When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

The vast majority of people (both men and women) work because they have to. Such statistics have nothing to do with happiness or preference.

For example, in Switzerland or Germany its much more common for women to stop working after they have children and to be stay-at-home mothers. But the salaries there allow for that, not so much in the Czech republic, so low to middle-class women must work more, there.

Yet Prague comes in 5th out of all cities in Europe for raising a family: Europe’s Best Cities To Raise A Family

'The top European cities for raising children are revealed, as Preply's latest study analyses ‘education’, ‘health and safety’ and ‘leisure and lifestyle’ categories.'

And you paint this picture of miserable mothers and unhappy families. No city in Germany, which you mentioned as some sort of ideal, made the list of 30.

Do you think that you should do a quick check online before you post what are, in effect, your personal opinions? Which all seem to be wrong so far.

 

[trophy33]

Evidence that building "firm families and communities" is an effective strategy to reduce domestic violence. Because as I say, what the research shows is that rigid gender roles, gender hierarchy and acceptance of violence are drivers of domestic violence; and firm families and communities in which those aren't challenged, are still going to have problems with domestic violence (it might just be more hidden).

What research are you still talking about? If you mention it, post it.

 

[Bradskii]

Safety cannot be reduced to only "safety for specific group under specific circumstances". But it must be regarded as safety for the society as a whole, men included.

But you posted that list in a discussion about violence to women when asked for evidence that you knew what women wanted. One, it wasn't relevant. Two, the criteria wasn't specifically domestic violence. And three, it didn't show what you thought it showed in any case.

If you want to start a thread on the safest countries for society as a whole, then off you go. I might join in. I'm learning a lot talking to you...

 

[Bradskii]

What research are you still talking about? If you mention it, post it.

This is becoming sureal...

 

[trophy33]

Yet Prague comes in 5th out of all cities in Europe for raising a family: Europe’s Best Cities To Raise A Family

'The top European cities for raising children are revealed, as Preply's latest study analyses ‘education’, ‘health and safety’ and ‘leisure and lifestyle’ categories.'

And you paint this picture of miserable mothers and unhappy families. No city in Germany, which you mentioned as some sort of ideal, made the list of 30.

Do you think that you should do a quick check online before you post what are, in effect, your personal opinions? Which all seem to be wrong so far.

Lol, I do not picture Prague or Czech republic as miserable place for families. I am explaining to you that the higher than average rate of working women has to do with salaries here - one middle-class salary is not enough for family.

The infrastructure (health care, schools, parks, children playgrounds, safety) and work-life balance is very good here.

 

[trophy33]

This is becoming sureal...

Please, stop making such useless posts.

 

[trophy33]

But you posted that list in a discussion about violence to women when asked for evidence that you knew what women wanted. One, it wasn't relevant. Two, the criteria wasn't specifically domestic violence. And three, it didn't show what you thought it showed in any case.

If you want to start a thread on the safest countries for society as a whole, then off you go. I might join in. I'm learning a lot talking to you...

The context of this conversation is much broader than just violence against women, please read me more carefully. I am clearly against reducing problems to specific "gender-based issues".

 

[Bradskii]

The context of this conversation is much broader than just violence against women, please read me more carefully.

You're quite clear. I've no problems interpreting what you say. But it's either somewhat irrelevant or...just wrong.

 

[Paidiske]

What research are you still talking about? If you mention it, post it.

Maybe start here, it will give you a good introduction: Gender equality and violence against women

 

[trophy33]

You're quite clear. I've no problems interpreting what you say. But it's either somewhat irrelevant or...just wrong.

Again, a useless post.

 

[trophy33]

Maybe start here, it will give you a good introduction: Gender equality and violence against women

Is it specifically for Australia? Or is it something you apply to all other countries?

 

[Paidiske]

Is it specifically for Australia? Or is it something you apply to all other countries?

I'm most familiar with the Australian context, but I've seen research with similar results at least for America. I'm sure there are some cultural nuances in different places.

 

[DamianWarS]

In discussing some of the moral issues facing society such as gender, sex, race, Rights, identity politics ect relating to how we as a society should structure ourselves I have found that a polarisation is happening between two broad worldviews. On the one side the Left which I think is more likely to be athiest or more pluralistic about belief and on the other is the Right which are more conservative and traditional and more likely to be Christain. Though I think there is degrees of variance where some will also be open to opposing views to some degree.

But it seems things have become more polarised is recent times deue to society moving away from a Christain worldview to a secular one. In the past there was more middle ground and basically people I think were more traditional had belief and progressives were seen as out of step. I think today the Left has gained a lot of ground mainly due to a reaction to percieved past injustices by traditionalist or Christains and being more open to alternative ideas.

In the past Western societies were based on Christain values but in the last few decades God and Christainity has been rejected and in its place the State has become the arbitor of societal morals and infringed more on peoples private lives. Of course a lot has happened in that time with social media which I think has had a profound impact on thinking undermining truth and has given individuals and groups much power to push their views and influence governments and society.

But the result of all this is that there is a growing division between the Christian Worldview and the Secular Worldview to the point that they clash even violently like people want to destroy Christains aned opposing views and it seems the State is actively siding with the a secular position with the help of certain lobbyist. They have been actively dismantaling Christainity and taking God completely out of the picture in our institutions and public life generally, I should say its not always just Christains but also traditionalist and others who believe in the Truths that the West was built upon such as Enlightement and Democracy. Many on the Left also seem to support some sort of Marxism so this polarisation seems to be political and religious.

I guess our present situation is also the result of Postmodernism the idea of tearing down the old truths and archetypes of the West and society has become more individualistic and relative. Its a complex combination of factors but the thing that stands out for me is that there seems to be a showdown brewing between Christain and traditionalist and the Secularist and the Left and I think the Left is winning at the moment. I can see this continuing where Christainity is pushed to the fringes.

So we are at a point for the first time in a long time in our history where societies efforts to rid themselves of God and Christainity will see secularist and non believers outnumbering Christains and completely rejecting God from society.

But is this new World completely devoid of belief or is society replacing God and Christainity with some new religion, a secular religion which has been able to grow disguised as something else like some new utopia that promises to do away with injustice and inequality and bring people true happiness. I think so as it seems that peoples reaction to Christainity and God today isn't just about a new way but is tied to their identity and debates are often full of feelings even to the point of wanting to destroy others who disagree,

So I think this is a fight for Truth and there can only be one Truth. But today truth has lost all meaning and personal truth has become the only truth. But I think the Truth as in the one Truth we all know is real will shine through in the end, but its going to be a fight in the meantime where many false ideas will seem to win out and may fool many.

2 party systems encourages polarization which is why it is so extreme in the US. If an issue has enough voters one side will take a position and the other side will take the opposite position and no one is left to take a balanced view.

They will less likely take a balanced approach so as not to confuse the issue, they care less about the issue and more about the votes and polarization helps keep this path clearer so are motivated to keep things polarized.

Many country's have a defacto 2 party system (Canada, Austraila, UK, etc...) but because other parties have a seat at the table these parties will be quick to call out the injustices of the leading parties. They stir the pot and force the leading parties to have more balanced views otherwise votes will be split up too much to these other parties. They may never win but they have enough influence to balance the system and prevent polarization.

 

[trophy33]

I'm most familiar with the Australian context, but I've seen research with similar results at least for America. I'm sure there are some cultural nuances in different places.

I am a bit confused by the website... is it a research? Or some Australian government material/guide? Where are data and the actual research?

 

[Paidiske]

I am a bit confused by the website... is it a research? Or some Australian government material? Where are data?

It's an Australian government site where there is a fair bit of data collated and explained. If you read through it you can find the references and follow up anything about which you'd like to know more.

 

[trophy33]

It's an Australian government site where there is a fair bit of data collated and explained. If you read through it you can find the references and follow up anything about which you'd like to know more.

I will not read through the whole of it. I asked you specifically what research you keep mentioning.

This looks more like some bachelor/diploma thesis.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, you're free to explore that, look at the references or find other sources. If you won't read, (what is actually a pretty helpful introduction to the topic), then that's up to you.

 

[trophy33]

Well, you're free to explore that, look at the references or find other sources. If you won't read, (what is actually a pretty helpful introduction to the topic), then that's up to you.

So, can you give me some specific research or not? If you have just some feminist interpretation of data, its not good enough for destroying the traditional structure of society.

 

[Paidiske]

I did. Read it or not, it's up to you.

 

[trophy33]

I did. Read it or not, it's up to you.

Its just a gov website saying various things, like:

"It has been acknowledged that there is a lack of information about causal factors for violence against women at the societal level of the ecological model compared to the individual and community levels....
However, establishing the underlying causes of violence against women has been the subject of varying theories. The most prominent of these was the feminist model of causation that came out of the feminist movement of the 1970s..."

I see no proving of any theory or causality. Maybe its somewhere in the sea of the text, but its on you to give me that. So far, it only looks as a specific interpretation of the author/authors.