6 ms·
Summary of the article: Author notes a diversity of viewpoints are represented at UN (South America, Africa, ...), but not all, notably East-Asia, e.g. China.
by woolion 4y ago
Summary of the article:
Author notes a diversity of viewpoints are represented at UN (South America, Africa, ...), but not all, notably East-Asia, e.g. China.
Yet the author notes that very disproportionately the representatives are people educated in US universities and living out of their constituency.
The author says data shows overwhelmingly that 'normative' family (stable family formed by the two biological parents leads to much less child abuse, and therefore lower rates of mental illness in the raised children etc.
Despite that, author notes that the 'inclusive' viewpoint from the UN would rather say that "all family structures are equal".
When this is discussed no data is not considered for philosophical reasons like women's rights and equality trump such concerns.
The author then says somebody who vehemently opposed his viewpoint privately agreed and apparently detailed how much she believed it in her own life.
Nonetheless "she suggested jokingly that I had better leave now".
The author concludes that the UN representatives are elites that do not believe what they profess.
---
Without considering the ideological battle, I'm wondering how the UN could give "universal recommendations", knowing how diverse the viewpoints from each culture may be.
Let us consider that what the author says is true in his country, and therefore encouraging "non-traditional family structures" creates more child abuse.
Suppose also that might be entirely false in some other country (author does not provide any such data).
Isn't it profoundly evil to make a "universal" statement that refuses to consider that?
One point the author insists on is that his African colleagues consider what he considers a "traditional family structure" to not be a norm.
If pushing such family structure on these communities created more child abuse in these communities, doing so would be an evil thing, or there does not exist any evil in this world.
- verisimi 4y ago
- phkahler 4y agoThis notion that every viewpoint is equally valid has to go. maybe every one should be considered/heard, but that is different than being accepted or equivalent. Some ideas are based on falsehoods and need to be outright rejected regardless of whose feelings get hurt.
- koheripbal 4y agoHow can you reject an idea if you do not listen to it first?
- phkahler 4y ago>> How can you reject an idea if you do not listen to it first? If you say "oh hey, I have an idea I'd like to run past you" in some cases I'll ask what it pertains to, and if the subject is of no interest to me, or if it's related to problems I don't care about, or if it's about making the flat earth round, I may well tell you I'm not interested in the idea before even hearing it. But that's very uncommon and some of those cases are more of "not my thing" than rejecting the idea itself. I will reject ideas for perpetual motion machines without hearing them though. For that you'll need to start by explaining which laws of physics you've broken and how before we get to the embodiment of an actual machine. If you don't know which physics needs to change I'll chalk it up to "you're an idiot, stop wasting my time".
- qgin 4y agoEven in the hard sciences, truly reproducible results take a long time to arrive at. In the social sciences, it’s a serious and multi layered problem. So yes, facts don’t care about feelings. But everyone should likewise check their own feelings of desiring certainty in a world of sociology that is filled with vague suggestions and likelihood at best. Not every idea is true, not every idea should be accepted. But the idea that we know with certainty which are which when it comes to social sciences should be held with skepticism.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- civilized 4y agoMaybe the benefits of nuclear families are sort of culture-bound to WEIRD countries and the UN isn't the right forum for promoting the concept.
- hash03x 4y ago
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y agoIt doesn’t seem to have any comparison data wise to multi-generational raising of children, communal raising of children, etc. It confers mental illness and nuclear family structures as if correlation and causation are equal, even though if we expanded it it is clearly nonsense (mental illness is more commonly diagnosed in western countries where the nuclear family structure is tradition, therefore nuclear family structures are clearly a problem! /s)