When two worldviews collide.

[rjs330]

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.

Mmm... I may have to disagree with you. If you are the head of something, be it a single church or a division or a unit, you are a leader. There definitely are levels of leadership. A leader isn't only the top guy cause pretty much everyone has somebody to answer to. I've been studying leadership for 5 years now and realize what it means and entails.

That being said it still doesn't negate the fact that at any leadership position your points are still valuable. In a time of merit men still dominate the leadership.positions. I think it it also needs to be pointed out that there is not the same number of women pursuing leadership positions as men. It's pretty hard to make a case that men and women are equal in their abilities when they aren't showing it by pursuing it in greater numbers. If you have a leadership position and you have 50 men and 10 women pursuing that, the chances are a man will get the position because one of them is more likely to have more experience and better qualifications.

 

[rjs330]

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...'

However there were things in the Law that weren't part of the typical laws of the day. Lying, loving the Lord Your God, Keeping the Sabbath, honoring your mother and father.
So it is pretty different as national laws.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If we suggest that the first proto civilisations began approximately 10,000 years ago,

Proto civilization lol.

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.

Fun fact. Women's suffrage was by many indicators....deeply unpopular with women at the time the suffragette movement began.

Not to actually be granted leadership positions - heaven forbid, but simply to vote for whatever male was going to be the head honcho.

Great choice of words there...."granted"....not earned, obtained, acquired, or taken. It's as if even on a subconscious level you believe they would have to be handed out...

So it would flat line for 99% of that time until it started to rise.

Thanks capitalism!

So we've barely had 4 generations of women available to make a difference. As opposed to the previous 40,000.

Sure....because they did lots of voting during those 40,000.

The fact that they have made such progress in such a short time should astonish anyone.

Wow. People thought my words were mysoginistic. Why would that astonish anyone who thought them equal?

And the reason why they have still more ground to make up is down to...well, me and most of the rest of us.

Feel free to take all the blame you like. Leave the rest of us out of it.

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.

As indicated by your post.

 

[Paidiske]

I think it it also needs to be pointed out that there is not the same number of women pursuing leadership positions as men. It's pretty hard to make a case that men and women are equal in their abilities when they aren't showing it by pursuing it in greater numbers.

You would have to ask why women don't pursue those positions. I can think of a number of likely explanations that have nothing to do with levels of competence.

 

[Bradskii]

However there were things in the Law that weren't part of the typical laws of the day. Lying, loving the Lord Your God, Keeping the Sabbath, honoring your mother and father.
So it is pretty different as national laws.

Please don't tell me that lying wasn't seen as a moral failure long before Christianity. You simply cannot form a stable group of people, let alone a society without trust. And honouring your parents?

'Xiao, or filial piety, is an attitude of respect for parents and ancestors in societies influenced by Confucian thought. Filial piety is demonstrated, in part, through service to one’s parents.' Filial Piety - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics.

That's a few centuries before Christ. And care for parents is paramount in most of E. Asia, far and beyond any consideration shown in Western nations (i.e. what you might describe as Christian nations).

 

[Bradskii]

You would have to ask why women don't pursue those positions. I can think of a number of likely explanations that have nothing to do with levels of competence.

This is just a shot in the dark, but maybe it's because their abilities have already been prejudged as lacking by a not insignificant number of some in this foru...sorry, in this society.

 

[stevevw]

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

Besides evolutionary explanations for morality having no real evidence as morality is something that transcends material survival its irrelevant to this thread. Regardless of how morality came about we are talking about the specific morality of the West as opposed to Islam, Hinduism and other religious beliefs. Its more than just morality.

Its a culture that lives a particular way as opposed to other ways and the West has a specific culture that is different to others. At the time Christianity became the belief of the Greco Roman world it was very different to Pagan beliefs so not all beliefs had the same moral worldview. It is this particcular worldview we are talking about that is now changing as we reject the Christian God from society. The fact that CHristian morality is now in conflict with secular ideological beliefs shows that beliefs about morality are not always the same between people.

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.

Theres a good reason why people not just the Right are objecting to Trans Affirmative Care because it has been shown to be unscientific and dangerous. That is why most professional organisations are banning it. So in this case thank God for the Right because if we did not have opposing positions on this and everyone just went along with the Lefts ideology we would if not already end up with another child abuse scandal.

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.

There in lies the problem. That you single out "white Cis males" actually is putting all the focus and cause on race and gender. So that thinking is actually racist and sexist. Oh its also ageist. Its a simplistic and narrow view of the world aned actually divides society because everything, all the worlds problems are reeducede to race aned gender.

No one is NOT letting people be themselves. Take Trans again. We have seen a massive rise in young people claiming to be the opposite sex especially females many without any history of gender dysphoria. Sort of like a social contagion which shows their self percieved feelings about who they are (being themselves) is not real but caused by other issues. many grow out of this after puberty.

So just because someone claims a denial of being themselves doesn't mean its a good and healthy ideea for that person and for society. Afterall we don't say to people with Anorexia that its OK for them to be themselves and support them in their delusion to remain unhealthly underweight.

The idea that the Right to self identity trumps all else even reality is dangerous as its subjective ande allows society to cultivate delusion undermining the long held truths we have come to know like objective reality.

First of all, in addition to the protections they already possess under existing anti-discrimination laws, TRAs require everyone else to adopt a new belief system that has no scientific support – that each human being possesses a unique gender identity knowable only to that person, independent of and overriding her or his biological sex. They demand that we suppress the verdict of our own senses and align our internal responses to conform with their expectations.
Joint Statement

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+.

I think we have come a long way and society is pretty well equal. Women are now outdoing males in a number of ways. Children or at least adeolescents have gained Rights even in some situations to the point where we give them too much rights such as being able to give consent to things they cannot understand. Or the right to divorce their own parents for example.

In reality the recent iedeologies that have been pushe in society based on identity politics is what is causing the loss of Rights. Its actually regressed women, childrens and family rights back rather than forward. For example Trans ideology denies Women Rights. If as Trans claim their is no such thing as a biological women then that erases half the populations Rights because now there is no such category as biological women. Ironically it has been biological women who have been marching for their rights as a unique sex for 100s of years.

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.

Those "bunch of articles" is what gives the examples in general terms by explaining the logic of why Christianity is being rejected and pushed out of society. For example if as ideologues claim that Christianity is hateful and descriminatory to some identity groups then why would secular society who support the Rights of those identity groups through policy and law allow Christianity to be expressed in society. It contradicts their own position. So its a logical consequence of the new secular ideological belief that Christianity will be rejected even seen as a threat.

You only have to stop and look at the many conflicts we are seeing today involving Christian expressions of belief being attacked in the public square. J. K. Rowling comes to mind as an obvious one that has been in the news. But there are many like this that have not had the publicity. Everyday Christians being harassed and destroyed because of expressing their beliefs.

Many adoption agencies in Britain and the US have been forced to close because of their traditional beliefs about the family and that a child should be placed with a mother and father.
https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/equality-tasmania_0.pdf

Company that 'fired' woman for saying 'it's OK to vote no' may have broken law
A women simply was expressing her views that traditional marriage is ok and her boss fired her because she says that anyone expressing support for traditional marriage is being descriminating and hateful.
Company that 'fired' woman for saying 'it's OK to vote no' may have broken law

After 95 years, NY rules end Catholic adoption and foster services in Buffalo
Catholic adoption and foster care agencies in several states have shut down after anti-discrimination laws or funding restrictions barred participation from agencies that place children only with married mothers and fathers.
After 95 years, NY rules end Catholic adoption and foster services in Buffalo

There are many more examples but I find examples don't get to why this is happening and thats why I linked those articles to help explain why this is happening.

But its not just Christians either.
"Evil Womxn": The Silencing Of Biological Reality And The Technology Of Obfuscation
https://www.forbes.com/sites/julianvigo/2018/10/26/evil-womxn-the-silencing-of-biological-reality-and-the-technology-of-obfuscation/?sh=32ad94f418fd

Here are a couple of articles that look at the bigger picture whether Christianity is being attacked and driven out in Western nations.

Attacks on Christians in Europe soar by 70 per cent in a year amid rise in secularist and Islamist ideologies
Attacks on Christians in Europe soar by 70 per cent in a year amid rise in secularist and Islamist ideologies - Catholic Herald

The Criminalization of Christianity in Canada
library/articles/on-the-brink-the-criminalization-of-christianity-in-canada/

An interesting proponent of anti-Christian thinking will always be the increase of secularism. Commonly found in OIDAC’s report, governments and major corporations often shut down the speech of Christians in support of secularization along with upholding the views of the LGBTQ+ community and other minorities that disagree with the Christian worldview. New statistics on growing persecution against Christians

But the problem is because we have divided society into identities we will never have equality because inevitably identities clash when it comes to individual Rights. Its blacks verses whites, males verses females and a host of genders, Left verses Right, big verses small, however many differences we can find in society.

 

[Bradskii]

Besides evolutionary explanations for morality having no real evidence as morality is something that transcends material survival its irrelevant to this thread. Regardless of how morality came about we are talking about the specific morality of the West as opposed to Islam, Hinduism and other religious beliefs.

No, we're not. We're discussing the claim that Christian morality was the basis of all moral values. We haven't had an example of one yet. Perhaps you can give one.

In the meantime, let's do a quick Q and A.

Do you think that in the distant hunter/gatherer past, before societies formed, that working in a group would be much more advantageous to working individually? That those who worked with each other were more likely to survive than those working alone? And that anything that helped coalesce a group together and prompted cooperation could be termed 'a good thing'?

Good. I agree as well. So we're actually talking about reciprocal altruism. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Literally in some cases. Or you share your food when you have plenty and I don't. Or I'll keep your fire going while you build the shelter. Or I'll protect your family if you protect mine.

Hey, look what we found! A basis for moral action. It's the golden rule unless I'm very much mistaken. Who would have thought we could have worked that out just on our own without any material evidence. Give yourself a pat on the back.

Now, back to the example you need to give us...

 

[Ophiolite]

So while "culture" was still in its infancy, we were essentially the same thing we are now.

You have a quaint and possibly unique view of Homo sapiens. (And a Flintstones' view of the character of human evolution.) To be clear, you are arguing that the behaviour and the moderators of behaviour ofhumans are essentially the same today as they were at the beginning of the Holocene? (And it is behaviour and the controls on behaviour we are debating.)
If the answer is yes, please provide substantial, well-validated evidence, conducted by recognised experts and published in well regarded peer reviewed journals that support your contention. Any sign of cherry picking will be laughed at.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

I'm sure there is....

But you can acknowledge the difference between the entire show riding on your shoulders and a position of lesser authority, no?

I don't hold what I consider a leadership position. I'm more in an advisory/analysis position in my work now. There were times though, when the authority above me stalled, hesitated, or otherwise was absent and leadership decisions were needed in a timely fashion. I don't think myself a leader for giving orders or "calling the play" in those situations even though I did well, few as they were. I had no explicit authority in those instances....I simply understood that someone need to lead in that moment. While you can perhaps give some credence to those who obeyed being extremely good at their job, or perhaps confident in the fact they wouldn't be blamed if we failed, I tend to see it as my superiors doing their jobs well in selecting people who can step up in those situations.

The bottom -up view is as different as the top- down imo.

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.

Again, you don't have to be in a leadership position to make use of leadership skills....just like even an expert can use learning skills or teaching skills depending upon the situation. One doesn't have to be the leader to use leadership skills or techniques.

The difference between the the guy who leads the men rowing the oars or the guy who leads the men setting the sails is minor compared to the guy who is the captain of the ship. If one of the lesser authorities dies...we can probably promote someone to take their place immediately. If the captain dies or a mutiny removes him....the entire ship can change course.

It's a vast difference.

Men don't face obstacles and aren't refused opportunities simply because they are men.

You imagine then that incompetent men are leaders despite obviously superior women....because they're women.

That's analogous to simply calling men stupid and poor judges of leadership.

Men aren't discouraged from study,

There's less men getting college degrees in Australia than women. Please don't continue with the Motte and Bailey nonsense. We can discuss the world or we can discuss your country. Using your personal life and society every time you need an example to fit your narrative and then switching to the entire world every time your society doesn't fit your narrative is intellectually dishonest.

Pick one. I don't care which but whenever I defer to the world (as you do for things like female literacy) you pull personal anecdotes and stats about Australia. Every time I pull stats about Australia....you switch over to global examples you have no control or influence over to justify your concern.

The idea that feminism is somehow "good for the flourishing of men" isn't exactly convincing when you dodge the plight of men at every possible example.

refused employment, or shunned by their colleagues because they are men.

No offense, but this simply isn't true. I can, right now, pull a survey of people who are verified employers. People in HR, recruiting, or specifically hiring. There is a preponderance of them openly admitting to passing on qualified (even highly qualified) male candidates (white straight ones especially) because they are white straight men. Unless you can do the same....what reason do you have for believing that women aren't being hired because they're women?

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.

Is it against the teaching of your religion?

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.

See above. I didn't write the new testament nor the old. Yet whomever did put some words in regarding the roles of men and women. Your argument sounds like it's with some long dead authors or god.

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.

Why? Where's the mission to? Who decided this was your task?

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.

How would you know?

I am arguing, however, that simply having leadership isn't enough to be a good (or a "better") leader.

I can speculate on a leader who never was...but it will never amount to more than speculation.

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.

Not saying that's the case. They may be better leaders because the traits necessary for leadership under those circumstances tend to be those more commonly found in men. It's going to depend upon external factors as well as internal ones.

Seems to me that "men are the better leaders," backed up by no evidence whatsoever, is a far more hollow claim.

You still haven't answered why there is the preponderance of male leaders though lol. Are you claiming that men are stupid and prefer to fail at an endeavor than be led by a woman? What's the reason you believe men won't follow a woman? You know, despite the centuries year old examples I've produced.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You have a quaint and possibly unique view of Homo sapiens. (And a Flintstones' view of the character of human evolution.)

Yeah it's not unique. I certainly don't lay claim to those points I made.

I don't know if the Holocene epoch lines up perfectly with the Agricultural revolution but it seems likely that if it does, and the change in facial features that similarly followed "domestication", then what I'm arguing is we are essentially biologically the same as then....any changes since being dwarfed in both number and significance by the changes prior.

To be clear, you are arguing that the behaviour and the moderators of behaviour ofhumans are essentially the same today as they were at the beginning of the Holocene? (And it is behaviour and the controls on behaviour we are debating.)

Is it? If it's external behavioral influences that you want to consider then I suggest you consider geography before culture....as this has proven a far stronger influence on culture than any other externalities I can consider.

If the answer is yes, please provide substantial, well-validated evidence, conducted by recognised experts and published in well regarded peer reviewed journals that support your contention. Any sign of cherry picking will be laughed at.

Why? Will you be doing the same?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Mmm... I may have to disagree with you. If you are the head of something, be it a single church or a division or a unit, you are a leader.

What does a single church lead?

There definitely are levels of leadership.

We call this middle management in the private sector, beauracracy in the public sector.

A leader isn't only the top guy cause pretty much everyone has somebody to answer to.

Except the guy at the top....because he leads.

I've been studying leadership for 5 years now and realize what it means and entails.

Whether you want to discuss large complex hierarchical authority structures or small ones, I think my point stands.

That being said it still doesn't negate the fact that at any leadership position your points are still valuable.

Leadership and leadership skills can be used and used effectively by those at the bottom of heirarchies at times. That doesn't make them leaders though. A foreman may be extremely effective leading the team of masons or carpenters or metalworkers that he has authority over. He does not choose what he builds though. He doesn't design the structure. He is not the architect.

So if he succeeded day after day in executing the plans he's given....it matters for nothing if tomorrow the architect tells him that the plans have changed entirely, all his works must be undone, and he must start over. Like those beneath him....he's merely one piece of a team beneath another....and so on until you reach who decides what is built or not.

In a time of merit men still dominate the leadership.positions. I think it it also needs to be pointed out that there is not the same number of women pursuing leadership positions as men. It's pretty hard to make a case that men and women are equal in their abilities when they aren't showing it by pursuing it in greater numbers. If you have a leadership position and you have 50 men and 10 women pursuing that, the chances are a man will get the position because one of them is more likely to have more experience and better qualifications.

It's a position where merit asserts itself.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why? Will you be doing the same?

You are making assertions that lie outside, in some cases far outside, the consensus view of human evolution, the changing role of the sexes and the motivating forces for those changes, and - frankly - for many of the scientific issue you've touched on. That places the onus on you to either provide solid justification for your unusual views, or to go educate yourself on those matters.
Until one or other of these two things happen I'll just observe, adding the odd comment for the audience when one of your more egregious views surfaces.

 

[Paidiske]

But you can acknowledge the difference between the entire show riding on your shoulders and a position of lesser authority, no?

Sure, they're different, but both can require leadership.

Again, you don't have to be in a leadership position to make use of leadership skills....just like even an expert can use learning skills or teaching skills depending upon the situation. One doesn't have to be the leader to use leadership skills or techniques.

Then I think we're working from very different definitions of leadership. Because I'd argue if you're using the skills and accomplishing the goals of leadership, you're leading, whether you're formally in an authorised position or not, and whether your position is at the very top of whatever hierarchy you inhabit or not.

You imagine then that incompetent men are leaders despite obviously superior women....because they're women.

Sometimes, yes (again, a quick survey of well-known leaders is illustrative). But most of the time, I think competent men don't face the same barriers as competent women.

That's analogous to simply calling men stupid and poor judges of leadership.

Well, I wasn't going there, but if you push me, I'd have to say that deliberately overlooking and suppressing the talents of half the population doesn't come across as the smartest thing a culture can do, so...

There's less men getting college degrees in Australia than women.

But not because men are discouraged from studying, because their role is to be hands-on parents and homemakers.

I mean, I was literally kicked out of college when I fell pregnant. A barrier men just don't face.

Using your personal life and society every time you need an example to fit your narrative and then switching to the entire world every time your society doesn't fit your narrative is intellectually dishonest.

Not so much intellectually dishonest as drawing on the resources most available. My personal life provides the examples I know best, but I can extrapolate from them to the bigger picture.

The idea that feminism is somehow "good for the flourishing of men" isn't exactly convincing when you dodge the plight of men at every possible example.

Not at all. I've acknowledged the problems men face. I just fundamentally disagree about the underlying causes and therefore, what would be constructive solutions.

Unless you can do the same....what reason do you have for believing that women aren't being hired because they're women?

I've been told so to my face, for a start.

Is it against the teaching of your religion?

Clearly not, since I'm a priest in the Anglican church.

Your argument sounds like it's with some long dead authors or god.

My argument is with the patriarchal culture which has interpreted and applied particular texts in ways which exclude women.

Why? Where's the mission to? Who decided this was your task?

I'm not clear on exactly what you mean here. Why does the church have a mission? Because Christ left us with work to do. But unpacking exactly what that means in a local context, and leading a contemporary community in pursuing that work, that's leadership.

How would you know?

Because if the objection were about competence, competence would be assessed and competent women would be allowed to be leaders, rather than incompetence simply being claimed without assessing the competence of any specific woman for the role.

You still haven't answered why there is the preponderance of male leaders though

I have. We live in a world which systematically denies women leadership opportunities.

Are you claiming that men are stupid and prefer to fail at an endeavor than be led by a woman?

I think that the people who exclude women think that men are better; they're just wrong.

What's the reason you believe men won't follow a woman?

Sexism. Misogyny. Patriarchy. Ego. Hubris. Some men seem to think that following a woman makes them less of a man. I think for a lot of men, on some subconscious level, they don't see women as being really as completely human as men. We're the other, the less-than. I mean, you'll seriously find men on this forum arguing that women were created simply to help men accomplish their goals in life, and that our entire existence should be subordinated to our husbands. If that's what they believe about men and women, why would they ever follow a woman, no matter how proper the endeavour?

The idea that it's all about merit is laughable. I've known far too many people in leadership positions who were utterly incompetent leaders to buy that, at all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are making assertions that lie outside, in some cases far outside, the consensus view of human evolution,

An Evolutionary Timeline of Homo Sapiens

Scientists share the findings that helped them pinpoint key moments in the rise of our species

www.smithsonianmag.com

There's the main point of us being the dominant species aka modern homo sapiens....as of about 15k years ago.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/24/163536159/when-fire-met-meat-the-brains-of-early-humans-grew-bigger

Cooked protein most likely for brain growth.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/B70C0490CEFFFB3B5231A5426A1D1577/S2513843X21000207a.pdf/targeted-conspiratorial-killing-human-self-domestication-and-the-evolution-of-groupishness.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi-tf_grJuAAxXBPUQIHYn9DnoQFnoECCwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw29OA5mt-0gWpit_BJ_xqfV

That's a pdf for theoretical evolutionary explanations for targeted violence and groupishness (aka cooperation) for access to females being integral to our evolution.

If it helps....go ahead and read it with Roger Scruton's voice in your mind or watch the opening to blue planet first lol.

the changing role of the sexes and the motivating forces for those changes, and - frankly - for many of the scientific issue you've touched on.

Yeah sure.....that, or you just don't have any idea what you're talking about.

That places the onus on you to either provide solid justification for your unusual views, or to go educate yourself on those matters.

Well now I'm educated you. Please don't start calling me sir, or professor, because frankly....I'm not taking any students.

Until one or other of these two things happen I'll just observe, adding the odd comment for the audience when one of your more egregious views surfaces.

Sure sure....I don't have to provide the connection between leaving the trees and bipedal motion, right? Nothing controversial about that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure, they're different, but both can require leadership.

Nope.

Middle management can require leadership...being the leader does require leadership.

Quite often middle management is terrible at leadership and this doesn't result in the downfall of the entire endeavor. If the leader is incompetent though, the failure of the endeavor is inevitable.

Then I think we're working from very different definitions of leadership. Because I'd argue if you're using the skills and accomplishing the goals of leadership, you're leading, whether you're formally in an authorised position or not, and whether your position is at the very top of whatever hierarchy you inhabit or not.

OK.

Well then congratulations, lol women have been in leadership positions all this time. It simply doesn't look that way because they weren't at the top of any hierarchy. According to you though, women have always been in leadership positions because you don't need the actual authority of a leader to use leadership skills.

Now you've got nothing to complain about lol.

Sometimes, yes (again, a quick survey of well-known leaders is illustrative). But most of the time, I think competent men don't face the same barriers as competent women.

Such as?

Well, I wasn't going there, but if you push me, I'd have to say that deliberately overlooking and suppressing the talents of half the population doesn't come across as the smartest thing a culture can do, so...

And who is doing that?

But not because men are discouraged from studying, because their role is to be hands-on parents and homemakers.

Oh? Is there a directly proportional correlation to the number of stay at home husbands and men not attending college?

I mean, I was literally kicked out of college when I fell pregnant. A barrier men just don't face.

I know girls who got tuition assistance for being pregnant. A privilege men don't get.

Not so much intellectually dishonest as drawing on the resources most available. My personal life provides the examples I know best, but I can extrapolate from them to the bigger picture.

Well pick which one you'd rather discuss. Your personal experience doesn't extrapolate to the world.

Not at all. I've acknowledged the problems men face. I just fundamentally disagree about the underlying causes and therefore, what would be constructive solutions.

I don't think you have any idea what the underlying causes are.

Clearly not, since I'm a priest in the Anglican church.

Great. What Bible do you use?

My argument is with the patriarchal culture which has interpreted and applied particular texts in ways which exclude women.

Right...so if I start quoting your Bible directly, you'll simply say I've got the wrong interpretation.

I'm not clear on exactly what you mean here. Why does the church have a mission?

Sorry. In the context I hear the word mission it typically refers to an out of country or distanced effort to convert.

Because if the objection were about competence, competence would be assessed and competent women would be allowed to be leaders, rather than incompetence simply being claimed without assessing the competence of any specific woman for the role.

Is your argument that there's an abundance of competent women leaders who have failed to become leaders?

I have. We live in a world which systematically denies women leadership opportunities.

Consider again the moments I mentioned using leadership skills. Nobody offered me an opportunity...I simply seized it.

I think that the people who exclude women think that men are better; they're just wrong.

I don't think you realize you've argued yourself out of this position entirely.

What's the evidence that women are being excluded? You just argued they don't need to be in leadership positions to lead.

Sexism. Misogyny. Patriarchy. Ego. Hubris. Some men seem to think that following a woman makes them less of a man.

Never heard a man say that.

The idea that it's all about merit is laughable. I've known far too many people in leadership positions who were utterly incompetent leaders to buy that, at all.

If I'm to defer to your definition of leaders....then I don't know who you're talking about. They apparently don't need to be in leadership positions.

 

[rjs330]

Please don't tell me that lying wasn't seen as a moral failure long before Christianity. You simply cannot form a stable group of people, let alone a society without trust. And honouring your parents?

'Xiao, or filial piety, is an attitude of respect for parents and ancestors in societies influenced by Confucian thought. Filial piety is demonstrated, in part, through service to one’s parents.' Filial Piety - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics.

That's a few centuries before Christ. And care for parents is paramount in most of E. Asia, far and beyond any consideration shown in Western nations (i.e. what you might describe as Christian nations).

I must remind you I've been talking about law not morality. God deals in law and not morality. That's been my point. Because morality is based on ever changing tides of human thought of what is moral and what is not. God deals in law. His laws were quite different than those of the day in some ways. Just the ten commandments were evidence of that.

 

[rjs330]

You would have to ask why women don't pursue those positions. I can think of a number of likely explanations that have nothing to do with levels of competence.

That doesn't in any way change my post.

 

[rjs330]

Besides evolutionary explanations for morality having no real evidence as morality is something that transcends material survival its irrelevant to this thread. Regardless of how morality came about we are talking about the specific morality of the West as opposed to Islam, Hinduism and other religious beliefs. Its more than just morality.

Its a culture that lives a particular way as opposed to other ways and the West has a specific culture that is different to others. At the time Christianity became the belief of the Greco Roman world it was very different to Pagan beliefs so not all beliefs had the same moral worldview. It is this particcular worldview we are talking about that is now changing as we reject the Christian God from society. The fact that CHristian morality is now in conflict with secular ideological beliefs shows that beliefs about morality are not always the same between people.


Theres a good reason why people not just the Right are objecting to Trans Affirmative Care because it has been shown to be unscientific and dangerous. That is why most professional organisations are banning it. So in this case thank God for the Right because if we did not have opposing positions on this and everyone just went along with the Lefts ideology we would if not already end up with another child abuse scandal.

There in lies the problem. That you single out "white Cis males" actually is putting all the focus and cause on race and gender. So that thinking is actually racist and sexist. Oh its also ageist. Its a simplistic and narrow view of the world aned actually divides society because everything, all the worlds problems are reeducede to race aned gender.

No one is NOT letting people be themselves. Take Trans again. We have seen a massive rise in young people claiming to be the opposite sex especially females many without any history of gender dysphoria. Sort of like a social contagion which shows their self percieved feelings about who they are (being themselves) is not real but caused by other issues. many grow out of this after puberty.

So just because someone claims a denial of being themselves doesn't mean its a good and healthy ideea for that person and for society. Afterall we don't say to people with Anorexia that its OK for them to be themselves and support them in their delusion to remain unhealthly underweight.

The idea that the Right to self identity trumps all else even reality is dangerous as its subjective ande allows society to cultivate delusion undermining the long held truths we have come to know like objective reality.

First of all, in addition to the protections they already possess under existing anti-discrimination laws, TRAs require everyone else to adopt a new belief system that has no scientific support – that each human being possesses a unique gender identity knowable only to that person, independent of and overriding her or his biological sex. They demand that we suppress the verdict of our own senses and align our internal responses to conform with their expectations.
Joint Statement

I think we have come a long way and society is pretty well equal. Women are now outdoing males in a number of ways. Children or at least adeolescents have gained Rights even in some situations to the point where we give them too much rights such as being able to give consent to things they cannot understand. Or the right to divorce their own parents for example.

In reality the recent iedeologies that have been pushe in society based on identity politics is what is causing the loss of Rights. Its actually regressed women, childrens and family rights back rather than forward. For example Trans ideology denies Women Rights. If as Trans claim their is no such thing as a biological women then that erases half the populations Rights because now there is no such category as biological women. Ironically it has been biological women who have been marching for their rights as a unique sex for 100s of years.

Those "bunch of articles" is what gives the examples in general terms by explaining the logic of why Christianity is being rejected and pushed out of society. For example if as ideologues claim that Christianity is hateful and descriminatory to some identity groups then why would secular society who support the Rights of those identity groups through policy and law allow Christianity to be expressed in society. It contradicts their own position. So its a logical consequence of the new secular ideological belief that Christianity will be rejected even seen as a threat.

You only have to stop and look at the many conflicts we are seeing today involving Christian expressions of belief being attacked in the public square. J. K. Rowling comes to mind as an obvious one that has been in the news. But there are many like this that have not had the publicity. Everyday Christians being harassed and destroyed because of expressing their beliefs.

Many adoption agencies in Britain and the US have been forced to close because of their traditional beliefs about the family and that a child should be placed with a mother and father.
https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/equality-tasmania_0.pdf

Company that 'fired' woman for saying 'it's OK to vote no' may have broken law
A women simply was expressing her views that traditional marriage is ok and her boss fired her because she says that anyone expressing support for traditional marriage is being descriminating and hateful.
Company that 'fired' woman for saying 'it's OK to vote no' may have broken law

After 95 years, NY rules end Catholic adoption and foster services in Buffalo
Catholic adoption and foster care agencies in several states have shut down after anti-discrimination laws or funding restrictions barred participation from agencies that place children only with married mothers and fathers.
After 95 years, NY rules end Catholic adoption and foster services in Buffalo

There are many more examples but I find examples don't get to why this is happening and thats why I linked those articles to help explain why this is happening.

But its not just Christians either.
"Evil Womxn": The Silencing Of Biological Reality And The Technology Of Obfuscation
https://www.forbes.com/sites/julianvigo/2018/10/26/evil-womxn-the-silencing-of-biological-reality-and-the-technology-of-obfuscation/?sh=32ad94f418fd

Here are a couple of articles that look at the bigger picture whether Christianity is being attacked and driven out in Western nations.

Attacks on Christians in Europe soar by 70 per cent in a year amid rise in secularist and Islamist ideologies
Attacks on Christians in Europe soar by 70 per cent in a year amid rise in secularist and Islamist ideologies - Catholic Herald

The Criminalization of Christianity in Canada
library/articles/on-the-brink-the-criminalization-of-christianity-in-canada/

An interesting proponent of anti-Christian thinking will always be the increase of secularism. Commonly found in OIDAC’s report, governments and major corporations often shut down the speech of Christians in support of secularization along with upholding the views of the LGBTQ+ community and other minorities that disagree with the Christian worldview. New statistics on growing persecution against Christians

But the problem is because we have divided society into identities we will never have equality because inevitably identities clash when it comes to individual Rights. Its blacks verses whites, males verses females and a host of genders, Left verses Right, big verses small, however many differences we can find in society.

I don't know what happened to your post but I couldn't read half of it cause it's black.

 

[rjs330]

Except the guy at the top....because he leads.

Except somebody else is telling him what to do. Even the president has people he answers to. So do CEOs. The lone guy with his own business has to answer to somebody for his work.

foreman may be extremely effective leading the team of masons or carpenters or metalworkers that he has authority over. He does not choose what he builds though. He doesn't design the structure. He is not the architect.

So if he succeeded day after day in executing the plans he's given....it matters for nothing if tomorrow the architect tells him that the plans have changed entirely, all his works must be undone, and he must start over. Like those beneath him....he's merely one piece of a team beneath another....and so on until you reach who decides what is built or not.

Sure, but he is still the leader of his team. He has to get his team to make the changes and guide them in doing it right or the way the architect tell him. He still leads the team to get the job done. Leadership is more than just being the top guy. The top guy needs leaders at every other level in order to make things work. Cause often the leader doesn't know how to do every part of the job or how to accomplish certain things. He needs leaders in other areas to do that. At every level of the organization leaders are needed. And the larger the organization the more levels there are and the more leaders that are needed.