I would like to understand whether you are trying to say that “all opinions are equally valid and shouldn’t be discouraged” with regards to the ridiculous opinion that OneNote chose to share with the group.
Certainly, given your post history, you don’t think people should avoid voicing opposition to views they disagree with or find repugnant.
So it is okay for Prager (the author) to state that males need to be raised to reject their natural desires to act on physical aggression and predatory sexual behavior? But it isn’t okay for Prager to state that females need to be raised to reject their natural desire to place people’s feelings above all else?
Why?
Obviously women have been the vast majority of the primary school teaching force here since it was established, and Prager is talking about how things are only recently going downhill, so it’s clear to me his point is about how things have changed here, specifically in the last two generations.
However, it should be obvious that at least two generations of parents – especially among the well-educated – did not teach many of their daughters to control their emotions and think rationally.
Your comment about how another country with a majority woman teaching force over the same time period hasn’t gone woke may actually help prove his point.
What specifically is ridiculous about it?
Do you think that (generally speaking) females aren’t more emotionally driven than males? Assuming you don’t disagree with basic evolutionary biology and agree that they are…
Do you think that it simply isn’t possible women raised over the past two generations that currently populate primary school education, and increasingly populate liberal arts academia, the mental health profession, and the medical profession have leaned more into the emotional side of some policies, giving more credence to the feelings of their students and patients when it comes to questions of identity?
Is it the best explanation for the rapid changes we have seen in our society? I don’t know.
Is it an explanation worth considering? I don’t see why it shouldn’t be considered.
I have a hard time finding anything particularly anti-woman in the article. How is specifically anti-woman to say that educated women today that become teachers, compared to women several decades ago, follow their emotions more when it comes to how they should educate students and craft policies?
How is specifically anti-woman to say that educated women today that become teachers, compared to women several decades ago, follow their emotions more when it comes to how they should educate students and craft policies?
It isn’t a fact-based statement, and is based on a reductionist opinion about how people, of either sex, operate.
I do not think there’s anything fundamentally wrong with that opinion. In the venues run by the radical women that the article is referring to I would be canceled for my opinion. It looks like you are trying to pull the same thing here but fortunately you do not control this website.
Edit. But I do think I look pretty good in a turban and a beard.
I mean, it is an opinion article. So yeah, that is his opinion based on the facts on the ground we can all agree on (women run primary school education, women now have a larger foothold in liberal arts academia, mental health, medical schools, hospitals, and medical clinics - and there has been significant deference given by those industries to students’/patients’ claims about the importance of their “identities”). How easily can that opinion he has come up with that explains those facts be proven? I don’t know, but that’s not the point. It’s an opinion about how those facts came about. Are those facts hard for you to swallow, and that is why the opinion is especially jarring?
To a certain extent, that’s every single opinion article on anything related to sex generalities. Men and women overlap more than they are different. We can all agree on the extremes (no one argues that there should be an equal distribution of men and women in prison and men and women teaching kindergarten), but can’t we also agree there are more subtle differences we can explore without immediately jumping to the conclusion that someone is misogynist for pointing one of those differences out?
You can call something reductionist, but that, in and of itself, doesn’t make it automatically “anti” the thing it is reducing. If you were one of the people that thought James Damore’s google memo was anti-woman, then of course this 1,000 word article is also anti-woman. But if you don’t think James Damore was being anti-woman, then maybe you should take a step back on this one and see specifically what it is that Prager is really saying instead of letting the clickbaity headline make up your mind for you.
then maybe you should take a step back on this one and see specifically what it is that Prager is really saying instead of letting the clickbaity headline make up your mind for you.
Having read the article, I just see a bunch of dogmatic assertions about what he thinks is going on that aren’t really supported by any evidence, which is exactly what I’d expect from Prager.
It makes me sad for the state of critical thinking that anyone would read this article and see it as providing meaningful support for an argument.
…and I’ve said the same about countless liberal articles as well.
But will you say it about the useless opinion piece currently under discussion? 
I didnt read it, since the heading was obvious “hot take” clickbait. And the quoted portions seemed to only reinforce the gender stereotypes that the social justice warriors should be working to tear down (instead of their insane attack on the basic facts of biology).
It’s the first time I’ve heard the argument. I don’t think it provides meaningful support. I think it points out a possible explanation for one of the several reason we are where we are. I’d have to see more to know whether or not it is actually the case.
Do you think James Damore’s memo was anti-woman?
The situation has changed. At this point masks do little against Omicron–but respirators (N95, KN95, KF94–we commonly refer to them as masks but that’s not the right name) still do.
The only situation that has changed is that more people have finally resigned themselves to accept the fact that masks do little.
Do you think James Damore’s memo was anti-woman?
I don’t think I ever read the guy’s memo, because I really don’t care about some workplace dispute at Google.
But that really isn’t material to whether Prager is spouting a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense.
At first masks were of considerable value when worn by everyone. (Sick or not–most spread is before you show symptoms.) It has become infectious enough now that masks are of minimal value but respirators still work.
So nice of them to allow us to now discuss on their platform that “the situation has changed” now that they have determined that the situation has changed. Kinda of a shame that we weren’t allowed to discuss how the situation was changing throughout the whole time the situation was changing though, don’t you think?
I would like world peace, among other things. In regards to this particular thread, I would like for you to answer at least one of my questions, before expecting me to answer more of yours.
Sorry, but I couldn’t resist. HA HA HA! Thank the good Lord that it was not infectious enough in 2020 to warrant shutting down the economy and making up insane phrases that mean the exact opposite of what they say. We can also be thankful that everyone wore masks as they were designed. Otherwise, our population would be close to zero. 
Yeah, my jaw dropped when I read a couple articles talking about how the current variants are so bad now while casually dismissing the initial version’s infectiousness as being “about the same as any other disease”. Talk about rewriting the propaganda “history”.
