Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[Paidiske]

But I am talking about the so called bad beliefs you say underpin abuse. The upstream beliefs and assumptions that may underpin abuse you talk about that we must identify and change.

Which has nothing to do with how men might express a protective instinct differently from women, unless it is used to argue for the disempowerment of women.

It seems your quite willing to say that just believing and expressing a protective instinct undewrpins abuse.

That is not, at all, what I said. I said that expressing a protective instinct in a way which casts the opposite sex always as the protected is part of gender hierarchy and rigid roles.

Or any control is abusive.

Again, not at all what I have said. But we have been over that many times.

So wheres the cut off. If we promote the nobel protective warrior in males as a way to help them become responsible and nobel men would this be ok. Or is that too far and registering on the 'wrong belief' detector as creeping into the abusive lol.

I'd say promoting "warrior" tropes isn't healthy at all. Because that goes to acceptance of violence.

True but you were making out like it was a bad as ever

Not at all. All I said was that I had faced many disadvantages due to being a woman, and few advantages. I didn't say I faced as many disadvantages as women in the past did, just that, on balance, being a woman is still to experience disadvantage rather than advantage.

Show me exactly where I said that, this exact sequence of words without quote mining me.

Post #1,736. You quoted my comment below and replied as follows:

I've faced many disadvantages due to being a woman, and very few advantages.

Then that only shows you bias.

You used your personal experience to refute a claim I made that women are not as disadvantaged as some think.

If that's what you meant, it wasn't at all clear. You told me it "not always a bad thing" that women are treated differently to men, and then went on to make some oblique point about hiring on merit.

So you were using your personal experience to make a general claim that women are still disadvantaged a lot.

Well, we are, objectively, in reality.

Current state of women’s economic inequality – examining the data | A 10-year-plan to unleash the full capacity and contribution of women to the Australian economy 2023 - 2033

The most recently available data shows that gender inequality is pervasive, persistent and impacts public and private domains throughout a woman’s entire life course. Women experience a lifetime of economic inequality and insecurity, despite performing essential activities in paid and unpaid...

www.pmc.gov.au

Page not found

humanrights.gov.au

Gender inequality affects everyone

Gender equality is not a ‘women’s issue’. The effects of gender inequality touch all parts of our community. Gender stereotypes have negative effects on people of all genders.

www.vic.gov.au

Of course, when women are disadvantaged its because of exclusion. But when men are its more complex. Basically its saying no one is excluding them and they are just whingers. Isn't that gas lighting.

Steve, we can point to the days when women were literally not allowed to enrol in academic studies of various kinds. That is not what is happening for men.

One interesting bit of analysis I've seen is about the increase in the school leaving age; boys (and girls) who don't do well academically are forced to stay in school longer, and even when they do leave school, the expectations of them in jobs they might access involve much higher literacy and numeracy than was common in the past. There are fewer pathways to success for boys whose gifts lie elsewhere than academics. But that's not due to any policy of exclusion; rather, ironically, it's partly brought about by enforced inclusion in one system for longer.

Its all their fault and its got nothing to do with anyone disadvantaging them ...

It's not necessarily anyone's "fault," but it does raise questions about how our education systems are structured. What are our expectations for people who might never achieve well in traditional academics? What are their pathways to fulness of life, and how do we make them as open as possible?

Ok so just because people are treated differently doesn't mean they are being abused or disadvantaged.

My original point - way back in post #1,728 - was that women, when they see the world differently to men (on average), are not necessarily less "objective" for doing so, but may see things men do not, by virtue of our different experiences.

Once again what is 'in reality'. There are two different realities. One is a personal reality that happens within the person, their experiences and feelings about it ect. The other is the reality outside the person that can be verified by facts and objective reality. These are two different realities. One is subjective and the other objective.

But I wasn't talking about subjective reality. I was speaking of objective, external events. Sure, it was personal experience - we're not going to be able to prove it by articles or studies - but it was not purely subjective thoughts and feelings, but things other people had done and said and written.

So saying it wasn't real "in reality" definitely comes across as "those things that happened weren't really what you say they were." Which is exactly gaslighting.

But I didn't say your personal experience was not real.

"Not necessarily in reality." That's really not that ambiguous.

Yes it was,

No, those were not your words in the post in question.

You were using your personal experience to refute my claim that a males protective instinct is nobel and natural.

Actually, I was using my personal experience to point out that the idea of men as "protectors" of women is mostly irrelevant in real life, and harmful in its ideology.

According to the evidence it seems males do relate to the hero and warrior identity and its normal and healthy.

Why is a warrior identity healthy? Can we not find archetypes of discipline and courage that don't also valorise violence?

What you don't realise or even see is that males act out this inclination in just about everything they do in many small ways. When they offer help, ask if everythings ok, offer their services, work hard for they family, look out for others, ensure all the practical things are done to maintain a good life for others.

As if any of these are gendered activities...

So in saying the "whole "protection" trope" I assume you mean any talk or behaviour of males natural inclination to be nobel protectors is hogwash and should be discourgaged as promoting abusive control.

I was speaking specifically of a gendered dynamic of men as protectors of women in an unequal way.

But its not just you and I. I would say that there would be a fairly even split of maybe a slight majority in my favour.

Since you don't seem to be able to accurately grasp my position, I would say you have no grounds for assessing what level of agreement we might each have more widely.

It is a political issue but that doesn't mean we should politicise things to avoid the truth.

From where I'm sitting, I'm not politicising anything. And acknowledging truth will have political implications.

 

[stevevw]

Which has nothing to do with how men might express a protective instinct differently from women, unless it is used to argue for the disempowerment of women.

Of course it does. If males naturally express that protective instinct in wanting to provide and protect their family if different ways then this would be regarded as beliefs and attitudes that underpin abuse. You have already categorized it as such.

You cannot even tell us what exactly is the type of protective expression that is abusive or not. I don't think you even know yourself. So you assume any mention of expression of a protective instinct is wrong.

That is not, at all, what I said. I said that expressing a protective instinct in a way which casts the opposite sex always as the protected is part of gender hierarchy and rigid roles.

Actually you contradict yourself on this just like with hierarchies and control. You sometimes qualify this as only when it steps into abuse but then renege when you make comments like "is there any non abusive control", Hierarchies are designed to control and now comments about males natural protective instinct being as you say

Well, the main reason I ever see anyone raise the idea of men as "protectors," it's always coupled with the idea of different gender roles and women staying home, and all of that sort of thing.
But we don't need men as protectors

So according to you the main reason males express their protective instinct is always coupled with abuse and oppression and women don't need men as protectors. Thats a similar idea to Feminist who claim they don't need a man.

Again, not at all what I have said. But we have been over that many times.

Yes we have been through this and I pointed out just like 'protective instincts' you contradict yoursself and make out all control and hierachies are abusive control and should be discouraged ie you said

Hierarchies - relationships of control - are, by definition, controlling.
In that sense, they are not neutral; they are profoundly dangerous.

I'd say promoting "warrior" tropes isn't healthy at all. Because that goes to acceptance of violence.

There you go theres another to add to the list. Just even promoting the nobel warrior and hero in males is accepting violence. Now I am sure that most males would disagree and I think many women as well who don't have an ideological agender.

So this is an example of two completely opposing beliefs where oner claims natural inclinations are abusive and the other claims encouraging this natural inclination is actually healthy and prevents abuse. I think its the ideologues who are promoting abuse by denying a males natural inclination.

It falls under the same ideology as stopping women from expressing their natural inclination that males should not come into their private space as its abuse. While ideologues claim that not letting them in is abuse. Oh what a predictament we are in. Who is right on this. Theonly way is to ground these beliefs in the science and reality.

Not at all. All I said was that I had faced many disadvantages due to being a woman, and few advantages. I didn't say I faced as many disadvantages as women in the past did, just that, on balance, being a woman is still to experience disadvantage rather than advantage.

You said this in response to my claim you were conflating words like control, hierarchies and then protection as negative rather than a balanced view. You gave a personal antedote to refute my claim that on balance ideas like control, hierarchies and protection are not inherently abusive.

The advantages and disadvantages was a follow on from this claim. Once again using personal experiences to refute the facts and evidence I put forward.

Post #1,736. You quoted my comment below and replied as follows:

Then that only shows you bias.

If that's what you meant, it wasn't at all clear. You told me it "not always a bad thing" that women are treated differently to men, and then went on to make some oblique point about hiring on merit.

No this is quote mining me. You neglected to show the context in which I said that this shows your bias. You referred to you personal experience to refute a factual claim I made that on balance words like protection are not inherently abusive. You then gave a personal antedote to refute this and the advantages/disadvantages came up as a follow on to this where you gave another personal antedote to refute the factual claims.

So of course in that context if you are using personal antedotes to refute objective reality and facts I am going to say that your personal experiences are biasing you view regarding those facts and objective reality. Your reality does not represent the majority nor the facts.

Well, we are, objectively, in reality.

Current state of women’s economic inequality – examining the data | A 10-year-plan to unleash the full capacity and contribution of women to the Australian economy 2023 - 2033

The most recently available data shows that gender inequality is pervasive, persistent and impacts public and private domains throughout a woman’s entire life course. Women experience a lifetime of economic inequality and insecurity, despite performing essential activities in paid and unpaid...

www.pmc.gov.au

Page not found

humanrights.gov.au

Gender inequality affects everyone

Gender equality is not a ‘women’s issue’. The effects of gender inequality touch all parts of our community. Gender stereotypes have negative effects on people of all genders.

www.vic.gov.au

Is that weally, weally weality lol. I see your 3 and raise you 4.

Women now outnumber men in the workplace. What does that mean for the future of work?

Women now outnumber men in the workplace. What does that mean for the future of work?

Companies are looking at how to make their workplaces work for everybody

www.jll.com.au

Women outnumber men at all but two Aussie universities

Women outnumber men at all but two Aussie universities

A lack of other post-school study options, and the rise of qualifications in female dominated fields, mean women are dominant on almost every campus.

www.afr.com

Women are outnumbering men at a record high in universities worldwide

Women are outnumbering men at a record high in universities worldwide - Study International

Despite what history across the globe has told us, women now outnumber men at universities – and it is a trend which is accelerating year upon year in the majority of countries. According to The Independent, recent data from the UK’s higher education admissions service UCAS revealed young women...

studyinternational.com

How would you close the gender pay gap?
Equal pay for equal work has been law in Australia since 1969. The WGEA even admits this, noting that its data “does not reflect comparisons of women and men in the same roles — that is, like-for-like gaps”. It doesn’t take into account industry, experience, education, hours worked, or any of the hundreds of other fairly relevant factors that determine how much people are paid. In other words, it’s an entirely meaningless statistic.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/wor...m_source=SEM&utm_medium=PPC_SEM&utm_campaign={campaign}&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIt7eV2ZuohgMV-6VmAh3KSw77EAMYASAAEgLgmfD_BwE

Steve, we can point to the days when women were literally not allowed to enrol in academic studies of various kinds. That is not what is happening for men.

Ok but it is still disadvantage and needs to be acknowledged and addressed rather than fobbed off as something more complex.

One interesting bit of analysis I've seen is about the increase in the school leaving age; boys (and girls) who don't do well academically are forced to stay in school longer, and even when they do leave school, the expectations of them in jobs they might access involve much higher literacy and numeracy than was common in the past. There are fewer pathways to success for boys whose gifts lie elsewhere than academics. But that's not due to any policy of exclusion; rather, ironically, it's partly brought about by enforced inclusion in one system for longer.

But you overlook why perhaps boys are not doing well at school. As the school system has been feminised in addressing female disadvantages at the same time this feminisation has caused boys to lose interest and as a result play up.

The structure of learning has changed, is less hands, adventurous and competitive which suits males. Its now all about self paced, caring and sharing, little competition and more ideologically based in DEI. As a result young boys lose interest, don't do well and drop out. This is reflected in the data.

But I find it ironic that when anyone gives a more neuanced explanation of womens disadvantaged its call man splaining and dismissing womens disadvantage. But when the same logic is applied to men all sorts of rationalisations are made for why its not the same. In the mean time the gap grows and no one cares. Thats the narrative it seems being pushed that males can never be disadvantaged or deserve what they get.

It's not necessarily anyone's "fault," but it does raise questions about how our education systems are structured. What are our expectations for people who might never achieve well in traditional academics? What are their pathways to fulness of life, and how do we make them as open as possible?

I think it raises questions beyond the education system as well. What is the aim and how does this fit in with what society expects or should expect over a lifetime of how education, work, career fits in with what makes for a happy and healthy society. Is it just all about getting that education to get that job to make that money to get that house. Or is there more to life.

It seems we are a juggernaught careering along pushing everyone into more stress and unreal expectations about what makes for a successful and happy life and people are breaking down trying to keep up. It use to be one parent could work and it was enough. Now its both and in ever increasing more time away from family and young people have no hope of attaining those things and face a bleak future.

My original point - way back in post #1,728 - was that women, when they see the world differently to men (on average), are not necessarily less "objective" for doing so, but may see things men do not, by virtue of our different experiences.

Yes and in some ways thats an objective fact. We can measure those differences today and we can trace parts that go back to the sexed brain. Areas of the brain light up more in the emotional and relational parts of the brain and its different for males as well. But yes there are also different ways females experience the world which women can only know.

But then there are also individual experiences that only one person in the world can know which is the experiencer which will be different for each and every person. Which is amazing.

But I wasn't talking about subjective reality. I was speaking of objective, external events. Sure, it was personal experience - we're not going to be able to prove it by articles or studies - but it was not purely subjective thoughts and feelings, but things other people had done and said and written.

Yes conscious experience is a real phenomena in the world. In fact in some ways the most real thing in the world as its direct between the person and the world and reality. But this is entangled with objective reality as well. We may have an experience where we feel and truely believe we can fly like an eagle but in doing so we will crash to the ground lol.

So saying it wasn't real "in reality" definitely comes across as "those things that happened weren't really what you say they were." Which is exactly gaslighting.

Well when you take things out of context that will happen. I made that destinction because you were using your personal experience to refute the facts. Which is a different position to saying "those things that happened weren't really what you say they were." Its more like saying "those things that happened weren't really what you say they were compared to the objective factual evidence" for others or according to the data or studies.

If your going to use your personal experience as a fact that trumps everyone elses experiences and the independent objective evidence from science then its only logical that this should be questioned and verified and not just taken as a representation of the overall reality of the issue beeing discussed.

"Not necessarily in reality." That's really not that ambiguous.

Once again its out of context. The context was set when you used your personal experience to refute the facts I was talking about back in post
#1,716 about how control and hierarhies are natural and not inherently abusive and linked evidence. I qualified this a number of times saying the words or ideas of control, hierarchies and now protection is not inherently abusive according to the evidence.

You then began using personal opinion and experiences to refute this and I said that personal experience does not refute the objective evidence overall. We annot take anyones individual experience as the true measure overall about how control, hierarchies and protection work in reality, in the objective world beyond the individual.

So I qualified several times for you the difference between your reality and objective reality but you still insisted on creating logical faallacies with appeals to personal experience rather than address the factual evidence.

No, those were not your words in the post in question.

Here is my original reply that you objected to which in context came after talking about the differences between personal opinions and experience and objective facts..
That is understandable as being personally affected and lived experience is real 'for that person'. But not necessarily in reality when all factors are considered.

So in that conext I am acknowledging your experiences as real for you but when being used to refute the facts its not necessarily the reality of the issue at hand. Notice how I qualified this by saying "not necessarily in reality when all factors are considered". Did you even stop and consider what all those other factors were. Considering the other factors is qualifying whether personal experience applies as fat as facts, and other peoples experiences which will not be the same. So I qualified this several times but you made it personal and political. As you have done many times.

Actually, I was using my personal experience to point out that the idea of men as "protectors" of women is mostly irrelevant in real life, and harmful in its ideology.

Yes Iknow and that is what I was diagreeing with because your making a factual claim and using personal experience to back it up. Whereas another women may think her experience is that men are good protectors within society. Or many males experience may be that their identify as nobel protectors and not being harmful. Or that the actual evidence shows that most males are nobel protectors in how they behave.

So I was saying that your personal experience in making these objective claims should be challenged for the simple fact that it does not necessarily represent the truth out there in the world with others and the facts.

Why is a warrior identity healthy? Can we not find archetypes of discipline and courage that don't also valorise violence?

A warrier is not automatically violent. Your doing it again. Others will have a different opinion of what a waarior is but your making these truth and factual claims that Warrior = violence. Throughout time males have identified as a warrior or hero type in the good sense. I think its related to their mascullinity being expressed through their larger size and strength.

Being the bigger sex its understandable that this difference will be embodied to some extent in identity. Being small gives a sense of feeling small where as being bigger and stronger naturally gives a sense of feeling and identifying as bigger and stronger. Nut its how this sense is harnessed for good or bad.

By appealing to the inner and natural hero, warrior and protector in positive ways we actually turn males into good, responsible and caring men. It actually gives them a positive identity which is so much needed especially for males who have lost their identity due to demeaning males. Men who are told they are toxic and denied their natural inclination as nobel warriors and protectors will then become the very monsters society keeps telling them they are.

 

[stevevw]

As if any of these are gendered activities...

What you fail to see is that though it appears the same there are different reasons and motivations as to why genders behave that way. More emphasis on certain driving forces for behaviour. But there are also clear differences. Women may percieve protection more intuitively, emotionally and socially creating nurturing environments where as males may think in more practical terms like security, environments, practical setups ect.

It seems males are more likely to actually put their physical selves on the line even to the point of death and thats not saying women don't also do this. But for males it seems more risk and all in type behaviour which aligns with other research showing males are higher risk takers and have much higher rates of deaths in work or fights, emergency rescues, combat ect. So its deffinitely expressed differently in some ways.

I was speaking specifically of a gendered dynamic of men as protectors of women in an unequal way.

Actually I am not sure what your position is because you seem to contradict that your just talking about abusive 'unequal or controlling' or any unequal behaviour. Because as linked you seem to be saying as well that anyone who expressed the protector instinct is abusive.

Since you don't seem to be able to accurately grasp my position, I would say you have no grounds for assessing what level of agreement we might each have more widely.

Well as I have shown your not exactly clear on your position when you make these truth and object claims about protection being inherently abusive. Even discouraging males to express this in any way.

From where I'm sitting, I'm not politicising anything. And acknowledging truth will have political implications.

Actually you are right there. As we have seen just saying the truth can get people upset and they get all political. I guess thats how society has become with identity politics because it merges the identity which is personal with the political.

In fact this was the result of feminist theory who coined the phrase "the personal is the political". Except that was within a more wider view of the world of objectivity, religious belief, various political ideas and outlooks of the world. Now everything is the personal and political.

 

[Paidiske]

Of course it does. If males naturally express that protective instinct in wanting to provide and protect their family if different ways then this would be regarded as beliefs and attitudes that underpin abuse. You have already categorized it as such.

Only if it is expressed in a way that reinforces gender hierarchy and rigid roles.

So you assume any mention of expression of a protective instinct is wrong.

Not at all what I have said.

So according to you the main reason males express their protective instinct is always coupled with abuse and oppression and women don't need men as protectors.

Also not what I said. I said that arguing for men as protectors of women seems to always be argued for along with disempowered roles for women.

Thats a similar idea to Feminist who claim they don't need a man.

I'd be very worried for any woman who did. To be in a position to freely choose to share life with a man, should one so desire, is wonderful. To "need" a man, because one is unsafe or insecure without one, is downright dangerous.

Just even promoting the nobel warrior and hero in males is accepting violence.

Well, by definition, a warrior is someone who wars. And war is inevitably violent. So yeah, promoting a "warrior" stereotype does go to accepting violence.

And you tried to tell me we didn't have social norms which promote the acceptance of violence...

So this is an example of two completely opposing beliefs where oner claims natural inclinations are abusive and the other claims encouraging this natural inclination is actually healthy and prevents abuse.

(Side note: the very idea that any of this is a "natural inclination" is not an agreed premise, here).

You said this in response to my claim you were conflating words like control, hierarchies and then protection as negative rather than a balanced view.

No. I said this in response to you saying that it's "not always a bad thing" that women are treated differently from men. At that point you were making some irrelevant point about hiring on merit, nothing to do with control, hierarchies and protection.

You referred to you personal experience to refute a factual claim I made that on balance words like protection are not inherently abusive.

No, that was not what that exchange was referring to. Please try to at least be accurate.

Is that weally, weally weality lol.

Yep. You want facts and evidence, there they are.

Ok but it is still disadvantage and needs to be acknowledged and addressed rather than fobbed off as something more complex.

I wasn't fobbing it off. I was pointing out that the dynamics of what is going on are different than they have been for women.

But you overlook why perhaps boys are not doing well at school. As the school system has been feminised in addressing female disadvantages at the same time this feminisation has caused boys to lose interest and as a result play up.

I might be willing to buy the idea that classroom environments are not suiting boys as well as girls, on average, for some reason. I am not going to buy arguments that this is because the school system has been "feminised." Seems gender stereotypes and what boys see as appropriate to their gender probably play a significant part: The trouble with boys starts before they step into a classroom

The structure of learning has changed, is less hands, adventurous and competitive which suits males.

A claim I find ironic, since everything I can find says that in fact, today practical, interactive and hands on classroom activities are valued more than ever before, especially involving the use of technology. And that certainly matches what I see, in the difference between classrooms today, and even what I grew up with a generation ago.

We can measure those differences today and we can trace parts that go back to the sexed brain.

No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the fact of actually having different lived experiences. Actually being treated differently.

I made that destinction because you were using your personal experience to refute the facts.

It's not "refuting the facts" to point out that most women don't need protection from men, in any meaningful way, as we go about our day to day lives.

If your going to use your personal experience as a fact that trumps everyone elses experiences and the independent objective evidence from science then its only logical that this should be questioned and verified and not just taken as a representation of the overall reality of the issue beeing discussed.

What everyone else's experience or independent objective evidence? What independent objective evidence is there that most women can't get through their days without men protecting them in some ill-defined way?

Here's the burning irony: I did some searching to see if I could find any evidence on this. And what came up were the stats about the rates of domestic violence. So much for the "noble protector" trope.

So I qualified this several times but you made it personal and political.

If your intention was as you claim, you did not express yourself in a way that made that at all clear. And as I believe I was saying earlier, darned right this discussion is personal. It's personal for every woman. And of course it's political. The personal is political, as the saying goes.

A warrier is not automatically violent.

Warrior; a person engaged or experienced in warfare. Of course that's violent. It's not possible to engage in non-violent warfare.

What you fail to see is that though it appears the same there are different reasons and motivations as to why genders behave that way.

There are many reasons why someone might ask someone else if everything is okay, or offer someone else practical service. Those reasons seldom have anything to do with gender. Good grief.

Because as linked you seem to be saying as well that anyone who expressed the protector instinct is abusive.

No, as I just explained, that is not at all what I was saying. I was saying that a gendered dynamic of men as protectors of women in an unequal way was likely problematic, because it reinforces gender hierarchy and rigid roles, and disempowers women.

Well as I have shown your not exactly clear on your position when you make these truth and object claims about protection being inherently abusive.

I have made it very, very clear that that was not at all what I was saying.

Even discouraging males to express this in any way.

Not at all. Only discouraging them from seeing it as a specifically masculine trait, directed at women.

 

[stevevw]

Only if it is expressed in a way that reinforces gender hierarchy and rigid roles.

You say that but then you say that even promoting the nonbel protector and warrior is automatically promoting abuse. You conflate the word warrior as being abusive full stop when its associated with males. When it also has a healthy aspect just like muscullinity is made out to be toxic when there is a health side to it. But you always fall down on the negative and abusive side which seems to show your bias to see things regarding males natural inclinations and behaviours.

Put it this way males are going to act like warriors, heros, protectors because its how they naturally identify. So we may as well encourage and promote the nobel protector. Otherwise if we deny this and then force males to pretend to be feminine and act like women they will only become3 confused and frustrated.

Not at all what I have said.

But you have said things like women don't need protection from men, we should not promote the warrior protector, most protectors I know have use protection to control and warrior means someone who wars and promoting war is violent so therefore promoting a warrior in males is violence.

Thats pretty well saying just the idea of a protective male is violence and abuse.

I will ask again. Do you believe that promoting the noble protector in men is a good idea. Not promoting abuse, violence or control but one who stands for his family and community and would die for them.

In fact we all have a bit of Warrrior in us.

Are You a Warrior? And If So, What Kind?
Warriors generally are associated with two kinds of courage: (1) the ability to fight to protect themselves and (2) setting goals and developing the strength and skills to accomplish them.I f we do not have enough access to the Warrior archetype, we may let other people push us around, lack direction, or fail to achieve our goals because we do not persist. Too much Warrior and every interaction becomes a contest—we want what we want and insist on getting it whatever the cost to others or to our relationships.

Are You a Warrior? And If So, What Kind?

Warriors generally are associated with two kinds of courage: (1) the ability to fight to protect themselves and (2) setting goals and developing the strength and skills.

www.psychologytoday.com

Mother Nature designed man with an instinctive drive to protect females and children. As a Cherokee proverb says, “A man’s highest calling is to protect woman so she is free to walk the earth unharmed.” Subconsciously, men value women higher than themselves. Men love to provide security for women because it makes them feel purposeful, needed, and masculine.
Men Are Natural Protectors - Simply Feminine by Morgan Wonderly

If society denies this natural inclination you are actually denying an important part of male identity and contributing to their poor mental health. A positive warrior identity is healthy and good for mens wellbeing and will help males control themselves and behave responsibly.
The Masculine Archetypes – Meet the Warrior
If a man has too little Warrior energy he’ll often lack ambition and drive and finds himself feeling out of control, blaming everything and everyone around him, feeling powerless, he’ll complain but do nothing to change things.

The Masculine Archetypes - Meet the Warrior - Fiona Ross | Coaching for Men

An article by men's coach, Fiona Ross, about how our old social systems, unconscious bias and unquestioned beliefs are not serving men anymore.

fiona-ross.co.uk

Positive Masculinity And The Meaning Behind “A True Warrior Does Not Need A Sword”

https://medium.com/@ChrisBlogs/positive-masculinity-and-the-meaning-behind-a-true-warrior-does-not-need-a-sword-aa933f98f60

Real Men Are Warriors Who Protect

https://www.familylife.com/articles/topics/parenting/essentials/fathers/real-men-are-warriors-who-protect/

Preserving the Warrior Ethos

Preserving the Warrior Ethos

The warrior ethos that emerged in the modern Western world has its origins in the warrior myth as embodied by Achilles, the hero of the Trojan War in the Iliad. In America, the warrior ethos evolved into a covenant that binds warriors to one another and to the citizens in whose name they fight...

www.hudson.org

Also not what I said. I said that arguing for men as protectors of women seems to always be argued for along with disempowered roles for women.

Thats your take on this and is not the general view especially of males. Your not just arguing for situations where males use the protector role to abuse. Your also implying any protective inclination is abusive by the fact that rather than acknowledge this natural inclination you continually relate it to the negative thus creating a narrative of the negative about males protective instinct.

I'd be very worried for any woman who did. To be in a position to freely choose to share life with a man, should one so desire, is wonderful. To "need" a man, because one is unsafe or insecure without one, is downright dangerous.

There you go again with this narrative. To even need a man or to need a man due to feeling unsafe and insecure is wrong and risk abuse. A women feeling the need for a male as a protector and for safety reasons is part of why women are attracted to males. Your denying a womens natural inclination as well now.

This seems to be the conflict and disagreement in society. There is certainly no consensus of this and to make truth claims about how a male should be according to women or any feminist ideology is wrong. How about we allow males to express their truth like the Woke seem to want for every other identity.

This is another example of the upstream assumptions and beliefs about how we should behave and order society that needs sorting because we cannot just allow ideologues to push their beliefs onto everyone.

Well, by definition, a warrior is someone who wars. And war is inevitably violent. So yeah, promoting a "warrior" stereotype does go to accepting violence.

This is another example of skewing certain words and meaning into new unreal and biased definitions. A warrior is not just about war and violence. Its a minset which is about being a nobel warrior for others even until death. Protecting a way of life that allows women to be free. That allows themselves and their family to live free and safe whether thats directly from predators or indirectly through hard work and providing practical support.

And you tried to tell me we didn't have social norms which promote the acceptance of violence...

Please show me exactly where I said this. I have always said that control, hierarchies, roles and now protection can be used for good or bad but that on their own they are not inherently good or bad. That logically means that society can promote the acceptance of violence or non violence.

(Side note: the very idea that any of this is a "natural inclination" is not an agreed premise, here).

Of course it is. Your making another unsupported truth claim. I can knock it down simply by showing one natural inclination. You said "the very idea that any of this is a "natural inclination is not an agreed premise". That means nothing, nothing at all is even slightly linked to anything natural. That is simply not the case. Macullinity is a natural trait for males and people say mascullinity is toxic like its unnatural.

I just gave you evidence of males natural protective instinct. Its an evolutionary fact, a biological fact. We know that hierarchies and control are natural parts of organising society and human behaviour. I gave you evidence for this as well. To not take into consideration the natural influences regarding these issues is unfounded and a distorted way to see things.

No. I said this in response to you saying that it's "not always a bad thing" that women are treated differently from men. At that point you were making some irrelevant point about hiring on merit, nothing to do with control, hierarchies and protection.

It has everything to do with how we value and measure control, hierarchies and protection. The reason why I said that differences are not always a bad thing was to say that differences in positions of relationships where people may be in control, upper levels of hierarchies and in positions of protection or may behave like protectors was to add balance.

You imediate dismissed that balance and brought it back to making it all about the negative view which is exactly what some Woke do. They bring the gender, sex and race card in to everything because they see all relationships as oppressors and victims rather than the balanced view of reality, what is really the case.

 

[Paidiske]

You say that but then you say that even promoting the nonbel protector and warrior is automatically promoting abuse.

Not at all what I have said. I have critiqued those archetypes for the way they contribute to particular problematic attitudes which underpin abuse.

You conflate the word warrior as being abusive full stop when its associated with males.

No, I said it was related to violence (and that would be true no matter who it's associated with).

When it also has a healthy aspect

Really? War has a healthy aspect? Being a person who engages in war has a healthy aspect? I absolutely do not agree.

Put it this way males are going to act like warriors, heros, protectors because its how they naturally identify.

Not naturally. How they are socialised into identifying.

And it's not just males. I can remember, as a kid, being inspired by figures like D'Artagnan, or Joan of Arc, or other people who showed courage in the face of danger. As an adult, I can critique those figures for what is probematic with them, while still admiring courage in the face of danger.

So we may as well encourage and promote the nobel protector. Otherwise if we deny this and then force males to pretend to be feminine and act like women they will only become3 confused and frustrated.

Pointing out to boys and young men that it's not their role in life to protect women isn't forcing them to pretend to be feminine. Good grief.

But you have said things like women don't need protection from men, we should not promote the warrior protector, most protectors I know have use protection to control and warrior means someone who wars and promoting war is violent so therefore promoting a warrior in males is violence.

And I can engage in all of that critique without that amounting to saying that "any mention of expression of a protective instinct is wrong."

Thats pretty well saying just the idea of a protective male is violence and abuse.

No, it's critiquing the way that idea is often used in our society.

Do you believe that promoting the noble protector in men is a good idea.

Only if it is not in a gendered way which sees men as protectors and women as the protected.

Thats your take on this and is not the general view especially of males.

I see. So there would be no problem, then, with promoting a view of men and women together as co-protectors of their home and community?

To even need a man or to need a man due to feeling unsafe and insecure is wrong and risk abuse.

It's certainly a precarious and vulnerable position. And I'd say the same of a man "needing" a woman. We each ought to be able to navigate life as adults without being dependent on the other; while also being able to enter into healthy partnership with the other.

A women feeling the need for a male as a protector and for safety reasons is part of why women are attracted to males.

No, really not. Consider this; the main reason any woman would ever need protection is from... other men.

Your denying a womens natural inclination as well now.

I am a woman and I have never had such an inclination. I do not want a protector. I want a partner.

How about we allow males to express their truth like the Woke seem to want for every other identity.

Provided they can do so without reinforcing attitudes which underpin abuse, sure. If "their truth" somehow ends up being about reinforcing gender hierarchies and binaries and so on, well, that's another matter.

This is another example of skewing certain words and meaning into new unreal and biased definitions.

No, that is the fundamental meaning of a warrior. All other meanings of the word are derivative from this reality.

And I come back to my earlier question; do we not have any archetypes of discipline, courage, and hard work which do not have such violent connotations?

Please show me exactly where I said this.

It was pages ago, I'm not going searching for it now.

That logically means that society can promote the acceptance of violence or non violence.

Except that acceptance of violence is one of the attitudes which has been shown to underpin abuse.

Of course it is.

No, it is not. I don't agree with it, for a start.

Macullinity is a natural trait for males and people say mascullinity is toxic like its unnatural.

Masculinity is a cultural construction. Each culture has its own ideas about the traits, behaviours, roles and so on that it considers masculine.

 

[stevevw]

No, that was not what that exchange was referring to. Please try to at least be accurate.

I am being accurate. I went back twice to check and traced the exchange in context. I posted evidence for the naturalness of hierarchies and we were arguing over whether animals apply. You selected from my reply this "at its most basic level strength and power are still valued when it comes to protection and keeping order. Unfortunately this is human nature that people can be evil".

You then said this "if I had a dollar for every man who's argued for power and control over women because it's their role to "protect" us... I'd have enough money to buy my very own bear". That was the first appeal to personal experience to refute the evidence I linked rather than address the evidence.

I then said that this appeal to personal experience where your bringing everything back to the negative and abusive view of all behaviour like making normal and natural control. hierarchies, protection and mascullinity is going to one extreme and not a balanced view when we consider all the evidence ie "Its this same natural instinct that gets distorted and instead of males being nobel and good protectors they become vicious and absuive, controlling and dominate. But the power and strength they naturally have is not itself a toxic or abusive thing".

You then selected this part of my reply to respond to "Like the word 'control' being conflated into being only abusive, the word protection being conflated automatically into abuse or like the word mascullinity being conflated into only abusive" and replied with the example of your lived reality. You emphasized that only once had a male been a nobel protector but then sort of devalued this by adding "ironically protecting you from another man". Then you went into antedotes about how you've heard 'plenty' of arguements by men about using their protector role to abuse women. You even qualified this by saying you 'profoundly' don't trust any arguements about men as protectors because "in my experience they are mostly done to keep women oppressed".

So we were talking about the evidence, the articles I linked as evidence to break a deadlock that had been going in circles about whether males are natural protectors and also whether the idea of control, hierarchies have a natural basis. In response to that evidence you appeals to personal experience to counter that evidence. That is why I said experiences may be real to the person but beyond them when all factors are taken into consideration it may not be the case in the context of the evidence I presented and you personalising things in response.

You were emphasizing words like "if I had a dollar for every man", "ironically from another man", "they are mostly done" to imply that any appeal to these natural inclinations is in the majority of cases about abuse in reply to the evdience I linked that its actually the other way around and is a natural part of society and behaviour. You didn't offer any evdience but appealed to personal experience which is a logical fallacy and doesn't address the evidence. You do this a lot, personalize and politicise things to avoid discussing the evidence.

 

[Paidiske]

I am being accurate... So we were talking about the evidence,

I'd say our exchange had long moved on from any evidence at that point.

You do this a lot, personalize and politicise things to avoid discussing the evidence.

I don't agree that it's politicising. To me, this whole discussion is highly politicised from the beginning. But sure, I personalise. Because all these arguments might be academic to you, but they're not to me. They're about the fabric of my life, and the very real problems I, and so many women, deal with every day. And that should matter just as much as (so-called) evidence to the contrary.

 

[stevevw]

Yep. You want facts and evidence, there they are.

Yes we still need to to do work to support women. But that doesn't negate that women are much more advantaged today even to the point of advantages over males. My point was we have to keep things balanced. This whole idea of hyper foccusing on one group and then building narratives and policies around this is not a good idea.

It actually creates division by hyper focusing on the very things we want to change which is identifying everything as sec, gender and race, measuring everything through the lenns of identity.

The problem with equality of outcome where we want a society that is exactly the right proportion of each identity represented in everything is completely unreal and dangerous. It kills enterprise, merit, hard work ethic, and most importantly the sovereign value of the individual.

I wasn't fobbing it off. I was pointing out that the dynamics of what is going on are different than they have been for women.

How do you know. What do you mean by different. Does that difference mean its not a disadvantage or one caused by a denial of mens rights or equality. You say these things without qualifying them and who knows what you mean.

We know its different for men and women. But that doesn't tell us whether that difference is disadvantage caused by a denial of rights. Its like you think men don't ever get denied rights and its only women. We should only be concerned with women and children.

I might be willing to buy the idea that classroom environments are not suiting boys as well as girls, on average, for some reason. I am not going to buy arguments that this is because the school system has been "feminised."

Of course not, you could never entertain the idea that the system ever descriminates against males.

Schools, Masculinity and Boyness in the War Against Boys
The re-publication of Christine Hoff Sommers’s book on the War Against Boys (2000, 2013) continues to feed into a widely circulating premise that feminist inspired pedagogical strategies are having a detrimental effect on boys’ experience of education. It resonates with a UK newspaper article whose author asked: “Why do women teachers like me treat being a boy as an illness?” (Child 2010). In the late 1990s, Sara Delamont had already highlighted how the media targeted feminists for the failure of boys, where “school and classroom regimes … favour females and feminine values; a lack of academic/scholarly male role models for boys, a bias in favour of feminism in curricula, a lack of toughness in discipline, and a rejection of competition in academic or sporting matters” (1999: 14).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300419315_Schools_Masculinity_and_Boyness_in_the_War_Against_Boys

So its been going on for some time now and just like the Critical Theories that are having a detrimental affect of identity politics pits us into a competition between identity group rights where some are being denied the same with the narrative about male identity being made toxic and unworthy and thus now disadvantaged.

Teaching has become feminised and boys lose out

Teaching has become feminised and boys lose out

Teachers no longer stand at the front of the room and children are expected to direct their own learning in open, mixed ability classrooms. No wonder boys are easily distracted, display behavioural problems and soon fall behind.

www.smh.com.au

Seems gender stereotypes and what boys see as appropriate to their gender probably play a significant part: The trouble with boys starts before they step into a classroom

This is behind a paywall unfortunately. But I would like to know exactly which stereotypes are supposedly causing boys to fall behind. If its Toxic mascullinity then I am very skeptical as to what exactly that is as we know ideologues conflate normal healthy mascullinity as toxic and that has been part of the problem why boys are not doing well in an environments that makes their natural inclinations bad behaviour and elimiates it from educcation.

Things such as healthy competition, rough and tumble play which is often labelled bad behaviour. No woinder as theirs no male role models so boys are surrounded by females telling them how they should behave. Thats not when they are being told they can magically become little girls which is an extention of the Feminist and Queer ideology.

A claim I find ironic, since everything I can find says that in fact, today practical, interactive and hands on classroom activities are valued more than ever before, especially involving the use of technology. And that certainly matches what I see, in the difference between classrooms today, and even what I grew up with a generation ago.

Technology is different and has its good and bad points. as the evidence I linked shows its more about the culture of learning and the emphasis on DEI and Humanities that has influenced into the curiculum from primary to tertiary education. It actually began in academia but now permeates all education.

The extreme of this is how Trans and Gender ideology influences education of children. If the idea that boys and girls are no different and they are interchangable should ring alarm bells as to how this affects boys and girls sense of self and identity.

But the Feminisation of education was the bedrock on which this ideology was built so it has similar ideas which undermine male and females as unique and different genders which makes out males and females are no different and interchangable. As women now dominate the Insitutions as a result its only natural that this ideology is dominating.

No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the fact of actually having different lived experiences. Actually being treated differently.

Ok, yes lived experience. Yes women have a different lived experience of being treated differently. When you say differently what do you mean. Differently as in because of being a women or differently in general say because the person was not good enough or suitable in that situation. How do you tell the difference today.

It's not "refuting the facts" to point out that most women don't need protection from men, in any meaningful way, as we go about our day to day lives.

But that is not what you said. You now qualify it with "in any meaningful way" though I am still not sure what that even means as it sounds it could be loaded towards a certain kind of subjective meaning.

You actually were implying women don't need male protective instincts in anyway whatsoever when saying "women don't need mens protection" and then giving negative examples of mens protective behaviour which is not a fair representation.

What everyone else's experience or independent objective evidence?

Both. The objective evidence that may show that males identifying as proectors and providers is natural, an evolutionary behaviour. Or through studies and research in behaviour and how it relates to health and wellbeing.

But also everyones experiences because it will be different. You cannot apply your experience to everyone. So that initself refutes using a single personal experience to represent all experiences. It may be another women admires mens protective instincts. Who is ultimately right.

What independent objective evidence is there that most women can't get through their days without men protecting them in some ill-defined way?

See another stawman. You now add an extreme definition of protection like a male has to be obsessed and around a women all the time to protect her when there its male protection is much more varied than this.

I have already given evidence that generally and to a fair degree women seek males as protectors in various ways and to go with this nature inclines males to fullfill this role. Its part of the complimentary aspect of the sexes.

Here's the burning irony: I did some searching to see if I could find any evidence on this. And what came up were the stats about the rates of domestic violence. So much for the "noble protector" trope.

Another logical fallacy. How is saying I found articles on DV so there is no evidence that males have a natural inclination to be nobel protectors equate. Your making an unsupported assumption in linking the two. Weren't you having a go at me for correlations.

If your intention was as you claim, you did not express yourself in a way that made that at all clear. And as I believe I was saying earlier, darned right this discussion is personal. It's personal for every woman. And of course it's political. The personal is political, as the saying goes.

Yes thats true but if we are going to claim truth that will apply to everyone then we need to hear all experiences and all the evidence. That seems only fair. That doesn't deminish experience, it puts it in the right context as far as weighing up all the evidence. You used your personal experience to rebuff the evidence I linked. You did it directly after I linked the evidence.

Warrior; a person engaged or experienced in warfare. Of course that's violent. It's not possible to engage in non-violent warfare.

Then how do you explain the many articles I linked about the nobel warrior spirit in males even encourgaing it as a healthy aspect of being male and including articles from women.

There are many reasons why someone might ask someone else if everything is okay, or offer someone else practical service. Those reasons seldom have anything to do with gender. Good grief.

I am talking about the mindset behind why males may think and act like this. They are attuned to be protectors subconsciously to be strong such as in how they play sports competively in the warrior spirit and are more physical.

They scan enviroments are more aware of threats, will naturally give attention to situations that involve threat especially where women and children are involved. But they also think in terms of service, being a helper in society as this gives them purpose and meaning. Here you are thinking you know males better than themselves and doing everything to make males the same as women.

No, as I just explained, that is not at all what I was saying. I was saying that a gendered dynamic of men as protectors of women in an unequal way was likely problematic, because it reinforces gender hierarchy and rigid roles, and disempowers women.

What do you mean by an unequal way. If a male wanted to provide a home and safety for his family, felt that was his duty would that be wrong.

I have made it very, very clear that that was not at all what I was saying.

I know you keep saying that but it seems you keep reneging when you make these extreme claims.

Not at all. Only discouraging them from seeing it as a specifically masculine trait, directed at women.

specifically masculline trait. It is a specifically masculline trait, the Portective instinct comes from mascullinity. Mascullinity is what makes men different to women and has an influence on their thinking, they self perception as males and how they see others, women and the world. They mascullinity is very much directed at women as that is what its designed for.

 

[stevevw]

I'd say our exchange had long moved on from any evidence at that point.

No not really. It had reached this stage several times. I was trying to keep it on the evidence. You began to appeal to personal experience when you started with the "if I had a dollar" and it decended into more personal antedotes as I tried to keep it focused on the facts, the balanced view rather than subjective determinations.

I don't agree that it's politicising. To me, this whole discussion is highly politicised from the beginning. But sure, I personalise. Because all these arguments might be academic to you, but they're not to me. They're about the fabric of my life, and the very real problems I, and so many women, deal with every day. And that should matter just as much as (so-called) evidence to the contrary.

I am not denying this. But your experience is not all womens experience. In fact a fair number if not the majority of women relate and are attracted to the masculline protector in men. So don't their experiences count. You seem to only want to focus on the examples that cast men as bad and not all the positive examples which I think outweight the bad.

Remembering that the whole point of this disagreement was around whether males have this nobel protector instinct and whether its abusive, healthy and natural or both. To be only saying its all negetaive based on your experience I don;t think is a fair determination all things considered.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes we still need to to do work to support women. But that doesn't negate that women are much more advantaged today even to the point of advantages over males.

Advantages over males? No. Demonstrably false. As per evidence already provided.

It actually creates division by hyper focusing on the very things we want to change which is identifying everything as sec, gender and race, measuring everything through the lenns of identity.

You might want to change that. I find those helpful lenses through which to critique our society.

The problem with equality of outcome where we want a society that is exactly the right proportion of each identity represented in everything is completely unreal and dangerous.

Good thing absolutely no one in this thread is arguing for that.

How do you know. What do you mean by different.

I explained earlier; it is not that long ago that there were very explicit policies disadvantaging women, such as just not allowing us to enrol in particular institutions or courses. That is not the kind of difficulty men and boys are facing now.

Does that difference mean its not a disadvantage or one caused by a denial of mens rights or equality.

It's not caused by a denial of rights or equality. There do seem to be complex systemic and cultural issues at play.

But I would like to know exactly which stereotypes are supposedly causing boys to fall behind.

I'm summarising from memory, but basically that boys absorb early the messages that liking academic pursuits, reading, studying, and so on, are feminine, and boys who do them are seen as less masculine. So they avoid excelling academically in order to conform to peer pressure about what boys should like and do.

Differently as in because of being a women or differently in general say because the person was not good enough or suitable in that situation. How do you tell the difference today.

Well, when people tell you explicitly that it's because you're a woman, there's not much ambiguity. And yes, that happens.

But that is not what you said.

The corollary of only once in my life having needed a man to "protect" me, is that every other day of my adult life, I did not.

You actually were implying women don't need male protective instincts in anyway whatsoever when saying "women don't need mens protection" and then giving negative examples of mens protective behaviour which is not a fair representation.

I don't think we do need men's protective instincts. And given I encounter far more negative behaviour from men, than I do protective behaviour, well... you might not think it's fair. Neither do I, but I have to actually live with it, and deal with the threats, the aggression, the objectification and sexual harassment, the belittling and the insults. So which is the injustice; that this is the lived reality for most women, or that we dare to be honest in saying so?

Both.

No, I wasn't asking which one. I was asking what substance there was to either.

You cannot apply your experience to everyone. So that initself refutes using a single personal experience to represent all experiences.

I'll refer you back to the stats on male violence against women. One woman in Australia dying at the hands of a partner (or ex-partner) every four days. That's not a single personal experience.

You now add an extreme definition of protection like a male has to be obsessed and around a women all the time to protect her when there its male protection is much more varied than this.

No, I added no such definition. I am pointing out that the idea of men as protectors is irrelevant to most women's daily lives.

Another logical fallacy. How is saying I found articles on DV so there is no evidence that males have a natural inclination to be nobel protectors equate.

My point is that my attempt to find any meaningful data on men as protectors only brought up results on men as perpetrators. Does that not tell you something?

Then how do you explain the many articles I linked about the nobel warrior spirit in males even encourgaing it as a healthy aspect of being male and including articles from women.

I know that people use warrior archetypes in a positive way. A more modern iteration of this is all the "spirit of ANZAC" type guff we get subjected to by the government. I am offering a deeper critique and suggesting that the "warrior" part of the archetype is problematic in its normalisation of violence.

I am talking about the mindset behind why males may think and act like this. They are attuned to be protectors subconsciously to be strong such as in how they play sports competively in the warrior spirit and are more physical.

I do not, for one second, believe that men mostly ask others if they are okay because of some archetypal/stereotypical warrior spirit.

They scan enviroments are more aware of threats,

Not according to the literature: Male warriors and worried women? Understanding gender and perceptions of security threats | European Journal of International Security | Cambridge Core

"women tend to identify more security threats than men not necessarily because they feel more threatened but due to a greater capacity to consider security from perspectives beyond their own."

But they also think in terms of service, being a helper in society as this gives them purpose and meaning. Here you are thinking you know males better than themselves and doing everything to make males the same as women.

If you're trying to claim that women don't think in terms of service or being a helper in society, and that is somehow some significant point of difference between the sexes, you only make your claims seem utterly ludicrous.

What do you mean by an unequal way. If a male wanted to provide a home and safety for his family, felt that was his duty would that be wrong.

Only if he did not see his wife or partner as an equal participant in that.

specifically masculline trait. It is a specifically masculline trait, the Portective instinct comes from mascullinity.

We've been over this, steve. Women also have protective instincts, even if we tend, on balance, to express them slightly differently. Protective instincts are a human trait.

In fact a fair number if not the majority of women relate and are attracted to the masculline protector in men.

I went looking for evidence for this claim, and couldn't find any. In all the studies I could find on what women value or are attracted to in men, this did not come up once. I think you need some evidence if you want it to be taken seriously.

Remembering that the whole point of this disagreement was around whether males have this nobel protector instinct and whether its abusive, healthy and natural or both.

I'm not saying it's all negative. I'm saying that seeing it in a gendered way - where men are protectors and women are protected - is potentially a problem related to the attitudes which underpin abuse (specifically, gender hierarchy and rigid roles).

 

[stevevw]

Advantages over males? No. Demonstrably false. As per evidence already provided.

So what about the evidence I linked. Doesn't that count. Women are now dominating academia and degrees isn't an advantage over males. If it was the other way around women would be protesting. Women now outnumber men in the workforce and the trend is said to continue. How long before we can say women are at an advantage. When it was the other way around women were protesting it was unfair. Or does equality only apply to women.

I think advantage and disadvantage depends on what criteria we are using. I mean males die younger than women, are killed more at work and in wars, suffer higher rates of homelessness, work accidents, assaults, murders, imprisonment, unemployment, poor education, psychological disorders, addiction, mental illness, suicide, loss of children and homes in divorce ect. Are these not disadvantages compared to women. Who says the system has not helped create male disadvantage.

You might want to change that. I find those helpful lenses through which to critique our society.

Measuring everything through the lens of identity is what actually causes abuse. Its not so much that these perspectives are not required but that they are made the only requirement to measure all differences when there are 100s of ways to measure differences and disadvantage.

Good thing absolutely no one in this thread is arguing for that.

Actually one of the links you gave was promoting equality of outcome through quotas and affirmative action. We all know that State policy within the institutions especially in education and academia is underpinned by the Critical theories and DEI. Thats Equity for E. These are what underpin identity politics.

Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy.
Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s and built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions over the past decade. It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs and corporate human resources departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resources modules, public policy frameworks and school curricula.

No longer simply an academic matter, critical race theory has become a tool of political power. To borrow a phrase from the Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, it is fast achieving cultural hegemony in America’s public institutions.

What critical race theory is really about

Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s and built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism.

nypost.com

Add other western nationsd like Canada, Australia, NZ and Britain to that list. Add the other Critical Theories like Social Justice, Queer and Feminine theories to that list which have infiltrated society and have the same ideology as applied to sex, gender, race, class, bacially all cultural and social aspects of society. This has cultivated cultural Marxism and the culture wars and divided society.

I explained earlier; it is not that long ago that there were very explicit policies disadvantaging women, such as just not allowing us to enrol in particular institutions or courses. That is not the kind of difficulty men and boys are facing now.

Yes that was wrong but that is still happening in some ways, just new ways and more implicitly for women and men. As society has become more feminised this has more or less forced males out of some industries because they don't relate or feel comortable in those fields. Teaching, child related work and the social type jobs have seen the greatest reductions in males and they also happen to be the most feminised.

It's not caused by a denial of rights or equality. There do seem to be complex systemic and cultural issues at play.

You have just repeated the same answer. I was asking how do you know, You have not even explained what you mean by complex cultural issues. You have not even researched how and whether males are disadvantaged. I would imagine that is not a high priority for you so your jumping the gun a bit here. How about we start by asking males. It seems most believe they are being descriminated and unfairly treated. It seems we are willing to listen to women so what about men.

I'm summarising from memory, but basically that boys absorb early the messages that liking academic pursuits, reading, studying, and so on, are feminine, and boys who do them are seen as less masculine. So they avoid excelling academically in order to conform to peer pressure about what boys should like and do.

Boys have always been behind in reading and writing. That doesn't explain the fall across the board the drop in math for example which is usually a strong subject for males. Maybe its a time management thing.

Boys need more individualised supervising. Maybe its the curiculum where the books have become less interesting and feminised as well. Boys will be eager to read if its about adventure and heros and protectors of the universe that are masculline ect lol. Not about Johnny wearing a dress.

“The way teachers teach, what happens in the classroom in terms of pedagogy – and that's the style of teaching, the way lessons are structured – is more suitable for girls. And all research is proving that. “For example, boys need more structure, more discipline. They need more explicit teaching, and that's something we've lost over the last 20-30 years.”

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/education-expert-dr-kevin-donnelly-attributed-falling-boys-education-results-falling-due-to-feminised-curriculum/news-story/8b46bf37509f5bfd8e2e77c63e428a5a

Relating this back to the OP this same feminised education system seems to be failing to discipline boys and even encouraging poor behaviour by not having male role models or being too soft.

Christina Hoff Sommers was absolutely accurate in describing, in her 2000 bestseller, The War Against Boys, how feminist complaints that girls were “losing their voice” in a male-oriented classroom have prompted the educational establishment to turn the schools upside down to make them more girl-friendly, to the detriment of males. As a result, boys have become increasingly disengaged.

As Sommers understood, it is boys’ aggressive and rationalist nature—redefined by educators as a behavioral disorder—that’s getting so many of them in trouble in the feminized schools. Their problem: they don’t want to be girls.

How the Schools Shortchange Boys

Since I started teaching several years ago, I’ve come to learn firsthand that everything I’d heard about the feminization of our schools is real.

www.city-journal.org

"We have challenged the 1950s patriarchy and, rightly said, this is not a man's world. But we have thrown the boy out with the bathwater. "In the 70s we changed the story for girls. Our attitude was that boys can get on with it. It's a question of balance, and I believe it has gone too far the other way." Lessons and exams, with an emphasis on coursework, were now more suited to girls and were seriously disadvantaging boys. The school system does not value enough of the traditional male things like competition.

Feminised curriculum 'has thrown boy out with bathwater'

Schools are failing boys because lessons have become "feminised", says a leading academic who wants to see outdoor adventure given greater emphasis in the curriculum.

www.theguardian.com

Strangly enough the Feminized school system doesn't value male traits, the masculline traits like competition, physical strength, advanture and the hero or warrior male similar to how you deminish it. So maybe this is a common theme in why males are disadvantaged now, their natural maleness is being undermined and they have lost all interest because they just don't relate anymore. They feel all things male is toxic because the system is trying to rid itself of these traits.

 

[Paidiske]

Women are now dominating academia and degrees isn't an advantage over males.

Are they benefitting over males once they have those degrees? No. They're still paid less and discriminated against. Noting that more women than men are studying at university (as undergraduates) is only one part of a big picture. It doesn't, for example, take into account the disadvantages women face within the university.

Gender Discrimination at Universities still alive and well in 2021 Prof. Dr. Nicholas Markatos, Professor Emeritus, FRSA

An article to be published in 'Bulletin of the European professors Emeriti' , October 2021. Keywords: gender, discrimination, student, faculty, harassment Abstract A condensed but critical literature review is given in this article because of the wealth of studies completed in academia (parts of whi

www.linkedin.com

Women now outnumber men in the workforce and the trend is said to continue.

Again, only one part of a very complex picture: Women at work: levelling the participation gap | INTHEBLACK.

I mean males die younger than women, are killed more at work and in wars, suffer higher rates of homelessness, work accidents, assaults, murders, imprisonment, unemployment, poor education, psychological disorders, addiction, mental illness, suicide, loss of children and homes in divorce ect. Are these not disadvantages compared to women. Who says the system has not helped create male disadvantage.

I'm not saying men don't face any problems. And absolutely, there are also problems for men within a flawed (patriarchal) system.

What I notice about the issues you raise and the issues I raise, is that I raise issues that come out of how women are treated by others (like discrimination and disadvantage due to not being treated equally), that is and you raise issues that come out of personal behaviour choices or difficulties adapting to the situation in society (with the possible exception of workplace safety, but even then, that's not due to men being treated differently to women).

They are both real sets of issues, but mine are specifically about women being treated as inferior by those in power.

Measuring everything through the lens of identity is what actually causes abuse.

No, it isn't. What causes abuse are the three attitudes we have been discussing; acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power and control, and rigid roles. Being able to analyse social trends across groups has nothing to do with any of that.

Actually one of the links you gave was promoting equality of outcome through quotas and affirmative action.

One of the links might have been, but I was not.

Yes that was wrong but that is still happening in some ways, just new ways and more implicitly for women and men.

What on earth are you talking about? And would that be an example of... rigid gender roles?

Teaching, child related work and the social type jobs have seen the greatest reductions in males and they also happen to be the most feminised.

And what is consistently identified about them, that discourages men, is the pay is relatively poor compared to other roles. Female-dominated jobs tend to be poorly paid.

You have just repeated the same answer. I was asking how do you know,

I know it's not based on a denial of rights because I can see that the policies and structures and so on in place do not deny men and boys the right to be there, the right to participate, and so on. The way they did for girls and women in the past (and in many parts of the world, still do).

You have not even explained what you mean by complex cultural issues.

I mean that this is about notions about boys' identity, values, ideals, and so on - all cultural issues - and how those interplay with the culture of schools.

You have not even researched how and whether males are disadvantaged.

Actually, I have. It's not the first time I've ever considered the question.

How about we start by asking males. It seems most believe they are being descriminated and unfairly treated.

In schools? Next time I have the chance to chat to boys and male staff at my daughter's school (which I regularly do), I'll make a point of asking. Unfortunately for you, I don't consider you a reliable narrator of male experience in general.

I'd be interested in whether you think sex-segregated schooling is part of the answer. I can see arguments both ways for that, although personally I found doing high school in an all-girls school to be very much a positive experience.

 

[stevevw]

Well, when people tell you explicitly that it's because you're a woman, there's not much ambiguity. And yes, that happens.

I hope you reported them as that is illegal. I know it still goes on but in todays its a big no no. Did they tell you why. I guess theres no reason if it was only because you were a women and there was no reason why a women could not do that job.

The corollary of only once in my life having needed a man to "protect" me, is that every other day of my adult life, I did not.

So you have never had the police protect you.

I don't think we do need men's protective instincts.

You don't think we do need men's protective instincts. You don't sound confident. Are you speaking for all women. Or just yourself. What if a woman or women say they believe they need good protective men.

I find it strange that the idea of a 'good protector' one that ensured women were free to live how they want, a protector of a way of life, and standing up for his family would be a positive thing. Certainly way better than a uncaring and abusive man.

And given I encounter far more negative behaviour from men, than I do protective behaviour, well... you might not think it's fair. Neither do I, but I have to actually live with it, and deal with the threats, the aggression, the objectification and sexual harassment, the belittling and the insults. So which is the injustice; that this is the lived reality for most women, or that we dare to be honest in saying so?

Thats fair enough, theres no excuse for that no matter what.

No, I wasn't asking which one. I was asking what substance there was to either.

Ok sorry. Well I the substance or evidence for everyone elses experience is the fact that no experience is the same so you can't say your experience is everyones experience. Like I said women may have the opposite experience to you of good and nobel protectors.

The objective evidence I have already given by the fact that the research shows women are naturally attracted to masculline males and their protective instincts and males including other species have a natural protective instinct.

I'll refer you back to the stats on male violence against women. One woman in Australia dying at the hands of a partner (or ex-partner) every four days. That's not a single personal experience.

Yes but the majority of males don't commit DV. You can't use a minority of womens experience and then generalise that as a representation of males natural protective inclinations.

No, I added no such definition. I am pointing out that the idea of men as protectors is irrelevant to most women's daily lives.

You actually straw manned it. You gave an extreme scenario of what you say defines male protective behaviour in general. That being possessive and hyper protective following the women around all day. Of course women will say they don't want such a man. But that is not a true representation of how males act out their nobel protective instincts.

Put it this way research shows that most women support and are a attracted to the nobel protector instinct in males. So do the majority of womens experience count. Or is it just your experience that counts.

Even in 2024, Women Are Still Looking for a Protective Man
In the State of Our Unions survey, wives who gave their husbands’ top rating for “protectiveness” were more likely to be happy in their marriages and less likely to report that divorce might be in their future.
Even in 2024, Women Are Still Looking for a Protective Man

Women cannot deny our God-given natures, no matter how hard we try! We are attracted to masculine, protective men out of our very design—just as men are attracted to feminine women.
7 Ways To Attract A Protective Man - CatholicMatch

Researchers at Griffith University in Queensland examined what factors most influenced female attraction to males and found that physical strength reigned supreme. Women choose men based on “ancestral cues of a man’s fighting ability”, crediting their preferences to ancient mating rituals in which women chose partners they perceived as being able to provide for them.

Women prefer stronger-looking men, study finds

Are you surprised?

www.independent.co.uk

My point is that my attempt to find any meaningful data on men as protectors only brought up results on men as perpetrators. Does that not tell you something?

Well theres plenty of evidence out there as I have been linking. It should not be hard. If males have a natural inclination to be protective then its like anything natural, like males are usually more naturally aggressive. It should come up if its a natural trait as its science. Maybe do a scholary search as google tends to list opinion pieces and blogs first.

Often because the narrative has been pushed that any mention of male protection or mascullinity is abusive then that is what is pushed online. The fake news has a way of dominating the algorithms lol.

I know that people use warrior archetypes in a positive way. A more modern iteration of this is all the "spirit of ANZAC" type guff we get subjected to by the government. I am offering a deeper critique and suggesting that the "warrior" part of the archetype is problematic in its normalisation of violence.

I think you mean the taking of that nobel warrior type Anzac and then abusing it, using it absuively. I don't think the warrior Anzac spirit, the one that drove mates to put their lives on the line to fight beside their mates or for their nation, for theirs and their family's freedom was abusive.

But thats still limiting what the warrior and protector is. We see the warrior spirit in sports in how participants are encouraged to dig into that warrior spirit to attain a high level of commitment and drive. The Nija Warrior TV show though commercialised taps into this spirit. Women also participate by the way.

Its in how they look after others even mates, sticking by them in the hard times, helping out a stranger with a flat tyre, helping an old lady across the road. There should be more of it. We should be encouraging this type of behaviour not condeming it.

Do you think all Indigenous peoples who have this warrior spirit for their males are abusive, are cultivating abuse. I think its because they have lost that warrior spirit is why many have lost their identity and have turned to self abuse and abusing and being violent. They are not channelling their nobel warrior in them. The Elders use to pass this down but now the culture is being lost.

I do not, for one second, believe that men mostly ask others if they are okay because of some archetypal/stereotypical warrior spirit.

Ok then thats your experience. Its not so much that they explicitly ask others if they are ok. Its more implicit, in their mannerisms, thinking, scanning ect. I see it all the time in how males are always involved in making sure everyone or everything is ok. How they scan the environment for threats, especially where women and children are concerned. In how they engage with kids and are always looking out for them in practical ways.

Thats not to say that women don't do this but its how males do it differently to women. There more spatial, scanning for threats and being concerned with peoples practical needs.

Not according to the literature: Male warriors and worried women? Understanding gender and perceptions of security threats | European Journal of International Security | Cambridge Core
"women tend to identify more security threats than men not necessarily because they feel more threatened but due to a greater capacity to consider security from perspectives beyond their own."

The literature, theres only one article. You say that like all the literature supports your claim. I just gave you several articles that support the opposite.

Your article doesn't actually say that a nobel warrior or protector is bad. It actually supports what I am saying. First its saying women still percieve threats and that the State is seen as the protector so they still look for a protector. It would only be natural if they look to the State for protection that they would also look to males. Their natural inclination to look for a protector male is being transferred onto the State. The State now plays the role of husband and protector.

Second it says males are more sensitive to threats which relates to their natural inclination to be protectors. If they are more sensitive to threats then they are scanning the environment looking for threats and will more likely respond in different ways more than women if there is a threat.

But apart from that the article actually says
These explanations are likely to be contextual and mediated by a range of individual and community factors – and therefore not necessarily generalisable in a straightforward way.

If you're trying to claim that women don't think in terms of service or being a helper in society, and that is somehow some significant point of difference between the sexes, you only make your claims seem utterly ludicrous.

No of course not and this shows you keep making these either/or fallacies that saying males are natural protectors means women are not protectors at all. I never said that. You do this a lot. You take the mere mention of any opposing positions as saying its the only position.

Only if he did not see his wife or partner as an equal participant in that.

But you have resisted and protested at the mere mention of a male expressing such desires and inclinations. If anyone said we should promote men who work hard to look after their family and protect and provide for them you would disagree that we should be promoting such things or that males should express such inclinations.

We've been over this, steve. Women also have protective instincts, even if we tend, on balance, to express them slightly differently. Protective instincts are a human trait.

Exactly so why do you protest when males express this in different ways. You also protested that males have this natural protective instinct.

I went looking for evidence for this claim, and couldn't find any. In all the studies I could find on what women value or are attracted to in men, this did not come up once. I think you need some evidence if you want it to be taken seriously.

I thought I already linked the evidence. You obviously did not look very hard because if women in general are naturally attracted to a protector then this should come up as its the science, the facts.

Women's mate choice mechanisms track many cues of men's genetic quality and ability to invest resources in the woman and her offspring. One variable that predicted both a man's genetic quality and his ability to invest is the man's formidability (i.e. fighting ability or resource holding power/potential). Modern women, therefore, should have mate choice mechanisms that respond to ancestral cues of a man's fighting ability.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2017.1819

Direct benefits, in the form of protection and immediate resource acquisition, plays an important role in women’s mate preferences and indicates that formidability is an important criterion in mate selection (Sell et al., 2017).

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14747049211032351#bibr52-14747049211032351

Researchers at Griffith University in Queensland examined what factors most influenced female attraction to males and found that physical strength reigned supreme.

Women prefer stronger-looking men, study finds

Are you surprised?

www.independent.co.uk

Females are more likely to prefer a partner who is taller and of higher status, because such males are better protectors and providers.
https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2017/opinion/evolutionary-history-of-men-and-women

Their study, published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, suggests muscles in men are akin to elaborate tail feathers in male peacocks: They attract females looking for a virile mate. "Women are predisposed to prefer muscularity in men,"

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN09290845/#:~:text=Their%20study%2C%20published%20in%20the,author%20David%20Frederick%20of%20UCLA.

Turns out, women are hard-wired to be much more attracted to male protectors who espouse so-called “benevolent sexism” than men who treat them as equals. And the best part: this is true even for hardcore feminists, scientists found.

Study Reveals What Women Are ‘Hard-Wired’ To Find Attractive. Feminists Are Going To HATE It.

Turns out, women are hard-wired to be much more attracted to male protectors who espouse so-called “benevolent sexism” than men who treat them as equals. And the best part: this is true even for hardcore feminists, scientists found.According to a new study from University of Kent and Iowa State...

www.dailywire.com

Are Women Hard-Wired To Look For A Protector?
New Dating Survey Suggests the Answer Might be Yes

Are Women Hard-Wired To Look For A Protector?

/PRNewswire/ -- When it comes to social status, most women are still looking for a man who is their equal or better, according to a new survey by dating...

www.prnewswire.com

I'm not saying it's all negative. I'm saying that seeing it in a gendered way - where men are protectors and women are protected - is potentially a problem related to the attitudes which underpin abuse (specifically, gender hierarchy and rigid roles).

So when you say potentially what does that mean. That we should deny males natural inclination to protect as it may underpin abuse.

 

[stevevw]

Are they benefitting over males once they have those degrees? No. They're still paid less and discriminated against. Noting that more women than men are studying at university (as undergraduates) is only one part of a big picture. It doesn't, for example, take into account the disadvantages women face within the university.

Gender Discrimination at Universities still alive and well in 2021 Prof. Dr. Nicholas Markatos, Professor Emeritus, FRSA

An article to be published in 'Bulletin of the European professors Emeriti' , October 2021. Keywords: gender, discrimination, student, faculty, harassment Abstract A condensed but critical literature review is given in this article because of the wealth of studies completed in academia (parts of whi

www.linkedin.com

So your basically making justifications that mens disadvantage is not really disadvantage and because women may be disadvantaged in other ways that cancels out any percieved disadvantage to males.

Actually the facts are that because women have dominated university that they are now outdoing males in work and its predicted they will move further ahead leaving males behind.

A recent study published at Science Direct reported that, since the 1970s, many jobs and sectors traditionally dominated by men have contracted or disappeared and the demand for jobs traditionally held by women has increased significantly. “In fact, women dominate the majority of industries projected to have the highest job and wage growth over the next decade,” states the research.

https://www.internationalmensday.info/20_for_20_should_we_encourage_more_men_to_take_on_roles_traditionally_dominated_by_women

The gender wage gap is much more exaggerated than in reality and doesn't take into consideration context. Males are more willing to relocate, do overtime and hard, dangerous and dirty work which may pay higher or be more available to males. Women are more likley to not work due to pregnancy and time away from work with early childcare. When all other factors are taken into consideration the wage gap is very close.

Again, only one part of a very complex picture: Women at work: levelling the participation gap | INTHEBLACK.

Actually increases in womens participation in work has already been evolving in recent years and women have now equalled and are taking over males in work as well. Its predicted that womens growth in work will far exceed mens over the next 10 years.

A recent study published at Science Direct reported that, since the 1970s, many jobs and sectors traditionally dominated by men have contracted or disappeared and the demand for jobs traditionally held by women has increased significantly. “In fact, women dominate the majority of industries projected to have the highest job and wage growth over the next decade,” states the research.

https://www.internationalmensday.info/20_for_20_should_we_encourage_more_men_to_take_on_roles_traditionally_dominated_by_women

I'm not saying men don't face any problems. And absolutely, there are also problems for men within a flawed (patriarchal) system.

Of course it has to be problems associated with the patriarchy. It could never be any problems with women dominating men. Its always mens fault no matter what.

What I notice about the issues you raise and the issues I raise, is that I raise issues that come out of how women are treated by others (like discrimination and disadvantage due to not being treated equally), that is and you raise issues that come out of personal behaviour choices or difficulties adapting to the situation in society (with the possible exception of workplace safety, but even then, that's not due to men being treated differently to women).

Of course not all mens issues are their own fault or some other reason, any reason except that society and the system may disadvantage them. Its a known fact that males have been targeted and descriminated against by female friendly policies and norms.

The hypocracy is that if any of these issues like high crime or prison for minorities is said to be descrimination but when it comes to males its their fault. It maybe that because men have been disadvantaged in other ways like employment, males are the fastest group losing work today due to the restructuring of society into more female orientation work. This may lead to mental illness and poor behaviour.

They are both real sets of issues, but mine are specifically about women being treated as inferior by those in power.

Who says that these issues are not because males are treated differently. If young boys are losing fathers and becoming unruly due to societies insistence that they don't need a father and the breakdown of families due to progressive feminist and gender ideology then that is descriminating against optimal setups for boys that sets them up fro failure.

No, it isn't. What causes abuse are the three attitudes we have been discussing; acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power and control, and rigid roles. Being able to analyse social trends across groups has nothing to do with any of that.

I will give you an example. Identity politics has underpinned identity over objective sex. So males can now enter womens spaces and subject them to abuse in the form of disallowing their rights to privacy and safty. We have seen actual abuse happen to women as a result. Another example of how academia pushed identity politics which has led to an increase in students pushing antisemetism the ultimate form of abuse.

We have also seen as a result of identity politics underpinning public policy of groups becoming abusive and violent towards each other where gays and Trans, males and females, trans and women, blacks and whites, Left and the Right are attacking each other through social media enciting violence between groups.

How Identity Politics can only lead to anger and violence.
We have seen a new form of iconoclasm tearing down statues and defacing art, incredibly even statues of Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln. And we have seen countless examples of the new inquisition cancelling all sorts of people. Murray lays out plainly and with numerous examples the toxicity of identity politics and its deleterious effects on rational discourse.

Dr Morrissey on Identity Politics & Violence

The root of the problem is in the realm of ideas and in how we approach our knowledge of the world. It’s a problem of education.

www.campion.edu.au

So we had toxic mascullinity and now we have toxic identity politics as the new system of abuse.

Violence before Identity: An Analysis of Identity Politics
The politics of identity is warping young minds? The Oppression Olympics, with its ruthless sorting of every ethnic group according to their alleged victimhood or supposed privilege, has clearly nurtured a new inhumanity. Under the banner of ‘anti-racism’, the world’s oldest racism has been rehabilitated. the oppressor Jew. A vile 19th- and 20th-century trope that is now being resuscitated in PC language and fed to the young.

You could not ask for clearer proof of the misanthropy and bigotry that lurks in identity politics than the fact that even the worst act of racist violence of the 21st century so far can seem righteous to brainwashed people. This is where the past few decades of grievance politics, competitive victimhood and anti-whiteness have brought us: to a dire situation where a pogrom against the Jews can be interpreted as a rebellion against oppression.

Maybe this is why the discovery of a Hamas plot to attack Jews in Europe has elicited so little angst among Europe’s supposed anti-racists: because, like Hamas, they view the Jews as a problem too. This could not be more serious. Action against anti-Semitism is required on all fronts in our society.

Is identity politics to blame for the rise of anti-Semitism?

Anti-Semitism is surging among the young. It is now positively hip to view Jews as ‘problematic’. Consider the recent Harvard/Harris poll

www.spectator.co.uk

So it seems mainstream policies and ideology thats claimed to be progressive and anti racist and fosters equality is actually cultivating abuse and violence of the worst kind not seen sense the extermination of Jews in the 2nd WW. Yet many don't even think its abuse and violence but good, something to celebrate and promote. Crazy times. A new abusive belief is being cultivated in the name of DEI.

 

[Paidiske]

I hope you reported them as that is illegal.

I tried the first couple of times and got fobbed off. Haven't bothered after that.

Did they tell you why.

Things like "women don't belong in science," "it's not appropriate for a young woman to do this job," that sort of thing.

So you have never had the police protect you.

I had to think about that one. I've called the police on occasion. Most of the time I couldn't tell you whether it was men or women who responded. I definitely recall that the last time there was at least one woman on the team.

Thats fair enough, theres no excuse for that no matter what.

And yet that's reality. And that's what we're trying to work to change.

Yes but the majority of males don't commit DV.

It is, however, a very significant social issue.

You gave an extreme scenario of what you say defines male protective behaviour in general. That being possessive and hyper protective following the women around all day.

I did no such thing. At no point did I mention anyone following anyone around all day.

Even in 2024, Women Are Still Looking for a Protective Man
In the State of Our Unions survey, wives who gave their husbands’ top rating for “protectiveness” were more likely to be happy in their marriages and less likely to report that divorce might be in their future.
Even in 2024, Women Are Still Looking for a Protective Man

Women cannot deny our God-given natures, no matter how hard we try! We are attracted to masculine, protective men out of our very design—just as men are attracted to feminine women.
7 Ways To Attract A Protective Man - CatholicMatch

These are fluff pieces from very biased sources with an agenda.

Researchers at Griffith University in Queensland examined what factors most influenced female attraction to males and found that physical strength reigned supreme. Women choose men based on “ancestral cues of a man’s fighting ability”, crediting their preferences to ancient mating rituals in which women chose partners they perceived as being able to provide for them.

Women prefer stronger-looking men, study finds

Are you surprised?

www.independent.co.uk

When given nothing but a photograph to go on, women chose men who were healthier. What a surprise. It doesn't mean they want to be "protected."

Maybe do a scholary search as google tends to list opinion pieces and blogs first.

I did that, and found some interesting bits and pieces. The article Beyond Idolatrous Masculinity-Part 3: Re-Presentations of being Human (Boscaljon, Daniel R: Religious Studies Review, Vol. 46, No. 1, March 2020) made the fascinating suggestion that framing men as protectors is assigning to them a role that we should properly assign to God.

But I couldn't find anything claiming that women want men to be protectors.

I think you mean the taking of that nobel warrior type Anzac and then abusing it, using it absuively.

No, I mean the whole ANZAC thing is profoundly flawed from the get-go. It's a government propaganda tool.

But thats still limiting what the warrior and protector is. We see the warrior spirit in sports in how participants are encouraged to dig into that warrior spirit to attain a high level of commitment and drive.

Calling a sportsperson a "warrior" would be meaningless without the reality of war as a referent for the metaphor. But sport is not a war. And an athlete is not truly a warrior.

Its in how they look after others even mates, sticking by them in the hard times, helping out a stranger with a flat tyre, helping an old lady across the road. There should be more of it. We should be encouraging this type of behaviour not condeming it.

I'm not condemning it. I'm saying it's got nothing to do with being a "warrior."

Do you think all Indigenous peoples who have this warrior spirit for their males are abusive, are cultivating abuse.

I think it goes to the question of the acceptance of violence.

Its not so much that they explicitly ask others if they are ok.

So now they're not even asking someone else if they're ok, but that's somehow being a warrior! Come on. This is ridiculous.

I see it all the time in how males are always involved in making sure everyone or everything is ok.

I don't see this behaviour consistently from anyone, men or women.

The literature, theres only one article.

Many said similar things, I didn't see the need to flood the thread.

Your article doesn't actually say that a nobel warrior or protector is bad.

No, but what it did debunk is this idea that somehow men are more vigilant for threats than women.

Their natural inclination to look for a protector male is being transferred onto the State.

Or, they expect government agencies to actually do the jobs for which they were created.

Second it says males are more sensitive to threats

No, it doesn't.

But you have resisted and protested at the mere mention of a male expressing such desires and inclinations.

No; I have critiqued the dynamic in which men are protectors and women are the protected. Where women are unequal and disempowered by men's "protection."

Women's mate choice mechanisms track many cues of men's genetic quality and ability to invest resources in the woman and her offspring. One variable that predicted both a man's genetic quality and his ability to invest is the man's formidability (i.e. fighting ability or resource holding power/potential). Modern women, therefore, should have mate choice mechanisms that respond to ancestral cues of a man's fighting ability.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2017.1819

This article mentions protection once: "female mammals continue to be the primary caretakers of their offspring and generally provide... protection from predators and hostile males."

Direct benefits, in the form of protection and immediate resource acquisition, plays an important role in women’s mate preferences and indicates that formidability is an important criterion in mate selection (Sell et al., 2017).

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14747049211032351#bibr52-14747049211032351

This is a study asking women to rate men on their physical appearance. It's not actually asking women about the behaviour they want or expect from those men.

Researchers at Griffith University in Queensland examined what factors most influenced female attraction to males and found that physical strength reigned supreme.

Women prefer stronger-looking men, study finds

Are you surprised?

www.independent.co.uk

Again, when they were rating photographs. That's not a good indication of what women are looking for in actual partners.

Females are more likely to prefer a partner who is taller and of higher status, because such males are better protectors and providers.
Evolutionary history of men and women

Evolutionary psychology is basically pseudoscientific waffle.

Their study, published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, suggests muscles in men are akin to elaborate tail feathers in male peacocks: They attract females looking for a virile mate. "Women are predisposed to prefer muscularity in men,"

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN09290845/#:~:text=Their%20study%2C%20published%20in%20the,author%20David%20Frederick%20of%20UCLA.

(Doesn't even mention protection).

Turns out, women are hard-wired to be much more attracted to male protectors who espouse so-called “benevolent sexism” than men who treat them as equals. And the best part: this is true even for hardcore feminists, scientists found.

Study Reveals What Women Are ‘Hard-Wired’ To Find Attractive. Feminists Are Going To HATE It.

Turns out, women are hard-wired to be much more attracted to male protectors who espouse so-called “benevolent sexism” than men who treat them as equals. And the best part: this is true even for hardcore feminists, scientists found.According to a new study from University of Kent and Iowa State...

www.dailywire.com

Given that the study referred to here basically lays out the way such men and their behaviours are harmful, I'm not sure it's really advancing your argument.

Are Women Hard-Wired To Look For A Protector?
New Dating Survey Suggests the Answer Might be Yes

Are Women Hard-Wired To Look For A Protector?

/PRNewswire/ -- When it comes to social status, most women are still looking for a man who is their equal or better, according to a new survey by dating...

www.prnewswire.com

The different experts quoted in this puff piece don't even agree.

So when you say potentially what does that mean. That we should deny males natural inclination to protect as it may underpin abuse.

It means that we need to teach boys and men to channel any protective instinct in ways which don't feed into rigid gender roles and heirarchy.

So your basically making justifications that mens disadvantage is not really disadvantage and because women may be disadvantaged in other ways that cancels out any percieved disadvantage to males.

I'm saying that pointing out that there are more women undergraduates at university than men is not giving the whole picture of educational and employment advantage or disadvantage.

Of course it has to be problems associated with the patriarchy.

Well, we live in a patriarchy, so all of our social problems are shaped by that.

Of course not all mens issues are their own fault or some other reason, any reason except that society and the system may disadvantage them.

That is not what I said. The system may well disadvantage men in particular ways. But it is not by direct design and explicit policy, the way it has been for women.

A new abusive belief is being cultivated in the name of DEI.

You do realise that all that stuff just comes across from you as, "I don't want to have to deal with other people's problems and substantial complaints?"

 

[stevevw]

One of the links might have been, but I was not.

But you linked that article as an example of how to prevent abuse, how we should structure society to equalise it and prevent abuse.

If you don't even know or understand your own links and then use it to promote supposedly correct beliefs then that only supports my point that belief itself is subjective and people can be ignorant or blinded to the reality of the harm they may cause in promoting something they don't even fully understand because it sounds nobel. When in fact its cultivating abuse.

What on earth are you talking about? And would that be an example of... rigid gender roles?

I mean you don't have to explicitly deny people. You can implicitly make it so hard and unwelcoming that it denies them and leads to disadvantage that way.

But heres one for women which helps makes my point. Women are being made to feel unwelcome and uncomfortable in their own spaces through the promotion of Trans rights which is seen as a nobel cause. So womens rights are actually being wound back due to a belief that denies women physical reality and as a unique groups that deserves equal rights.

This same ideological thinking is behind some of the disadvantages males face due to pushing the rights of women over all others. Now its coming back on women. Its now coming back on gays and lesbians who are being attacked by this gender identity ideology. Its now coming back on the Jews.

Thats what the new religious ideology of identity is doing, dividing society and pitting groups against each other and fueling abuse and violence. So right before our very eyes society and the same ideologues that demand DEI and claim its nobel are cultivating abuse and violence.

And what is consistently identified about them, that discourages men, is the pay is relatively poor compared to other roles. Female-dominated jobs tend to be poorly paid.

So now your saying people just choose their work because of the pay. I don't think that is the only reason. Besides its not as if males have a lot of other opportunities when male orientated industries are closing down. Teaching is a nobel profession like nursing. If it was just about pay people can go and do dangerous, dirty and hard work like mining which can be more than doctors.

I know it's not based on a denial of rights because I can see that the policies and structures and so on in place do not deny men and boys the right to be there, the right to participate, and so on. The way they did for girls and women in the past (and in many parts of the world, still do).

Like I said it doesn't have to be explicit. Denial can come in the form of making things hard and unwelcoming that males just don't feel they belong. Why should someone remain is a situation where they don't feel welcome.

You say you can tell by the policies but you don't look hard. One of the policies is affirmative action based on Equity. Equality of outcome. So positions are filled not because its the best candidate who may have worked hard but on levelling up gender and race into the right % of representation. So in that sense people, males are being denied because a women is taking the place of a more derserving candidate. Thats how quotas and affirmative action and all the other DEI policies work.

I mean that this is about notions about boys' identity, values, ideals, and so on - all cultural issues - and how those interplay with the culture of schools.

THat is the problem, that the system, the ideologues are in that position to be the subjective judge based on an unsupported ideology that makes what is natural male tendencies into toxic and unwanted traits.

Many of the traits the system looks down on like boisterousness, competition, rough and tumble behaviour, expression fo physical strength are denied, discouraged and the system wants to turn boys into neuters or girls. No wonder they lose interest.

Actually, I have. It's not the first time I've ever considered the question.

Well you have not done a good job. I don't thi9nk women can ever know what its like for males. I mean didn't you say that only women can know how they are disadvantaged and that we should believe whatever they say when they express that disadvantage.

So when males do the same it doesn't count. All the Feminist come in and rationalise their lived experience as just complaining. In some areas males have dropped below other minorities who are getting support for the same disadvantage. How long before males qualify as worthy. It seems males especially white males are at the bottom of the hierarchy when it comes to priviledge and disadvantage.

I can't resist, I just watched a funny but insightful and in some ways truthful video on this, on identity politics. It shows how identity politics works with a bit of tongue in cheeck which is required when addressing such issues. I can actually back this up with research and evidence if you want.

In schools? Next time I have the chance to chat to boys and male staff at my daughter's school (which I regularly do), I'll make a point of asking. Unfortunately for you, I don't consider you a reliable narrator of male experience in general.

Didn't you just protest that dismissing womens experience was gaslighting. Now your dismissing males experience. Now your supporting my point that we need to consider all factors by getting a range of experiences and evidence. Actually going and asking boys and males, looking at the data is all part of determining the truth and reality.

Boys are Growing Frustrated by Living in a Feminized Society
Let’s face it: Little boys are different from little girls and adults. And unless we allow them to have outlets for natural boy play and ideas, we should not be surprised when they seem frustrated and can’t succeed in modern society.

Boys are Growing Frustrated by Living in a Feminized Society… and That’s Showing Up in Their Friends - Intellectual Takeout

I burst out laughing the other day while reading a friend’s Facebook status. He explained that he and his two grade school sons were watching Anne of Green

intellectualtakeout.org

A 2020 study highlights how 88% of men agree that the term ‘toxic masculinity’ may have a harmful impact on boys
Blog: Misandry: Stop Saying “Kill All Men” - Home

The Australian school system also disadvantages boys as a result of the feminisation of the curriculum. Research suggests boys, compared with girls, need greater structure and discipline to learn, especially in relation to learning to read, where the absence of a phonics and phonemic awareness approach puts them at risk. Today’s approach to education is more about “care, share and grow”, where teachers facilitate and students self-direct, manage their own learning and where competition is shunned. It’s an approach that favours girls.

Not surprisingly, girls outperform boys in reading as measured by the National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy, and achieve stronger Year 12 results as measured by the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank. It’s also true that material such as the gender-fluidity Safe Schools program and the Respectful Relationships program being implemented in Australia disadvantage boys, as both present a negative and biased view of masculinity and manhood.

Another example of how the curriculum has been feminised is the way school programs present traditional male characteristics such as fortitude, courage, physical strength and mateship as negatives instead of being worthwhile.
Masculinity under siege in schools, politics, online - Men's Rights Agency


The ‘Toxic Masculinity’ Smear
But in their effort to eradicate the destructive male tendency, the Left has pushed emasculation as a solution. While they champion the notion that women can do anything, they set their minds to (true!), they simultaneously castigate men as the barriers to progress and masculinity as a condition to be avoided.

The ‘Toxic Masculinity’ Smear | National Review

In their effort to eradicate the destructive male tendency, the Left has pushed emasculation as a solution.

www.nationalreview.com

White Men Are Feeling Left Out Of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion. Why Should We Care and What Should We Do?
White Men Are Feeling Left Out Of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion. Why Should We Care and What Should We Do?

The mind-blowing stats on male inequality
Long-term data reveal a clear and alarming trend: In recent decades, American men have been faring increasingly worse in many areas of life, including education, workforce participation, skill acquisition, wages, and fatherhood.
The mind-blowing stats on male inequality

"The two most commonly-used words by suicidal men to describe themselves were useless and worthless."

That should give us an indication of the state of male minds, they feel useless and worthless. I wonder why that is. When society keeps telling them they are toxic, and their natural identity is something to be avoided of course they are going to feel useless and worthless. Its time people especially women started to apply their own logic to equality and listen to what males are saying.

But thats the problem, the evolution of Feminism, into Critical theories has gone to fare and become a religion unto itself which skews societies thinking into identity politics where its a competition for victimhood and males are seen as the lowest in the hierarchy of victimhood.

I'd be interested in whether you think sex-segregated schooling is part of the answer. I can see arguments both ways for that, although personally I found doing high school in an all-girls school to be very much a positive experience.

So can I. It would be good in that it could cater to male specific thinking and behaviour. But at the same time it seperates the sexes and may create a divide. But at the moment there is a divide with how the system works.

But in saying that if you take the identity politics, the ideological Marxist thinking out where everyone is put in identity groups all jostling for attention and rights against each other then things would change. Making humans and not identity the ultimate measure of worth. Just as we did when we founded democracy and valued humans being made in Gods image and not humans.

 

[Paidiske]

But you linked that article as an example of how to prevent abuse, how we should structure society to equalise it and prevent abuse.

Since I am not clear exactly which link you're referring to, or which point I was making with it, all I would say is that while I understand the arguments for quotas in general they are not a mechanism I would choose.

But heres one for women which helps makes my point. Women are being made to feel unwelcome and uncomfortable in their own spaces through the promotion of Trans rights which is seen as a nobel cause. So womens rights are actually being wound back due to a belief that denies women physical reality and as a unique groups that deserves equal rights.

I'm not going to chase that red herring off topic, but I don't really agree that this is the problem you're making it out to be.

So now your saying people just choose their work because of the pay.

Just because of the pay? No. But let's not kid ourselves; it's a significant factor. And when I research why there are relatively few male teachers, it's one thing that gets mentioned over and over again. Men look at the relatively low pay in teaching and choose other fields where they will do better financially.

One of the policies is affirmative action based on Equity. Equality of outcome. So positions are filled not because its the best candidate who may have worked hard but on levelling up gender and race into the right % of representation.

First up, this does not exclude men. Secondly, the point of these policies is not to fill positions with unqualified people, but to recognise that "merit" doesn't only come in one shape, colour, or cultural package, and to be willing to correct for our inbuilt biases.

THat is the problem, that the system, the ideologues are in that position to be the subjective judge based on an unsupported ideology that makes what is natural male tendencies into toxic and unwanted traits.

No; more that the culture which nurtures our boys teaches them not to value academics, to see studiousness as "girly," and so on.

I don't thi9nk women can ever know what its like for males.

I can, however, listen to and read accounts of men. And studies done which do that work with large cohorts. And their results don't match your claims.

I mean didn't you say that only women can know how they are disadvantaged and that we should believe whatever they say when they express that disadvantage.

No, that's not what I said. I did say that women's unique experiences may allow us to perceive things which men might not so readily be aware of.

Didn't you just protest that dismissing womens experience was gaslighting. Now your dismissing males experience.

I am expressing my distrust of your account of male experience in general. Not least because it doesn't match what actual men in real life tell me. For example, I've been discussing this thread with my husband as I've been participating in it, and he considers most of your claims about men's lives, experiences, desires, "natural traits" and so on, to be basically ridiculous.

That should give us an indication of the state of male minds, they feel useless and worthless. I wonder why that is.

Why So Many Men Feel Inadequate

I once asked the following question on social media: “Is the word ‘loser’ used to refer to men only?" Respondents were unanimous.

www.psychologytoday.com

I think this is probably a pretty good account.

 

[stevevw]

Are they benefitting over males once they have those degrees? No.

So that advantage is cancelled out. Women still dominate males in education, its still an unequal outcome and the idea of equity is to have equal outcomes. So there are around 50% males so there should be about 50/50 males to females with degrees if its a consistent policy and ideology.

I mean anyone can play that game. Males hold more corporate board memberships. But many die young due to heart disease and stress because the work reduces their health. So we can cancel out any advantage due to the disadvantages. It begins to look like that victim hierarchy the video was talking about where a complex victim value system is used to determined the most oppressed.

They're still paid less and discriminated against. Noting that more women than men are studying at university (as undergraduates) is only one part of a big picture. It doesn't, for example, take into account the disadvantages women face within the university.

Ifg the unis have been feminised then unis are advantageuos to females. They are not necessarily paid less. There are laws for equal pay. Much of the pay gap is about differences in type of work (dirty, dangerous and hard) which pays more, hours worked (men are more willing to do overtime), availability (men are willing to work anytime), relocating (men are willing to relocate even to the outback where the pay is good).

Women aee child bearers which is natural and will naturally deminish their availability hence this is not reflected in comparisons. When all this is considered there is hardly any pay gap.

Gender Discrimination at Universities still alive and well in 2021 Prof. Dr. Nicholas Markatos, Professor Emeritus, FRSA

An article to be published in 'Bulletin of the European professors Emeriti' , October 2021. Keywords: gender, discrimination, student, faculty, harassment Abstract A condensed but critical literature review is given in this article because of the wealth of studies completed in academia (parts of whi

www.linkedin.com

THis article says a lot about nothing. It alludes to a patriarchy within universities which I find ironic as Uni's are the bastioan of Wokeness. Especially within the Humanities and no one would dare express their mascullinity within that culture. In fact its the other way around where male qualities, white men , cis men and any hint of traditional ideas are shouted down and attacked.

I noticed it mentioned the gap in STEM which they attributed to partiarchy. Studies have shown when all things are equal and theres no barriers based on sex males naturally drift to STEM fields and females to the social sciences. But of course Woke ideologues interpret everything as oppression.

Again, only one part of a very complex picture: Women at work: levelling the participation gap | INTHEBLACK.

How come when womens advantage or males disadvantage is pointed out its always fobbed off as being more complex. But womens disadvantage is always clear and factual. It seems there's two sets of rules.

Feminism and other ideologies about rights and equality are nobel at first because they are reacting to real inequality. But then they become ideologies that take over thinking, like groupthink where people are more concerned about maintain the power and the ideology that equality.

I'm not saying men don't face any problems. And absolutely, there are also problems for men within a flawed (patriarchal) system.

Within a flawed (patriarchal) system, I know negative male stereotypes are unhealthy but I find it interesting how some always twist it back to it being mens fault. There could not possibly being any disadvantaged being caused by a Matriarchy or systemic oppression of males.

What I notice about the issues you raise and the issues I raise, is that I raise issues that come out of how women are treated by others (like discrimination and disadvantage due to not being treated equally), that is and you raise issues that come out of personal behaviour choices or difficulties adapting to the situation in society (with the possible exception of workplace safety, but even then, that's not due to men being treated differently to women).

Perhaps you are out of tune with whats happening to men. When they have always been painted as the problem then society can begin to believe that and so will men. You seem to not even entertain the idea that it may be a systemic issue or that the rights won by women in changing the system also feminised it which seems logical considering people were making it more accommodating to women. Which is what actually is causing the male disadvantage.

If you make things more feminised then you are disadvantaging males who are masculline. If you take the competition and adventure our and replace it with DEI then your disadvantaging males sytle of learning. If you demonise natural male traits then your disadvanating males. Just like society was too masculline in the past its now becoming too feminised. Every action has an opposite and equal reaction even in social relations.

They are both real sets of issues, but mine are specifically about women being treated as inferior by those in power.

Heres something to consider re systemic male disadvantage, Feminism and progressive ideology has weaken the family and led to family breakups and a massive loss of fathers within families. This disproportionately affects boys more than girls. So they even have setbacks before they get to school that set them up to fail. That is one way the system has disadvantaged boys more. There are many examples like this.

No, it isn't. What causes abuse are the three attitudes we have been discussing; acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power and control, and rigid roles. Being able to analyse social trends across groups has nothing to do with any of that.

So wheres the belief in hierarchies for Uni professors and students who call for the death of Jews. Or in how Trans are abusing women. These are policies pushed by those who claim they are making a more equal society.

So they believe their ideas are non violent and nobel. Where are the beliefs in violence, hierarhcies and control. They believe they are standing up for the oppressed. How can we point out the acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power and control when those in power don't believe they are doing anything wrong.

Its all subjective. Like I said what one group sees as abuse the other sees as nobel. How can you point out abusive beliefs when thise abusive beliefs are made out to be good for society. According to ideologues there is no "acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power and control" because they are nobel causes. How can you combat that when people are willing to believe their own delusions and are in a position oush them.

 

[Paidiske]

So that advantage is cancelled out.

Not cancelled out, but part of a much more complex picture.

Ifg the unis have been feminised then unis are advantageuos to females.

A premise I wouldn't even seriously entertain. For example: Academic Leadership by Gender

They are not necessarily paid less.

https://www.science.org/content/article/gender-pay-gap-hits-university-faculty

There are laws for equal pay.

Which are readily ignored when it suits employers.

THis article says a lot about nothing.

It reflects my experience pretty well. Discrimination, over-representation of men at senior levels, harassment and demeaning comments from other students and academics, exclusion of women from mentoring and support... I've done two degrees at two very different universities, but those things were pretty consistent.

I noticed it mentioned the gap in STEM which they attributed to partiarchy.

And given that I've had a lecturer refuse to answer my questions as "women don't belong in science," I can see how that's a factor.

Within a flawed (patriarchal) system, I know negative male stereotypes are unhealthy but I find it interesting how some always twist it back to it being mens fault.

Saying a system is patriarchal isn't to say it's men's fault. Men have been conditioned and acculturated to that system just as much as women have.

There could not possibly being any disadvantaged being caused by a Matriarchy

Well, no, because we don't live in one.

You seem to not even entertain the idea that it may be a systemic issue or that the rights won by women in changing the system also feminised it which ...is what actually is causing the male disadvantage.

Because I see no evidence for such a claim. Neither that our systems are "feminised," nor that that is what is causing issues for males. The rights won by women are not what is causing men's problems, and wellbeing is not a zero-sum game, where a gain by one group automatically means a loss by another.

We could talk about capitalism and consumerism and the ways these impact men negatively and there's plenty to say there. Those are real systemic issues which impact men negatively. But it's not due to women having won rights.

If you take the competition and adventure our and replace it with DEI then your disadvantaging males sytle of learning.

This is an interesting piece from a (male science) teacher about the value of competition in academic learning: Disengaged boys: just make it a competition, right?

Feminism and progressive ideology has weaken the family and led to family breakups and a massive loss of fathers within families.

I'll stop you right there. I don't accept this claim, to start with, so anything that follows from it is not going to be something I'll find to be reliable. What feminism has done is removed the need for women to enter into or remain in unsafe, unhealthy or dysfunctional families. That hasn't weakened the family; it has just given us more options in responding to already weak families.

I'm not responding to the off topic stuff about unrelated social issues.