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.Let me just point out again the reality that working and mothering are not mutually exclusive.
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.Literally nobody in this thread has been advocating for that; rather saying there are ways around that as an issue.
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.You deliberately left out the word I included, "socially."
Used said opposite sex. Sex is biological. Accepting someone socially as the opposite sex is Accepting socially as the opposite biological sex. There is no distinction. Sex is biological.
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.It is, but at a much smaller rate. (See the bit about "underutilised labour": 4125.0 - Gender Indicators, Australia, Sep 2018. )
God's reign is antithetical to an equal and fair society?Yes but Gods reign expressed in human life is in conflict with the current secular system way of doing things, of achieving a equal and fair society.
No, you don't. Even Christians are shaped by our education systems, our employment systems, our social systems.Yes they do if your a Christian.
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.See this I think is an example of the blinkered and narrow thinking inherent in ideologues thinking.
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.There cannot possibly be any issue with the message of the ideologues because its Holy Writ and never wrong.
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.The idea of 'white priviledge' ...
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).For example that the dominant culture speaks the majority language is not white priviledge but rather the natural evolution that majority cultures will live by their own culture and that minorities who come in will not.
None of this, though, says that only one lens matters for explaining differences (I assume you mean differences in personal experience and attainment).That is the discourse. CRT and Social Justice Theory are Postmodernist ideas which primarily are about discourse, dismantling the existing percieved racist, sexist, gender normative discourse and replacing it with a new narrative based on the tenets of Critical theories.
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.See this is the narrow view I am talking about. That you choose by default to highlight inherited wealth rather than acknowledge that the majority of situations involves hard work ethic which is a basic principle of the West (you get what you put in) supports what I have been saying about these ideologies being based on assumptions and beliefs about how society and the world is.
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.They undermine individuality and make people feel guilty for achievement.
But your claim was that intersectionality says that "all differences are caused by power relations" and that's simply not accurate.Intersectionality is part of Critical Race and Social Justice Theory and forms the basis for Identity politics by breaking communities down to identity groups primarily by race, gender, ethnics and sex and other identities as independent and intersecting based on relations of powered/disempower and priviledge/disadvantage. That is all it was invented for.
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."I disagree. If you look at the language today in academia, what narrative ideologues use and policy unpinning our Institutions CRT and Social Justice theory are prominent.
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.Tell that to men.
You don't think the exact problems described by the term toxic masculinity, might have anything to do with that?We can see the effect it has had on males by the high rates of poor self worth, confused identity and suicide.
You're slipping back into polemic rather than reasoned argument, there.That somehow minority lived experiences are Holy and pure and never wrong and Whites and espcially males are somehow less valuable.
Yet one based on having actually read a bit about the topic...I think this is an unreal take on what is actually happening in society.
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).Thats because implicitly that is what is meant that men are toxic espcially among the radeical feminist who happen to deeictate the narrative because they shout the loudest.
If we're being fair, we might have to concede that it's probably true of every movement to some degree, including Christianity.What may be a ideal in practice becomes asomething else. That seems to be the common theme of these ideas like CRT and SJT.
Which is probably why most mothers of younger children state that their ideal would be to work part time.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.
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.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.
I have never seen a trans person argue against individual cubicles as a solution.No there isn't because that's what they want.
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?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.
In discussing some of the moral issues facing society such as gender, sex, race, Rights, identity politics ect relating to how we as a society should structure ourselves I have found that a polarisation is happening between two broad worldviews. On the one side the Left which I think is more likely to be athiest or more pluralistic about belief and on the other is the Right which are more conservative and traditional and more likely to be Christain. Though I think there is degrees of variance where some will also be open to opposing views to some degree.
But it seems things have become more polarised is recent times deue to society moving away from a Christain worldview to a secular one. In the past there was more middle ground and basically people I think were more traditional had belief and progressives were seen as out of step. I think today the Left has gained a lot of ground mainly due to a reaction to percieved past injustices by traditionalist or Christains and being more open to alternative ideas.
In the past Western societies were based on Christain values but in the last few decades God and Christainity has been rejected and in its place the State has become the arbitor of societal morals and infringed more on peoples private lives. Of course a lot has happened in that time with social media which I think has had a profound impact on thinking undermining truth and has given individuals and groups much power to push their views and influence governments and society.
But the result of all this is that there is a growing division between the Christian Worldview and the Secular Worldview to the point that they clash even violently like people want to destroy Christains aned opposing views and it seems the State is actively siding with the a secular position with the help of certain lobbyist. They have been actively dismantaling Christainity and taking God completely out of the picture in our institutions and public life generally, I should say its not always just Christains but also traditionalist and others who believe in the Truths that the West was built upon such as Enlightement and Democracy. Many on the Left also seem to support some sort of Marxism so this polarisation seems to be political and religious.
I guess our present situation is also the result of Postmodernism the idea of tearing down the old truths and archetypes of the West and society has become more individualistic and relative. Its a complex combination of factors but the thing that stands out for me is that there seems to be a showdown brewing between Christain and traditionalist and the Secularist and the Left and I think the Left is winning at the moment. I can see this continuing where Christainity is pushed to the fringes.
So we are at a point for the first time in a long time in our history where societies efforts to rid themselves of God and Christainity will see secularist and non believers outnumbering Christains and completely rejecting God from society.
But is this new World completely devoid of belief or is society replacing God and Christainity with some new religion, a secular religion which has been able to grow disguised as something else like some new utopia that promises to do away with injustice and inequality and bring people true happiness. I think so as it seems that peoples reaction to Christainity and God today isn't just about a new way but is tied to their identity and debates are often full of feelings even to the point of wanting to destroy others who disagree,
So I think this is a fight for Truth and there can only be one Truth. But today truth has lost all meaning and personal truth has become the only truth. But I think the Truth as in the one Truth we all know is real will shine through in the end, but its going to be a fight in the meantime where many false ideas will seem to win out and may fool many.
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.Actually I think the political system in countries like Australia where we have preference voting can give minor parties a lot of say in what happens to the majority. Like for example how the Greens can preference Labor or Repulics in the US. They hold the balance of power and can hold the big parties to ransom with pushing their agenda. That way society is forced to take on radical ideas that most people don't agree with.
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.I don't think that's true at all. Hefner couldn't have done it without the women being willing to sell their body's. Let's not hold women up as some sort queens of virtue. They are just as fallen as men, only in different ways.
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.Both sexes have fallen and always were. Eve was the first. Adam the second. I'm not making any claim that women are worse. When it comes to unbelievers all are lost. Men are not more lost than women or vice versa. When it comes to Christian men and women I wouldn't hold either sex up as the more virtuous either. Both fail, just in different ways.
I do agree with you on the divorce thing. Jesus himself allowed for divorce in the basis of sexual immorality.
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.God's reign is antithetical to an equal and fair society?
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.No, you don't. Even Christians are shaped by our education systems, our employment systems, our social systems.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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).
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 doesn't make people who speak the dominant language in any way wrong or bad; but it does mean that, for example, language supports for people who don't have that skill (yet) might be an important way of strengthening the community.
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 othersNone of this, though, says that only one lens matters for explaining differences (I assume you mean differences in personal experience and attainment).
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 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.
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.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.
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.But your claim was that intersectionality says that "all differences are caused by power relations" and that's simply not accurate.
Seems to me that equal is equal.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.
The point, though, is that the systems we inhabit are formative, and so change has to be about more than individuals.I was talking more about morality and belief.
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.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.
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.That is exactly what I have done in explaining what is behind the language, the changing narrative.
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 probably understand it better than mopst as its my area of reseach.
I think we'll skip the conspiracy theories, unless you want the thread moved to that section.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.
I'll just note that you didn't answer my question.Theres a big difference ...
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.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.
DEI and equal opportunity are not mutually exclusive.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.
Yes, again, that brings us back around to intersectionality...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.
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.What is looking out for them mean.
How about we take seriously investing in each person's potential.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.
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.Yes it is true when we are talking about intersectionality as the basis for academics and policy in society.
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.
It hasn't produced an equal and fair society they promised but a more divided one. Whether thats males objecting to the language used for them by Feminist, women objecting to the language that erases them by Trans ideology, or how mainstream society has evolved into a culture war multiple identities.
By breaking society into identity groups of power relations which makes out one lot is oppressing the other has pitted people against each other. They all can't be just not understanedeing. If theres a common conflict in all these areas and there is a common ideology underpinning them all then perhaps its the message thats the problem.
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.
Activists should give their attention to actual injustice like in China or Africa where it seems minorities are actually oppressing other minorities. But the West makes a good punching bag for ideologues. Funny how compared to miost countries our so called oppressive system allows people to call their own people oppressors and toxic which they couled not do in other countries.
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.
I lived in England for many years and though its the same language there were many differences in meaning which put me at a disadvantage and even caused me to miss out and at one time into a fight. Not to mention spending time in Thailand getting lost, and taken for a ride. But that is part of being an immigrant. yes the State should help people to assimulate if they have an immagration programe but its also and more so up to the individual to find their own way.
We are lucky in the West and today that we have access to so much information online and available through many organisations. But we also have to remember that even locals have disadvantage and we should look at our own backyards. Many kids are dropping behind in education especially boys and especially in reading, writing and comprehension.
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.
So its the worldview that sees all differences when it comes to minority groups disadvantage thats the issue with the ideological belief being pushed today and not that there is disadvantage perse. How we see this is important as far as addressing things and making a fair and equal society for all.
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.
Intersectionality without that interpretation is just about anything intersecting for the purpose of analysis but like other words such as 'Woke' when it comes to issues of race and gender its based on Critical theories that were developed out of Feminist theory and also Social Constructionism, Marxism and Postmodernism into what it is today. I had to link these 3 articles as I could not find one that covered everything.
Crenshaw's approach to intersectionality fits well with a CRT approach to oppression and discrimination, since, like CRT, intersectional approaches assume that hierarchies of power influence how people cognize and identify marginalized populations, whether through production of their identity or through racialized, gendered focus of legal structures that either recognize or render certain subgroups invisible.
Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, and Feminist Philosophy | 30
Intersectionality is an add-on to the concept of Critical Race Theory. It says that a person with multiple identities is oppressed by unique issues. Intersectionality creates multiple identity/victim groups each facing unique sets of oppression. The primary category is race and/or gender, which is combined with other identities to create numerous identities.
Classical Marxism made sure that there were only two categories, oppressor and oppressed (haves and haves not) because multiple small groups could end up fighting amongst themselves thereby affecting the entire Marxist movement. The political goal of Intersectionality can be said to be – to bundle all such oppressed categories to overthrow its concept of oppression by the elite/privileged. It can be very well said that Intersectionality has the base of Marxism and the Critical Race Theory.
Evolution of Critical Theory – Intersectionality| Wokeism #5
CRT was instrumental to the development of intersectionality. Kimberlé Crenshaw, a founder of CRT and the progenitor of the concept of intersectionality. Consequently, every interaction between a person with a dominant racial identity and one with a marginalized one must be characterized by a power imbalance (the postmodern political principle).
The ‘social construction’ thesis holds that race and races are products of social thought and relations.” Intersectionality and antiessentialism — opposition to the idea of racial difference as innate — are needed to address this. Intersectionality began as a heuristic — a tool that lets someone discover something for themselves — but has long been treated as a theory and is now described by Crenshaw as a “practice.” For Crenshaw, a postmodern approach to intersectionality allowed both CRT and feminism to incorporate political activism while retaining their understandings of race and gender as cultural constructs.
“Mapping the Margins” can be considered central and foundational to Social Justice as it is practiced and studied today. It also revitalized the conditions under which socially constructivist racism takes hold — the reification of socially constructed racial categories — after decades of chipping away by liberal approaches.
The core problems with CRT are that it puts social significance back into racial categories and inflames racism, tends to be purely theoretical, uses the postmodern knowledge and political principles, is profoundly aggressive, asserts its relevance to all aspects of Social Justice, and — not least — begins from the assumption that racism is both ordinary and permanent, everywhere and always. Consequently, every interaction between a person with a dominant racial identity and one with a marginalized one must be characterized by a power imbalance (the postmodern political principle).
Critical Race Theory: Noble Ends, Terrible Means
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.I tried to compare the morality that the moral law Paul spoke of was the same under Moses and Christ. The difference being that mercy was to be practiced between humans and God would judge transgressors ( no more stonings). I said his sense of those deserving of death in God’s judgment was based on a social level of depravity. I believe he was addressing those who sexually, physically, abused & sacrificed children, those who left unwanted infants to die in the streets etc. Much of the homosexuality in Greece & Rome involved abuses of children as objects. While he would consider gay relationships sinful, I believe his indignation was directed at greater depravity on a greater anti social level like crime etc. Actually any sexual relationship outside of heterosexual marriage is adultery in Christianity but obviously how it is seen & how people live is highly fluid ( I am hardly qualified to be preachy on this but that really is true Christianity).
Next I made a comparison to depravity that exists today and noted that child sacrifice still happens to an alarming rate today. Is Paul so unreasonable in his indignation on such matters?
The Lord is always there for us to repent ( Revelation 3:20).
I
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.I have never seen a trans person argue against individual cubicles as a solution.
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.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?
There's a difference between "single cubicles for everyone," and "you use this different separate arrangement to mark how different and unaccepted you are."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.
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.It's simply more common because it's the desire of the mom to stay home. They have caring responsibility because that's what they want.
And yet men are often reluctant to ask to go part-time, for example, so that their spouse can take on more work.And who says men are not willing to share responsibilities. It's kind of hard to do that during the day when you are required to be at work. Somebody has to. And often those jobs are Monday-Friday.
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?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.
I don't see it as terribly different to making sure public buildings are accessible for people with mobility issues, honestly.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?
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.I disagree. Most women stay home because they want to and not because they earn less.
But it's perfectly fine to expect the women to make all the sacrifices!Why should the husband cut himself to part time. He would most likely have to give up his entire job and career to do that.
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.No neither of them has a career. And you are still in the same boat. Maybe even worse off.
There should be no difference. It is a farce. this way all will be accommodated.There's a difference between "single cubicles for everyone," and "you use this different separate arrangement to mark how different and unaccepted you are."
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?I don't see it as terribly different to making sure public buildings are accessible for people with mobility issues, honestly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?