When two worldviews collide.

[rjs330]

What does a single church lead?

A single church needs a leader. That was my point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A single church needs a leader. That was my point.

Right....but what is it they lead?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Except somebody else is telling him what to do.

If they have authority over him....then he isn't the leader.

Even the president has people he answers to.

That's because of a deliberate separation of powers.

So do CEOs. The lone guy with his own business has to answer to somebody for his work.

Ever see the Big Short? Hedge fund managers run around trying to decide if shorting the housing market is a good idea? If not, watch it sometime.

There's a character playing the guy who in real-life is the person who first shorted the market. He's managing a hedge fund of a billion or more....and multiple investors are furious demanding their money back. He explains he's frozen their investments to keep them from ruining the strategy he's following.

If he were wrong....sure, his contract wouldn't be renewed. If investors all got to pull their money out whenever they didn't agree with the strategy....or didn't understand it....there's no real point to the hedge fund.

CEOs operate in a very similar manner.

They may have shareholders to answer to in order to keep their jobs....but ultimately, they have authority.

I understand why it can certainly seem like "everyone answers to someone" if you imagine these hierarchies as extraordinarily complex. That's an infinite loop though. It doesn't exist. At some point there's a person answering to no one.

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.

And he's part of a team of guys working under someone else's authority.

He still leads the team to get the job done.

And is part of a team led by another.

Leadership is more than just being the top guy. The top guy needs leaders at every other level in order to make things work.

Lol you can refer to my Hitler example if you want me to concede that delegation itself is a talent. Obviously no one can do everything.

Cause often the leader doesn't know how to do every part of the job or how to accomplish certain things.

These leaders typically employ advisors with specialized skills/knowledge.

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.

The boat analogy I used earlier is probably the easiest way to understand what I'm saying.

 

[Robban]

Something that may blow out of the water the view of a "leader" held by some or many.

"No man is appointed as an authority over the community unless there is something

objectionable in his past, lest he lord over the community."
Talmud.

Also one who seeks or pursues such a position I would think his motives are suspect.
To name two leaders who did not seek the position, were brought down low so to be raised up when the time came.

Moses was on the run when he was called.

The first 28 years of David's life he was treated as an outcast within his own family.

So this thread is about opposing worldviews, so true.

 

[Paidiske]

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.

I'd definitely agree that women have always exercised informal leadership to the extent they've been able to. But your assertion was that women are proved worse leaders by not being officially recognised as such.

Such as?

Have a look here. I think the key quote is this one: "The “qualities” of a leader — as well as the path to achieve leadership roles — are still largely based on an outdated male model that shuts women out."

And who is doing that?

Let me point you back to that global literacy gap...

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

No, my point is that stereotyped gender roles, especially around parenting, are one thing which limits women's educational attainments.

Your personal experience doesn't extrapolate to the world.

To the extent that it illustrates general trends, it's helpful.

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

Here's one example. The leading cause of death in men in Australia is coronary heart disease. One major identified risk factor is smoking. Men smoke at much higher rates than women.

Now, why is that? Peer pressure is cited as a major reason why people start smoking. Why is there more peer pressure to smoke amongst boys than amongst girls? Smoking is seen as a marker of rebellion, independence, and so on.

Now, while there's a healthy process of individuation that goes on as kids grow up, the kind of individuation that manifests in unhealthy and damaging activities is here directly linked with... being a man.

Oh look. We're back at toxic masculinity.

Great. What Bible do you use?

For serious work, I use the NT in the original Greek. I don't read Hebrew, so for the OT I have to rely on commentaries.

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

I don't think we're allowed to debate theology in this particular forum, but if you start cherry-picking proof texts, that is a very highly likely response from me, yes.

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

That's a very old-school view of mission. My denomination defines its mission in this way:

The mission of the Church is the mission of Christ

1. To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
2. To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
3. To respond to human need by loving service
4. To transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation
5. To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth

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

I'd say that's very likely, but in this part of the thread, mostly my argument is just, men aren't "better" leaders than women.

You just argued they don't need to be in leadership positions to lead.

But you're basing your argument on the proportion of women in leadership positions; positions from which they are routinely excluded.

Never heard a man say that.

You may have been a wee bit sheltered there, then, because I certainly have.

That doesn't in any way change my post.

You were saying that there are fewer women in leadership positions because women don't pursue those positions (and that this is evidence of women not being equal to men as leaders).

But it depends why they're not pursuing those positions. You could have the most competent person in the world not pursue a leadership position for reasons that have nothing to do with competence for the role.

 

[Bradskii]

His laws were quite different than those of the day in some ways. Just the ten commandments were evidence of that.

Like...don't steal?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'd definitely agree that women have always exercised informal leadership to the extent they've been able to. But your assertion was that women are proved worse leaders by not being officially recognised as such.

Why would anyone officially recognize women for informal leadership?

Have a look here. I think the key quote is this one: "The “qualities” of a leader — as well as the path to achieve leadership roles — are still largely based on an outdated male model that shuts women out."

No that's definitely not the key quote. Here....

men are far more likely than women to rise to the highest paying and most prestigious leadership roles.

And here...

, women remain underrepresented in senior leadership roles across industries​

Senior leadership, highest paying, most prestigious....

This is talking about the sort of leaders I've been talking about. This isn't some girl running a kiosk at the mall.

Does this mean I can just dismiss all the middle management nonsense you've been posting about for the last 5 posts or so? Your little website's idea of leaders seems a lot closer to mine...they don't seem to care about middle management.

No, my point is that stereotyped gender roles, especially around parenting, are one thing which limits women's educational attainments.

Women are outperforming men in education in Australia. You aren't arguing that any other nation alter it's gender roles to suit your personal preferences....so we can just drop the global literacy rate stuff since that's entirely irrelevant and never a legitimate reason for any changes in Australia.

To the extent that it illustrates general trends, it's helpful.

Here's one example. The leading cause of death in men in Australia is coronary heart disease. One major identified risk factor is smoking. Men smoke at much higher rates than women.

Now, why is that? Peer pressure is cited as a major reason why people start smoking. Why is there more peer pressure to smoke amongst boys than amongst girls? Smoking is seen as a marker of rebellion, independence, and so on.

Now, while there's a healthy process of individuation that goes on as kids grow up, the kind of individuation that manifests in unhealthy and damaging activities is here directly linked with... being a man.

Oh look. We're back at toxic masculinity.

Lol oh I see...the problem with men is that they're men lol. Misandry noted.

Just out of curiosity....who do you blame for the women who smoke? Men?

For serious work, I use the NT in the original Greek. I don't read Hebrew, so for the OT I have to rely on commentaries.

I don't think we're allowed to debate theology in this particular forum, but if you start cherry-picking proof texts, that is a very highly likely response from me, yes.

Fair enough.

That's a very old-school view of mission. My denomination defines its mission in this way:

The mission of the Church is the mission of Christ

1. To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
2. To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
3. To respond to human need by loving service
4. To transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation
5. To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth

What's the current size of your congregation?

I'd say that's very likely, but in this part of the thread, mostly my argument is just, men aren't "better" leaders than women.

Then I would disagree.

But you're basing your argument on the proportion of women in leadership positions; positions from which they are routinely excluded.

They aren't excluded, nor have they been, for at least a couple thousand years now.

You may have been a wee bit sheltered there, then, because I certainly have.

Or perhaps my anecdote is just as valid as yours and that's why we don't rely on anecdotes.

 

[stevevw]

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

Not sure, it seems to be readable at my end.

 

[stevevw]

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.

I started the thread, I should know what its about. Its about two worldviews colliding which are the Western Right/Progressive/Secular as opposed to the Left/Conservative/Christian. The majority of my posts have been about how Woke, Cancel Culture and identity politics have taken over and become the new Religion of Western secular society and how the West is rejecting God and Christianity.

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...

This doesn't explain morality though and is whats called the genetic fallacy for morality. Morality is much more than reciprical behaviour which basically means that you get a benefit for cooperating. Morality is about not getting anything in return, just doing good for the sake of doing good. Alturism contradicts evolutionary survival as it means giving up your own survival for others. People help others for no return.

Under the evolutionary view not cooperating and taking another tribes stuff is also beneficial if there is not enough resources. It means whatever behaviour allows a person or group to survive is fair gain because there is no rational or basis for morality. So if killing older members or the weak helps you to survive or raping and pilaging helps then thats OK.

As we know morality cannot be inherited as its metaphysics and non material/physical. Nowhere in the brain or genetic code is there compassion or justice. Yet basic morals are not learnt either as we are born with these which are similar for all regardless of enculturation or being taught. If a newborn was placed on a deserted island they would still know these morals. They would still have these basic morals even if the parents and culture was atheist or taught the complete opposite.

But even if we accept that morality comes from Darwinism that still doesn’t explain why something is wrong. It only explains what survives but not what 'ought' to survive. So material explanations like evolution and social constructionist theories are inadequate for explaining morality. Its a fallacy.

 

[Paidiske]

Why would anyone officially recognize women for informal leadership?

It's two separate things. I agree that women effectively exercise informal leadership. But you claim that the absence of women from formal leadership means they're worse at it.

Your little website's idea of leaders seems a lot closer to mine...they don't seem to care about middle management.

They explain why it can be more difficult for women to rise above it.

You aren't arguing that any other nation alter it's gender roles to suit your personal preferences

I'm arguing for egalitarian gender roles - in any nation - out of a sense of justice.

Lol oh I see...the problem with men is that they're men lol.

No. The problem is that the ideals of masculinity held up to young men are harmful to them.

Just out of curiosity....who do you blame for the women who smoke?

Peer pressure is clearly a driver for young women, too, but the animating reasons seem to be different. Weight control is often cited as a motivating reason for smoking. So we would have to unpack questions of health, diet, exercise, body image and so on for them; and while body image and sexual objectification are related to patriarchal norms, it seems to me to be less direct.

What's the current size of your congregation?

We average a weekly attendance of about seventy people or so.

They aren't excluded, nor have they been, for at least a couple thousand years now.

Ana, this is nonsense. Women have only been able to graduate from university in Australia since 1883. The first woman wasn't elected to the Australian parliament until 1943 (and at that point, she literally had to go home to use the toilet, since there were no facilities for women in parliament house!) Equal opportunity acts were only put in place in the late 70s for employment. And in faith communities, we are still routinely excluded.

Or perhaps my anecdote is just as valid as yours and that's why we don't rely on anecdotes.

Not having experienced something personally, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

[Bradskii]

This doesn't explain morality though and is whats called the genetic fallacy for morality. Morality is much more than reciprical behaviour which basically means that you get a benefit for cooperating.

It's a lot more. I've just described one aspect. Concentrate on that one if you will.

Under the evolutionary view not cooperating and taking another tribes stuff is also beneficial if there is not enough resources.

And I've just described what was required for the formation of those tribes. Why don't you address that? Point out any flaws that you can see.

As we know morality cannot be inherited as its metaphysics and non material/physical. Nowhere in the brain or genetic code is there compassion or justice.

Yet you want your cake and eat it as well...

If a newborn was placed on a deserted island they would still know these morals.

Well, there is a very good chance that they will follow the morals - good or bad, of their parents: Selfishness and altruism can coexist when help is subject to diminishing returns - Heredity.

'Studies of behaviour genetics show that some 30–50% of the variation in willingness to help others is heritable. Those who do not help others, help themselves, and so anti-social behaviour has a heritability similar to that of prosocial behaviour.'

That would be required to support my first point. See if you can respond to that.

But even if we accept that morality comes from Darwinism that still doesn’t explain why something is wrong.

If it causes harm, then it's immoral. That was easy. Now, don't write a couple of hundred words on umpteen topics. Address the point regarding reciprocal altruism.

 

[stevevw]

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?

Positive change is already happening in Trans care with the repeal of the Affirmative and Transition model being replaced with Psychotherapy. Most Western nations like in Scandinavia who are leaders in Trans care, the US, England and many professional bodies now using Psychotherapy.

Abortion is a big problem. Some States have already banned unlimited abortion or reduced it to limitations such as not after 20 weeks even ealier. Thats a step in the right direction in minimizing the millions of abortions saving many lives. Unfortunately its going to be har to change the mindset of abortion on demand as its linked to the attitudes and beliefs about sex itself.

So long as secular society continues to promote sexual as something casual then its fighting an uphill battle. Secularists won't give up freedoms so it will take a complete paradigm change. But when it comes to murdering innocent lives through abortion I think its a matter of not waiting for society to change but reducing abortions regadless of societies beliefs because its too imprtant to let it ride.

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...

Thats not very helpful. Your more or less dismissing males experience and blaming them. Feminists have been saying this for years and yet things have not changed and in fact have gotten worse. The more they blame the reciever the more it seems to make matters worse.

Feminism has become less popular in recent times even among women mainly because its percieved as negatively portraying and stereotyping both men and women. So its not just males who are getting the wrong message. Under most circumstances marketers would be looking at their strategies and not blaming their customers or clients.

Feminism: outmoded and unpopular

Feminism: outmoded and unpopular

Feminism and the fight for sex equality are seen by the public as outmoded concepts which are failing to address the strains of modern lives, according to research published on the 75th anniversary of women winning equal voting rights.

www.theguardian.com

Why so many young women don't call themselves feminist

Why so many young women don't call themselves feminist

A minority of women say they are feminists, despite believing in equality.

www.bbc.com

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.

But part of the problem I think is that Feminist only blame the reciever (males) as to why there is a misunderstanding. They never look at themselves. The evdience shows that most people see thats its the image and message of feminism is the problem. They still think equality is important but they disagree with how Feminism at least todays feminism goes about achieving this.

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

But Feminist sure took that idea and politicized it to what it is today. In fact the orginal mens movement believed gender deifferences were biologically based so they come from a deifferent position which would not have used language as the measure of reality like most Post Modern ideologies do today.

Well, no. "Being stoic" - if by that we mean not being emotionally expressive - is not a natural trait; it's a learned one.

But like most traits which have a combination of natural and constructed elements Feminism and other ideologies take the one sided negative view thus erasing the balanced view that traits like Stoicism, competitiveness and agression are completely discouraged in men.

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.

Once again the negative narrow view of ideological thinking. Protection and providing are natural qualities which have been around for 1,000s of years. As males are the bigger, stronger and more agressive they are naturally built for these traits. Males dominate war and sports. They are very competitive. But what is happening today is society has become more feminised because the narrative is these traits are bad. Boys are discouraged from rough and tumble play and competiton.

Schools see boys as trouble makers and always getting into trouble when they are just being their natural selves. As a result the edeucation model is geared around less competition where everyones a winner so as not to leave anyone out. Learning is about sharing and caring. Thus boys feel keft out, bored and this actually causes them play up. Its time we geared teaching to boys needs as well. They require male role models and ediscipline which is lacking today because females dominate teaching by around 80%.

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

Unfortunately the narrative is dominated by idelogical assumptions about mascullinity being a social construction. That leads to misunderstandings and is not helpful. Like CRT, Queer theory Feminism is a belief and not based on objective reality. Its not even self consistent because it doesn't even apply the same principles to all, rather only certain percieved power imbalances. Self percieved being subjective, based on feelings rather than something we should understand from an independent position which excludes biases.

That is why these ideologies are always slanted towards self identity being the utmost truth even over science. Its very moralistic. It breaks everything down to gender, race and sex differences being socially created and therefore right and wrong behaviour, pure and impure identities. Ideology takes something that may be real but skews its causes and remeedies thus taking a distorted view of what is happening. The fact that ideologies are not based on an independent position is enough in itself to question ideas like Feminism, CRT and the rest.

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:

I think this in itself is a very stereotypical idea of who males and females are. In some ways like the Critical theories it actually exentuates and creates this thinking by the narratives put forward. This is not a real representation of what is happening between males or females today. We are much more egalitarian and sensitive. We have to be aws society has become more feminised.

As I said it narrows everything down to identities being in constant power wars. We could do the same for women and I am sure we will find similar behaviour. Its a zero sum game. I think generally everyone has become more self centred and self actualizationand fullfillment is now the ultimate state of being.

We can see this with langauge usede, feelings expressed especially in the media. Life meaning is measured by individual sucess, theres a growing inedustry of female life influencers. Women are dominating Uni and many professions and the pay gap is almost gone. Women are marrying later, having kides later if not at all and you know what. For all that gain they are less happier than they have ever been. I wonder why. So are men by the way.

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

But the determination that "It isn't" real disadvantage is made by the Feminist. If their lens is distorted to begin with then who say they are right. Its a bit like any assumption and belief thats based on ideological thinking, its narrow so it doesn't consider everything. Its imbalanced, skewed. Its like trusting a polititian when they tell you they have a handle on it an they will have our best interests at heart. That is why feminism is becoming unpopular because its unreal. Its not how people think.

So we should ignore real disadvantage instead?

No we should acknowledge disadvantage but not blame it all on identity politics, on one identity being nasty to another. We are all nasty (sinners) and individuals. The individual is the only identity and the unified one. When we do this which is a fundemental Truth prinicple the West was built on (made in Gods image) with natural rights regardless of race, gender or identity. Identity politics is devisive and based on resentment.

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.

I think this is part of the problem, that you don't agree that there is any natural (cannot always be helped or comes easier) aspects of human behaviour. Like I said its very one sided. I think most reasonable people with a balanced view would acknowledge that there is both natural and conditioned behaviour. I know the sciences do and they seem to converge in supporting this. Sometimes these natural influences are strong sometimes not. But they are important.

But the fact that you erase them I think is a reflection of a greater ideeological belief about human nature itself. That seems to be4 a Left progressive thinking also Postmodernism and Poststructuralism the idea there is no nature or real world. Everything is constructed and therefore can be reconstructed and open to interpretations especially through language, narratives. Thats why words have become such a political issue.

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.

If thats the case then perhaps

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?

See this is what I am talking about. The immediate assumption that all these symptoms for men are quote "all" the result of toxic mascullinity. None are maybe caused by a good man losing his job and becoming homeless and maybe developing addiction ande mental health. No thought of lack of fatherhooed by a society that devalues fathers.

No consideration of the many individual factors or other forces such as political, environmental, family circumstances, circumstancial. Just one narrow and horrible view that all mens problems are caused by gendered behaviour. Women have very high rates of neurosis so its that mens fault as well. Thats the point any disadvantage a male faces has to be his fault according to the narrative because otherwise feminist are giving some praise and they can't because it undermines their message of the great big and horrible monster the Patriarchy lol.

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.

Its not there is a global literaturacy gap but that the global literaturacy gap is all blames on male oppression when there are other factors in fact I would say more prominent facrtors like economic and political ideas like Capitalism, like Totalitarism at play. Like I said an iedeological viewpoint is very narrow. Its a particular worldview that ignores or minimizes other perspectives and therefore imbalanced.

Many women are joining men who then both gain priviledege over the poor. Women are now outdoing men in their own back yards but they are more concerned about distant cultures rather than acknowledge that a new problems of disadvantage has been createed by their own ideology. They need to clean up their own backyard first before they conquer the world lol.

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. "

Yeah there will be a bitof that, But have you ever considered that a big part especially say for brick layers that its about nature, about how blokes are especially at the extreme are just built better for bricky laborers and building in general or Rig work, mining thise sort of jobs because its dirty and phsyically taxing. Its also pretty boring in a way as it can be robotic.

Consiering research shows that women are more people orientated and men are more 'Things' orientated I think that has a bit to deo with it. When everyone has equal opportunity without restrictions to actually choose a job and career males tend to choose jobs working with 'things' and females with people more generally. The point is if we don't consider all these factors then things become distorted because part of the picture is missing. Maybe big or small but its all important.

 

[Kylie]

And what precisely is the "morality" that Christianity claims as its "own"?

I have to ask because I seem to be getting conflicting reports about what exactly makes up the "Christian" morality. So, you'll have to be more specific for the sake of clarity.

Don't kill, lie, steal, that sort of thing.

 

[Kylie]

Here's the thing: The following authors, for various reasons, would say that while you're partially correct, you're only partially so, and there's more to the complexity of the overall moral story that has transpired among humanity since the 1st century than it seems you're willing to let on, Kylie:

​

Sunshine, G. S. (2009). Why you think the way you do: The story of western worldviews from Rome to home. Zondervan Academic.​

​

Schmidt, A. J. (2009). How Christianity changed the world. Zondervan.​

​

Patterson, O. (1991). Freedom: Freedom in the making of western culture. BasicBooks/Harpercollins.​

So, I'm only partially partially correct? How does that work?

And could you go into specifics about how I'm only partially correct?

 

[Kylie]

Sorry but no evidence shoes that. You can respect the hardship they are going through without harming them with medical intervention. The ones that are truly dysphoric. Not the other ones who are just struggling with growing up. There is no evidence that states if you don't medically transition them they will commit suicide at a higher rate.

This just isn't true.

Here are several sources that show that trans kids have higher rates of deporession and suicide risk.

LGBTQ+ youth over 3 times more likely to attempt suicide due to trauma

The newest report by the Trevor Project links high levels of trauma to an increased risk of suicide among LGBTQ youth by over three times.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Transgender youth on puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones have lower rates of depression and suicidal thoughts, a new study finds

A wealth of evidence supports the protective mental health effects of gender-affirming care, despite ongoing legislation that asserts otherwise.

theconversation.com

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/28/health/transgender-suicide-risk/index.html

Suicide Risk Reduces 73% in Transgender, Nonbinary Youths with Gender-Affirming Care

Transgender and nonbinary youths, a population with an exceptional risk of suicide and poor mental health outcomes, were found to have 60% lower odds of depression after receiving gender-affirming intervention.

www.hcplive.com

Transgender teens have high rates of depression, suicidal thoughts

Two-thirds of transgender teens have depression, and many also have suicidal thoughts and self-injuring behavior, according to research being presented Sunday at ENDO 2020, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting in San Francisco, Calif.

www.endocrine.org

More than 50% of trans and non-binary youth in US considered suicide this year, survey says

The alarmingly high rates of depression, anxiety and suicide attempts are spread across liberal and conservative regions

www.theguardian.com

Suicidality Among Transgender Youth: Elucidating the Role of Interpersonal Risk Factors - PubMed

Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth. Using minority stress theory and the interpersonal theory of suicide, this study aims to better understand suicide risk among...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Mental health and suicide risk in trans and gender-diverse young people

Trans and gender-diverse young people have elevated rates of psychological distress, mental ill-health, and suicide risk when compared with their cisgender counterparts.

www.orygen.org.au

 

[Paidiske]

Abortion is a big problem. Some States have already banned unlimited abortion or reduced it to limitations such as not after 20 weeks even ealier. Thats a step in the right direction in minimizing the millions of abortions saving many lives. Unfortunately its going to be har to change the mindset of abortion on demand as its linked to the attitudes and beliefs about sex itself.

No, I didn't ask about reducing abortion. I asked what positive measure you'd put in place to reduce the reasons women seek abortion.

It's not enough to just want to ban something you don't like; you have to be willing to work to address the underlying problems which cause the things you want to ban.

Thats not very helpful. Your more or less dismissing males experience and blaming them.

No. I'm saying if you want to critique an idea, you have to critique it for what it actually is, not complain about something that it really isn't.

That's just basic logic.

But like most traits which have a combination of natural and constructed elements Feminism and other ideologies take the one sided negative view thus erasing the balanced view that traits like Stoicism, competitiveness and agression are completely discouraged in men.

I'm having trouble following your train of thought here, but if you want to claim that stoicism is biological (and innately gendered), I'll ask for evidence.

Protection and providing are natural qualities which have been around for 1,000s of years. As males are the bigger, stronger and more agressive they are naturally built for these traits.

Adult humans are naturally built for these traits. We don't talk about a "mama bear" for no reason; protection is not a particularly masculine thing.

Boys are discouraged from rough and tumble play and competiton.

Given that a quick google throws up a heap of resources on the first page around encouraging safe rough play, a teacher's guide to rough play, arguments that rough play prevent true violence, and so on, I'm not sure how accurate this is.

Schools see boys as trouble makers and always getting into trouble when they are just being their natural selves. As a result the edeucation model is geared around less competition where everyones a winner so as not to leave anyone out. Learning is about sharing and caring.
Thus boys feel keft out, bored and this actually causes them play up. Its time we geared teaching to boys needs as well. They require male role models and ediscipline which is lacking today because females dominate teaching by around 80%.

From what I can see, there's some evidence that younger boys in particular benefit from more movement and less long periods of sitting still in class. But it's not about competition, it's about the production of serotonin and dopamine and the way boys tend to process their learning a bit differently.

I don't think it's about male role models (although those are good) or discipline (although that's good too, and I'd dispute that it's lacking because of women teachers but more because school policies have shifted dramatically), but it is about pedagogical skill and how that's taught. And it seems there's some room for improvement there, but the fact that that is known and acknowledged and being worked on suggests to me that good progress is likely to be made.

Like CRT, Queer theory Feminism is a belief and not based on objective reality. Its not even self consistent because it doesn't even apply the same principles to all, rather only certain percieved power imbalances. Self percieved being subjective, based on feelings rather than something we should understand from an independent position which excludes biases.

Specific examples to back up such sweeping generalisations would be helpful.

I do note the irony, though, that when we were discussing trans issues you were quick to make points as if supporting women's equality and the movement in that direction, but now we see that in fact such support is only a useful rhetorical point when it can be aimed at another group.

This is not a real representation of what is happening between males or females today.

The cartoon? Oh, it certainly is. I mean, I've seen marriage advice along these lines still in current circulation.

For all that gain they are less happier than they have ever been. I wonder why.

If my recent experience is anything to go by, the stress of having to put up with constant attacks for not being a doormat - professionally, personally, or socially - takes a high toll. Maybe some women were happier when they had less opportunity but also copped less animosity. I know I wouldn't choose to live that way, though.

But the determination that "It isn't" real disadvantage is made by the Feminist.

By definition, loss of privilege (that is, being put back on a level playing field after having had unfair advantages), is not disadvantage. I understand that it might feel that way after having been used to the privilege for so long that one might take it for granted and feel entitled to it.

That is why feminism is becoming unpopular because its unreal. Its not how people think.

Lol. And by people, you mean men?

The individual is the only identity and the unified one.

No, sorry, steve, this doesn't fly. When I am attacked for being a woman, you can't say that it's only an individual thing. It's based on a characteristic I share with a larger group, and all of that group to some extent are affected by it.

Identity politics is devisive and based on resentment.

Well, for sure I resent being treated worse because I'm a woman. But I don't see any reason to pretend that it's not happening just because some people find it "divisive" to refuse to hide it. I think it's reasonable and just to seek to address the real problem of sexism.

I think this is part of the problem, that you don't agree that there is any natural (cannot always be helped or comes easier) aspects of human behaviour.

I think that's probably going beyond what I've said. Sure, there are some natural aspects to human behaviour. But what you're claiming seems to me to go far beyond what can reliably be established. For example, that there is a natural "instinct to lead" which is stronger in men than in women.

That seems to be4 a Left progressive thinking also Postmodernism and Poststructuralism the idea there is no nature or real world.

My tending to put more weight on nurture than nature is because of my background in genetics and the biological sciences. I just don't see the scientific support for the claims people make about what's "natural."

See this is what I am talking about. The immediate assumption that all these symptoms for men are quote "all" the result of toxic mascullinity.

Well, no. Obviously there are other contributing factors to, say, drug-related crime. But it's important to acknowledge that unhealthy ideas about masculinity are part of the picture.

Thats the point any disadvantage a male faces has to be his fault according to the narrative because otherwise feminist are giving some praise and they can't because it undermines their message of the great big and horrible monster the Patriarchy lol.

Acknowledging toxic masculinity as a social reality is not blaming the men caught up in it.

Its not there is a global literaturacy gap but that the global literaturacy gap is all blames on male oppression when there are other factors in fact I would say more prominent facrtors like economic and political ideas like Capitalism, like Totalitarism at play.

Economic and political realities might explain low literacy in general, but that literacy is lower in girls, specifically, is not economic. (In fact economically it makes more sense to educate girls because they tend to go on to educate their children in turn). The choice not to educate girls is rooted in the undervaluing of their potential contribution to their community, purely on the basis of their gender.

Women are now outdoing men in their own back yards but they are more concerned about distant cultures rather than acknowledge that a new problems of disadvantage has been createed by their own ideology. They need to clean up their own backyard first before they conquer the world lol.

Give me one real demonstrable example of a disadvantage created in my society by the movement I'm involved in and I'll take it seriously. I haven't seen one yet.

Yeah there will be a bitof that, But have you ever considered that a big part especially say for brick layers that its about nature, about how blokes are especially at the extreme are just built better for bricky laborers and building in general or Rig work, mining thise sort of jobs because its dirty and phsyically taxing. Its also pretty boring in a way as it can be robotic. Consiering research shows that women are more people orientated and men are more 'Things' orientated I think that has a bit to deo with it. When everyone has equal opportunity without restrictions to actually choose a job and career males tend to choose jobs working with 'things' and females with people more generally.

"There will be a bit of that"... let me go on to write you a paragraph demonstrating it neatly.

You're breaking my irony meter over here. Even more so because if women really were better at working with people, that would suggest they would be more capable leaders. But it's funny how when it comes to leadership, suddenly apparently men are all over that part of working with people!

 

[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.

Please reread what I said. Because it had nothing to do with competence. It has to do with choices. It's difficult for women to show their leadership skills if they aren't pursuing those positions in greater numbers. Proof is in the pudding. If women want to show they are equal to mean in leadership they have to actually pursue those positions where they can show they are equal. Now there are some very good leaders that are women. Kristi Noem and Carly Fiorina come to mind. And there are bad women leaders as well. Just like there are good men leaders and bad men leaders. But by and large the greatest leaders have been men.

 

[rjs330]

This just isn't true.

Here are several sources that show that trans kids have higher rates of deporession and suicide risk.

LGBTQ+ youth over 3 times more likely to attempt suicide due to trauma

The newest report by the Trevor Project links high levels of trauma to an increased risk of suicide among LGBTQ youth by over three times.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Transgender youth on puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones have lower rates of depression and suicidal thoughts, a new study finds

A wealth of evidence supports the protective mental health effects of gender-affirming care, despite ongoing legislation that asserts otherwise.

theconversation.com

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/28/health/transgender-suicide-risk/index.html

Suicide Risk Reduces 73% in Transgender, Nonbinary Youths with Gender-Affirming Care

Transgender and nonbinary youths, a population with an exceptional risk of suicide and poor mental health outcomes, were found to have 60% lower odds of depression after receiving gender-affirming intervention.

www.hcplive.com

Transgender teens have high rates of depression, suicidal thoughts

Two-thirds of transgender teens have depression, and many also have suicidal thoughts and self-injuring behavior, according to research being presented Sunday at ENDO 2020, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting in San Francisco, Calif.

www.endocrine.org

More than 50% of trans and non-binary youth in US considered suicide this year, survey says

The alarmingly high rates of depression, anxiety and suicide attempts are spread across liberal and conservative regions

www.theguardian.com

Suicidality Among Transgender Youth: Elucidating the Role of Interpersonal Risk Factors - PubMed

Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth. Using minority stress theory and the interpersonal theory of suicide, this study aims to better understand suicide risk among...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Mental health and suicide risk in trans and gender-diverse young people

Trans and gender-diverse young people have elevated rates of psychological distress, mental ill-health, and suicide risk when compared with their cisgender counterparts.

www.orygen.org.au

Once again I must mention those studies have all been found to be extremely poor and faulty. The British, the Finns, French and Norwegians and also those in America have looked at those studies and found them full of unscientific methodology and unreliable in their conclusions. That's exactly why those countries have moved away from the previous treatment methods they used. You've been duped by transactivist unscientific methodology.

Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement

More children and adolescents are identifying as transgender and are being offered medical treatment, especially in the US—but some providers and European authorities are urging caution because of a lack of strong evidence. Jennifer Block reports Last October the American Academy of Pediatrics...

www.bmj.com

Finland Takes Another Look at Youth Gender Medicine

You should take a look at Genspect and SEGM to get a better view of what's gone on. The countries have moved far away from previous methods due to the lack of quality in the studies. While the US and Canada go on full steam ahead in places and are behind the times in recognizing the deep faults and the poorest qualities of the studies.

 

[rjs330]

And he's part of a team of guys working under someone else's authority.

And he has authority to work his team. Authority absolutely grows as does power the higher you go. A police chief has the highest authority on his department. But each level of leadership has its own, Captains, Lieutenants and Sergeants all are leaders albeit of greater or smaller groups. I'm guessing you have never studied leadership or been to any leadership schools or training. John Maxwell has one of the largest leadership organizations in the world. His organization trains leaders all over the world. All you have to do is read his books and you will get a real picture of who and what leaders are. He's sold over 24 million books in 50 languages. I would say he's the expert on this.

And he's not the only leadership trainer out there. They will all tell you a leader is not just the top guy. He might be the head leader with his name on the door but he's not the only leader. He can't be if the organization is going to be successful in the long run.

 

[rjs330]

Like...don't steal?

I've already addressed that. Your not paying attention.