I have no such qualms, so I'll do it.
Single mothers are a disaster area. They make their children's lives objectively worse on every single metric we can measure.
We overwhelmingly give custody of children to the statistically worse parent *in spite* of the child's well being because society cares more about women than it does children (or anyone or anything else, for that matter).
Finding someone to criticise fathers and absent fathers is easy, finding anyone to call out single mothers and their deleterious influence is impossible. We hear non-stop about toxic masculinity, the patriarchy, and generally how men are the worst of the worst, but nothing is said about the single mothers at home, and the majority female teaching environment, raising children and creating the dismal outcomes they do.
When your performance in a task is directly correlated to the presence or absence of another, what does that say about your value in that task?
Cars are unsafe. They maim and kill a non-trivial number of people every single year. Is that sufficient reason to avoid cars?
Safety and utility are always a trade off. The problem when it comes to vaccines is that people are so coddled by a life without disease and death that they don't understand the utility they're gaining from vaccination. To them, nothing is happening (which isn't untrue, as vaccination is preventing the abnormal state that is disease) and thus vaccination feels correlated with other unrelated events (like autism diagnosis). Human minds are tuned to find meaning (arguably all minds are, if Skinner boxes are any indication) and will substitute bullshit and superstition if none is found.
If there is to be any remedy for your relative's position, I'd imagine it would be found in talking to people with direct experience of preventable diseases. Life without vaccination and antibiotics is within living memory and you need only go to a nursing home to get it. Direct experience of polio can be had in the general population. If you want to know what life was like when people just got sick and either just promptly died, or spent a lifetime with disability as a result, then just ask the people that saw it, or it happened to.
Nothing is perfectly safe, vaccines included. However, the alternatives to vaccines are well known and infinitely worse than anything that vaccines can do. Even if a few people die or get side effects that still a better deal than everyone having to have 5-6 children per family just to make up for increased infant mortality from epidemics.
If this is a post about strategy then strategy can be discussed. It's not a vanity post from my perspective, but even if it is I'm not married to authorial intent.
As for any group being too small to infiltrate for gain, that hasn't been my experience. It only takes 3 members for entryism to occur, as only one needs to defect from the established order. You see this in cases of adultery within a social group all the time. Lots of people lose their partner and their 'best friend' at the same time.
As you point out, whether something is entryism or politicking isn't particularly clear. I look at what OP has written - that they had a popular vote go against them, that they refuse to accept that, that they want to increase their level of authority by bad faith action, that they're coordinating an agenda with allied individuals, etc. - as indicators that OP is new to the group. This is conduct that is essentially antisocial within a group, and the antisocial get weeded out over time.As to OP's agenda being relevant to the group, the no vote and OP's reaction to it suggests otherwise. I also seriously doubt that OP just one day decided to be an identity politics activist out of the blue. This ideology is basically a non-theistic religion and is pushed with all the zeal you'd expect from any bible thumper. That being said, people have a right to their beliefs, and if those around OP choose to associate with OP whilst OP acts on those beliefs then there (probably) isn't a problem here. Quibbling about bathrooms and wording at a dance isn't really that big of a deal in the scheme of things.All that being said, I don't know OP, I don't know the situation, and it's none of my business.
Entryism is ethically bankrupt.
If you wouldn't want entryism done to the groups you care about then don't do it to the groups of others.
You must adapt to the world, not the other way around. Expecting others to fix your problems, especially at their cost, is both unreasonable and irresponsible.If you want the aid and respect of others then you have to earn that. You fit in, you put in the work, you become respectable in the community. Then you don't have to worry about "us and them" because you become part of the "us".Tangible harms are to be dealt with by law that applies to all. Intangible harms are not a problem for society to deal with. Your own thoughts and emotions are your responsibility to deal with.People tend not to like bigots. It's one thing to build a ramp for someone with mobility issues, it's quite another to have racial hiring quotas. The former is a disability, the latter is not. The former increases fairness, the latter does not.It doesn't matter if your apartheid is for or against a particular class, it is unjust either way. Also, it's only a matter of time before it gets used on you. That's how weapons work.
A society is a group of people. Much as with any group, the more that people care and are on the same page, the more you get done.
When you don't give a damn at all, or when your tribe is fighting the other tribes, you have less time and interest in progressing. For you to labour effectively your labour must matter and it must be constructive.
The CDC data has figures on numbers of relationships, including marriages, by age and gender in the tables at the end of the document. The data and conclusions about STDs is irrelevant to me in that, I am interested in what happens to people's pair bonding abilities as their number of sexual partners increases.
Promiscuity appears to have effect there, which would imply that it is at the very least a correlate with relationship failure (and therefore relevant to the topic of pair bonding). Is it causal, are there other factors at work? I can' t answer that question, I can only do the best with what I have. Unsurprisingly, research into possible negative effects of promiscuity on mental health, life outcomes, self reported metrics on happiness, etc. isn't exactly well funded. This is an area of research that is made radioactive for social reasons.
I will say the same thing to you that I did to pjeby: I made a mistake in trying to cover too much ground. For me to address every little point pjeby makes (because from my perspective a giant portion of what pjeby writes are claims that have nothing to do with anything I've written, or are misinterpretations, etc. For example, he makes a false equivalency between his experience as a member of the class and the entirety of the class) it turns into an essay, which then feeds straight back into the whole *death by a thousand cuts* game. I've cut that right off with pjeby because I'm not interested in that kind of a back and forth and I don't think it's productive.
On the other hand, you've asked a single question, and I've given you a single answer. That's manageable. You can just go ahead and tell me I'm full of shit and it ends right here, no diversions or *whaddabout-isms* or *not alls*.
Disinclination and proscription aren't the same.
The Tragedy of the Commons is the problem here. If everyone (or enough) chooses themselves over the common good then the common good will suffer as a consequence. Everyone wants the utility of the next generation, nobody wants to actually give birth to them.
It's very clear that sexually dimorphic behaviours work. They're present in thousands of species. What isn't present in thousands of species is human society. Biology just happens but society must be created and maintained, some of which is contrary to our biological imperatives. If we want the advantages of the kind of society we live in then we're going to have to make a lot of compromises on our biological imperatives. Everyone, not just women. In many domains. Either we give up on the utility we gain from society or we start ensuring that utility is maintained.
All expectations on the citizenry from the state come with the threat of violence for non-compliance. If we can draft men to extract utility from them at their risk, then unless there's special pleading going on we can do exactly the same to women. I don't think that's the answer, but it's a possibility and is congruent with other areas of custom and law.Violence is unnecessary here, all that is required is for the state to pick up the responsibility that women don't want. I don't want to remove women's agency, I want to remove society's dependence on their gestation. If women don't want to have babies that's fine by me, but society needs babies so it's going to have to source them from somewhere else. This is a supply and demand problem.Fortunately, procuring gestational services is a solved problem. Depending on what options you select, a child that is the product of in-vitro fertilisation, artificial insemination, and surrogacy can be had for about 40K USD. That's completely within the realms of state spending given the return on investment. If Western women don't want to have children there are tons of rural Indian women with no such qualms. Outsourcing tasks that Westerners won't do is something the West has been doing for longer than I've been alive.The ultimate solution to this problem is artificial gestation but we aren't there yet.