Yes, you are, in implying all term is good and all whole life is bad.
It's not that simple. Term can make sense when people are (a) diligent about forecasting their liability (higher when in prime earning years and when children are in college, lower as they approach some for of "retirement" and (b) diligent about makiing long term investments with the difference in the term vs. whole life premiums.
However, most people who buy term are not diligent about either. They simply buy term because it is initially "cheaper" -- which it is until you start getting older. By the time people are in their early 40s, those who purchased whole life in their mid 20s will often have built up enough cash value to make their policies self funding, while those who purchased a similar face value of term back in their mid 20s will end up eventually forking over more in premiums than the whole life buyers did. And most term people never seem to get around to "investing" the difference in premiums (which evaporates by the time you are in your late 40s).
Bottom line: whole life = owning. Term = renting.
AND EQUITY IS GOOD.![]()
Whole life = more commission for the agent selling it. I've never heard any financial advisor recommend whole life.

My Mom always told us where everything was just in case something happened to her and her famous line was "grab your little Daddy and RUN"!! 