Again, the basis for the articles I write and one of my major arguments is that the lack of moral character, victim mindset and destruction of the family are the primary issues contributing to the suffering and failure to thrive of individuals across economic lines and across racial lines as well. I see much of the far left indoctrination taking place as greatly contributing to this. They are not the only factors, and I am in no way opposed to other discussions in regards to dealing with other contributing factors to inequality however the current, popular rhetoric which seems to have spread like a wildfire from the universities into the streets seems to be leaving out some very important things.

From my experiences I do believe rich white kid growing up without a father for instance may have more of an economic cushion in some respects compared to a kid in a less affluent area as well as may not have to suffer the compound effect of a surrounding gang culture, however that doesn’t mean the situation is not devastating overall. From what I can tell, from watching a number of kids whom I worked with grow up from childhood to adulthood I would state ten times over that a poor kid, of ethnic minority in the inner city with an intact family, strong work ethic and some semblance of what could be termed traditional values, will end up better off in the main areas of success than a very wealthy kid who lacks those other factors. I’ve seen this time and time again to the point where it created an obvious divide between what I was told in university (left leaning) vs what I was seeing in real time, in the areas I worked in.

My opinions on this matter may not be perfectly laid out yet and the article I wrote probably has room for improvement however I believe I am trying to put my finger on a serious issue which has not been fully articulated yet, but clearly there is a problem with regards to how much of the modern, hard left school of thought seems to be heavily damaging and inaccurate in dealing with the issues it claims to be concerned about.

Further, many of these university disciples which promote the idea that so many of these problems are simply economic are often taken by other, unrelated and radical rhetoric on gender studies and other grievance disciplines. You may notice in the past few years even Cornel West has began adopting much of the language of these departments and movements in regards to transgender issues and sexuality as if these issues, which were seldom discussed by those such as him previously suddenly became of extreme importance. This seems to suggest that these sorts of trained activists are often too eager to take up other causes as if they are trends without thinking carefully. So I don’t think it’s a strawman argument to draw parallels with the avoiding of discussions on fatherlessness and the increasing presence of radical feminism in these disciplines.

As for your last part I don’t know what standpoint epistemology is and I’m not going to be baited into aligning with anyone outside of those I cite in my articles and who’s work I draw upon alongside of my experiences.