Modern Feminism Is A Negative Influence On Women

In light of the recent buzz about the women’s march, it seem necessary to address the ideas that Modern Feminism proclaims. Last year’s march expose the negative sentiments and hierarchy of victimhood that are inherent in this philosophy.

You will notice that the phrase used is Modern Feminism, not Feminism, because the early goals of the feminist movement were noble and oriented around the individual. Wherever Feminism argues for individuality, it is noble, but Modern Feminism attempts to collectivize women under one umbrella of Progressive thought. This deviation from the original goals of Feminism is what will be discussed and criticized below.

The Workplace

Women are regularly told about the wage gap, constant sexism and the glass ceiling. But, how true are these ideas? First, the wage gap is nearly nonexistent, not the 78 cents per dollar that is widely propagated. In reality it is a two to three cent difference, which is largely due to career choices, motherhood, experience, seniority and agreeableness and other traits that are more common to women.

These reasons cannot be applied to an individual woman who makes less money than a man at her job; the cause of that particular discrepancy must be investigated. However, at large, these statistical differences between men and women create disparities. These cannot be fixed by regulation, as has been learned by the fact that despite following the Civil Rights Acts, women still make less. The truth is, women often choose more nurturing jobs like teaching, social work or nursing, which do not earn the same as being a brand manager or sales person. That is not to say that women can’t break away from these jobs and succeed in others, but that is where they gravitate because they match the characteristics of femininity that have been ingrained in women to be good nurturers and mothers.

Modern Feminism has moved to shaming women for not entering the workforce. They push for women to rise to powerful positions to pull women up and discriminate against men. This thinking is not only the exact thinking Feminism originally tried to root out, but it seems to doubt women’s ability to rise on their own. It also guilts women out of wanting to be a mother or compromising on a career to build a home -the most noble of endeavors around which every other job is built to support. Study after study shows that women who are raising a family are happier overall, and while this is definitely not true for each individual, it shows that urging women en masse to abandon motherhood for corporate jobs will likely have negative effects on women’s happiness.

“Reproductive Rights”

This is a loaded topic as well. The idea of “Reproductive Rights” is a broad set of choices that Modern Feminism believes women have the right to make. Do women have the right to use birth control? Yes. If that were all “Reproductive Rights” were about, that would be a valid argument in favor of individuals being able to choose when to have kids carefully and plan their family, or prevent themselves from ever having one if they so choose.

The most pressing problem with “Reproductive Rights,” however, is the demand by Modern Feminists to have it subsidized and provided through tax dollars. There was a sign at the women’s march that said something along the lines of, “If they don’t have to pay for razors, why should I pay for tampons?” (Let’s ignore the fact that men DO have to buy razors and that they are very expensive.) Now, obviously tampons aren’t for birth control, but the same argument is made for the pill and abortions. The defunding of Planned Parenthood is not about attacking “Reproductive Rights,” but saying that the government doesn’t have an obligation to pay for these services. They are currently legal in this system, so a private institution may provide them.

According to Modern Feminist’s logic, the government should be buying guns for any person who wants a gun, and they should be allowed to get them without any background check or issue, because after all, it’s a Right. But everyone realizes that’s a ridiculous idea because a right to a good or service doesn’t exist, but the access to a service or good does. This collectivization of women as an oppressed group that requires government subsidization is not only an attack on individuality, but an insult to women because it asserts that women could not attain these things on their own when there are already no barriers to accessing these services.


Marriage was not designed to oppress women, rather it protected them. Men are naturally pigs, that is true (I am a man, and I can tell you that we are). Society has been refined over millennia to reign in men’s tendencies to be brutes. Marriage was instituted to incentivize men to remain loyal to a woman. It was a contract between them that required the men to provide food, shelter and the necessities of life and the woman to take these things the man provided and turn them into a home and raise children.

Marriage was a guarantee for women. Now, as Modern Feminism attacks the institution of marriage, it exposes women to higher risks of single motherhood. If men sleep around and impregnate a woman, they are not the one who deals with the fallout of that decision. This would seem common sense, but it is a fact that is obviously not accounted for in the attacks on marriage. It may not seem fair that women bear that burden, but its an inescapable fact of life, and running away rather than confronting that truth only hurts the women who fall for the lies against marriage.

Last Words

Where Feminism attempts to expand Individualism to include women, it is correct and worthwhile. Everyone should be treated with the dignity and respect due to them for simply being a human being and an Individual. However, Modern Feminism offers an ideology that focuses on collectivizing women into an oppressed group in order to rank in the Progressive Left’s Hierarchy of Victims.

Modern Feminism teaches women to act against their nature and to rely on government to take care of them. This new ideology must be confronted fearlessly and be discussed honestly, devoid of euphemisms that disguise the meaning they intend to convey. This is not an attack on women or Feminism as a whole, but a warning against collectivizing women as a group, because the cost of collectivization is liberty.

Join the Conversation of Our Generation!!!

Subscribe to our email list for our Recommended Reading, reviews on books and other content that can grow your store of knowledge. New products will be coming soon, exclusively for subscribers.

If would like to join me in the Conversation of Our Generation, follow me on Twitter @ConOfOurGen, Facebook Conversation of Our Generation Facebook Page and SteemIt @jamell

Also, you can find me on YouTube Conversation of Our Generation YouTube Channel.

I am just trying to join the Conversation of Our Generation. Let’s get the dialogue going with comments, shares, questions, just say something!

Conservative Libertarianism: An Answer To Today’s Political Problems

There is tremendous political unrest in America today, and that is nothing new. And like always, it seems as though politicians are driving in the night by only the light of the stars and their headlights, just 30 feet at a time.

America’s direction is not clear, and it seems harder every year to find a way for liberty as both parties promise to “take care of you.” The solution to these problems is a two-front war: pealing back the power and role of government and creating free market solutions and institutions to fill the gaps.

What is Conservative Libertarianism?

The political philosophy of Conservative Libertarianism is one which pulls back the power of the government as much as possible at any given time, while preserving the institutions that maintain society through the effort of individuals, free markets and charity.

To understand this idea fully, it is important to know the two pieces of the philosophy. Libertarianism is a broad umbrella of people advocating for limited government. They come from both sides of the political spectrum as right wingers search for economic freedom and left wingers search for more libertine freedoms. Either way the principle is the same. Both understand that you own your body, which means you have the right to dictate your actions. For more on the Libertarian ideas, click here.

Conservatism is not about being Republican, rather it is about preserving the institutions that maintain society. It is the philosophy that preserving society and its institutions is not a means to an ends, but an ends in and of itself. With this approach, conservatives are hesitant to engage in radical, quick institutional change because they understand it is far easier to destroy than to build. To understand how Conservatism is being defined, read more by Roger Scruton.

How will this solution work?

Society is maintained by institutions that allow it to function. These foundational institutions include, but are not limited to family, communities, charities, schools, churches and businesses. The major institutions of economy, religion, philosophy, society, common morality and politics are founded upon the foundational institutions listed above.

The reason this proposed solution will work is that the problems of society will be a careful reform of the foundational institutions through educating people on Liberty and the principles of Libertarianism in order to create real, lasting reforms in the major institutions. All this will be done with careful observance of the essence and purpose of institutions, insuring that reforms preserve that rather than the look or feel of an institution.

Through a deep understanding of both the foundational and major institutions of society, and the ways they interact, it is possible to promote and reclaim liberty through reformations at the individual level. It will not be a government initiative, rather it will be a peaceful reimagining of the role of government in these sacred institutions through debate and analysis of the societal landscape.

What will it look like?

Well, it won’t be a pure libertarian utopia in ten years- because that’s not going to happen anyway. It will look more like the correction of a ship in the middle of the Atlantic that changes course from a landing in Greenland to a landing in Brazil. It won’t look much different for a long time, but when the ship lands, it will be a completely different destination.

It will take constant engagement by people to learn about these institutions and liberty as well as the mechanisms for changing and reforming these institutions. It will be a marathon, not a sprint since large-scale institutional reform cannot happen overnight, especially not without losing the functions the institutions perform.

The goal of this philosophy is not to radically change society to the whims of the current Libertarian movement, but to use its ideas to promote liberty, peace, free markets, tolerance and individuality and ingrain them into society’s institutions. This will preserve society while reforming it, with an end of preserving society for America’s posterity. Hopefully, that idea rings a bell, and if it doesn’t reread the Constitution.

Last Words

The ideas of Liberty, and much of Libertarianism are prominent in America’s founding documents and in the writings of the Founding Fathers. This political philosophy is a harkening to those ideals and a call to liberty-minded people to find new ways of establishing and promoting liberty in American institutions.

Also, there will be more on this. This post is simply an introduction, but I will be crafting a longer, more in-depth version of this philosophy, so keep an eye out!

Join the Conversation of Our Generation!!!

Subscribe to our email list for our Recommended Reading, reviews on books and other content that can grow your store of knowledge. New products will be coming soon, exclusively for subscribers.

If would like to join me in the Conversation of Our Generation, follow me on Twitter @ConOfOurGen, Facebook Conversation of Our Generation Facebook Page and SteemIt @jamell

Also, you can find me on YouTube Conversation of Our Generation YouTube Channel.

I am just trying to join the Conversation of Our Generation. Let’s get the dialogue going with comments, shares, questions, just say something!


Christian Lessons Learned From Taoism

Everyone has the tendency to look for reasons that prove their religion is right over another. It’s natural. People are banking their eternity on this set of beliefs to which they ascribe, so that’s kind of a big deal.

However, there is value in understanding the commonalities of religious thought as well. This isn’t about just morality, which is a big part of religious teaching, rather the way religions describe the cosmos and the role people play in the universe.

Now, the modern Christian world, built on Jesus’ teachings seems to be aligned closely to Judaism and contrary to most other religions. But, with a little bit of reading, it becomes apparent that the doctrines of Taoism and proprieties of Confucius.

For starters the word Tao translates to the Way. Not only were early Christians a sect of Judaism that called themselves the Way, but Jesus states, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.” Jesus is claiming here to be the incarnation of what Christians call God and Taoists call Tao.

The similarities continue in the exploration of Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching, which is a poetic description of early Chinese religious cosmogony. It describes their understanding of God and how to interact with God as an individual.

The Way seems empty. As it is tried, it is found inexhaustible.

Oh, how profound it is! It seems to be the Forefather of all beings. It quiets impetuosity. It looses bonds. It tempers its splendor. It follows lowliness.

Oh, how pure it is! It seems to abide forever. It is the Son of I-know-not. It seems to have been before the Lord of Heaven.

Explaining the Christian message in this should be unnecessary. It calls the Way the Forefather of all beings, just as Christians call God the Father who gave life to Adam and Eve. Lao Tzu says the Way slows reaction and breeds deliberation of action. It looses bonds as Jesus said, “I am the Truth, and the Truth will set you free.” It follows lowliness and tempers splendor, which means it is present in humility and tears down the arrogant. He says it lives forever as the son of I-know-not. This is the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. Jesus is the Son of God, he is the Incarnation of the I-know-not.

Clay is fashioned into vessels. The use of the vessels depends on the empty space within. Doors and windows are framed in making a house. The use of the house depends on their empty spaces.

Therefore utility depends on what is manifest, but the use of a thing depends on what is manifest.

This is how the material and immaterial worlds work together. The idea is that it is the empty part of the vase, that which cannot be observed or accounted for, that gives it its purpose. Paul states, “The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” Because people can never understand God until fully in his presence in the afterlife, He must communicate by explaining purpose through what can be observed. This is why He had to become man and walk with us. The only way to be the perfect vase is to have the perfect empty space within. Jesus had to be the perfect example as his “empty space within” is God, and his becoming man made it possible for us to understand.

The partial becomes complete. The crooked becomes straight. The empty becomes full. The worn out becomes new. He who has little (desire) finds the Way; he who has much, goes astray.

Therefore the Master keeps the oneness of the Way; he is the model of the world. He seeks not to be seen, therefore he gives light. He does not magnify himself, therefore he gives inspiration. He does not vaunt himself, therefore he has true worth. He does not glorify himself, therefore he is above all. He strives not, therefore none in the kingdom can stand against him.

The saying of the ancients: “The partial becomes complete,” is not an empty phrase. When a man has attained, the whole world is subject to him.

The first part is obviously in line with Christian teaching as Jesus heals the wounded and brings joy to the unfulfilled through their faith in Him. It is by trust and faith in Jesus that the broken people become whole.

The second part describes bending the will of one to God’s will. He keeps the oneness of the Way, therefore to be one with the Master is to be one with the Way, and Jesus says this. He says good works do not get you into Heaven, rather faith in Him does. By having faith in Him, the works will follow and will be the true will of God, not the will of the one acting on behalf of God. Following these actions that help to identify God, makes a person one with God.

The last part is a way of identifying the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. When people live the proper Christian values, the world is subject to them. That does not mean they are king of the world, rather they are masters in understanding the material through their understanding of the immaterial. This is not a conquering through oppression, but a changing of hearts to bring them into oneness with the Way, or in Christian words, into community with Christ.

The lessons of religion, when read deliberately can be shared. Common ground can be found and used as a foundation of peace and tolerance. These two religions seem contradictory at first, but there are a lot of important similarities between them that can create bonds between cultures. Instead of trying to prove religions right and wrong, delve into the details and find common ground that can lead to a better common understanding.

Join the Conversation of Our Generation!!!

Subscribe to our email list for our Recommended Reading, reviews on books and other content that can grow your store of knowledge. New products will be coming soon, exclusively for subscribers.

If would like to join me in the Conversation of Our Generation, follow me on Twitter @ConOfOurGen, Facebook Conversation of Our Generation Facebook Page and SteemIt @jamell

Also, you can find me on YouTube Conversation of Our Generation YouTube Channel.

I am just trying to join the Conversation of Our Generation. Let’s get the dialogue going with comments, shares, questions, just say something!


Kneeling For The Flag Is Contrary To The Stated Goal

Kneeling for the National Anthem has become a symbol of disobedient protest of police brutality. While everyone obsesses over the action, calling it un-American or a courageous act, many ignore what it truly means.


The question at hand here, is not about the players’ right to protest or the president’s tweets or any of the other stuff because everyone is talking about that. The questions this blog will try to answer is, “What do these protests say?” and “Do these actions align with the stated goals of the protesters?”


To be clear up front, here are some assumptions:

  • Players have the right to protest
  • NFL teams can tell their players how to conduct themselves
  • The NFL can tell players how to conduct themselves
  • Fans can protest, boycott, support, denounce, criticize, praise, love, and hate the actions of the players and the players themselves
  • The government cannot make laws against this
  • Government officials can express their opinions about this topic


The Flag is a representation of American ideals. It is the embodiment of the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights. The Flag is not a symbol of the reality of where America is in pursuing these ideals. For a better understanding about the institutions and ideals it represents, check out The Death of Institutions Would Wreak Havoc on American Society for a better understanding of American institutions.

Protesters of the Flag do not speak out against police brutality, rather they are kneeling in the face of the symbol of their right to do so. They are spitting in the face of their freedom, biting the hand that feeds them. It is not un-American because they have complaints about law enforcement, but because they are dishonoring the very institution that provides them the freedom to protest, thus undermining their own message.


If these NFL players feel the urge to protest police brutality, they should. They have the right to speak out against institutions of this country because of the ideals and rights that the Flag represents. By protesting the symbol of the ideas they embody while doing so, they contradict themselves and undermine their message.


Should these guys really want to speak out against law enforcement, they should find another protest. A few ideas are:

  • Stand outside a police precinct on a sidewalk peacefully, or better yet, take the knee there.
  • Give people who have been subject to the brutality they hate by seeking them and speaking with them.
  • Do real research about this to grasp a full picture of the issue and have intelligent, honest, frank discussions on these topics.


The kneeling for the Anthem and speaking out against the Flag do not help their cause. Most of the people they are upsetting would be glad to help with ending police brutality and any form of discrimination in this country. The fact is that these same people believe wholeheartedly in the ideals and institutions that the Flag represents, so dishonoring the Flag alienates those who wish to uphold those values.


So Kaepernick, if you want to fix this problem, stop attacking the institution that provides you the freedom to do so and target the problem itself. This is not “creating awareness.” It is making you look stupid by showing your lack of understanding in regards to what you are criticizing.

Join the Conversation of Our Generation!!!

Subscribe to our email list for our Recommended Reading, reviews on books and other content that can grow your store of knowledge. New products will be coming soon, exclusively for subscribers.

If would like to join me in the Conversation of Our Generation, follow me on Twitter @ConOfOurGen, Facebook Conversation of Our Generation Facebook Page and SteemIt @jamell

Also, you can find me on YouTube Conversation of Our Generation YouTube Channel.

I am just trying to join the Conversation of Our Generation. Let’s get the dialogue going with comments, shares, questions, just say something!


I Don’t Remember Moving To Babel


I remember growing up in Indianapolis, Indiana for all my life, but over the last year or so I feel like I’ve slowly been moving to Babel. You see, for my whole life I had people who I disagreed with, but we could still communicate. Now it feels like there’s two different languages-Republican and Democrat. It reminds me of the biblical story of Babel in Genesis. For those of you who aren’t Christian, or just need a refresher, it goes like this:


Genesis 11:1-9New International Version (NIV)

11 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar[b] and settled there.

3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.


Why does this story come to mind? More importantly, why do I feel the need to talk about it?


Well, the idea of a group of people building something that can stand to the Heavens is really familiar in the United States. Just look at New York, Chicago, Seattle, and so on. We have built a nation around a tower to Heaven, but our tower is our ideology- the American Dream. Our tower is the freedom and equality demanded in the Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the Constitution.


Building the tower is not the problem here. God doesn’t confuse their language to make them stop. He sees that they are doing something incredible so he tests them. The point it appears to me God tries to make is really, “How bad do you want it?” The test is to see if they can overcome this barrier because it is easy to work with people who speak your language. Finding a way to succeed in the face of this would be difficult.


I think we are in a time when our languages are being confused. I worry that we are on the course of building a tower to Heaven, but are ready to stop and turn around- or worse, tear it down.

It seems impossible to have a conversation about the path our society and nation should take, not because we don’t have common ground, but because we are speaking different tongues. We have places of agreement; however, due to the divide in our language, we cannot express ideas in the same terms. As long as that is the case we will never find agreement or peace, but will shout louder and grow angrier.


What is Our Tower?


Our tower is this nation. It is the freedom, liberty, opportunity, equality, justice, and hope that we fought for in 1776. It is the principles enshrined in our Constitution. It is the ability for anyone to be anything they wish. It is the institutions of family, community, and church that pick us up when we’re down and lift us to unbelievable heights when we have faith in them. It is “One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.”


So when we think we want to tear this down or walk away from our tower, remember what it has taken to build. Think about the people who have given their lives for this nation. Think about the men who died to free the slaves and those who risked their lives for Civil rights. Remember the women who marched for the right to vote. They didn’t tear down the tower to build their own, rather they fought to add their brick to the tower.


But what can we do to fix this?


First things first: LISTEN! Hear what people have to say. Listen to understand, not to reply. We also need to define common terms and facts of the case if we are going to argue. Unless we can agree on the most basic facts, we cannot have productive conversations. The last thing, but probably most important, is to be civil. Agree to disagree. Remember that passionate arguments and political disagreements should not end relationships. We should look at each other beyond those things for the person, the child of God, that each one of us is.


If would like to join me in the Conversation of Our Genereation, you can find me on YouTube Conversation of Our Generation YouTube Channel.

Also, follow me on Twitter @nickjam317 and SteemIt @jamell

I am just trying to join the Conversation of Our Generation. Let’s get the dialogue going!

What is tolerance?

Today, tolerance seems to be marked by defending any position except for intolerance. And intolerance is simply not holding the fashionable believes of the political left. But what really is tolerance, and how can we apply it properly in our society so that it reaps rewards.

For instance, saying that you are morally opposed to gay marriage, even though you argue that the government should not have their hands in it or stop it, you are intolerant. If you suggest that maybe systemic racism is not the problem for minorities, rather a failed education system is to blame, then you are intolerant. But is that what tolerance really is? Is it accepting anything that anybody does without commentary or discussion on their actions are police? Is it letting riots break out in the streets because they claim to be for tolerance?

Let’s discuss some scenarios that really are tolerance.

Tolerance is being able to share a beer and watch the game at a bar with a friend after a 45 minute screaming match over the morality of abortion rather than ending your friendship.

Tolerance is two neighbors having a chat at the mailbox this by having opposing candidates’ yard signs in their front lawns staring at them.

Tolerance does not mean you agree on everything, but can move past the disagreements and find commonalities, or at the very least be civil with each other.

You see, tolerance is not the absence of differing opinions or making sure everyone is “on the same page.” It is being able to be polite to someone who you disagree with vehemently. After all, what does their opinion matter to you? Being able to accept others’ ideas is the first step towards a society that is truly tolerant. My stance on abortion or gay marriage doesn’t affect how I do my job or my coursework at school. It really doesn’t change how I will raise my kids. Letting opinion get in the way of friendship is intolerant.

The reason this is important is we are confusing opinion and political differences with what makes us human. It is the foundation of a society to be able to respectfully disagree while they watch a show at the Coliseum, listen to Socrates debate Aristotle, attend a jousting tournament, go to church or temple or synagogue, cheer for our favorite team, or just share a drink and a good conversation.

So next time you want to be intolerant of intolerance, don’t. If you can have a lively discussion and walk away without fists flying, do it!!! If you can’t because you or the other person are too intolerant of intolerance, here’s an idea: Just talk about something else over an ice cold beer.

Check me out on SteemIt @jamell and support me there!

And look at my YouTube channel Conversation of Our Generation Channel

Powered by

Up ↑