Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of course not. You are still a mother if you have kids and work full time. But if you are working full time you are losing out on 8-10 hours a day of mothering. So in a way it is mutually exclusive. Feminism wanted moms to work and give their kids their part time. Because it was about the woman not the kids. The kids played second fiddle to the mom's career fulfillment.
No there isn't because that's what they want. If you deny them that access you are denying them their womanhood. You deny them their pronouns you are denying them their womanhood. You deny them participating in women's sports you are denying them their womanhood. That's how they think. I've heard them say it.
You said opposite sex. You had it right the first time. Sex is biological. Accepting someone socially as the opposite sex is Accepting them socially as the opposite biological sex. There is no distinction. Sex is biological. That's why men are are in the group. The women have decided to socially acceptable them as women, meaning the opposite sex as men. Or biological women.
That's not saying what you think it is. Women were available for and wanted more hours than they were getting. There is no evidence that has anything to do with patriarchy or men. We have no idea what skills they had or the kind of work they were looking for, the hours they were available for. There are so many missing variables in that it's relatively meaningless.
God's reign is antithetical to an equal and fair society?
No, you don't. Even Christians are shaped by our education systems, our employment systems, our social systems.
No. Expecting people to actually make the tiniest effort to understand something is not blinkered and narrow. Instead it's become a polemical flourish; "they use the word toxic, so they must hate men!" When nothing of the sort is true.
No; there may well be issues. But if you want to address issues, first you have to do the work to understand what is actually being said. Not turn it into a strawman.
Let me ask you something; have you ever faced obstacles, hostility, or denial of something because of your race? Perhaps, if you haven't, it can be hard to see why those who do, take issue with it as an ongoing reality. But that doesn't make it wrong of them to name that reality.
I think you missed my point. My point (coming from a cultural background where I've seen both of my parents struggle with language) is that speaking the dominant language of the community you live in is a form of privilege; in that you do not face the barriers that people who don't speak the language face. (That's got nothing to do with race, either).
None of this, though, says that only one lens matters for explaining differences (I assume you mean differences in personal experience and attainment).
What I observe in real life is that hard work and merit get you so far, but various forms of good fortune (like inheriting wealth) will help that go much further than it otherwise would. It's the difference between people who can buy a house because their parents lent them the deposit, vs. the people stuck renting because they can't pay rent and save a deposit (for example). Both might be working equally hard, or the renters might even be working harder, but we have a system in which results are not always proportionate to effort.
I think you're missing the point. The point isn't to make people feel guilty for achievement; it's to argue for looking out for the ones who don't have the same benefits and making sure they also get opportunities.
But your claim was that intersectionality says that "all differences are caused by power relations" and that's simply not accurate.
But you claimed, "according to secular ideology on race ... the poor white guy is already guilt of implicit racism by the color of his skin. ... The thing is the ideology claims that if you are a minority say black your not racist because your a minority and its just not in you. They are given special status as being pure identities."
Here's the thing. If I started talking about a problem with - let's pick a totally innocuous example - purple tomatoes; nobody reasonable would infer from that that I was accusing all tomatoes of being purple. But here we talk about a problem with "toxic masculinity," and people carry on as if we are saying all ideologies or cultural constructions of masculinity, or worse, all men, are toxic. The logic fail is obvious, yet it keeps being repeated, I suspect as a way of avoiding having to acknowledge the real issues underlying the term.
You don't think the exact problems described by the term toxic masculinity, might have anything to do with that?
You're slipping back into polemic rather than reasoned argument, there.
Yet one based on having actually read a bit about the topic...
Let me remind you that "toxic masculinity" was a term coined in a men's movement. And you are, again, completely misrepresenting both radical feminism and its social impact. (If you think radical feminists "dictate the narrative," you might not realise that they'd agree fairly well with you on trans issues).
If we're being fair, we might have to concede that it's probably true of every movement to some degree, including Christianity.
Which is probably why most mothers of younger children state that their ideal would be to work part time.
Well, firstly, that's grossly over-simplifying feminism (wanting women to have the opportunity to work doesn't mean wanting every woman to work full time). Secondly, there's a whole set of assumptions there about household dynamics which may not hold up to any actual scrutiny.
I have never seen a trans person argue against individual cubicles as a solution.
But you don't think it's relevant that it's more common for women than for men? The most common causal factor is that women have caring responsibilities, so why are men not willing to share those responsibilities?
Sure, my point is less of a comment on Australian politics and more about a strict 2 party system like what the US has and it's going to motivated to keep politics polarized because why would they do any thing else? And we see the products, Americans have strong political identity that exposes some odd value systems the rest of the world just scratches their head at. There's only 1 party that supports guns and Christians and since the other guy doesn't I guess that means if you're a Christian you support guns or if you support guns you're a Christian. There is no room to critique that message and if you do then I guess you support the other party and are an atheist. That's the product of a strict 2 party system without any balancing parties.
I don't think I either said nor implied that women are "queens of virtue." I think you've misunderstood my analogy about there being cracks in the social foundations.
Yes. But if we're going to take Adam and Eve literally, (which I don't), we can also imply from our reading of Genesis 3 that Adam could have interceded and prevented the Fall ... Eve was merely deceived. Adam wasn't. People like Hugh Hefner were, as is so often the case these days, an educated sinner acting out from his own trauma. He gets money flowing .............. and entices women who want (or desparetely need) money.
No its antithetical to how the the secular world sees equality and fairness with their iedeological beliefs in Humanism, Materialism and I hate to say it Wokism which includes ideas like Critical theories and Postmodernism in seeing the world.. Christ said that the Peace he gives us is edifferent to how the world understandes Peace (John 14:27). Its the same for other ideas like Equality and Justice.
I was talking more about morality and belief. We can live as Christians in the world say a Capitalist system but not buy into Capitalism for example as this is antithetical to belief. Its ok to have the necessities but aquiring things as a means of happiness or fullfillment in this world is opposite to storing up treasures in Heaven.
The idea of Toxic mascullinity has been around for 40 or 50 years. You would think males would understand. They do understand, they just deon't agree with the assumption and ideological thinking. Like I said the same thinking is behind all Critical theory which has led to Iedentity politics. We have had around 40 years othese ideas pushede into academia and institutions and now society wide and the end result shows its not working.
That is exactly what I have done in explaining what is behind the language, the changing narrative. I probably understand it better than mopst as its my area of reseach. Its not a natural progression for society but rather a engineered and reconstructed one designed to undermine the current system that is percieved to be oppressve. Its very political and not nobel. There are agendas in all this and its not innocent. I can provide you with some evdience if you want such as how its infiltrate academia, institutions and government policy.
Theres a big difference between identity politics and how inequality is percieved to be through power relations than a free society who aspires to equality for all individuals regardless of race, gender or sex ect. Everyone faces obstacles in one way or another. But the idea that we shouled give special attention to certain groups because some percieve that we have oppressed them is horrible and unfounded.
Yes no one is denying those differences. What people object to is ideologues claiming that those deifferences are the result of some oppressive system. That is the crux of the matter that the ideological thinking is blinkered and narrow. It only sees oppression/priviledge relations and not the bigger picture where there are many factors for these differences often nothing to do with oppression.
yes and no one disagrees with this. The West has been tremendously instrumental in developing multicultural societies. There have been English classes for immigrants going back 100s of years. Compare this to most other nations and English speaking people don't have a chance when they live abroad in having the same level of education availability. Why do you think immigrants come to the West.
It does. Differences as in equal outcomes which is what Critical theories push (equity) as in DEI policies rather than the Western idea of equal opportunity. So there is one difference in the lens (view of the world and how to achieve equality) which has a different way of explaining things and the outcomes for society even conflicting with each other which people say could undermine long held western truths that have worked for a long time. there are many others
But what ideologues do is take the exception and make it the rule and then read into it that all differences when it comes to minorities is because of systemic oppression. Yes we should acknowledge and address disadvantage, But there are many reasons for disadvantage besides race and gender oppression.
What is looking out for them mean. Is it to give advantages and priviledges above others to help achieve equal outcomes or to create a society where everyone has the opportunity to the same rights.
Yes it is true when we are talking about intersectionality as the basis for academics and policy in society. The meaning is derived from Critical Race and Social Justice theory. It was created by the same person who came up with CRT (Kimberlé Crenshaw) and developed further by other CR theorists.
Seems to me that equal is equal.
The point, though, is that the systems we inhabit are formative, and so change has to be about more than individuals.
So men don't agree that there's a set of behaviours, attitudes and ideologies about masculinity which are harmful to men, and to society? Commonly identified aspects of toxic masculinity are social dominance, misogyny, homophobia, normalisation of violence and emotional repression. Do these things not happen, or are they not problems? Because from where I'm sitting they do happen, and are problems.
You're not even giving a true account of the concept of toxic masculinity, so no, it's not what you've done, certainly in this thread.
Are you writing a thesis, a book, a journal article? What form is your research taking, and where will it be submitted for review and publication?
I think we'll skip the conspiracy theories, unless you want the thread moved to that section.
I'll just note that you didn't answer my question.
Take my example of not speaking the dominant language. Let's say - for example - someone did something unintentionally and got in trouble with the law. Perhaps they made a mistake with their taxes, or something like that. "The system" they're going to encounter is going to be oppressive to them if, for example, they're sent difficult paperwork that they can't understand, and there's no available help in their own language, or with a translator. It's not intentionally oppressive - nobody set out to deliberately make that person's life miserable - but it's unconsciously oppressive because they're at the mercy of a system they can't navigate or understand. So that's where the person fluent in the language has a privilege; being able to understand and respond to communications that someone else can't.
DEI and equal opportunity are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, again, that brings us back around to intersectionality...
That's going to depend on the exact situation. I gave an example above of making sure someone who doesn't speak the language has access to an interpreter, if need be.
How about we take seriously investing in each person's potential.
No, it isn't. Intersectionality might seek to take into account multiple axes of disadvantage, but that doesn't mean it denies other influences in play.
www.christianforums.com
People, even Christians read the bible and think God a maniac. Thy have no clue what God was demanding Israel to be separate from, nor the cruel depravity that people were engaged in. Similarly the actual creulty and depravity experienced by children with illegal immigration. The cold disregard for drug addiction, and mental illness, in the lives of the homeless, as well as those to poor to escape the neighborhoods in which that depravity is present day in and day out. There is no kindness in that.
There have been instances where trans people were told they could use the single bathrooms instead of the girls rooms and they refused. They wanted to be in the girls rooms. The single bathroom is an individual cubicle.
Oh man there's a lot to unpack here. And I don't have time to go into it all. But let's look at a few things.
There's a difference between "single cubicles for everyone," and "you use this different separate arrangement to mark how different and unaccepted you are."
We've had this argument before, I know, but that's actually not the main reason. The main reason is usually that the woman earns less, so the household finds it easier to forego her income. But that doesn't mean Monday-Friday, 9-5 is the only pattern of work available.
And yet men are often reluctant to ask to go part-time, for example, so that their spouse can take on more work.
Once again you make my point of the demand to entirely alter society for the sake of the very few. We don't do that for any other mental health disorder. The demand to spend billions for the few with a mental health disorder. Can you think of any other one were we have had to spend the money ans completely alter our way of life over?
I don't see it as terribly different to making sure public buildings are accessible for people with mobility issues, honestly.
Generally speaking, a majority of mothers would prefer to work part time. A minority either side of that would prefer either full time work or not to work.
But it's perfectly fine to expect the women to make all the sacrifices!
It's true that both spouses being "mummy tracked" can happen. But that's largely because of unsupportive workplace cultures, not because creative solutions aren't possible.
Except gender ID isn't a physical handicap which the person has no control over. Feeling different is not physical disability. Are you equating someone that is paralyzed with gender identification?
