Yup! I enjoyed this presentation because it speaks volumes. I’m glad the speaker is a White Woman. Why! Because as a Black woman if I said the things she said when it comes to Blacks, I would be called bitter. Therefore this message better by Ms. Wax.
Support Dr. Amy Wax! She pointed out the core problem of the society that every person should take it seriously. This is the only way to make the society better.
When I was a nerdy, studious kid at Brown in the 70s, I was totally shut out of the typical counterculture universe. My love life was nonexistent, and I barely had a social life. I was out of place from my clothing to my hair, to my inability to relate to the ubiquitous corporate white “blues” guitarist Eric Clapton. The “talking the 60s, living the 50s” that Amy Wax describes applied not only to the future relationship patterns of the students, but to their entire career spectrum. Even in 1970 I noticed that Rolling Stone magazine, the Bible of my roommates, was chock full of advertisements for expensive ski equipment, clothing, and stereos. I should have known right then that the whole "alternative lifestyle" thing was a lie. My classmates, the fringe-jacketed members of the “cultural avant-garde” who despised big business, capitalism, etc. all went to work for giant law firms, or became MDs, bankers, or clawed their way up the increasingly lucrative academic ladder. I, on the other hand, ended up with a career in music, poisoned into marginalization by their ideology and, ultimately furious with myself that I “bought” it. The 60s and 70s generation was, and is, the most profoundly hypocritical generation in the history of this country. I am ashamed to be part of it.
Wow glad to hear your story. I'm 25 and feel the same about these woke types who are often upper class white/asian liberals. They base their character on a utopian ideal but live conventional & privileged lives
It sure is. My mom talks about how badly she wanted to go to Woodstock but she couldn’t afford it. She was working 2 jobs and paying for rent college on her own barely making ends meet. She couldn’t afford to drive across the country for a concert and neither could anyone else that wasn’t a total rich kid. She also said the anti war movement was essentially a popularity contest and if you werent “in” they didn’t want you.
You’re a little bit correct. My generation begins in my birth year, 1965. I am a Canadian Gen Xer; not a boomer. We are the quiet and cooperative generation and we are mostly considered to be the generation of the 70s. My American husband was a boomer who was not rich, but WAS at Woodstock. You did not have to be rich to get there, just determined. He and I were often comically like oil and water. Boomers are the 60s’ generation. And they are INDEED hypocritical: they spoke out against “the man” and helped push for women’s and civil rights, and then they got old, became terrible people, and now they live in that horrible dung hole called Florida and drive golf carts with trump flags. The US ended up with trump because of that cohort group. Pretty pathetic.
Amy Wax is brilliant and a paragon of intellectual honesty. This is what Jordan Peterson would look like if he were female and brilliant. Its interesting to see her discuss issues that the Left could use to brand her a racist or an anti-feminist without sacrificing her honesty and intellectual integrity. Well done.
At 13:37 for a bit she goes into the research on the key benefits for men and women. And then 14:58 on talks about the benefits for kids. And revisits the cultural impacts of wide scale single men outside families around 15:50. She talks about causes around 17:50. I hope this helps.
@@whousa642 I assumed that it was an ego thing. They succeeded in getting hold of the microphone and in becoming the center of attention. They wanted to prolong the concomitant gratification for as long as possible, hence they use many words to preface, to introduce, to annotate, and, ultimately to convey a question that might have been packed into 25 words or fewer if the audience had been a half-dozen students in their old college physics study room.
For the same reason that you didn't ask: "Why do the questioners babble?" But seriously, they get one shot. They think they have get the questions across well without being misunderstood.
@@sca8217 No, this is Yale. Where every action is calculated to be noticed, to signal virtue and dedication to a compulsory ideology, and to cover for lack of intellectual depth through verbosity. This is very much 2nd child syndrome, and not witnessed to anything like the same extent at Harvard, MIT or even Chicago.
Thank you, Amy. for stating the obvious. Somebody had to do it. I am sorry to see that you have lost your job over it. We do indeed live in strange times.
Great lecture - and valuable insights and references. First questioner crystallises the stupidity of culture-wars debate. ….. Why can’t we talk EVEN MORE about black disadvantage and black diversity?? Well why not, PROVIDING we can talk equally about caucasian diversity, asian diversity, hispanic diversity etc etc. What is it that affords black activists UNIQUE affront about broad racial analysis, where ALL racial umbrella groups have very distinct and diverse sub-groupings within them. Not only myopic, but arrogant in the extreme.
This is the real reason for failures in the family. Nothing is more important than for the parents to 'DILIGENTLY' teach their children about God in the HOUSE. Deut 6:5. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6. And these words which I command you this day shall be in your heart. 7. And you shall diligently teach them to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up. (A Faithful Version)
She's wrong about the black marriage rate, according to the US census blacks in the US were married at a higher rate than whites before the 1960's welfare programs. I'm not sure how she missed the Moynihan report...
Amy you rock. I've been wandering around the very intellectual dark web for the past few years, and recently I think I hit my saturation point. So this almost feels like going back to school. Which is just fine. A taxed brain can only take so much. So your much esteemed self along with the likes of Heather Heying and a rare few others are the new flavor that tickles the pallet. Easy on the intake. The mating instinct is one hell of a chunk of human hardwiring to get kicked around by modernity. A quote I remember reading somewhere............"The strength of a nation is in its clans." Like the first two people are a pebble tossed into the middle of a deep wide pool. And the ripple rings run off to infinity. Family structures that radiate out into a dozen degrees of separation. Woven together upon a social loom, patterns colors textures, like Persian carpets, built to last, and whose utility manifests more than destiny. When your politics or your un-gendering stand outside all of this, and the aunties and the uncles and the grand ones and great grand ones, the cousins and the in laws and out laws and those twice removed and the ones by marriage, and all of that kin, and instead you stand alone, that is truly a lonely place to be. Replaced by what? If it takes a child to raise a village, then it takes concerted responsibility of that village to make the child make sense. "Only the top twenty percent can be in the top twenty percent." I just love that math, Amy. For all those who think the solution is always a bigger pie - who think that rising health care costs, housing costs, educational costs are balanced out by what? Cheap Walmart plastic junk? The dirty little secret of our times is that middle and lower middle class, not to mention the working class, most of whom have lost ground as far as the actual purchasing power of their income, and who don't have a hope in hell of joining that top twenty percent (and if they did it means that somebody else tumbled out of that demographic.) The point is that people need to be doing all right at the 65th percentile. Or the 85th percentile. Because this used to be the case. National policy based on the reality of the top twenty percent is a useless thing. What has caused this to come about is a true Macro-aggression of the first order. One that will sit in place with complacency as long as the "little people" bark at each other about micro-aggressions. I remember the 80's well. Educated men wanting well educated women upped the ante considerably. This was the heyday of the two-income family structure taking off like a moon rocket. The results are rather interesting historically. Moving from the 1960's through the 1970's, any male with a professional degree saw his household evolve from supplementary income derived from a working wife, first as a high school grad, next to low end community college (dental technician) and low end undergrad (admin support.) It was in the 1980's that en mass, professional degrees started marrying each other. So these households, instead of floating around in the middle of the middle class, vaulted upward toward upper middle class. And they've been there ever since. In short, household incomes now possessing two professional degrees, would have represented the household income of two households, decades earlier. Historically, this was always the case going backward into the earlier decades of the twentieth century, but in much smaller numbers. Remember yuppies? That's where they came from. And they are with us still. Only they're not really called that anymore. But whatever you call it, it is a concentration of wealth into fewer households.
She really is brilliant. Not, however, an ideologue. Or at least, she is only ideological about facts and reason, which is the very thing that has gotten her into trouble with the woke Left.
I agree with much of what she says, but there is a LOT of ideology here. She's still blaming men more than women for the sexual revolution, and seems to have a total blindspot around women's desire. The facts in the 1st half of the talk undermine much of the conclusion.
Yes she does. During an interview she once cited Wikipedia as a source for her poorly thought out views. She's an extremely low-quality thinker who is hated by her students and has been repeatedly sanctioned by her own university for her openly racist remarks and speaking at a self-proclaimed white supremacist gathering.
The one big obvious flaw to her assertions, is that they seem to be supported by the statistics, but they would have to show things like increased crime and violence(which are on a steady decline for the last century), and increased poverty rates(in a world with unprecedented wealth still on the rise), lower life expectancy(though it is still consistently rising). Society is actually improving in many measurable ways. We have a long way to go, but we're never going to get there by going backward.
I was looking at the crime stats. We are where we were in 1970. Poverty has dropped by about a third since 1960. Percent of people married has also dropped a third since 1960, but I read divorce rate is dropping lately.
@@MrDanielfff777 The world of the fifties was a manufactured nonsense bubble. Most of what we call assault today, was just part of the accepted norm. Violent crime was frighteningly rampant, but rarely reported, or even viewed as such. A major part of the norms she hearkens back to are founded on the notion that a man was the king of his castle, and as such, he could force sex with his wife and it was not rape, and he could punish "misbehaving" women and children of his household as he saw fit and it was no one's business but his own. Of course for any return to the traditional family to work, anyway, executives would first have to stop taking all the earnings out of their companies, and allow the average worker to make enough money to support a family. The mass of workers will always be the average, and only those powerful few corporate bigwigs get to decide what the average wage will be, regardless of what kind of education, or ambition the mass of workers bring to the table.
And more educated people are failing at having children, right Amy? So we have less and less of these bourgeois and family values in the country, isn’t that right Amy? Why don’t you do you part then?
@42:30 This is why it doesn't pay to take sides with people like Jared Taylor or Amy Wax, as Afro-Anglo, Afro Franco, Afro Latino or Continental Africans. Their ultimate vision for a future Western civilization does NOT include YOU! No matter how hard you may wish or try! This is why many other scholars on these topics, both black and white, regard them as racists. Long before African Americans were "thuggin' and bangin,'" black people were being attacked and discriminated against in a multitude of verbal and physical ways along with Latinos, Asians and Middle Easterners later on. Every generation there's an excuse for American racism because it's not just behavior, it's our physical appearance which causes them to be unable to reconcile our presence amongst them. Although the vast majority of whites do not agree with these ideas, and are just trying to keep a roof over their heads however, there are painfully few who would lift a finger to shut the true racists down.
Amy is Jewish, as I understand her. As such, she would follow the principles of family in God's word in the Old Testament. The New Testament is superior to the Old in that it offers salvation through Christ. That said, both Testaments teach one man and one woman for marriage and the proper training of children. God's word is always right. But America has rejected it. Now we as a country are paying the price!
Wow. What an absolutely troglodytic redection of the argument. You can either choose between: 1.- Everyone fallowing their unbridled evolutionary impetus. 2.- A stable society producing scientific advancement and a dramatically reduced mortality rate. Pick one. They can't exist at the same time.
What's so cool about STD's, broken homes with children permanently harmed by divorce, as she points out children without fathers in the home are harmed, women and children who live outside of the traditional family are in much more physical danger? Sex without love is degrading and destructive--e.g. what has come out about Hugh Hefner. Abortion as a means of birth control takes an innocent human life and sets off a moral hazard of increasing sex outside of love and the family. The more sexual partners a person has, the less successful the marriage if one does later marry. Women who are virgins when they marry enjoy sex more. Widespread sex outside of traditional marriage leads to cultural decline according to the research of Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin.
@@christophergraves6725 all of the difficulties you mentioned are not exclusive to unmarried families and this rhetoric about abortion somehow being used as birth control is both laughably hyperbolic and disrespectful to those who actually have faced this decision to make. Also, the emotions someone has in response to their own sexual encounters as well as their partners are their own. The correlation you assert, a negative relationship between number of partners and happiness, is not supported by study, unless you’re citing how the societal condemnation/approval of certain behavior affects one’s self image.
@@reharl4953 weird to argue reduction of argument with a dichotomy. binary choice is an inherent fallacy. “Family” is societally defined within a culture; there is not inherent, objective “better” model; there ARE “acceptable” and “unacceptable” models defined by the whims of the culture and its keepers.
This is the "academic" who, in a 2019 interview in The New Yorker, cited Wikipedia as a credible source as well as eugenic advocate. You know, eugenics, which the third reich put into law? Yeah.
Wait, what are this woman's qualifications for discussing trends and causation in familial behavior? Well, she's a very bad law professor who's been sanctioned repeatedly by her own university......hmm. Seems iffy.
Whereas you, Leto Lethe - pretentious bot extraordinaire, could doubtless have delivered said lecture so much better. You presumably also subscribe to the view that only those who have already died from cancer have any right to discuss or hold an opinion on palliative care?
![The IQ Taboo | Glenn Loury & Amy Wax [The Glenn Show]](/img/n.gif)
What an excellent analysis and breakdown of the trends and current circumstances.
Yup!
I enjoyed this presentation because it speaks volumes.
I’m glad the speaker is a White Woman. Why! Because as a Black woman if I said the things she said when it comes to Blacks, I would be called bitter.
Therefore this message better by Ms. Wax.
Support Dr. Amy Wax! She pointed out the core problem of the society that every person should take it seriously. This is the only way to make the society better.
🐐 This lecture is tremendous!!!!
When I was a nerdy, studious kid at Brown in the 70s, I was totally shut out of the typical counterculture universe. My love life was nonexistent, and I barely had a social life. I was out of place from my clothing to my hair, to my inability to relate to the ubiquitous corporate white “blues” guitarist Eric Clapton. The “talking the 60s, living the 50s” that Amy Wax describes applied not only to the future relationship patterns of the students, but to their entire career spectrum. Even in 1970 I noticed that Rolling Stone magazine, the Bible of my roommates, was chock full of advertisements for expensive ski equipment, clothing, and stereos. I should have known right then that the whole "alternative lifestyle" thing was a lie. My classmates, the fringe-jacketed members of the “cultural avant-garde” who despised big business, capitalism, etc. all went to work for giant law firms, or became MDs, bankers, or clawed their way up the increasingly lucrative academic ladder. I, on the other hand, ended up with a career in music, poisoned into marginalization by their ideology and, ultimately furious with myself that I “bought” it. The 60s and 70s generation was, and is, the most profoundly hypocritical generation in the history of this country. I am ashamed to be part of it.
Wow glad to hear your story. I'm 25 and feel the same about these woke types who are often upper class white/asian liberals. They base their character on a utopian ideal but live conventional & privileged lives
It sure is. My mom talks about how badly she wanted to go to Woodstock but she couldn’t afford it. She was working 2 jobs and paying for rent college on her own barely making ends meet. She couldn’t afford to drive across the country for a concert and neither could anyone else that wasn’t a total rich kid. She also said the anti war movement was essentially a popularity contest and if you werent “in” they didn’t want you.
You’re a little bit correct. My generation begins in my birth year, 1965. I am a Canadian Gen Xer; not a boomer. We are the quiet and cooperative generation and we are mostly considered to be the generation of the 70s. My American husband was a boomer who was not rich, but WAS at Woodstock. You did not have to be rich to get there, just determined. He and I were often comically like oil and water. Boomers are the 60s’ generation. And they are INDEED hypocritical: they spoke out against “the man” and helped push for women’s and civil rights, and then they got old, became terrible people, and now they live in that horrible dung hole called Florida and drive golf carts with trump flags. The US ended up with trump because of that cohort group. Pretty pathetic.
Amy Wax is brilliant and a paragon of intellectual honesty. This is what Jordan Peterson would look like if he were female and brilliant. Its interesting to see her discuss issues that the Left could use to brand her a racist or an anti-feminist without sacrificing her honesty and intellectual integrity. Well done.
I mean... Maybe
Blah blah blah!
@@flirtwd you must have flunked her course.
"Talk the 60's but live the 50's."
One of the smartest women I have ever heard.
At 13:37 for a bit she goes into the research on the key benefits for men and women. And then 14:58 on talks about the benefits for kids. And revisits the cultural impacts of wide scale single men outside families around 15:50. She talks about causes around 17:50. I hope this helps.
Why do question-askers use ten times as many words as should be needed?
Due to lack of intelligence and lots of arrogance
@@whousa642 I assumed that it was an ego thing. They succeeded in getting hold of the microphone and in becoming the center of attention. They wanted to prolong the concomitant gratification for as long as possible, hence they use many words to preface, to introduce, to annotate, and, ultimately to convey a question that might have been packed into 25 words or fewer if the audience had been a half-dozen students in their old college physics study room.
For the same reason that you didn't ask: "Why do the questioners babble?"
But seriously, they get one shot. They think they have get the questions across well without being misunderstood.
@@sca8217 // They are typical lefties, psychologically unstable.
@@sca8217 No, this is Yale. Where every action is calculated to be noticed, to signal virtue and dedication to a compulsory ideology, and to cover for lack of intellectual depth through verbosity.
This is very much 2nd child syndrome, and not witnessed to anything like the same extent at Harvard, MIT or even Chicago.
Is practicing delayed gratification an inherited or learned behavior?
The most intelligent woman in America.
Thank you, Amy. for stating the obvious. Somebody had to do it. I am sorry to see that you have lost your job over it. We do indeed live in strange times.
The family that prays together stays together.
Not really
Oh, it helps for sure. Accountability and a feeling of unity.
And have supper together!
Great lecture - and valuable insights and references.
First questioner crystallises the stupidity of culture-wars debate. ….. Why can’t we talk EVEN MORE about black disadvantage and black diversity?? Well why not, PROVIDING we can talk equally about caucasian diversity, asian diversity, hispanic diversity etc etc.
What is it that affords black activists UNIQUE affront about broad racial analysis, where ALL racial umbrella groups have very distinct and diverse sub-groupings within them.
Not only myopic, but arrogant in the extreme.
Citing Murray and Moynihan...whew, boy!!!!
Amy Wax, a true patriot!
patriot= fascist
@vertex2100 A projecting fascist I see.
@vertex2100 I'm not, thankfully, in no ones side.
Facts aren't racist.
Victim mentality does not want to be encouraged to be more productive
people from a poor family or single-parent, it is a disadvantage, that means you will do much work than others to make great.
Where did you go to college again?
The data indicate. Data is the plural of datum.
Amy Wax is a hero.
This is the real reason for failures in the family. Nothing is more important than for the parents to 'DILIGENTLY' teach their children about God in the HOUSE.
Deut 6:5. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
6. And these words which I command you this day shall be in your heart.
7. And you shall diligently teach them to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up.
(A Faithful Version)
She's wrong about the black marriage rate, according to the US census blacks in the US were married at a higher rate than whites before the 1960's welfare programs. I'm not sure how she missed the Moynihan report...
Amy you rock.
I've been wandering around the very intellectual dark web for the past few years, and recently I think I hit my saturation point. So this almost feels like going back to school. Which is just fine.
A taxed brain can only take so much.
So your much esteemed self along with the likes of Heather Heying and a rare few others are the new flavor that tickles the pallet. Easy on the intake.
The mating instinct is one hell of a chunk of human hardwiring to get kicked around by modernity.
A quote I remember reading somewhere............"The strength of a nation is in its clans."
Like the first two people are a pebble tossed into the middle of a deep wide pool. And the ripple rings run off to infinity.
Family structures that radiate out into a dozen degrees of separation.
Woven together upon a social loom, patterns colors textures, like Persian carpets, built to last, and whose utility manifests more than destiny.
When your politics or your un-gendering stand outside all of this, and the aunties and the uncles and the grand ones and great grand ones, the cousins and the in laws and out laws and those twice removed and the ones by marriage, and all of that kin, and instead you stand alone, that is truly a lonely place to be. Replaced by what? If it takes a child to raise a village, then it takes concerted responsibility of that village to make the child make sense.
"Only the top twenty percent can be in the top twenty percent."
I just love that math, Amy.
For all those who think the solution is always a bigger pie - who think that rising health care costs, housing costs, educational costs are balanced out by what? Cheap Walmart plastic junk?
The dirty little secret of our times is that middle and lower middle class, not to mention the working class, most of whom have lost ground as far as the actual purchasing power of their income, and who don't have a hope in hell of joining that top twenty percent (and if they did it means that somebody else tumbled out of that demographic.)
The point is that people need to be doing all right at the 65th percentile. Or the 85th percentile. Because this used to be the case.
National policy based on the reality of the top twenty percent is a useless thing.
What has caused this to come about is a true Macro-aggression of the first order. One that will sit in place with complacency as long as the "little people" bark at each other about micro-aggressions.
I remember the 80's well. Educated men wanting well educated women upped the ante considerably. This was the heyday of the two-income family structure taking off like a moon rocket. The results are rather interesting historically.
Moving from the 1960's through the 1970's, any male with a professional degree saw his household evolve from supplementary income derived from a working wife, first as a high school grad, next to low end community college (dental technician) and low end undergrad (admin support.) It was in the 1980's that en mass, professional degrees started marrying each other. So these households, instead of floating around in the middle of the middle class, vaulted upward toward upper middle class. And they've been there ever since.
In short, household incomes now possessing two professional degrees, would have represented the household income of two households, decades earlier.
Historically, this was always the case going backward into the earlier decades of the twentieth century, but in much smaller numbers.
Remember yuppies? That's where they came from. And they are with us still. Only they're not really called that anymore.
But whatever you call it, it is a concentration of wealth into fewer households.
What is all this? Like a lawnmower in a corn field.
She really is brilliant. Not, however, an ideologue. Or at least, she is only ideological about facts and reason, which is the very thing that has gotten her into trouble with the woke Left.
I agree with much of what she says, but there is a LOT of ideology here. She's still blaming men more than women for the sexual revolution, and seems to have a total blindspot around women's desire. The facts in the 1st half of the talk undermine much of the conclusion.
Really impressed by this woman. Common sense, who'da thunk it?
SHe uses a lot of generalizations.
not really
Yes she does. During an interview she once cited Wikipedia as a source for her poorly thought out views. She's an extremely low-quality thinker who is hated by her students and has been repeatedly sanctioned by her own university for her openly racist remarks and speaking at a self-proclaimed white supremacist gathering.
Leto, what's your real concern? What are you trying to assert?
@@letolethe3344 // thanks lefty. You are melting when confronted by facts. Shame on you but you are a lefty, there is no shame.
And?
The one big obvious flaw to her assertions, is that they seem to be supported by the statistics, but they would have to show things like increased crime and violence(which are on a steady decline for the last century), and increased poverty rates(in a world with unprecedented wealth still on the rise), lower life expectancy(though it is still consistently rising). Society is actually improving in many measurable ways. We have a long way to go, but we're never going to get there by going backward.
I was looking at the crime stats. We are where we were in 1970. Poverty has dropped by about a third since 1960. Percent of people married has also dropped a third since 1960, but I read divorce rate is dropping lately.
Crime is higher today than the 50s
@@MrDanielfff777 The world of the fifties was a manufactured nonsense bubble. Most of what we call assault today, was just part of the accepted norm. Violent crime was frighteningly rampant, but rarely reported, or even viewed as such. A major part of the norms she hearkens back to are founded on the notion that a man was the king of his castle, and as such, he could force sex with his wife and it was not rape, and he could punish "misbehaving" women and children of his household as he saw fit and it was no one's business but his own. Of course for any return to the traditional family to work, anyway, executives would first have to stop taking all the earnings out of their companies, and allow the average worker to make enough money to support a family. The mass of workers will always be the average, and only those powerful few corporate bigwigs get to decide what the average wage will be, regardless of what kind of education, or ambition the mass of workers bring to the table.
Check the suicide rates among teens and the drug abuses by all ages. Those are important metrics.
And more educated people are failing at having children, right Amy? So we have less and less of these bourgeois and family values in the country, isn’t that right Amy? Why don’t you do you part then?
She has 3 kids
Just another academic Red. Genetics offer a simple and better explanation.
Prof Wax is far far far from a Red.
All in all--Barbarism.
@42:30 This is why it doesn't pay to take sides with people like Jared Taylor or Amy Wax, as Afro-Anglo, Afro Franco, Afro Latino or Continental Africans. Their ultimate vision for a future Western civilization does NOT include YOU! No matter how hard you may wish or try!
This is why many other scholars on these topics, both black and white, regard them as racists.
Long before African Americans were "thuggin' and bangin,'" black people were being attacked and discriminated against in a multitude of verbal and physical ways along with Latinos, Asians and Middle Easterners later on.
Every generation there's an excuse for American racism because it's not just behavior, it's our physical appearance which causes them to be unable to reconcile our presence amongst them.
Although the vast majority of whites do not agree with these ideas, and are just trying to keep a roof over their heads however, there are painfully few who would lift a finger to shut the true racists down.
Amy is Jewish, as I understand her. As such, she would follow the principles of family in God's word in the Old Testament. The New Testament is superior to the Old in that it offers salvation through Christ. That said, both Testaments teach one man and one woman for marriage and the proper training of children. God's word is always right. But America has rejected it. Now we as a country are paying the price!
Why did god screw up and had to re-write the testament?
How is it a screw up? One is a reference prior to crucifixion.
@@dr.emilschaffhausen4683 // he changed his mind when it came to New Testament. Example, abortion. Example, to messiahs. And much more.
@@whousa642 God makes no mistakes. I suggest you read Jeremiah 31:31-34, and the New Testament letter to the Hebrews.
@@rll1954 // He obviously did.
So...in summary the world is changing and poeple are making their own choices more and more. Cool, that's the pattern of life
Wow. What an absolutely troglodytic redection of the argument. You can either choose between:
1.- Everyone fallowing their unbridled evolutionary impetus.
2.- A stable society producing scientific advancement and a dramatically reduced mortality rate.
Pick one. They can't exist at the same time.
Sounds good to me!
What's so cool about STD's, broken homes with children permanently harmed by divorce, as she points out children without fathers in the home are harmed, women and children who live outside of the traditional family are in much more physical danger? Sex without love is degrading and destructive--e.g. what has come out about Hugh Hefner. Abortion as a means of birth control takes an innocent human life and sets off a moral hazard of increasing sex outside of love and the family. The more sexual partners a person has, the less successful the marriage if one does later marry. Women who are virgins when they marry enjoy sex more.
Widespread sex outside of traditional marriage leads to cultural decline according to the research of Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin.
@@christophergraves6725 all of the difficulties you mentioned are not exclusive to unmarried families and this rhetoric about abortion somehow being used as birth control is both laughably hyperbolic and disrespectful to those who actually have faced this decision to make. Also, the emotions someone has in response to their own sexual encounters as well as their partners are their own. The correlation you assert, a negative relationship between number of partners and happiness, is not supported by study, unless you’re citing how the societal condemnation/approval of certain behavior affects one’s self image.
@@reharl4953 weird to argue reduction of argument with a dichotomy. binary choice is an inherent fallacy. “Family” is societally defined within a culture; there is not inherent, objective “better” model; there ARE “acceptable” and “unacceptable” models defined by the whims of the culture and its keepers.
This is the "academic" who, in a 2019 interview in The New Yorker, cited Wikipedia as a credible source as well as eugenic advocate. You know, eugenics, which the third reich put into law? Yeah.
Eugenics like the founder of Planned Parenthood? Good thing she's not Marxist like BLM, eh?
John Rawls advocated eugenics. What was Prof. Wax's proposal exactly? As for sources, she lists very reputable sources in this video.
Strawman argument. Even if what you said was true it woukd not undermine her argument here.
Wait, what are this woman's qualifications for discussing trends and causation in familial behavior? Well, she's a very bad law professor who's been sanctioned repeatedly by her own university......hmm. Seems iffy.
State your source for her being a "bad law professor", or are you making assumptions?
Whereas you, Leto Lethe - pretentious bot extraordinaire, could doubtless have delivered said lecture so much better.
You presumably also subscribe to the view that only those who have already died from cancer have any right to discuss or hold an opinion on palliative care?
Has she ever been married? And if she were, her husband would have left her for a young thang. This is just more endemic snooze fest. I can’t 😱
Shame on you. How are the cats?
She has 3 children, idiot.