than anywhere on the planet. To blindly follow an ideology like US capitalismand anysaying any other way of structuring society just 'doesnt work' when its biggest propegator cant even provide healthcare for its own people and locks up millions of humans for profit every year is utter insanity.
@Josh Wallace lol unregulated capitalism is pure freedom? That's a hilarious statement. Tell that to the prison population of the USA or the billions living in poverty while the top 10 percent own evryone. Ur a funny guy
I have read three of Melanie's books and found them to be enlightening, and substantiated by facts arising during further research. This wonderfully intelligent and clear-thinking lady has enormous courage, and always stands her ground, even when faced with hostile crowds. I remember her appearance a few years ago on Question Time, when she warned about the danger posed by Iran, and Islam's teaching concerning the coming of their saviour (the mahdi) during a time of chaos. Melanie was surrounded by panellists who vehemently opposed what she was saying, and an obviously hand-picked audience who tried to howl her down. Now, of course, British politicians are beginning to view Iran as the threat to peace it is. But I don't hear the BBC or any of those panellists apologising to Melanie for their contemptible attitude towards her that evening. Like the late Sir Roger Scruton, she is abhorred by many for telling the truth.
why is it that like your YT address, most of the commenters don't also have a functioning address...ha ha ah ...In Haifa are we...packed into a room with 400 or so other YT stooges...complimenting Zion stooges whenever directed?....ha ha ha ha
John Anderson … thank you very much for bringing such eloquence - thought , ideas exchange of views to the table . The world being turned upside down as it is craves Reason & Sense.
you are a false YT address...no vids, no comments, no nothjing...ha ha ha ha....In Haifa are we...packed into a room with 400 or so other YT stooges...complimenting Zion stooges whenever directed?....ha ha ha ha
“The subjective rules” is at the heart of the sickness of modern society. Melanie Phillips is one of the most sensible and intelligent people in the world today. We should listen to her.
I bought Melanie's book and I am looking forward to reading it. I previously knew nothing about her, but have found that The Guardian, which I used to read when I was at university in the '70s and '80s, has changed into a strident, unbalanced journal, with little regard for 'Truth', such as I perceived it. Her comments resonated.
The presentation was excellent, thank you so much. People have traded truth for lies and it has made the world such a mess. I am so impressed with Melanie Phillips so articulate.
The obstacle is the way. In for a penny in for a pound. There are only two kinds of humans; fools who believe they're wise [ the proud ]; and the wise [ the humble ] who know they understand little. Seneca, Plato, Frank F.
Indeed it does. Problem is, right now, you have people who purposely and entirely respond with feelings and disregards knowledge. And while we are, as humans, people of feelings, we just cannot base actions as a society on feelings simply because feelings are all over the place. Therefore, knowledge is the only solid way to go.
There's a huge replicability crisis in the hard sciences, as well as social science. Research is rarely replicated, there's no kudos in disproving someone else's findings, and certainly no funding available for it. So research that "feels right" is never questioned, and its conclusions are given assent by peers who are on message. A few years ago one of the major pharmaceutical companies decided to conduct ten experiments on which its principle business was based. 90% were non-replicable. Another drug company followed suit, and were dismayed by similar findings. If such things can happen in the hard-nosed, cash rich science of pharmaceutics, what chance of erroneous data being given the nod in the ideological hotbed of social science? Feelings don't care about facts.
@@lorizeider5749 Science does not exist in a vacuum of austere disinterest, but in a politically charged environment of career advancement, mutual back scratching and hard cash. Without context, "following the science" is all but meaningless.
Post-modernist neo-marxist ideologies dominate academics and science because they are sheltered from the rigors of reality by way of government subsidies. They've been indoctrinating ideological fanatics for decades, and their alumni are now journalists, teachers, politicians, etc., it contaminates all of society and, unless this stops, it will bring western civilization down. To stop it, remove government subsidies, get government out of science and education, and these indoctrination centers will crumble, as this ideology/philosophy is not compatible with natural law.
I know that my parents were alcoholic and chronic gamblers. In my early years, I was a sports star and funny friend to everyone and as time went on I moved around and had many step-parents. Then I met old friends and they wondered why I wasn't a grand success. I was too ashamed to blame my parents, so I accepted myself as an underachiever.
Fact. I had a child visitation order given to me by a judge. Instead of enforcing the order the police that came when I called them threatened to put me in jail. Fact. Now my daughter is being injected with male hormones biker duplicitous evil spermjacking mother. Thank you Sicklerville New Jersey Police Department for not doing your job and ruining my daughter's life as well as mine.
The more I listen to Melanie Phillips, and John Anderson for that matter, the more I want to hear. Thoughts like these will be the Chemo Therapy that could cure the Cancer that's attacking free thought in what's left of the free world today.
A good conversation, with some good key points. 'Ideals', in of themselves, I'm not sure need to be discounted, and I'm not saying they were in this conversation here. What became clearer for me as I listened, was not so much the idea of either side digging their heels in, at potential opposite ends, trying to justify better/right or wrong/worse, what did become clearer for me, was that I had seen the issue like a volume control on a line that could slide between soft and loud. The situation appearing here though, seems more like two independent volume buttons, with either one or the other to be pressed, for either soft or loud. The word that came to mind, although maybe there are other words that also could describe that situation, is absolute. Hearing the idea that any departure from the ideal not only is evil, but that it also means that the person is evil, really illustrated that point for me. As an unintended follow on, it seems like those that hold themselves, and others, to those ideals absolutely, have set a very exacting standard for themselves as well as for others, without room for context? and so it would seem that it is their own standards/ ideals that would not allow for context then sought? I 'm sure there is something missing in my reasoning here, at the moment I'm not sure what, and I am here thinking as I go. To touch on one other point that also became clearer to me as I listened to the conversation, was the idea that the focus itself be or is on the ideal. What drove that home for me was "what happens when family structure goes wrong". I think that is a good point brought up and an important point I'm not sure I had seen clearly enough to contemplate. Could that not be or become a main focus for a starting point? I can see at least along an aspect, how difficult a task it must be for Politicians and Parliament to sort out what the issues actually are to come up with legislation for those issues, let alone without actually creating more or unintended issues, and making sure they are not unconstitutional. It is a big ask. I can agree that debates and discussions, especially in good conscienceness, and also, although it might not be possible, with perhap the ideal of betterment of understanding, that that would be preferable over the disadvantage of a separation between those with decision making responsibilities for all Australians and Australia's future.
"A Conflict of Visions" by Thomas Sowell covers this well. Is the role of government to maintain laws and institutions to deal with humans as they are or is the role of government to mold and perfect human nature.
Speaking as a father we are really having serious problems with the law courts assuming we don't have the best interest of our children at heart. And our children suffer because of that even more than we do .
When people act on emotions that emotion literally blocks the part of the brain responsible for rational and critical thought. Emotions make truth and facts hard to deal with.
Don't even think that this is confined to higher establishments of education. This perversion has permeated the system to the kindergartens. Parents need to go on facebook or whatever to organize and protest the nonsense that is being taught. Maybe sign a petition or go to the legislature and compel them to hear your case. Furthermore, *teach your children what you believe in and WHY.*
In the MRA i have been victim to such treatment every time we ask for equality for men. The first cancel ideology was feminism, with the term "mysogyny".
Shall history look at us the way we look at the decline of Rome.... our own worst enemy. A great talk and profoundly pertinent to so much of the madness we are seeing in the states on so many levels.
It’s time for revolutionary educational change in the West at least. Where do I start? I know where but I wouldn’t stand a chance, nobody would listen to me. Thanks to you both for your courage.
Unable to determine what they can or cannot change, some men attempt to “rewrite reality,” i.e., to alter the nature of the metaphysically given. Those who commit it regard metaphysical facts as non-absolute and, therefore, feel free to imagine an alternative to them. In effect, they regard the universe as though it were merely a first draft of reality, which anyone may decide at will to rewrite. - Ayn Rand Old problems.....new manifestations.
The problem for me as an "average" sort of person who wants to make the right decisions about the "issues" is the it is difficult to know who to believe. Who is being paid to put their authoritative name and reputation behind a false argument and who is presenting unbiased facts. There is lucre in deceiving the public that many cannot resist. Lucre or job loss and death threats. So who do the public trust?
Single parent homes, especially where the father is missing from the child's life, is the most destructive thing in a child's emotional development. I speak from personal experience.
I don’t disagree that a stable family is far better for a child, and that parental conflict damages the child. But the video raises questions. She says that people started ignoring evidence. Who are these ‘people’? Are they popular journalists and writers like Phillips? Are they academics in universities? I recently said in a UA-cam reply that I went to London and Cambridge universities and that I was bright. I was told that that remark was ‘oppressive’. Unbelievable. Maybe someone should tell Usain Bolt not to run so fast so as not to be oppressive.
I'm not sure if you watched the video, but academics are not a special breed. They are subject to the same pressures as other people, with the added requirement to seek funding from systems designed to maintain the status quo. Peers, particularly in esoteric subjects or ones with loaded ideological assumptions, are comprised of a narrow constituency. The "file drawer effect" by which evidence that agrees with the hypothesis is submitted, while data that does not is filed away, is a known effect in hard and social sciences. Melanie Phillips discussed a case where an individual academic's conclusions were ruled not by the evidence, but against criteria that were not in the original hypothesis and in which he was personally invested. "You can't set back the clock" is not a scientific observation.
@@StillAliveAndKicking_ You claimed to be "bright" and people found that oppressive. That contextualised your question on "popular journalists" and academics, at least to my satisfaction. If you were not valorising one approach over the other in answering whether children are better off in single or two parent households, I'm not sure what your point is. Feel free to put me on the right track.
Borderlands Firstly ‘people’ did not find the statement that I am bright oppressive. One person said it was, to my astonishment. I have been told by countless employers that I am, and I don’t think it’s anything to be ashamed of. Unfortunately the woke left have this weird thing against doing well. (I am becoming a decent ice skater and hockey player. Is that oppressive? I’d say it was an achievement at 57. People should be proud of achievements.) Secondly I don’t know who she means by people, so it’s a reasonable question to ask. I am genuinely interested. I have no idea what you mean by contextualised. Can you explain?
Read Carl Jung, especially with regard to personality. Judgements are formed on a continuum from Feeling to Thinking. This is the cultural pendulum which changes society's attitudes over time.
Speaking of Carl Jung, we need to pay attention to the innate psychological underpinnings of the human psyche when looking at the data from which we will extract a conclusion as to what is of the greatest benefit for children. When that is understood, is it really such a big surprise that children do best in a loving, healthy, intact two parent - Mother and Father - based household? When given a choice, is there any child who would NOT choose that above all else? The two people that created them, loving one another, loving the child, and making a happy, secure, nurturing home? Granted I am prejudiced in his favor but I believe Carl Jung was the greatest mind of the 20th century. No one else even came close to elucidating what he called the structure and dynamics of the psyche. Brilliant, brilliant man.
We have a Dad crisis because of the law and the states influence over the law, what did you expect to happen? We have a western society divided one side wants to talk the other wants to commit violence, you can't debate violence, what did you expect to happen?
Facts vs feelings, the saying 'the truth hurts' has never been more prevalent when facts vs feelings is mentioned. It seems we have to lie today so not to hurt people's feelings, the truth has to stand aside, just in case.
Love this interview, when a majority of people prefer to live in the lie of feelings, rather the factually base reality, they begain to live a corporeal existence, vaporous with no destination, Modern-day feminism falls into that category, despite all the destructive attributes it's still tries to be held up as as true freedom, because living in delusion feels so good.
I think it has more to do with how it effects children,who are vulnerable and dependent on the so called grown ups who entered into child producing bodily functions and promises of fidelity honoring their partner and caring for these vulnerable dependent children they were bringing into the world!
'What about the rights of the parents!!!!1111?????' Let me spell this out in simple terms: Child's wellbeing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Parents rights
These are the dangers of not considering the balance of objective and subjective considerations. It leads to misinformative holes in knowledge and understanding of ourselves and the world we live in, and we pay a huge existential price for it. That's what happens when we conceptualize totality in ideas... it only forms one part of the complex "puzzle", and the other neglected parts are trap doors into hell if not tended to sufficiently. There's that, and also the singular idea itself can create paradoxical effects of the intended effect when taken too extreme and for too long a period of time. Thus the fallacy of ideologies - the damage of ramping a singular idea too much and too long, and the neglect of other ideas to dampen other problematic areas in our existence. When our map of the world is too disjunctured in alignment with the territory of the world, and when we manifest that... whilst there's short term gratification, the long term consequences are, in excess, unnecessarily catastrophic and murderous. That's exactly what ideologies do. It's like, trying to eliminate a 15% issue and replace it with, say a comparatively and consequently 50% issue as the price to pay for in return for that. It's a very maliciously dangerous move, to the point where it may even paradoxically defeat the purpose of the original proposed problem anyway (by making that exact proposed problem worse - and that's hypocrisy on murderous levels). It's not a revolution or a solution if a strategy makes the overall sum of matters (as well as the originally proposed target problem) worse, just to target only one, singular problem area. It's also very unproductive and consuming in many dimensions - physically, psychologically and spiritually.
Well not all "feelings" are "subjective" when people are traumatized from abuse for example that's just further evidence of the abuse which is sometimes psychological not just physical. Now depends how you were raised and manipulated if you were hit and told don't cry you probably won't but crying would not be an irrational response to pain for normal people either.
The intellectual laziness and dishonesty we're seeing by "ends justify means" aspiring authoritarians isn't an accident. With so much of the world's population living under iron-fisted regimes it stands to reason that the very idea of the individual, his/her freedom, and its accompanying responsibilities are anathema. Patient, concerted efforts aim not to make our system (in the US) work for our idealogical enemies but, rather, to keep them from working for the People; it's easier and safer to interfere than overtake. If We lose this battle the truth of the proposition that lost freedom is impossible to regain will be learned, and I'm not optimistic about what We'll find. Push back, People, for posterity's sake if not your own. Peace.
All of John's videos are the same. He invites someone on to interview, then spends minutes on minutes labouring points and then adding a question on the end. 3.5 mins in before Melene gets to answer. Come on John, give the guest a chance!
I always get something from your conversations, John, so please keep up the good work. I had an idea, while watching this one, which I'd like to share, for what it's worth. The left wing bias of academia is becoming every more evident, quite apart from the visceral adherence to ideologies that Melanie describes. As has been said in other contexts - and specifically I'm thinking here of the scandal of Michael Mann's hockey stick graph - peer review is of more limited value if all of the reviewing peers think the same way. Perhaps in addition to peer review, and not just for the publishing of academic papers but for the awarding of research grants and academic promotions, we could have "non-peer" review. That would involve a group of academics from other academic areas, senior positions from other areas, including business, and perhaps a few genuinely lay members. Their role might be to consider biases, look for evidence of group-think and generally carry out a sanity check. Maybe that might even lead to social scientists writing in less inscrutable jargon.
I subbed because I value talks like this.... Bishop Sheen said "untreated/unrepentant sin causes neurosis in a person and develops into a mental health issue like Anxiety"...... so today sin does not exist in the new world ideology so why does everyone have mental health issues?.... that is observable, testable science right there. The world is mentally ill.
The rise of the lived experience trumping facts and the acceptance that lived experience is an academic proof. What I like with Melanie is she is still left of centre but just doesn’t agree with the craziness that is the left now
MELANIE: It is the personal involvement (which you expose) which accounts for the 'shifting-of-the-ethical-goal-posts' in family matters, throughout the West. Look at our own Sovereign Lady, Elizabeth; who denied her sister her first choice of husband because he was divorced: only to, then, have most of her own children undergo divorces. Even as Supreme Governor of the 'Church-of-Clergy' (previously the Church of England) she could not sustain that level of hypocrisy: and the Church-of-Clergy is a past-master at hypocrisy! Today, the Church-of-Clergy will marry anyone who has the fees to pay the clergy (divorced or not): yet those same clergy will not even allow the blessing of a same-sex couple to take place within their hallowed walls. Fortunately, 'blessings' exist because the Father 'is': not because clergy exist. So those who call on Him may ask for blessing on their own authority.
One problem that I see in younger minds, in particular, is the misunderstanding that an ideology about social or environmental matters is the equivalent of a scientific theory, yet if they understood the scientific method they would know that a single piece of solid evidence that contradicts a scientific theory then invalidates it. Science deals with new evidence by shifting back to the last valid position before putting forward an improved hypothesis for testing in light of the current evidence, but most ideologues operate more like religious extremists (while looking down their noses at all religion!) and refuses to operate in a scientific manner, they refuse to give ground at all in the light of contradictory evidence. This is at its most farcical with the far-left greens who screech at the public that the science is settled, when science is never settled and there is no actual scientific theory to support much of their belief systems. Most of them are fools, but the slogan makers who emphasised the "science" claim probably know they are telling lies and only push "the science" to cover for the fact that they know that science does not support their claims and demands at all. As for the social sciences, they are not science either as the replication crisis in psychology has shown, and that is before you throw the insane political ideologues into the mix. Try suggesting that kids who get into crime often have genetic factors influencing their life course and see what happens, then point out that those genes came from their parents so it stands to reason that their families will be less stable, you'd think that the left would latch onto that defense of the idea that it is not divorce that causes the problem kids but that the problem parents have cause the divorce, and problem children (in some cases), but no they can't tolerate you suggesting that nature may have a big influence and it can be as great as nurture (family life). There is no balance in their world view, even when it would suit them to be more balanced. Don't get me wrong I value family very much and have experienced the hurt that a fractured family causes, but I can also see that sometimes the state the family is in is actually a symptom of far greater problems that cannot be fixed at the social engineering level. The brutal truth may simply be that some people should never have children and if that could be determined before they had families a lot of problem humans would not get created. Rather we see feminism causing intelligent and well adjusted women to have less or no children at all while the government fiscally encourages less competent women to have more children. So why do females matter so much, because if you are not sexist and you look at the genetics you will see that a lot of the genes that influence brain formation and function are on the X chromosome, which in males normally only comes from their mothers!
This discussion is a very useful insight into how slowly we humans develop emotional maturity (our full capacity for both emotional empathy and resiliency). It takes a very long time! In addition, it takes a very supportive and encouraging “parenting” and sub-cultural milieu to get to maturity. The human health, relational and social problems of adolescent adults are well-known, but rarely characterized as “immaturity!” There are no “breed wardens” for who gets to be a parent, as there are for dogs in Germany. In America, our sub-cultures, especially male sub-cultures, often describe men as “wusses” if they show sadness or fear. That truncates empathic development and is thereby false resilience! We need to grow up again as men and women, and recognize most of our internal problems are human, not male and female problems, and that we will never make it as adults in the non-generative environments we create for our children, grandchildren and adolescent adults!
When my wife decided on divorce, our ten year old daughter looked at her mother and said "Couldn't you have waited another few years?" I'll never forget that.
that must have broken your heart :-(
Good luck mate, just keep supporting her and being dad.
There must be a law that a divorced parent must meet one day in a week with their kids until they grow becoming adults and know what is right and what is wrong, know how to do things correctly.
Good luck ,, I'm sorry ...and keep loving her ....
Out of the mouths of our children comes a truth.
I admire this brilliant woman. An immensely honest woman with real integrity you seldom see these days.
Everyone has their blind-spots.
@@RexOrwell Yes every one has their blind spots and their are those young people who are just to young to understand. It is the media and the professors who know what they are doing and profiting from their exploitation of peoples thirst for something different or anything that isn't boring. They take advantage of their desire to do something important to further their gain.
You need to read more widely! She may indeed be honest but she is, I’m afraid, misguided!
@@dickhemingway8446 on what point it out ,,,,,,,
@@leegage7198
If you want others to take your remarks seriously, then you must both understand what grammar is and how to use it.
This woman is so SPOT ON.
she's a professional liar...grow up...
@@acohen1980
Anything factual - like solid concrete examples - to substantiate your assertion?
And also, whilst you're at it, a rebuttal of the academic groupthink she has so graphically outlined...
@@VincentComet-l8e Climate change denial and support for Andrew Wakefield.
Wow! Every time I hear Melanie it is like the fog lifts, the sun comes out and everything is crystal clear. Reason. Facts. Self-honesty. This is what the world needs at this time.
Superbly put Melanie, keep it up. We must return to reality and and integrity.
In Haifa are we...packed into a room with 400 or so other YT stooges...complimenting Zion stooges whenever directed?....ha ha ha ha
I was overcome with such respect the first time I heard this very erudite woman speak.She is so clear thinking and says it all exactly as it is with intelligent ease I wonder and it amazes that people actually deny it. John Anderson was a surprise I did not realize Australia had such a man in our midst.God Bless them both.
Bluewren Reilly What is it about a Jew always intelligent thinking ? I have always been impressed with her
How true: What a deep, sharp, courageous analysis! Just BRILLIANT !!
Yes thank you I absolutely admire her too.
In Haifa are we...packed into a room with 400 or so other YT stooges...complimenting Zion stooges whenever directed?....ha ha ha ha
this woman is brilliant
she's a Zio stooge..ethno supremacist...whose days are numbered.....
John Anderson is the PM Australia never had a chance to vote in !
I love these video interviews he is exploring.
Very thought provoking and a must watch for all.
Too many parents let the state raise their kids & assume the government has the children's bests interests at heart. They can't, they'll prioritize THEIR own survival & growth, not the children.
Single parents can still raise a 'good kid' but they need to be involved with their kids, lead by example, and insure their children understand right & wrong based on family values, not the states.
Melanie is awesome, always appreciate hearing from her.
parents that let the state raise their kids.... hate their kids.
@@lorizeider5749 Village is as village does really. Right now I'm picturing à village of endless terraces, chisled kite surfers, week-end orgies and a park full of happy children to a ratio of 5 per 1 Phillipina maid. I think that that is a 'village' worth 'fighting' for. I wish I'd had a mom like you.
@@bashisobsolete.pythonismyn6321 schools play a big part in raising our children. I don’t think all parents that send their kids to school hate their kids.
too many people nowadays are egocentric, selfish. Their wants/ needs above the child's.
That’s what’s so frustrating about all of this nonsense. Any person who looks at the data objectively absolutely knows that everything we’re being fed is wrong! Thank you for using this/your platform to educate/inform. God Bless
This is one intelligent lady that I have enormous respect for.
Wonderful - thank you.
Sing it Sister! Thank you for showcasing a wonderful, intelligent discussion. So refreshing!
When you have a child, your happiness and well-being is secondary. If you truly love anyone, they come first and not you!
My aunt who knew this stayed with my jerk of an uncle until her children were 18 and then divorced him. She truly loves
my cousins and proved it by suffering through years of routine, moderate verbal abuse. If it's worse than that, then leave.
G-Man Alias fuck yes i couldn’t agree more with you my friend
Bullshit ,,, you feel good about your self the same way you love you kids ,, the kids can earn the stripes ,
Marxism has marched through all our institutions and is close to ruining the West. Anti family anti free speech anti heterosexual anti white anti religion (but supporting islam).
The enemy of my enemy is my friend 😉
Have you ever studied marxism though? Sounds like you genuinely don't understand the concept of marxism or Marxist society if you think its Anti family anti free speech anti heterosexual anti white anti religion, its literally none of those things. I would genuinely read some books and educate yourself instead of getting your information form youtube videos, you might actually learn something about political theory and different ideologies.
@@corsinivideos Who care what it says. We know in reality what we get with Marxism. And it isn't good.
@@jackmaher4466 You dont know that at all. A pure marxist society doesnt exist for a start. America made sure of that. The concept of the people owning the means of production is not by definition a bad thing. Capitalism literally gives 90% of the worlds wealth to hardly any people while the poor die in their millions, it doesnt work. It will get even worse with climate change. Not saying marxism is the answer but again read books about it and understand it, its not some one dimensional oppressive regime, its not facism, its a completely different proposition. the term gets banded around all the time and 90% of the time what they talk about is not marxism. Even socialism, and social democracy especially in countries in scandinavia is seen as the peak of the civilised world, countries that seem to care more for their citizens than anywhere on the planet. To blindly follow an ideology like US capitalismand anysaying any other way of structuring society just 'doesnt work' when its biggest propegator cant even provide healthcare for its own people and locks up millions of humans for profit every year is utter insanity.
@Josh Wallace lol unregulated capitalism is pure freedom? That's a hilarious statement. Tell that to the prison population of the USA or the billions living in poverty while the top 10 percent own evryone. Ur a funny guy
John, firstly Thank you for what you did for us in Australia, but these interviews are first rate, keep em coming!
I have read three of Melanie's books and found them to be enlightening, and substantiated by facts arising during further research. This wonderfully intelligent and clear-thinking lady has enormous courage, and always stands her ground, even when faced with hostile crowds. I remember her appearance a few years ago on Question Time, when she warned about the danger posed by Iran, and Islam's teaching concerning the coming of their saviour (the mahdi) during a time of chaos. Melanie was surrounded by panellists who vehemently opposed what she was saying, and an obviously hand-picked audience who tried to howl her down. Now, of course, British politicians are beginning to view Iran as the threat to peace it is. But I don't hear the BBC or any of those panellists apologising to Melanie for their contemptible attitude towards her that evening. Like the late Sir Roger Scruton, she is abhorred by many for telling the truth.
They still don’t listen to bright intelligent people
This is a new author for me, I plan on reading this book ASAP. Wow.
@@pathologyiscool In Haifa are we...packed into a room with 400 or so other YT stooges...complimenting Zion stooges whenever directed?....ha ha ha ha
Thank you John. Melanie is very, very refreshing and answers a lot of questions I have had....The Left can't debate.
why is it that like your YT address, most of the commenters don't also have a functioning address...ha ha ah ...In Haifa are we...packed into a room with 400 or so other YT stooges...complimenting Zion stooges whenever directed?....ha ha ha ha
John Anderson … thank you very much for bringing such eloquence - thought , ideas exchange of views to the table . The world being turned upside down as it is craves Reason & Sense.
So refreshing to hear a sensible discussion.
Melanie Phillips - spot-on as ever.
In Haifa are we...packed into a room with 400 or so other YT stooges...complimenting Zion stooges whenever directed?....ha ha ha ha
Bless you both for such a searing clip...
Thank you Melanie.
John and melanie, wonderful conversation and should be shared widely.
you are a false YT address...no vids, no comments, no nothjing...ha ha ha ha....In Haifa are we...packed into a room with 400 or so other YT stooges...complimenting Zion stooges whenever directed?....ha ha ha ha
“The subjective rules” is at the heart of the sickness of modern society.
Melanie Phillips is one of the most sensible and intelligent people in the world today. We should listen to her.
In Haifa are we...packed into a room with 400 or so other YT stooges...complimenting Zion stooges whenever directed?....ha ha ha ha
I bought Melanie's book and I am looking forward to reading it. I previously knew nothing about her, but have found that The Guardian, which I used to read when I was at university in the '70s and '80s, has changed into a strident, unbalanced journal, with little regard for 'Truth', such as I perceived it. Her comments resonated.
The presentation was excellent, thank you so much. People have traded truth for lies and it has made the world such a mess. I am so impressed with Melanie Phillips so articulate.
Another great interview with another great guest. Thank you.
Thank you so much for this channel!
I must be off to hear the full interview ...
The obstacle is the way. In for a penny in for a pound. There are only two kinds of humans; fools who believe they're wise [ the proud ]; and the wise [ the humble ] who know they understand little. Seneca, Plato, Frank F.
Thank you for explaining the crazy thinking in our society
what a great concise way of describing whats happening.
I have learned the answers to a few thing I did not quite understand! Thank You Melanie and John!
Interesting, informative and thought- provoking
Well stated summary on valuing ideologies over objective truth and cultural ramifications.
Melanie is brilliant!
Spot on 👍
This world needs to STOP responding with emotions and instead starting to respond with FACTS and KNOWLEDGE.
You are hurting my feelings and I want you to stop talking about facts .There are lots of facts which I don't believe in. ..
Ever heard of that idea that if you believe in something hard enough it will happen? It used to be huge.
Indeed it does. Problem is, right now, you have people who purposely and entirely respond with feelings and disregards knowledge. And while we are, as humans, people of feelings, we just cannot base actions as a society on feelings simply because feelings are all over the place. Therefore, knowledge is the only solid way to go.
@@nihilistcentraluk442 That's alright, Nihilist... as long as you don't tell me the earth is flat. ;-)
@Chelsea Howarth What is it they say in the Matrix? Oh yes! "Denial is the most predictable of all human responses!"
There's a huge replicability crisis in the hard sciences, as well as social science. Research is rarely replicated, there's no kudos in disproving someone else's findings, and certainly no funding available for it. So research that "feels right" is never questioned, and its conclusions are given assent by peers who are on message. A few years ago one of the major pharmaceutical companies decided to conduct ten experiments on which its principle business was based. 90% were non-replicable. Another drug company followed suit, and were dismayed by similar findings. If such things can happen in the hard-nosed, cash rich science of pharmaceutics, what chance of erroneous data being given the nod in the ideological hotbed of social science? Feelings don't care about facts.
@@lorizeider5749 Science does not exist in a vacuum of austere disinterest, but in a politically charged environment of career advancement, mutual back scratching and hard cash. Without context, "following the science" is all but meaningless.
Post-modernist neo-marxist ideologies dominate academics and science because they are sheltered from the rigors of reality by way of government subsidies. They've been indoctrinating ideological fanatics for decades, and their alumni are now journalists, teachers, politicians, etc., it contaminates all of society and, unless this stops, it will bring western civilization down. To stop it, remove government subsidies, get government out of science and education, and these indoctrination centers will crumble, as this ideology/philosophy is not compatible with natural law.
Go Melanie!!!
In Haifa are we...packed into a room with 400 or so other YT stooges...complimenting Zion stooges whenever directed?....ha ha ha ha
This woman is what the world needs
I know that my parents were alcoholic and chronic gamblers. In my early years, I was a sports star and funny friend to everyone and as time went on I moved around and had many step-parents. Then I met old friends and they wondered why I wasn't a grand success. I was too ashamed to blame my parents, so I accepted myself as an underachiever.
Fact. I had a child visitation order given to me by a judge. Instead of enforcing the order the police that came when I called them threatened to put me in jail. Fact. Now my daughter is being injected with male hormones biker duplicitous evil spermjacking mother. Thank you Sicklerville New Jersey Police Department for not doing your job and ruining my daughter's life as well as mine.
Truly no words. No words.
Apparently we have evolved as humans ,, i have not seen anything to back up that claim
The more I listen to Melanie Phillips, and John Anderson for that matter, the more I want to hear. Thoughts like these will be the Chemo Therapy that could cure the Cancer that's attacking free thought in what's left of the free world today.
A good conversation, with some good key points. 'Ideals', in of themselves, I'm not sure need to be discounted, and I'm not saying they were in this conversation here. What became clearer for me as I listened, was not so much the idea of either side digging their heels in, at potential opposite ends, trying to justify better/right or wrong/worse, what did become clearer for me, was that I had seen the issue like a volume control on a line that could slide between soft and loud. The situation appearing here though, seems more like two independent volume buttons, with either one or the other to be pressed, for either soft or loud. The word that came to mind, although maybe there are other words that also could describe that situation, is absolute. Hearing the idea that any departure from the ideal not only is evil, but that it also means that the person is evil, really illustrated that point for me. As an unintended follow on, it seems like those that hold themselves, and others, to those ideals absolutely, have set a very exacting standard for themselves as well as for others, without room for context? and so it would seem that it is their own standards/ ideals that would not allow for context then sought? I 'm sure there is something missing in my reasoning here, at the moment I'm not sure what, and I am here thinking as I go. To touch on one other point that also became clearer to me as I listened to the conversation, was the idea that the focus itself be or is on the ideal. What drove that home for me was "what happens when family structure goes wrong". I think that is a good point brought up and an important point I'm not sure I had seen clearly enough to contemplate. Could that not be or become a main focus for a starting point? I can see at least along an aspect, how difficult a task it must be for Politicians and Parliament to sort out what the issues actually are to come up with legislation for those issues, let alone without actually creating more or unintended issues, and making sure they are not unconstitutional. It is a big ask. I can agree that debates and discussions, especially in good conscienceness, and also, although it might not be possible, with perhap the ideal of betterment of understanding, that that would be preferable over the disadvantage of a separation between those with decision making responsibilities for all Australians and Australia's future.
gotta be a record for the longest first question of an interview ever
Thanks! John. Another excellent interview ....
In Haifa are we...packed into a room with 400 or so other YT stooges...complimenting Zion stooges whenever directed?....ha ha ha ha
Also! will purchase your book and share.
Feelings trump facts on the "liberal" "inclusive" "progressive" Left.
Good stuff 👏 👍 🇬🇧
Imagine if she became PM. Smart, braver than I and in touch with the normal people.
"A Conflict of Visions" by Thomas Sowell covers this well. Is the role of government to maintain laws and institutions to deal with humans as they are or is the role of government to mold and perfect human nature.
Speaking as a father we are really having serious problems with the law courts assuming we don't have the best interest of our children at heart. And our children suffer because of that even more than we do .
Yes, in full agreement. But WHAT DO WE DO NOW ?? !!
When people act on emotions that emotion literally blocks the part of the brain responsible for rational and critical thought. Emotions make truth and facts hard to deal with.
I only listen to 'The Moral Maze' on Radio Four if she's on it.
I want to hear her.
Broken families = Broken society
The most sensible person ever I know
Don't even think that this is confined to higher establishments of education. This perversion has permeated the system to the kindergartens.
Parents need to go on facebook or whatever to organize and protest the nonsense that is being taught. Maybe sign a petition or go to the
legislature and compel them to hear your case. Furthermore, *teach your children what you believe in and WHY.*
And what the west believed in was what their forefathers believed in: which is the Christian gospel.
In the MRA i have been victim to such treatment every time we ask for equality for men. The first cancel ideology was feminism, with the term "mysogyny".
Seeking & getting constant empathy is a hallmark of so
called ‘progressive politics’
instead of empowering people
to take responsibility.
❤👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 thank you
FEELINGS./OPINIONS ARE NOT WORTH MORE THAN .... FACTS!!!
Shall history look at us the way we look at the decline of Rome.... our own worst enemy. A great talk and profoundly pertinent to so much of the madness we are seeing in the states on so many levels.
It’s time for revolutionary educational change in the West at least. Where do I start? I know where but I wouldn’t stand a chance, nobody would listen to me. Thanks to you both for your courage.
Unable to determine what they can or cannot change, some men attempt to “rewrite reality,” i.e., to alter the nature of the metaphysically given. Those who commit it regard metaphysical facts as non-absolute and, therefore, feel free to imagine an alternative to them. In effect, they regard the universe as though it were merely a first draft of reality, which anyone may decide at will to rewrite. - Ayn Rand
Old problems.....new manifestations.
The problem for me as an "average" sort of person who wants to make the right decisions about the "issues" is the it is difficult to know who to believe. Who is being paid to put their authoritative name and reputation behind a false argument and who is presenting unbiased facts. There is lucre in deceiving the public that many cannot resist. Lucre or job loss and death threats. So who do the public trust?
Single parent homes, especially where the father is missing from the child's life, is the most destructive thing in a child's emotional development. I speak from personal experience.
I don’t disagree that a stable family is far better for a child, and that parental conflict damages the child. But the video raises questions. She says that people started ignoring evidence. Who are these ‘people’? Are they popular journalists and writers like Phillips? Are they academics in universities? I recently said in a UA-cam reply that I went to London and Cambridge universities and that I was bright. I was told that that remark was ‘oppressive’. Unbelievable. Maybe someone should tell Usain Bolt not to run so fast so as not to be oppressive.
I'm not sure if you watched the video, but academics are not a special breed. They are subject to the same pressures as other people, with the added requirement to seek funding from systems designed to maintain the status quo. Peers, particularly in esoteric subjects or ones with loaded ideological assumptions, are comprised of a narrow constituency. The "file drawer effect" by which evidence that agrees with the hypothesis is submitted, while data that does not is filed away, is a known effect in hard and social sciences. Melanie Phillips discussed a case where an individual academic's conclusions were ruled not by the evidence, but against criteria that were not in the original hypothesis and in which he was personally invested. "You can't set back the clock" is not a scientific observation.
Borderlands You didn’t answer my question and you (appear to have) made an assumption about my thinking.
@@StillAliveAndKicking_ You claimed to be "bright" and people found that oppressive. That contextualised your question on "popular journalists" and academics, at least to my satisfaction. If you were not valorising one approach over the other in answering whether children are better off in single or two parent households, I'm not sure what your point is. Feel free to put me on the right track.
Borderlands Firstly ‘people’ did not find the statement that I am bright oppressive. One person said it was, to my astonishment. I have been told by countless employers that I am, and I don’t think it’s anything to be ashamed of. Unfortunately the woke left have this weird thing against doing well. (I am becoming a decent ice skater and hockey player. Is that oppressive? I’d say it was an achievement at 57. People should be proud of achievements.) Secondly I don’t know who she means by people, so it’s a reasonable question to ask. I am genuinely interested. I have no idea what you mean by contextualised. Can you explain?
@@borderlands6606 You have just shown him how bright he is not he will not like you for that just wait and see lol
Read Carl Jung, especially with regard to personality. Judgements are formed on a continuum from Feeling to Thinking. This is the cultural pendulum which changes society's attitudes over time.
Speaking of Carl Jung, we need to pay attention to the innate psychological underpinnings of the human psyche when looking at the data from which we will extract a conclusion as to what is of the greatest benefit for children. When that is understood, is it really such a big surprise that children do best in a loving, healthy, intact two parent - Mother and Father - based household? When given a choice, is there any child who would NOT choose that above all else? The two people that created them, loving one another, loving the child, and making a happy, secure, nurturing home?
Granted I am prejudiced in his favor but I believe Carl Jung was the greatest mind of the 20th century. No one else even came close to elucidating what he called the structure and dynamics of the psyche. Brilliant, brilliant man.
We have a Dad crisis because of the law and the states influence over the law, what did you expect to happen? We have a western society divided one side wants to talk the other wants to commit violence, you can't debate violence, what did you expect to happen?
the best thing a mother can give a child is a father ,,,
Facts vs feelings, the saying 'the truth hurts' has never been more prevalent when facts vs feelings is mentioned. It seems we have to lie today so not to hurt people's feelings, the truth has to stand aside, just in case.
Feellings can be minipulated even thoughts might not be from the brain. The conscious is not a localized personal thing.
Love this interview,
when a majority of people prefer to live in the lie of feelings, rather the factually base reality, they begain to live a corporeal existence, vaporous with no destination,
Modern-day feminism falls into that category, despite all the destructive attributes it's still tries to be held up as as true freedom, because living in delusion feels so good.
Facts don't care about your feelings.. period
We have a thing or two to learn from marxists. They have been very successful. It’s never been about ideology. It’s CULTURE!
It would be interesting to see how this position on facts v feelings applies to (her) religious beliefs.
I think it has more to do with how it effects children,who are vulnerable and dependent on the so called grown ups who entered into child producing bodily functions and promises of fidelity honoring their partner and caring for these vulnerable dependent children they were bringing into the world!
Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings is a book by Ben Shapiro.
'What about the rights of the parents!!!!1111?????'
Let me spell this out in simple terms: Child's wellbeing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Parents rights
These are the dangers of not considering the balance of objective and subjective considerations. It leads to misinformative holes in knowledge and understanding of ourselves and the world we live in, and we pay a huge existential price for it. That's what happens when we conceptualize totality in ideas... it only forms one part of the complex "puzzle", and the other neglected parts are trap doors into hell if not tended to sufficiently. There's that, and also the singular idea itself can create paradoxical effects of the intended effect when taken too extreme and for too long a period of time. Thus the fallacy of ideologies - the damage of ramping a singular idea too much and too long, and the neglect of other ideas to dampen other problematic areas in our existence.
When our map of the world is too disjunctured in alignment with the territory of the world, and when we manifest that... whilst there's short term gratification, the long term consequences are, in excess, unnecessarily catastrophic and murderous. That's exactly what ideologies do. It's like, trying to eliminate a 15% issue and replace it with, say a comparatively and consequently 50% issue as the price to pay for in return for that. It's a very maliciously dangerous move, to the point where it may even paradoxically defeat the purpose of the original proposed problem anyway (by making that exact proposed problem worse - and that's hypocrisy on murderous levels). It's not a revolution or a solution if a strategy makes the overall sum of matters (as well as the originally proposed target problem) worse, just to target only one, singular problem area. It's also very unproductive and consuming in many dimensions - physically, psychologically and spiritually.
Well not all "feelings" are "subjective" when people are traumatized from abuse for example that's just further evidence of the abuse which is sometimes psychological not just physical. Now depends how you were raised and manipulated if you were hit and told don't cry you probably won't but crying would not be an irrational response to pain for normal people either.
Can the benefits of better mental health through divorce of the parents not outweigh the disadvantages for the children?
Dennis Prager agrees. 😊
The intellectual laziness and dishonesty we're seeing by "ends justify means" aspiring authoritarians isn't an accident. With so much of the world's population living under iron-fisted regimes it stands to reason that the very idea of the individual, his/her freedom, and its accompanying responsibilities are anathema. Patient, concerted efforts aim not to make our system (in the US) work for our idealogical enemies but, rather, to keep them from working for the People; it's easier and safer to interfere than overtake. If We lose this battle the truth of the proposition that lost freedom is impossible to regain will be learned, and I'm not optimistic about what We'll find. Push back, People, for posterity's sake if not your own. Peace.
All of John's videos are the same. He invites someone on to interview, then spends minutes on minutes labouring points and then adding a question on the end. 3.5 mins in before Melene gets to answer. Come on John, give the guest a chance!
I always get something from your conversations, John, so please keep up the good work. I had an idea, while watching this one, which I'd like to share, for what it's worth. The left wing bias of academia is becoming every more evident, quite apart from the visceral adherence to ideologies that Melanie describes. As has been said in other contexts - and specifically I'm thinking here of the scandal of Michael Mann's hockey stick graph - peer review is of more limited value if all of the reviewing peers think the same way. Perhaps in addition to peer review, and not just for the publishing of academic papers but for the awarding of research grants and academic promotions, we could have "non-peer" review. That would involve a group of academics from other academic areas, senior positions from other areas, including business, and perhaps a few genuinely lay members. Their role might be to consider biases, look for evidence of group-think and generally carry out a sanity check. Maybe that might even lead to social scientists writing in less inscrutable jargon.
Every person who has been arguing pro-life for the last fifty years is nodding their head.
I subbed because I value talks like this....
Bishop Sheen said "untreated/unrepentant sin causes neurosis in a person and develops into a mental health issue like Anxiety"...... so today sin does not exist in the new world ideology so why does everyone have mental health issues?.... that is observable, testable science right there. The world is mentally ill.
I'd just like to say I'd marry her tomorrow if she would have me 😃 wonderful interview with so many truth bombs, love it
The rise of the lived experience trumping facts and the acceptance that lived experience is an academic proof.
What I like with Melanie is she is still left of centre but just doesn’t agree with the craziness that is the left now
MELANIE: It is the personal involvement (which you expose) which accounts for the 'shifting-of-the-ethical-goal-posts' in family matters, throughout the West. Look at our own Sovereign Lady, Elizabeth; who denied her sister her first choice of husband because he was divorced: only to, then, have most of her own children undergo divorces. Even as Supreme Governor of the 'Church-of-Clergy' (previously the Church of England) she could not sustain that level of hypocrisy: and the Church-of-Clergy is a past-master at hypocrisy! Today, the Church-of-Clergy will marry anyone who has the fees to pay the clergy (divorced or not): yet those same clergy will not even allow the blessing of a same-sex couple to take place within their hallowed walls. Fortunately, 'blessings' exist because the Father 'is': not because clergy exist. So those who call on Him may ask for blessing on their own authority.
I'm wondering when she is going to talk??
One problem that I see in younger minds, in particular, is the misunderstanding that an ideology about social or environmental matters is the equivalent of a scientific theory, yet if they understood the scientific method they would know that a single piece of solid evidence that contradicts a scientific theory then invalidates it. Science deals with new evidence by shifting back to the last valid position before putting forward an improved hypothesis for testing in light of the current evidence, but most ideologues operate more like religious extremists (while looking down their noses at all religion!) and refuses to operate in a scientific manner, they refuse to give ground at all in the light of contradictory evidence. This is at its most farcical with the far-left greens who screech at the public that the science is settled, when science is never settled and there is no actual scientific theory to support much of their belief systems. Most of them are fools, but the slogan makers who emphasised the "science" claim probably know they are telling lies and only push "the science" to cover for the fact that they know that science does not support their claims and demands at all. As for the social sciences, they are not science either as the replication crisis in psychology has shown, and that is before you throw the insane political ideologues into the mix. Try suggesting that kids who get into crime often have genetic factors influencing their life course and see what happens, then point out that those genes came from their parents so it stands to reason that their families will be less stable, you'd think that the left would latch onto that defense of the idea that it is not divorce that causes the problem kids but that the problem parents have cause the divorce, and problem children (in some cases), but no they can't tolerate you suggesting that nature may have a big influence and it can be as great as nurture (family life). There is no balance in their world view, even when it would suit them to be more balanced. Don't get me wrong I value family very much and have experienced the hurt that a fractured family causes, but I can also see that sometimes the state the family is in is actually a symptom of far greater problems that cannot be fixed at the social engineering level. The brutal truth may simply be that some people should never have children and if that could be determined before they had families a lot of problem humans would not get created. Rather we see feminism causing intelligent and well adjusted women to have less or no children at all while the government fiscally encourages less competent women to have more children. So why do females matter so much, because if you are not sexist and you look at the genetics you will see that a lot of the genes that influence brain formation and function are on the X chromosome, which in males normally only comes from their mothers!
I love you Melanie....PLEASE can I have a cup of tea with you one day??!! :-)
It's a mixture of
Liberalism
Cultural Marxism
Bio Lenonism
Pathological Altruism.
"You made me feel uncomfortable" says the angry mob "I don't even know who you are"
This discussion is a very useful insight into how slowly we humans develop emotional maturity (our full capacity for both emotional empathy and resiliency). It takes a very long time! In addition, it takes a very supportive and encouraging “parenting” and sub-cultural milieu to get to maturity.
The human health, relational and social problems of adolescent adults are well-known, but rarely characterized as “immaturity!” There are no “breed wardens” for who gets to be a parent, as there are for dogs in Germany. In America, our sub-cultures, especially male sub-cultures, often describe men as “wusses” if they show sadness or fear. That truncates empathic development and is thereby false resilience!
We need to grow up again as men and women, and recognize most of our internal problems are human, not male and female problems, and that we will never make it as adults in the non-generative environments we create for our children, grandchildren and adolescent adults!
My city is in chaos after 50yrs of liberal anti-western cultural policy and the abandonment of the middle class to "globalism".