When two worldviews collide.

[Ana the Ist]

I would think a quick glance at leaders at the highest level might be enough to call that assertion into question.

Go on...

Gender aside, there are an awful lot of stupid, ignorant, incompetent and uninspiring people who somehow manage to be given leadership responsibility.

Let's not confuse leadership with minor authority and middle management. If you take orders from someone....you aren't the leader.

No, it isn't. Given my example, before we even start, the pool of potential women who might become bishops is half the size of the pool of men.

It's not a pool though. That's your first mistake. If you imagine every man would gladly take the reigns and responsibility of leadership....you're wrong. It's very few....and that's in the extremely unlikely situation where such an opportunity is offered. In those situations, we're almost certain that the situation is dire....extremely difficult....and completely undesirable.

Because, again, we're starting from a very long way behind.

Again...you've only had 10,000 years or so of civilization. What's the holdup? It's never been impossible....never been out of reach....only difficult.

Consider Boudica.

Boudica - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Unlikely as it was that an ancient celtic tribe would choose to follow a woman as their warlord....they did. It's never been out of reach.

Nope. Saying, "A is not better than B," is not the same as saying, "B is better than A."

I understand that purely logically that's a solid position. We are human though....with all the flaws and variance that entails. With 8 billion people on this Earth do you believe we can find even two who are perfectly equal in each way?

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. We cannot measure all traits on a mathematical chart....nor can we predict those traits which will inevitably succeed. There are no equals in reality.

But we are not speaking of individuals, here.

We are. Did you say leaders or followers? If we're talking leaders....we're talking individuals. If we're talking followers, we're talking groups.

But the argument here is not about which of you or me, individually, is better at this or that (or the better leader).

It's just an example.

It's about whether men, taken as a group, are better leaders than women, taken as a group.

At what point do we lead as a group?

There are, however, alternative possible explanations for that preponderance.

I'm open to any other explanations you can deliver. Please try to avoid the insulting ones though. I wouldn't say Boudica was followed because her men were idiots who chose poor leaders. I'd say the opposite, she led because she bested her competitors....male otherwise....and her leadership was validated by its mere existence.

While it's true that different styles of leadership are needed in different situations (the classic peacetime CEO/wartime CEO distinction being a clear example), there are traits which are well recognised as necessary for good leadership in general.

I wish I could agree. Hitler, was by nearly every measure of a leader...an absolute disaster. From the moment of his assent, a not insignificant number of his high military command was plotting his assassination quietly from the first month he took power. They only stayed their plans because against all reason and odds....he was highly successful early on. There's been plenty of debate over what exactly made him successful...and I disagree with most of it. I've heard it said he was an organizational genius. Not true. His division of military command left much confusion over exactly who was in charge in multiple situations. His oratory skills certainly improved with time....but early on he was average at best. I think he might have been a skilled negotiator, but so were most of his competitors.

I think his only real skill, his only innate talent, was delegation. He seemed to pick the exact correct person for the job consistently. Whether it was Eichman, Rommel, Goebbles or whomever....he consistently picked highly competent people for his most important matters. They were his success....everything else that he lacked was his downfall, avarice, ambition, rigid idealism, inhumanity, vanity, pride, corruption....all traits that would have led to a faster end much like Mussolini had he not had a good eye for delegation. Indeed, had he not been so immediately successful because of this one talent....his own military command would have likely dispatched him far before he annexed the Sudetenland.

The idea that a particular mixture of traits will create success is overly simplistic. There's no recipe for success at the top.

Self-awareness, vision, assertiveness, communication skills, empathy, networking and so on.

See above.

They are not particularly gendered traits.

I'm not saying they are....I'm saying that your idea of what makes a good leader is effectively dispatched in an argument made by Machiavelli in The Prince so long ago it's not worth even bothering with. I suggest you give it a read....as he relates the story of the leadership of a pious, generous, wise, compassionate, careful, and beloved man who failed almost immediately and tragically immediately after his ascent. While I can certainly understand why those seem like desirable traits....they were wholly ineffective and entirely disastrous for the time and place.

 

[Paidiske]

Let's not confuse leadership with minor authority and middle management. If you take orders from someone....you aren't the leader.

I'd say that depends. There are spheres in which even those not in ultimate authority exercise leadership.

It's not a pool though.

Of course it is. Maybe it's a pool that's not comprised of every single person (those who are about to retire might not put themselves forward, or those who are unambitious, or whatever), it's still a pool.

Again...you've only had 10,000 years or so of civilization. What's the holdup? It's never been impossible....never been out of reach....only difficult.

Much more difficult than for men, though, which is the relevant point when asking why men dominate leadership positions.

When you have - again, taking the example closest to home for me - entire areas of the Anglican Church of Australia which won't allow women as priests, it's hardly surprising that it's harder for women to become bishops (being a priest being a requirement to be eligible).

I understand that purely logically that's a solid position. We are human though....with all the flaws and variance that entails. With 8 billion people on this Earth do you believe we can find even two who are perfectly equal in each way?

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. We cannot measure all traits on a mathematical chart....nor can we predict those traits which will inevitably succeed. There are no equals in reality.

I am not saying that everyone is the same. There's probably good reason to think that men and women might lead differently (due to social norms and culture if nothing else). But what I'm challenging is the idea that those differences amount to men being, flatly, better leaders than women. I would suspect, if anything, that diversity of styles would mean that men or women might do better in different contexts.

We are. Did you say leaders or followers? If we're talking leaders....we're talking individuals. If we're talking followers, we're talking groups.

No. The claim I'm disputing was that "men are the better leaders." That's comparing leadership capacity in two groups.

I'm open to any other explanations you can deliver.

Bluntly, women haven't been allowed to be leaders. There are exceptions, but they have been just that, exceptions. That doesn't mean we're worse at it than men when we're allowed to do it.

Because here's the thing: obtaining a leadership position isn't the same thing as being a good leader. A good leader enables, encourages and equips the people they lead to work together to achieve the objectives of that group. Plenty of people who obtain leadership positions are not actually effective leaders at all.

The idea that a particular mixture of traits will create success is overly simplistic. There's no recipe for success at the top.

It's not as simple as, if you can tick these boxes, you'll succeed. But it's probably fair to say that if you lack too many of them, you're very unlikely to be a good leader. Making the point again, that obtaining a position is not the same thing as leading well.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well we'd only need to assume that the fact of most leaders being men is evidence enough wouldn't we?

Because whether we're talking about the heads of state, heads of businesses, or otherwise....it's mostly men, is it not? If women were better....there's no rational explanation for that fact.

If women were better leaders in business....it's hard to imagine any scenario where they wouldn't be the majority of leaders in business. If women were better heads of state....it's hard to imagine any scenario where we wouldn't see the majority of heads of state as women.

Take your pick....generals down to coaches.....why wouldn't women be the overwhelming majority by now if they were better? It's only been about 10,000 years of civilization. What's the holdup?

In reading this I have realised that you may actually be serious in your belief; perhaps it not some posturing for comic effect, or practice at rhetoric. If you are unable to see the answer to your question, when it sits staring you in the face, if you are unable to see that the arguments of feminism point directly to, and shine a mega-lumen spotlight on, the reason most men are leaders, then you are beyond the reach of rational argument.

You do know that humans have been evolving, as forms of human, for millions of years. (No question mark. It's a statement. I'm acknowledging your education.) You likely know that the technical advances of the last 10,000 years were to a great extent attained through the emergence of culture as a specific driver of progress. Through this change the nuances of human behaviour became increasingly moderated by nurture, not nature; cultural environment adapting the expression of natural instincts. In the past a mildly dimorphic species (males larger and stronger than females on average) naturally saw the more powerful (and often more aggressive) males take control. In the environments of the past that made sense. Times change. It no longer makes sense. It's a pity you use your intellect to defend an antiquated position, when you could be using it for positive effect.

 

[Bradskii]

You likely know that the technical advances of the last 10,000 years were to a great extent attained through the emergence of culture as a specific driver of progress. Through this change the nuances of human behaviour became increasingly moderated by nurture, not nature; cultural environment adapting the expression of natural instincts. In the past a mildly dimorphic species (males larger and stronger than females on average) naturally saw the more powerful (and often more aggressive) males take control.

If we suggest that the first proto civilisations began approximately 10,000 years ago, and we graphed the inclusion of women into the running of those societies in any meaningful way, we'd have to wait until barely 100 years ago when they were allowed to vote. Not to actually be granted leadership positions - heaven forbid, but simply to vote for whatever male was going to be the head honcho. So it would flat line for 99% of that time until it started to rise. So we've barely had 4 generations of women available to make a difference. As opposed to the previous 40,000.

The fact that they have made such progress in such a short time should astonish anyone. And the reason why they have still more ground to make up is down to...well, me and most of the rest of us. I was going to say that possibly the Boomers would be the last generation of men that would exhibit the old fashioned sexist attitudes and plain and simple misogynism. Apparently, and depressingly, that seems to be not the case.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You'll need to speak to other Christians about that. Some of them even want them exhibited in court rooms and school halls. And I did say 'anything biblical'. That would mean...anything in the bible.

In the context of the fact that it's you and Kylie who are contending here with me, I'm rather looking for the both of you to show that you "know" what Christian morality is on the whole before we then play the game of "compare and contrast."

You read what I wrote. I said myself that the example I gave was trite. So it must mean more than that. And I suggested that it was more akin to the Golden Rule. And gee, you can't get more aligned with the teachings of Jesus than that. But Jesus didn't tell those people on the mount that He'd just thought of a great idea. He was reminding people of the rule. He was telling them that it's something that works, has always worked, so put it into practice.

No. The statement Jesus gave was in the 'imperative.' He wasn't merely offering his hearers a suggestion about "being nice" on a superlative level.

I had to to try to work out why you thought it was applicable. Seems that a lot of people think that disagreeing with them and putting forward an alternative view can be called gaslighting. It's the Word Of The Day every day. At least it relegates 'Marxism' to second place.

No, gaslighting is something that typically goes with a narcissistic personality. But since I don't think you're narcissitic, I guess I do double-duty here and cite the following for the sake of clarity:

As for Marxism ...

 

[Bradskii]

In the context of the fact that it's you and Kylie who are contending here with me, I'm rather looking for the both of you to show that you "know" what Christian morality is on the whole before we then play the game of "compare and contrast."

Again, it's literally anything that's based on Christianity. Anything from the bible regarding morality. Civilisation had been around for a few thousand years before Christ and it's my opinion that society cannot exist without a generally agreed morality. I think it might be beneficial if you could suggest any Christian moral position that is only a Christian one.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

No. The statement Jesus gave was in the 'imperative.' He wasn't merely offering his hearers a suggestion about "being nice" on a superlative level.

OK, put it in the imperative if you like. Maybe He said 'Do this because it works' as opposed to 'Remember to do this because it works'. I don't think anyone was taking notes on the day, but the point is moot. The concept predates Christianity and is common to many religions and moral philosophies.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Again, it's literally anything that's based on Christianity. Anything from the bible regarding morality.

No, it's not exactly "that," but I think I understand what you're attempting to get at. Perhaps we need to say, instead, that the supposed moral set for Christianity isn't an exact formula that we can systematically extract from the Bible (or the New Testament). It's more of a process of comprehensive analysis that, however imperfectly done, will distill down to certain fragmented principles. But it can't just literally be "anything." The bible isn't quite that open to interpretation, especially if the more or less analytic style of mindful study that comes with the ongoing Hermeneutical Circle keeps testing and refining those very same interpretations.

To identify something as "Christianity" assumes that it touches base first and primarily with the New Testament (and the Christ) and its traditions, not merely with the Old. So, we're still in need of processing the content of the New Testament writings to tease out those harder yet specific fragments floating in the ideological miasma of a 2,000 year old container of Christian thought ...

Civilisation had been around for a few thousand years before Christ and it's my opinion that society cannot exist without a generally agreed morality. I think it might be beneficial if you could suggest any Christian moral position that is only a Christian one.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

... I see your point. Well, to try to hone in, I suppose that we could pose that, from what I've said above, if we bring into the Hermeneutical investigation of the nature of "Christian morality," then it will congeal and emerge from something that, dialectically considered, floats somewhere between a more conservative view of that analysis, and a more liberalized or progressive one, such as would be gleaned from the following two sources as a beginning (but not as an ending) point:

Conservative view - Scott B. Rae, Introducing Christian Ethics​

​

Liberal/Progressive - Roger H. Crook, An Introduction to Christian Ethics​

Of course, there are other sources that can be countenanced and brought into the overall analysis. At least, if I were doing a fuller study, that's what I'd do.

OK, put it in the imperative if you like. Maybe He said 'Do this because it works' as opposed to 'Remember to do this because it works'. I don't think anyone was taking notes on the day, but the point is moot. The concept predates Christianity and is common to many religions and moral philosophies.

No, I don't think Jesus commanded it to His disciples because He knew, "It works." It definitely wasn't for pragmatic reasons. Jesus' teachings usually infer the expectation of being shunned when "doing the Father's Will." Christians aren't supposed to expect a necessary reciprocation for having done "good" to other people, even to one's enemies. Which is why the text shows the disciples questioning this very sort of thing: "Who is my neighbor"? "How many times do I HAVE to forgive him?" "Do I HAVE to love my enemies, too?" ....... for many of us, much of this moral imperative is in fact too damned hard to do without some kind of help or further psychological development to do it.

Rather, I think Jesus commanded it to be a sort of challenge, because He thought He knew that human beings, despite any lipservice to the contrary toward beneficence, typically fail more often than not in the attempt to "be truly good and caring." ... and I know for SURE that I fail in this, all the time.

 

[Ophiolite]

... I see your point. Well, to try to hone in, I suppose that we could pose that, from what I've said above, if we bring into the Hermeneutical investigation of the nature of "Christian morality," then it will congeal and emerge from something that, dialectically considered, floats somewhere between a more conservative view of that analysis, and a more liberalized or progressive one, such as would be gleaned from the following two sources as a beginning (but not as an ending) point:

Conservative view - Scott B. Rae, Introducing Christian EthicsLiberal/Progressive - Roger H. Crook, An Introduction to Christian Ethics
Of course, there are other sources that can be countenanced and brought into the overall analysis. At least, if I were doing a fuller study, that's what I'd do.

Really? Really? That is meant to be an appropriate reply to the very simple question:

I think it might be beneficial if you could suggest any Christian moral position that is only a Christian one.

What was difficult about that? If you can't think of one just say so. Don't obscure your ignorance with philosphers jargon. It's not edifying and it doesn't work.

 

[Whyayeman]

I think the point has been made on this thread already that there is nothing unique in Christian morality. The same moral values existed before the First Century of the Christian era. They are to be found today in both religious and secular societies.

How to behave well is not a mystery and does not depend on a knowledge of the New Testament or made easier (or more difficult) by reference to it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Really? Really? That is meant to be an appropriate reply to the very simple question:

No. It wasn't meant to be a satisfactory reply, but merely the beginning of one.

What was difficult about that? If you can't think of one just say so. Don't obscure your ignorance with philosphers jargon. It's not edifying and it doesn't work.

Just one? My apologies. I'm sorry that you don't like for anyone to more systematically lay out their protocols of discussion or inquiry by briefly posting a few sources as a beginning point.

.... well ok, let's see. I guess I could pull out one moral issue among many from those sources I've posted. Here's one taken from Sunshine's book:

1) Infanticide ----------- Christians think it is wrong. Non-Christians (or those like the Romans of old) have no necessity ideologically to think that it's not wrong. Anyone who trucks with a 'moral code' that allows infanticide has a decidely 'other' morality, one that Christians would identify as 'immoral.'

 

[Ophiolite]

Just one? My apologies. I'm sorry that you don't like for anyone to more systematically lay out their protocols of discussion or inquiry by briefly posting a few sources as a beginning point.

You did not make it clear, at least to me, that you intended to move towards and eventually present a singular example. Had you done so I would patiently have waited for it to emerge. As written it came across as "Well, I suppose we could approach that question this way and consider some points from here " followed by a profound silence.
Posting styles differ, I would have gone for (paraphrased) "Interesting, I'll need to think on that, take into condsideration X, Y and Z. I'll get back to you soon with a clear example".
Perhaps I have reading comprehension difficulties, but note the second item in my signature.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You did not make it clear, at least to me, that you intended to move towards and eventually present a singular example. Had you done so I would patiently have waited for it to emerge. As written it came across as "Well, I suppose we could approach that question this way and consider some points from here " followed by a profound silence.
Posting styles differ, I would have gone for (paraphrased) "Interesting, I'll need to think on that, take into condsideration X, Y and Z. I'll get back to you soon with a clear example".
Perhaps I have reading comprehension difficulties, but note the second item in my signature.

I doubt that you have reading comprehension difficulites. But it could be the touch of ADHD that I have. It gets especially bad when I interact with those in opposition.

My apologies.

 

[rjs330]

Again, it's literally anything that's based on Christianity. Anything from the bible regarding morality. Civilisation had been around for a few thousand years before Christ and it's my opinion that society cannot exist without a generally agreed morality. I think it might be beneficial if you could suggest any Christian moral position that is only a Christian one.

I think we often make a mistake in referring to morality rather than law. The first time God presented his commands was to his people. But he did not say they were the ten moral values. They were commandments. The law. Thou shalt do this, thou shalt not do that. Jesus himself said we were to follow his commandments not his moral values. Through out the teaches of Christ and the apostles there were commands to not do something or to do something. Morality aside from the law of scripture is not solid. It's amorphous. We see that all the time. As for law people have to choose to ignore the law when they do something they shouldn't. But the law stands. Morality can be changed or altered. What immoral yesterday can be moral today. God's commands don't from the New Covenant to his people don't change. They will remain until the end.

There is nothing wrong with having a morality discussion. But we must keep in mind that when referring to God Christians are bound to his law which is not the same thing as morality. There certainly can overlap. You can certainly say murder is immoral while at the same time saying that God has a law against murder. But the morality of murder can change while gods law doesn't.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'd say that depends. There are spheres in which even those not in ultimate authority exercise leadership.

We call that management. If you're in a middle-authority position....you manage the efforts of a group towards some end that is ultimately not your choosing but the end of some authority above you....you aren't the leader. You're middle-management. I'm fully aware that people in these positions get told things like "you need to be a team leader" or "you need to work on your leadership skills"....but ultimately, since you may have to follow the decisions of a higher authority that you may completely disagree with...you aren't leading.

Of course it is. Maybe it's a pool that's not comprised of every single person (those who are about to retire might not put themselves forward, or those who are unambitious, or whatever), it's still a pool.

It's not.

Much more difficult than for men, though, which is the relevant point when asking why men dominate leadership positions.

Why? Why more difficult?

When you have - again, taking the example closest to home for me - entire areas of the Anglican Church of Australia which won't allow women as priests, it's hardly surprising that it's harder for women to become bishops (being a priest being a requirement to be eligible).

That's the church. I'm assuming they observed traditional rules regarding who can do what, just as they Jewish faith that spawned them, just as they did since time before they were Jewish.

The difference is, you aren't leading anything. You perhaps maintain a church....but it's not run as a business is it? Your existence doesn't depend upon profit does it? The Ayatollah is a leader....he has authority. The pope just offers opinions....he doesn't really decide who can and cannot be catholic anymore. Perhaps there's still people being excommunicated somewhere but I haven't heard of it....it simply doesn't carry the weight it once did.

I am not saying that everyone is the same.

Good.

There's probably good reason to think that men and women might lead differently (due to social norms and culture if nothing else).

Probably because despite the vast breadth of similarities between us, we are fundamentally different.

But what I'm challenging is the idea that those differences amount to men being, flatly, better leaders than women. I would suspect, if anything, that diversity of styles would mean that men or women might do better in different contexts.

I'm not going to deny the possibility. It's certainly possible that some future arrangement of society would favor women. Hey, maybe some future arrangement of society would favor children. Perhaps in some way....the shortest and fattest amongst us are most fit to lead under certain specific circumstances. Who knows?


All I can say for certain is the propensity of men in leadership positions seems unlikely to be mere happenstance or coincidence. It's a position where merit asserts itself on a long enough timeline.

Consider the overabundance of congenital birth defects, genetic disorders, and reduced mental capacity of the various European monarchies by the 1800s....due to inbreeding. Now consider how many of those monarchies survived the 1900s. Merit inevitably asserts itself in leadership.

No. The claim I'm disputing was that "men are the better leaders." That's comparing leadership capacity in two groups.

We can only compare leaders though. Groups don't lead. It's been tried...and it's tendency to fail is extraordinarily high.


So we can compare all the male leaders against all the female leaders if you like....but you're still going to have to answer that giant question of why the overabundance of male leaders?

Bluntly, women haven't been allowed to be leaders.

I'm pointing out female warlords like Boudica who came from patriarchal societies far more severe than the one you're in now....and that was what? 2000 years ago???

What do mean by "allowed"? Most men aren't allowed leadership either. It's not some hat men are passing around to see whom it fits best.

There are exceptions, but they have been just that, exceptions. That doesn't mean we're worse at it than men when we're allowed to do it.

I'm not saying that I can for certain proclaim some other man would have been a far better pick than Boudica was. In fact, I'm saying the opposite....she was most likely the leader precisely because she was believed to be the best leader by those who followed her.

The same goes for any male leader.

Because here's the thing: obtaining a leadership position isn't the same thing as being a good leader.

But it is the first step of any leader. Any leader unable to attain it is by virtue of that failure....less of a leader. That's not to say that people don't inherit or otherwise fall into the position of leader against their will....but they rarely keep it without either....


1. A great deal of help, left in the form of resources, council, or excellent middle management....by a great leader before them.


2. Simply being a puppet of the actual leader.

A good leader enables, encourages and equips the people they lead to work together to achieve the objectives of that group.

Plenty of people who obtain leadership positions are not actually effective leaders at all.

It's not as simple as, if you can tick these boxes, you'll succeed. But it's probably fair to say that if you lack too many of them, you're very unlikely to be a good leader. Making the point again, that obtaining a position is not the same thing as leading well.

Not saying it is....but it is the first step required.

You can claim someone who was never leader "would have been a better leader" but it's not something you can know....they were never leader. It's a hollow, empty claim.

 

[Ophiolite]

I doubt that you have reading comprehension difficulites. But it could be the touch of ADHD that I have. It gets especially bad when I interact with those in opposition.

My apologies.

None needed. I misread your intent. Perhaps, had I been more patient, I would have considered alternative explanations for you apparent avoidance of the question.
And now I can focus on your answer. Infantacide. An interesting one. We know that many societies practiced it, openly in some, covertly in others. Was it opposed, taboo, in any/many/most pre-Christian cultures? I don't know. . . . Yet.
Still, that would be but a single example to set against a multitude of Christian values that were commonplace before Christ. It wouldn't appear to invalidate @Bradskii 's thesis.

 

[Bradskii]

No, I don't think Jesus commanded it to His disciples because He knew, "It works." It definitely wasn't for pragmatic reasons. Jesus' teachings usually infer the expectation of being shunned when "doing the Father's Will." Christians aren't supposed to expect a necessary reciprocation for having done "good" to other people, even to one's enemies. Which is why the text shows the disciples questioning this very sort of thing: "Who is my neighbor"? "How many times do I HAVE to forgive him?" "Do I HAVE to love my enemies, too?" ....... for many of us, much of this moral imperative is in fact too damned hard to do without some kind of help or further psychological development to do it.

Rather, I think Jesus commanded it to be a sort of challenge, because He thought He knew that human beings, despite any lipservice to the contrary toward beneficence, typically fail more often than not in the attempt to "be truly good and caring." ... and I know for SURE that I fail in this, all the time.

I'm not a fan of 'just be good for goodness sake'. My old mum would have prompted me to do what she considered good by wording it 'Because it's the Christian thing to do'. Which I accepted when I was quite young. But that soon evolved into 'Do the right thing and be a good Christian', because you obviously don't have to be the one to do the other.

Which then eventually prompted some thought, many years later, on why we consider something to be 'good' in the first place. And it became apparent that 'good' meant, effectively, 'that which works'. At which point you need to take note of the last line in my signature below. There are very many things that we do that are evolutionary driven. And caring and sharing (hey, they're good!), effectively treating others as we would like to be treated, is an evolutionary benefit. It prompts the formation of groups of like minded individuals. Who are naturally more efficient at getting through the day than the same number of individuals.

So...those that had a tendency towards what we termed the Golden Rule survived better than those that didn't. And that tendency therefore propagated through these early societies. And at some point, someone sat down and put some thought into what exactly was beneficial for society and when they realised it was caring and sharing and people acting for the benefit of the group rather than their own benefit, they thought to give it a name.

I think that Jesus would have lost the crowd if he's started an in depth explanation of evolutionary psychology. So He kept it simple and thought that relying on instinctive behaviour was (and still is) a bit hit and miss. So he thought He'd give it some authority and went with a variation of 'Be good for goodness sake'. Which actually means 'be good, for God's sake'. I doubt if He needed an '...or else' as I think a lot of those listening might have surmised that.

 

[Bradskii]

.... well ok, let's see. I guess I could pull out one moral issue among many from those sources I've posted. Here's one taken from Sunshine's book:

1) Infanticide ----------- Christians think it is wrong. Non-Christians (or those like the Romans of old) have no necessity ideologically to think that it's not wrong. Anyone who trucks with a 'moral code' that allows infanticide has a decidely 'other' morality, one that Christians would identify as 'immoral.'

A good example, because most societies allowed in some form or other at some point in their history. But the Egyptians had laws against infanticide as well. Diodorus Siculus, writing circa 50BC describes the punishment for it: LacusCurtius • Diodorus Siculus — Book I Chapters 69‑98 (end)

See page 267.

 

[Bradskii]

I think we often make a mistake in referring to morality rather than law. The first time God presented his commands was to his people. But he did not say they were the ten moral values. They were commandments. The law. Thou shalt do this, thou shalt not do that. Jesus himself said we were to follow his commandments not his moral values. Through out the teaches of Christ and the apostles there were commands to not do something or to do something. Morality aside from the law of scripture is not solid. It's amorphous. We see that all the time. As for law people have to choose to ignore the law when they do something they shouldn't. But the law stands. Morality can be changed or altered. What immoral yesterday can be moral today. God's commands don't from the New Covenant to his people don't change. They will remain until the end.

There is nothing wrong with having a morality discussion. But we must keep in mind that when referring to God Christians are bound to his law which is not the same thing as morality. There certainly can overlap. You can certainly say murder is immoral while at the same time saying that God has a law against murder. But the morality of murder can change while gods law doesn't.

Those were the ones I mentioned first up. Any of those beginning 'thou shall' and 'thou shalt not'. Which, apart from the ones dealing specifically with God, are common throughout all of recorded history. When Moses came down from the mountain, people weren't exactly surprised at what he had to tell them. 'Gee, we can't steal? Well I never knew...'

 

[Ana the Ist]

In reading this I have realised that you may actually be serious in your belief; perhaps it not some posturing for comic effect, or practice at rhetoric. If you are unable to see the answer to your question, when it sits staring you in the face, if you are unable to see that the arguments of feminism point directly to, and shine a mega-lumen spotlight on, the reason most men are leaders, then you are beyond the reach of rational argument.

Ummmm....

How about just answering it? If the answer is soooooooooooooooooo obvious, that it requires your prior insults, and repeated ad hominems, instead of just explaining the answer....

Then it just looks like you don't actually have any answers at all. Spit it out.

You do know that humans have been evolving, as forms of human, for millions of years. (No question mark. It's a statement. I'm acknowledging your education.)

Sure. I don't know the first date you're going off of here but yeah, millions of years.

You likely know that the technical advances of the last 10,000 years were to a great extent attained through the emergence of culture as a specific driver of progress.

Well that's debatable. I'd say cooked meat is more to blame here, but go ahead....

Through this change the nuances of human behaviour became increasingly moderated by nurture, not nature; cultural environment adapting the expression of natural instincts.

Ehhhh...not sure I agree with this at all.

I'm giving you room though since it's rather vague.

In the past a mildly dimorphic species (males larger and stronger than females on average) naturally saw the more powerful (and often more aggressive) males take control. In the environments of the past that made sense. Times change. It no longer makes sense. It's a pity you use your intellect to defend an antiquated position, when you could be using it for positive effect.

Now I don't even know what you're arguing.

We're a social species of ape-related hominids with three largely noticeable features.

1. Bipedal motion. Clearly we came out of trees at some point for this to become a serious advantage but it's anybody's guess whether that was before or after we discovered fire. Obviously we're extremely vulnerable on the ground to larger predators but who knows? Maybe we were large and numerous enough for fire to come second.

2. We killed alphas. That's right, a bunch of beta male hominids either got good enough with tools or developed a primitive language to be able to gang up on the big guy who was hoarding all the females to himself. That must have been a surprising day for him.


3. We started cooking our meat. By we I mean most likely the men. Why? Probably because it was scary and dangerous....at first anyway. I'm guessing of course but I don't think the ladies suddenly strapped on aprons and said "take it easy boys, we've got it from here". Raw protein is tough, required a lot of chewing and further effort to digest for what ended up being a relatively small amount of protein gain compared to the calories burned in the process. Cooking meat softened it, aided chewing and digestion significantly, gains from hunting massively increased, and viola...now you don't have to hunt all the time and you can think about stuff. Big brains followed.

Fast forward that million years or so and you got the same large ape basically exiting the jungles and forests and starting agriculture....and now the present day. Not a lot of evolution happening since then....because it's a blip on the chart as far as evolution is concerned....too short a time.

So while "culture" was still in its infancy, we were essentially the same thing we are now. If that doesn't answer whatever convoluted mess you just posted at me....then I have no idea what point it is you're getting at or trying to make.

 

[Paidiske]

We call that management. If you're in a middle-authority position....you manage the efforts of a group towards some end that is ultimately not your choosing but the end of some authority above you....you aren't the leader. You're middle-management. I'm fully aware that people in these positions get told things like "you need to be a team leader" or "you need to work on your leadership skills"....but ultimately, since you may have to follow the decisions of a higher authority that you may completely disagree with...you aren't leading.

Yes and no. Thinking of my own position (which I guess is analogous to a sort of middle-management) while there are some parameters set by those above me, there's an awful lot of latitude for vision setting, strategic planning and execution, and so on. Getting a group of random volunteers to be effective in that process - from "we happen to come to the same place but have no shared vision or goals" to "we're working together effectively to achieve our shared goals - is leadership.

Why? Why more difficult?

Men don't face obstacles and aren't refused opportunities simply because they are men. Men aren't discouraged from study, refused employment, or shunned by their colleagues because they are men. Women still face these obstacles.

I still encounter people who won't take communion from me simply because I'm a woman. Not because of anything I've done or not done, said or not said, but simply because they will not accept a woman in this role.

That's the church. I'm assuming they observed traditional rules regarding who can do what, just as they Jewish faith that spawned them, just as they did since time before they were Jewish.

Here's the thing, though. I had a different educational path and career before I entered the church, and it wasn't necessarily any better. It might have been a bit less overt, but there were still formal and informal barriers at just about every level.

The difference is, you aren't leading anything. You perhaps maintain a church....but it's not run as a business is it? Your existence doesn't depend upon profit does it?

I'd beg to differ. I'm leading a community in mission. Our motive isn't profit (although it does take money to run), but we still have a purpose to fulfill.

What do mean by "allowed"? Most men aren't allowed leadership either. It's not some hat men are passing around to see whom it fits best.

Most leadership (and, I would argue, all ethical leadership) is by the consent of those being led. The reason many people refuse to consent to be led by a woman is not the incompetence of the women.

But it is the first step of any leader. Any leader unable to attain it is by virtue of that failure....less of a leader.

I am arguing, however, that simply having leadership isn't enough to be a good (or a "better") leader. Take a group of men, and a group of women, and give them leadership roles, and the men will not turn out to be better leaders simply because they're men. Seems to me that "men are the better leaders," backed up by no evidence whatsoever, is a far more hollow claim.