When two worldviews collide.

[BPPLEE]

Except some people have more advantages than others.

Yes that’s true but you can still be successful. Success is not just how much money you make. You may be a successful teacher or a successful mother, it’s not just about comparing yourself to other people and their wealth. Or you can be a self centered, unemployed bum, it’s your choice.

 

[rjs330]

So something which is a myth 'nearly dissapears.'

Well, you be sure to let us know when it has, OK?

If you know anything about statistical analysis "nearly disappears" means it disappears. Why? Because when it that close other factors not researched have come into play. A statistically a .99 to $1 is so insignificant it not matter because it factors of why are insignificant and so diverse that it doesn't matter.

 

[rjs330]

Why on earth would we make businesses (which exist to make profit) the arbiters of justice? There's more than a bit of conflict of interest there!

Because the people who work and their customers are the ones who matter. All of them, not some tiny insignificant minority that would substantially impact the majority. Especially when that minority actually has a choice in the matter. There is no compelling reason for businesses and governments, by the way, to spend billions to alter their bathrooms and locker rooms on the off hand chance a boy wants to shower with the girls or a man want to use the women's bathrooms. All because they "want to" and not because of a compelling need to. The rest of the customers do not want that. There is no compelling need to do that over a feeling. And b fore you call that minimizing you should research this some more. Because when they talk about transgenderism the word feeling is used all the time.

We've been discussing one very basic one; dismissing the possibility of part time or flexible work in favour of "the way things have always been."

That's not an example. That's a reference to a discussion. How about a real example.

I know enough about that kind of role to be pretty confident that, if not all, that most can be easily split and shared. It's not hard to divide admin tasks up between two people.

We are not talking just about admin tasks. What about the person that's looking for full time work? Should they be dumped in favor of two part timers? I think the left has complained about that as well. And how do know there are two qualified people who are willing to work part time at that particular position at that particular company?

Why not advertise as "full time or suitable for job share"? Rather than job share being something that has to be fought for, rather than seen as a valuable and viable option from the get-go.

Sure why not. I've got no problem with that at all. But maybe the company wants a full time person for a particular reason. You don't know. There are jobs that are better suited for full time and jobs that are fully capable of being done by part timers. Most people are looking for full time work and are not looking for part time. Think about this.

An employer is looking to fill a job that needs 40 hours a week and they advertise for full time or job share. The job is specialized. You will get far more interest from full time seekers than part time. They would have to spend more time and energy interviewing more people in order to find two part timers. They could interview the top ten candidates who happen to be 8 full timers and two part timers. And the top two from that pool are a full timer and a part timer. They pick the full timer.

As I said I've got no issues with advertising that way. But if you are looking for part time work there are a lot of part time jobs available. Go do those.

You make it sound like all businesses would have to do is advertise and it would create e all these job share jobs. I don't think it would. But be my guest. Convince businesses that it would work. It's your theory. Do something about it. I've got no problem with it.

 

[rjs330]

Except some people have more advantages than others.

Yes of course. You expected otherwise? Some people are smarter than others. Some people are more driven than others. Some people have developed more skills than others. Some people have better attitudes than others. Some have more interest in certain fields than others.

Not everyone is the same.

So the answer is, some may have to work harder to succeed. That's life. No one can create an even playing field for every person for every job.

The key is not expecting it or demanding it to be that way. The key is recognizing it and pursuing your dream re desire anyway. Cause there are an awful lot of people who became successful who didn't start with any advantage.

 

[Bradskii]

No why.

In a relatively short post for you, I stopped counting the topics you were bringing up when I hit double figures. Almost all of it a rehash of what's gone before, none of it with supporting evidence, some plainly wrong and others with which no-one was arguing. It's a veritable platoon of straw men.

It would take a couple of pages to comprehensively cover half of therm.

 

[Bradskii]

If you know anything about statistical analysis "nearly disappears" means it disappears. Why? Because when it that close other factors not researched have come into play. A statistically a .99 to $1 is so insignificant it not matter because it factors of why are insignificant and so diverse that it doesn't matter.

The 99c in the dollar considers an equal amount of work done to the same standard for the same job. That doesn't often happen because a lot of couples want to start a family at some point and the woman is obviously off work for some time having the child. And then, as paid maternity leave was only available for women, she'd be the one taking time off during the first few months.

Now that leave is available to either parent down here, so the pay gap caused by that will reduce as some of the guys will be taking the time off instead. It actually kicked in two weeks ago, and as my son and his wife are expecting their second in two weeks, they now have the option of him staying home to look after the new arrival. That's the sort of policy that is needed.

How many will take it? I don't know. My guess is that it will still be mostly the mother that will take the paid leave. But the option is now available. So in that sense it's a more equitable arrangement.

 

[Paidiske]

Because the people who work and their customers are the ones who matter.

But they're not the ones who make decisions in businesses. Business owners are often exploitative of both their workers and their customers.

That's not an example. That's a reference to a discussion. How about a real example.

It is a real example (and one I've lived, by the way. I've been in the position of trying to convince a business to allow job-share for a role that could easily be split, and it was dismissed out of hand because a manager didn't want to have to think about it).

What about the person that's looking for full time work? Should they be dumped in favor of two part timers?

If two part-timers can make the case that they're the better candidate for the role, why not? Is merit suddenly not the overriding concern, after all?

And how do know there are two qualified people who are willing to work part time at that particular position at that particular company?

You don't know that there aren't, until you at least provide the option.

Most people are looking for full time work and are not looking for part time.

There are many people working full time who would take part time if it were a meaningful option. But if it's full time or nothing, they get stuck working full time.

But if you are looking for part time work there are a lot of part time jobs available. Go do those.

Not nearly as many. And in many fields, there are not many or any at all.

It's your theory. Do something about it.

I'm not even in the business world any more. (And workload in ministry is a whole other conversation... ) But I can at least point out where systems often fail people, and encourage people to be open to creative re-imagining.

This conversation happening above that makes it sound like some people are expecting absolutely equal or the same outcomes for everyone is missing the point; that's not what's being advocated for, at all. But what is being advocated for is the removal of barriers for people to pursue their own flourishing; whether that's academic or professional or personal.

 

[stevevw]

I mean that you worry about the impact of change on people who didn't want change, but there doesn't seem to be any concern about the impact of lack of change on people who do want change. The wounding that can be done to them through long years of hope deferred. (Proverbs 13:12 comes to mind).

Don't mistake speaking out against silly ideas as denying anyone change. In speaking out to ensure the right sort of change happens is actually showing true care and not just going along with whatever ideologues claim which is often unreal and lacks credibility.

No, that's not what I meant.

An example would be, say, for example, we have a cultural norm that men repress their emotions (men don't cry, mustn't show vulnerability, that kind of thing). That's not actually healthy; it's not good for men (or the people around them). In that sense it's not authentic masculinity. But as long as that cultural norm persists, (that men "should" be this way, that this is what masculinity should be), there's a problem (for which we've come up with the handy label, toxic masculinity).

Well all I can say is in this PC world today where people are being triggered left, right and center by words that seem harmless calling a male trait toxic seems contradictory to Wokeness. if we called certain personalities 'rotten' or mental illness as 'noxious the Woke would be up in arms protesting how hateful that was.

There is no clarification between negative and normal and positive here. Its just a coverall label for mascullinity (male nature). Along with other language such as #menaretrash, #killallmen, manspreading and mansplaining ect it seems more like an attack on men themselves.
It should be clarified that feminists are not talking about mens nature (their mascullinity) itself but rather bad behaviour and social sterotypes which have little to do with mascullinity itself. Afterall that same attitude and thinking can be applied to women so its not about gender or sex.

The ‘Toxic Masculinity’ Smear
A lot of feminist rhetoric today does cross the line from attacks on sexism into attacks on men, with a strong focus on personal behaviour: the way they talk, the way they approach relationships, even the way they sit on public transport. Male faults are stated as sweeping condemnations; objecting to such generalisations is taken as a sign of complicity. Meanwhile, similar indictments of women would be considered grossly misogynistic.

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

But its not just gender wars. It seems that now society has been divided into identity groups each fighting with each putting edown and fighting with each other. So the same ideology underpins all this identity politics which is not about equality and unity but an agenda to socially engineer society into the new Marxist Utopia.

Tellingly, a 2012 study showed that more than half of white Americans believe that “whites have replaced blacks as the ‘primary victims of discrimination’.” When groups feel threatened, they retreat into tribalism. When groups feel mistreated and disrespected, they close ranks and become more insular, more defensive, more punitive, and more us-versus-them. In America today, every group feels this way to some extent. Whites and blacks, Latinos and Asians, men and women, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, straight people and gay people, liberals and conservatives – all feel their groups are being attacked, bullied, persecuted, discriminated against.
How America's identity politics went from inclusion to division

Heres a conumdrum for ideologues. Transwomen are said to be real women in everyway. Yet research shows that Transwomen have higher rates of crime, violence and poor treatment of women. So is this a sign that Transwomen are really men and displaying male traits or can this so called toxic behaviour now be attributed to women.

Im sorry, in all that apologetic for the status quo, I missed you identifying an actual strategy for improving anything.

Also, we were discussing causes for problems such as misogyny and the normalisation of violence, but you seem to have lost sight of those as real problems.

My point was about the thinking behind why feminists use language like toxic mascullinity and other specific narratives which exposes it as an unfounded assumption in the first place which then eliminates the whole idea that there is this big problem of mascullinity being toxic and the cause. We have to determine the problem before we can work out the causes and remedeies.

So therefore if we determine that male behaviour is a combination of natural and learned behaviour then we can avoid attributing all male bad behaviour as the result of mascullinity but rather behaviours that are beyond human control. Part of the problem I think is because ideologies don't take this wholistic view they place all behaviour whether natural or learnt into the same basket thus rejecting natural tendencies as well.

Which of course threatens mens identity and therefore they will either react with poor behaviour or retreat into themselves. In other words the view that feminist take is actually a block to determining remedies and change and is harmful to mens aned societies progress.

 

[Paidiske]

In speaking out to ensure the right sort of change happens is actually showing true care and not just going along with whatever ideologues claim which is often unreal and lacks credibility.

I've yet to see you support one single instance of change, though, rather than argue for the status quo (or even the status quo ante).

There is no clarification between negative and normal and positive here.

Yes, there is. Hint: it's in the adjective, "toxic."

Its just a coverall label for mascullinity (male nature).

No, it isn't. And the fact that you persist in saying so after it has repeatedly and patiently been explained to you that this is not the case, suggests we're in the territory of wilful misrepresentation.

It should be clarified that feminists are not talking about mens nature (their mascullinity) itself but rather bad behaviour and social sterotypes which have little to do with mascullinity itself.

Sigh. First, again, this is not a term coined by feminists, but by the men's movement. Second, it's talking about bad behaviour, attitudes, ideals, and so on, which are associated with masculinity. How do you talk about the fact that it's these twisted ideals of masculinity which are a problem, without ever mentioning masculinity?

White people (or men) might "feel" that they're being discriminated against because they no longer have unquestioned dominance and privilege, but loss of privilege is not the same thing as disadvantage.

 

[stevevw]

It’s pretty simple. No one makes you work hard, get educated and succeed. You are perfectly free to be lazy, ignorant and unsuccessful. You have a choice. You’re free to be a failure or a success.

Yes I agree. It seems in the last 20 odd years the idea of taking responsibility has been lost especially on young people. People feel like they are owed a living.

 

[stevevw]

I've yet to see you support one single instance of change, though, rather than argue for the status quo (or even the status quo ante).

That is the nature of politics I guess where each side is debating over what is best. Its a sort of tug of war where one party gets in and installs their ideas and the other disagrees and then the other party gets in and its repeats. Some policies and laws are introduced and some are repealed.

One example of what I am talking about is how people spoke out against the Trans Care model or abortion. The Left introduced policy and law which many said was wrong. People began to speak out and now the Trans care model is no longer the treatment approach. It was a change for the better. The same with abortion. This can be applied to many differences between the parties policies and laws.

I have argued for the status quo many times. Arguing that we should uphold our long held Canons and Truths like Democracy, free market rule of law, individual dignity and family values as the basis for a stable society. We now have this disagreement between broadly the Left and Right and little agreement in the middle about how we can structure society.

We use to agree on a lot but now it seems society has been divided aned polarized in a number of ways which I think is the real problem in that we can no longer determine what is truth or fact anymore due to the Postmodernist idea that there is no truth and fact but rather self referential truths determineed by which identity you belong too.

So its an ideological disagreement about assumptions and beliefs about human nature, the world and reality itself. I think thats the fundemental issue here as a society we can't even define the parameters of what is best and right to even have coherent discussions. So its a never ending cycle of claims and counter claims, truths and counter truths with no hope of finding a unified society.

Yes, there is. Hint: it's in the adjective, "toxic."

No, it isn't. And the fact that you persist in saying so after it has repeatedly and patiently been explained to you that this is not the case, suggests we're in the territory of wilful misrepresentation.

I think this is a very Postmodernist view that true meaning and reality lives in the meaning of the spoken word. Thats everything and nothing else matters. Words can construct and be used to destroy lived reality. As we are witnessing in society today like with the word 'Women' or 'Woke" which have been captured by the Left and given a new meaning that impacts peoples lived experiences.

The reality is no one stops to think about specific words ande whether they are adjectives or pronouns. Words are spoken in context with other words and the fact is 'toxic mascullinity' is used within a narrative that ends up being taken as an attack on males. Thats the lived reality which pans out in society.

Otherwise we would have to say that whatever males and even many women are saying that the message is mean towards men is just a delusion and the true reality is in what ideologues claim in word meanings. Which seems a bit back the front. Afterall that is exactly what the Woke claim is Truth, the narratives and language used by identity groups.

Sigh. First, again, this is not a term coined by feminists, but by the men's movement. Second, it's talking about bad behaviour, attitudes, ideals, and so on, which are associated with masculinity. How do you talk about the fact that it's these twisted ideals of masculinity which are a problem, without ever mentioning masculinity?

Like I said that is not the message recieved and the fact that most people think that feminism or at least the modern day version of it has gone too far. The message given does not clarify any of what you say like its an assumed meaning. But an assumed meaning to who is the point. Feminist are assuming that because their ideas are the truth in the first place then any wrong message is simply the fault iof the reciever. They can't see the forrest through the trees because its an ideeological position and not reality.

Its a narrow lens in which to see the world. You only have to listen to what is happening, the discourse in society to see the reality because in the ened that is what happens regardless of whats said. Men are suffering and its getting progressively worse. Feminist and ideologues can keep saying men don't understand and have got the message all wrong until males have fallen down the victim hiearchy below minorities. maybe then they may realize that it was the message and not the reciever that got it wrong.

No one is saying males act badly and need to mature. But that has nothing to do with mascullinity itself which is a natural evolution of being male. The agression, competitiveness, being stoic, wanting to protect and provide are all natural traits a male cannot change about himself. That these traits are taken too far has nothing to deo with mascullinity. Like they have nothing to do with femininity or personality.

Just call it 'toxic behaviour' though I think that is still a bad idea. Call any human behaviour toxic seems like its attributing something diseased. Consiering society is so trigger sensitive thanks to Woke maybe its not the best idea or at least seems hypocritical to being Woke lol.

White people (or men) might "feel" that they're being discriminated against because they no longer have unquestioned dominance and privilege, but loss of privilege is not the same thing as disadvantage.

lol when does loss of priviledege become a negative disadevantage and descrimination. Isn't that the game we are playing. This is the exact problem, playing this game of victim Olympics and arguing about which group is most disadvantaged, what qualifies as disadvantage.

Yes there is some degree of resistence and some men are behaving badly in that regard. But we have come a long way and lets not assume that resistence in itself is wrong or bad. To some degree its understandable. If men are of a competitive and agressive nature and feel instinct to lead or be out there hunting then that is something that is in them and not all a moral issue, not all a social construction.

It seems the line for which males will be either worthy of true advantage/disadevantage is held by the feminist and ideologues. But there is no line according to them because there is no way to work that out. Everything is interpretation, narratives remember.

But certainly males are suffering great disadevantage in identity loss and evidenced by the highest suicide, prison, homeless and crime rates, lower levels of education from year 1 to university level. males are not only well below females in education but also Asians. They suffer more deaths in work and war, do more of the dirty and physically hard work in society and live fewer years than women.

What I think is happening is that feminist and ideologues take a tiny proportion of elite males who have gained power and wealth which is not all about gender oppression anyway but power/money and have made this a coverall for all males (oppressive hierarchy).

We know this because comparisons are always made at the executive level like STEM and Coporations or politics and not the lower level areas like brick layers which males dominate for good reasons. So its more than about oppression but an ideology about the world sen as oppressive/oppressor relationships to everything.

 

[Paidiske]

One example of what I am talking about is how people spoke out against the Trans Care model or abortion. The Left introduced policy and law which many said was wrong. People began to speak out and now the Trans care model is no longer the treatment approach. It was a change for the better. The same with abortion. This can be applied to many differences between the parties policies and laws.

I see. Support of the status quo ante. So what actual positive change would you suggest for trans people whose treatment options have narrowed, or women with unwanted pregnancies? It's one thing to limit abortion or medical treatment, but what are you willing to support to actually improve options for those people?

Words are spoken in context with other words and the fact is 'toxic mascullinity' is used within a narrative that ends up being taken as an attack on males.

But it's not an attack on males. It's a misunderstanding to take it that way. Yet no matter how often that is explained, the explanation is dismissed so that people can go back to complaining about a strawman...

Otherwise we would have to say that whatever males and even many women are saying that the message is mean towards men is just a delusion

Or at least, a misunderstanding, yes; this is clearly obvious when we look at the meaning of the term, its history and the many discussions around it.

Feminist are assuming that because their ideas are the truth in the first place then any wrong message is simply the fault iof the reciever.

Let me remind you again that the phrase "toxic masculinity" is not a product of feminist thinking, but of the men's movement...

The agression, competitiveness, being stoic, wanting to protect and provide are all natural traits a male cannot change about himself.

Well, no. "Being stoic" - if by that we mean not being emotionally expressive - is not a natural trait; it's a learned one. And I'd argue that narratives about protection and provision are very much cultural. And as long as these things lock men into patterns which are unhealthy for the men themselves and the people around them, they need to be questioned.

That these traits are taken too far has nothing to deo with mascullinity.

It's about how our culture understands masculinity; what ideals it holds up, and whether those are healthy or unhealthy.

Just call it 'toxic behaviour' though I think that is still a bad idea.

But it's toxic behaviour specifically associated with manliness which is the problem.
Here's an example; a cartoon drawn to depict how many young people are taught to expect marriage should work. As long as men are told they have a right to be this entitled, and women are told they should accommodate that entitlement, it feeds into and reinforces unhealthy patterns of relationship which do massive harm:

lol when does loss of priviledege become a negative disadevantage and descrimination.

Yes, precisely my point. It isn't, despite the complaining.

This is the exact problem, playing this game of victim Olympics and arguing about which group is most disadvantaged, what qualifies as disadvantage.

So we should ignore real disadvantage instead?

If men are of a competitive and agressive nature and feel instinct to lead or be out there hunting then that is something that is in them and not all a moral issue, not all a social construction.

Even if I accepted that this was all "natural" (and I don't), having an "instinct to lead" or whatever, doesn't excuse limiting the opportunities of others. True healthy leadership is exercised in service to others.

But certainly males are suffering great disadevantage in identity loss and evidenced by the highest suicide, prison, homeless and crime rates,

All symptoms for which the underlying problems have a name... what was it again...? Oh yes! Toxic masculinity. Healthy masculinity helps avoid suicide, prison, and crime. Instead of complaining about people describing the problem, maybe we can actually work to build a culture of healthy masculinity.

There's a nice introduction to what that might look like, here: Toxic Masculinity vs. Healthy Masculinity - Green Hill Recovery I note the emphasis on encouraging emotional expressiveness, compassion and kindness. How might we foster that, as an ideal of masculinity, do you think?

We know this because comparisons are always made at the executive level like STEM and Coporations or politics

Let me remind you again that I've repeatedly raised the issue of the global literacy gap, which is hardly at the executive level of anything.

As for bricklayers, this is an interesting read: Where are all the women? Why 99% of construction site workers are male Note this bit: "Part of the problem is sexism; research shows that more than half of female construction workers said they were treated worse than men because of their gender. "

 

[Kylie]

If we go back to when Christianity became the dominant belief of the Roman Empire Christian morality was regarded as a new and challenging value system in the Greco Roman pagan world which was based on a Caste system where women had no rights, slavery dominated, sexual immorality, adultery, homosexuality were the norms and human life held little value.

Christian values changed all this and gave women more rights in marriage, upheld sex within marriage and gave every human value being made in the image of God regardless of race and gender. These were revolutionary changes that brought a new way to see the world at the time and went on to form the basis for the Declarations of Western nations and Human Rights.

Christianity also influenced what we regard today as the Welfare State. It pioneered Hospitals and Universities as well as organised support for the needy. So Christianity may not have been the first to come up with these values but they certainly became a dominant force in establishing them as the worldview in the West.

The life of Jesus is recounted in the New Testament of the Bible, one of the bedrock texts of Western Civilization. The teachings of Jesus, such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan, are among the most important sources of modern notions of human rights and the welfare commonly provided by governments in the West.

Rome had a social caste system, with women having "no legal independence and no independent property".[57] The pagan double standard of allowing married men to have extramarital sex and mistresses was forbidden. Jesus' teachings on divorce and Paul's advocacy of monogamy began the process of elevating the status of women so that Christian women tended to enjoy greater security and equality than women in surrounding cultures.[62]

Christianity sought to establish equal sexual standards for men and women and to protect all the young whether slave or free. This was a transformation in the deep logic of sexual morality.[167]: 6, 7  Early Church Fathers advocated against adultery, polygamy, homosexuality, pederasty, inappropriate behavior with animals, prostitution, and incest while advocating for the sanctity of the marriage bed.[98]:

Historians record that, prior to Christianity, the ancient world left little trace of any organized charitable effort.[345] Christian charity and the practice of feeding and clothing the poor, visiting prisoners, supporting widows and orphan children has had sweeping impact.[346]

W.E.H.Lecky gives the now classical account of the sanctity of human life in his history of European morals saying Christianity "formed a new standard, higher than any which then existed in the world...".[54]

Classics scholar Kyle Harper [de; fr; nl] says
"...the triumph of Christianity not only drove profound cultural change, it created a new relationship between sexual morality and society... The legacy of Christianity lies in the dissolution of an ancient system where social and political status, power, and the transmission of social inequality to the next generation scripted the terms of sexual morality.[167]"
— Kyle Harper, From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity, pages 4 and 7

Morality was around long before religion. Morality evolved first, long before Religion | Center for Inquiry

I am not sure what you mean. Which laws are these. I think both sides of Government have become more involved in peoples private life, that is just how the secular welfare State works today where they have gradually infiltrated into private issues like family, sex and morality in general.

Laws like banning homosexuality. Laws like the ones we see in parts of the US that prevent trans people from getting the gender affirming care they need. These laws are typically championed far more by the political right than the left.

Basically which ever party is in power will determine Left or Right policies and laws. At the moment Leftist governments mostly dominate the Western nations so we have Leftist policies being pushed.

Florida, one of those states with the anti-trans laws I just mentioned, is governed by the Republicans. Last I checked, they were politically on the right, not the left.

Generally Leftist ideology is in conflict with Christian and Conservative values. Specifically ideas like Trans ideology, SSM, abortion, CRT, Critical Social Justice and DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies being pushed at the moment. Basically pushing identity politics. Myself and others have elaborated on these in other posts in this thread.

It's about letting people be themselves. Why is it that the right is so interested in NOT letting people be themselves unless they are cisgendered white middle aged men? You'll no doubt say that's not true, but it sure seems to me to be that way. Laws pushed by the right tend to limit women, or children (the right's done nothing to stop all those school shootings, after all), the elderly, people of colour and people who are LGBTQI+.

This is something I think you need to do some reading on. Examples and links have been given. I provided some links earlier on this here
#1,169 and #1,225.
The Marxist “long march” into the age of identity politics
https://theparrhesiadiaries.medium.com/the-marxist-long-march-through-the-institutions-and-into-the-age-of-identity-politics-6a7042b235dc

The examples we see in how cancel culture, political correctness, Woke and identity politics are dominating discourse in todays society. You can't say Boo today without getting into trouble for offending some identity group. Its divided society and caused a polarization of views to the point of being extreme and radical.

Examples include how the word 'Women' has become a taboo word. The war on whether biological males can enter womens sports, change rooms and safe spaces, the sudden rise of many young people especially females identifying as Trans and the debate around treatment (homones and sexchange surgery.

How prayer and preaching is being banned or at least shut down and attacked in the public square, how even speaking truths like disagreeing with Leftist ideas like a man can become a women is being attacked. How people expressing their beliefs like marriage is between a male and female is being attacked or that biological sex is a reality is being attacked. So its not just Christianity being attacked but long held common sense truths of the West.

In fact many young people are pushing to destroy the West and replace it with some Postmodern Marxist Utopia where everyone is equal and there is no Capitalism but rather a sort of Welfare Socialist State that dishes out free education ect. We also see this with rising political activism like Extinction rebellion disrupting society and calling for No Carbon like right now and that the world is going to be detroyed in 5 years ect and other groups like BLM and Antifa. This then causes a reaction by Right extremists like Neo Nazi's ect.

Its all about radical activism and tearing down the establishment which originated in the Universities which in turn provokes extreme opposite reactions. It filters down to everyday interactions where people are being more extreme, attacking each other on social media, a shaming mentality, wanting to actively destroy peoples careers and reputations rather than have rational and respectful discussions. Not because of their behaviour but because they diagree and percieve opposing views as violence.

What in the world are you going on about?

Just give me an example of anyone trying to stop people from being Christian/taking God out of society/that sort of thing. The link you gave just leads me to a page with links to a whole bunch of articles.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Morality was around long before religion. Morality evolved first, long before Religion | Center for Inquiry

"My confutation is basically this: That it can be proven that truths ‘exist’ does not necessarily, by itself, either constitute a method for specifically learning those truths, or supplying the grounds for deducing those truths so that they can be known. Hence, this argument only creates the mirage that there are real answers, but there won’t really be any actual answers. Perhaps there can be scientifically objective knowledge about morality, in the abstract. I strongly doubt that this reliance on this applied science, or any amount of science and applied science, can concretely yield what we would all regard as objectively discernible knowledge about specific moral duties (or virtues, etc.) That is to say, moral truths there may be, but moral knowledge there may never be, if we rely only upon the sciences (broadly understood) alone.

Laws like banning homosexuality. Laws like the ones we see in parts of the US that prevent trans people from getting the gender affirming care they need. These laws are typically championed far more by the political right than the left.

Florida, one of those states with the anti-trans laws I just mentioned, is governed by the Republicans. Last I checked, they were politically on the right, not the left.

It's about letting people be themselves. Why is it that the right is so interested in NOT letting people be themselves unless they are cisgendered white middle aged men? You'll no doubt say that's not true, but it sure seems to me to be that way. Laws pushed by the right tend to limit women, or children (the right's done nothing to stop all those school shootings, after all), the elderly, people of colour and people who are LGBTQI+.

What in the world are you going on about?

Just give me an example of anyone trying to stop people from being Christian/taking God out of society/that sort of thing. The link you gave just leads me to a page with links to a whole bunch of articles.

 

[rjs330]

is a real example (and one I've lived, by the way. I've been in the position of trying to convince a business to allow job-share for a role that could easily be split, and it was dismissed out of hand because a manager didn't want to have to think about it).

Did you have someone who was willing to split the job with you?

I hope you are not believing that I think job sharing can't or won't work under any circumstances. I can think of many that would. I'm just pointing out that just because you think it would for a particular job doesn't mean it would. And why remove a full time position for someone in order to accommodate two part timers?

If two part-timers can make the case that they're the better candidate for the role, why not? Is merit suddenly not the overriding concern, after all?

Good luck with that.

You don't know that there aren't, until you at least provide the option.

I provided a realistic scenario regarding this. Quite frankly it's much easier and less costly to interview for a full time person than try and figure out who is full and who is part time etc.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I can see why employers don't want to mess with it. But I suppose if you had a good enough resume and so did someone else who also wanted part time work it could work. But you'd need at least two candidates with that before interviews.

There are many people working full time who would take part time if it were a meaningful option. But if it's full time or nothing, they get stuck working full time.

So you say.

This conversation happening above that makes it sound like some people are expecting absolutely equal or the same outcomes for everyone is missing the point; that's not what's being advocated for, at all. But what is being advocated for is the removal of barriers for people to pursue their own flourishing; whether that's academic or professional or personal.

Is it though. It doesn't sound like you are advocating for it at all. Just complaining that it doesn't happen. If you believe so strongly in it you should do something about it.

 

[rjs330]

Florida, one of those states with the anti-trans laws I just mentioned, is governed by the Republicans. Last I checked, they were politically on the right, not the left.

Florida doesn't have anti-trans laws. Last I knew if you were an adult you could transition in Florida. Maybe I'm wrong.

I think what Florida did was step in and tell the schools they could no longer educate children in the agenda. They also joined other countries who have recognized they were doing wrong to kids and have tightened up their standards, left WPATH and moved transitioning kids to a tightly controlled research method. No more higgledy piggelgy approach that America has been doing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because you don't undergo a considerable amount of psychological interviews and medical examinations to determine if you can buy booze, drive a truck etc. I explained that to you. Did you miss it? Medical procedures aren't determined by age. They are determined by what is best for the person involved. On (and here it comes again) an individual basis.

Can a 13yo get breast implants where you're from?

 

[Bradskii]

They also joined other countries who have recognized they were doing wrong to kids and have tightened up their standards, left WPATH and moved transitioning kids to a tightly controlled research method.

I think we should look at countries that use lethal injections for executions. Much more humane.
I didn't know you supported the death penalty.
Oh, I don't. I just think we should be doing it better.

Yeah, I'd be confused as well...

 

[Paidiske]

And why remove a full time position for someone in order to accommodate two part timers?

Why does this question still assume that full time is the default, or the best option? We could put it the other way; why remove a job-sharing arrangement in order to accommodate a full-timer?

But you'd need at least two candidates with that before interviews.

Why? Why not interview anyone interested in job sharing and offer that arrangement to two strong candidates?

If you believe so strongly in it you should do something about it.

I'm a priest; I have no direct influence over labour practices. I can, however, keep raising issues for wider discussion and reflection.

I guess my own little indirect contribution has been to support my husband to work part-time, and see that contribute to positive cultural change in his workplace.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think patriarchy is a result of the fall, and human sinfulness; not what God intended.

I think a patriarchy is a biological fact of reality. Feminism, is on it's face, an absurdity. All rights you have, privileges you enjoy, we're granted by men. There never has been a nation nor state where women rose up to overthrow anyone and claim power. Should you have nothing but women in positions of power, and upon the discovery of an unresolvable impass with another nation, you would need men to fight. Should a great mass of men decide tomorrow that you have no rights, you will have no rights, unless you find a great mass of men to protect them for you.

No, it's things like when you want to work full time but can only get part time work.

Why not?

The question is: who commits those murders? Overwhelmingly, men. Men kill men, and men kill women. Specifically, men kill women who are or have been their partners. That's a very particular issue to work on.

No....that's not the question at all. Is it a patriarchy because men commit murder? If so...then all nations have and always will be patriarchal. Feminism is still fundamentally absurd. Is it a patriarchy because of the suffering of women who are murdered?

If so....why do you care more about the group that's murdered less? Why wouldn't you care more about men?

This is not about hating men. It's about changing these statistics:

"Prevalence

According to the 2016 Personal Safety Survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, since the age of 15:

• 1 in 2 women has experienced sexual harassment in their lifetime.
• 1 in 3 women has experienced violence by a partner, other known person or a stranger since the age of 15.
• 1 in 4 Australian women has experienced intimate partner violence since the age of 15.
• 1 in 4 Australian women has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner since the age of 15.
• 1 in 5 Australian women had experienced sexual violence since the age of 15.
• 1 in 6 women and 1 in 9 men experienced physical and/or sexual abuse before the age of 15.

Women are most likely to experience physical and sexual violence in their home, at the hands of a male current or ex-partner (ABS PSS 2016). Of women who had children in their care when they experienced violence from an ex partner, 68 per cent reported that the children had seen or heard the violence (ABS PSS 2016).

Additionally, 23 per cent of women in Australia have experienced sexual violence in their lifetime including childhood sexual abuse and/or sexual assault since the age of 15 (ABS PSS 2016). However, the true prevalence of sexual violence is likely to be higher as we know that many incidents of sexual violence go unreported. According to the 2022 ABS Sexual assault – Perpetrators release, 97 per cent of sexual assault offenders are male."

Don't quote childhood sexual abuse stats at me after citing Judith Butler. She argued in favor of pedophilia.