If there are individuals who have not yet been changed in their beliefs then changing the system will more or less be forcing these people perhaps the majority into living within a system they don't believe or agree with. That sound awefully similar to totalitarianism.
There will always be people who think whatever the system is, it can be improved (and they're generally right, because sinful humans don't run perfect systems). But I find it fascinating that in your analysis, all the hospitality and generosity is expected to be in one direction; and none is expected in the other direction.
They happen but they have nothing to edo with mascullinity.
I described a "set of behaviours, attitudes and ideologies about masculinity." They might not have much to do with authentic masculinity, but as long as our culture relates those behaviours, attitudes and ideologies to masculinity, that's part of the problem.
But when we look at all the factors there are many contributing reasons which ideologues ignore.
Alright; put one forward. If you think there's a causative factor we can actually tackle to make positive change, then let's have it.
have you noticed now we are always talking about identities.
What I notice is that when we don't talk about it, the problems experienced by different people (yes, in different groups) simply become invisible and easy to ignore. Don't talk about sex or gender and women's problems in a system stacked against them magically disappear!
Why do I have to publish or otherwise its I cannot comment.
Because if your "research" is watching a bunch of videos on YouTube, and if your conclusions aren't being subjected to any academic rigour, it doesn't hold much weight.
So wait a minute. I just said "do you want some evdience" how is that a conspiracy. Conspiracy theories usually lack evdience.
You were describing a theory of the "infiltration" of academia, institutions and government. If that doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory, I don't know what does.
I asked about
your experience.
The other side is the experiences of the deominant culture at the time. They are not representative of past cultural beliefs and ideas. Its wrong to assume that everyone is racist by connection to the past.
I'm not talking about "the past." I'm talking about what people alive today have experienced and continue to experience, right now.
But don't assume a worled that is just black and white, male or female, gay or heterosxual as that in itself is racist, sexist and homophobic and divides people.
It's not "just" these things. But it is also these things. As a woman I've experienced discrimination, I've experienced exclusion, I've experienced aggressive hostility, I still face significant barriers. I refuse to pretend this isn't happening just so that men can be more comfortable while those things go on.
But the system is not oppressive in this regard.
It can be. When it means people don't have access to the means for their own flourishing, it definitely can be. One example I see a lot is non-English-speaking parents struggling to navigate the NDIS for their children; the system is difficult for people who have good education and English, people without those advantages often miss out on much needed support.
But what ideologues do is they don't see that side but only oppression where all deifficulties and deifferences are attributed to oppression.
When our systems are not structured to allow people with disadvantages to have their needs met, that is oppression!
There are some fundemental differences. For example part of DEI policy is affirmative action and policies that give minorities advantages over the rest of society to help and ensure they end up with a similar outcome say graduating Uni or getting a job. That is different to equal opportunity which is based on merit.
"Equal opportunity" often isn't all that equal, though. That's what DEI is aimed at shifting.
The point is when you add all the intersecting factors which include natural differences such as biology, genetics and natural talent, individual differences such hard work, effort, personalities such as temperament introvert, extrovert, neurotic, agressive, personal experiences such as upbringing, environmental, geography, family and upbringing and others the race, gender and sex is dispelled in its importance as influncing forces for differences.
No. No it is not dispelled. Biology, genetics, talent, etc. don't account for the times women are obstructed in education. They don't account for the times people aren't hired because of their race. They don't account for the times women are excluded from leadership opportunities. They don't account for the times diverse cultural backgrounds are seen as a liability.
It is a simple fact that there are whole areas where I simply cannot apply for the kind of work I do because I'm a woman; it's outright gaslighting to suggest that this is due to lack of hard work, or be because of temperament!
Yes and I think we do a pretty good job at it. Not perfect and we can always improve things. But people should not make out that theres this big evil oppressive system.
Lack of access to needed supports is an aspect of an oppressive system.
We should also be concerned that we have our own citizens suffering as well.
It's fascinating that you think our own citizens might not face a language barrier.
Maybe multiculturalism doesn't work, has anyone considered that.
It works as well as we want to make it work. But hey, I grew up in a home where the occupants had been born in three different countries and spoke four languages between them, what would I know about multiculturalism? Mostly what I know is the hostility of Australians who see the "other" as a threat. (There's two worldviews colliding).
I don't think anyone should be investing in one individual more than another that seems unfair.
Some people need more investment. I've got a kid on the autism spectrum; so far the government has invested a heap in speech therapy for her. And it's paid off; her language skills have gone from being severely delayed to normal; which will give her much better chances at meaningful employment, living independently, and so on. Why is that unfair?
Then why is race and gender so often mentioned maybe 10 or 20 times over all other factors.
Maybe because they are areas where the impact is blatant, obvious and entrenched, and where the instances where they impact are so often profoundly, personally hurtful.
That is what I said. You support to our take away livelihood , our ability to live
It's not that I want that to happen, but I recognise that if some people outright refuse to abide by basic, necessary workplace policies, maybe those workplaces aren't the right fit for them.
That can be part of the conversation, rather than assuming that the status quo is the best of all possible worlds.
This is a have you stopped beating your wife question. Who says it's the right thing to do? What if it's not the right thing to do.
Employers, as the more powerful participant in the employer-employee relationship, have a responsibility for the welfare of their employees. So yes, being open to making changes which are beneficial to the welfare of your employees, even when it is sometimes not the most beneficial thing to the business, is the right thing to do. Otherwise we end up with employers who will exploit and mistreat their workers, simply because they can.
Not at all. Women CHOOSE to raise a child instead of working.
Except the majority who work while raising a child...
Working doesn't automatically make you a bad mom.
An important point that often seems to be obscured in these discussions.
But it's the moms choice.
Except often women don't have access to the choices that would work best for them and their households.
Until you get that the conversation is going to rest on a false premise of moms would rather be working. Or working AND staying home.
Most mums would prefer to work part time. Many of them don't have access to that option. (And yes, working from home can be great with small kids, although it doesn't work equally well for each household. My office is in the house and the flexibility is great. It does also have drawbacks, though, and I understand why some people prefer to be on site at least some of the time!)
