When two worldviews collide.

[rjs330]

Generally speaking, a majority of mothers would prefer to work part time. A minority either side of that would prefer either full time work or not to work.

Then work part time. There are tons of part time jobs out there.

 

[rjs330]

But it's perfectly fine to expect the women to make all the sacrifices!

Because they CHOOSE to! What you think all these men are ordering women around and telling them they have to quit their jobs and stay home or else? The poor woman has no way in the matter?

 

[rjs330]

It's true that both spouses being "mummy tracked" can happen. But that's largely because of unsupportive workplace cultures, not because creative solutions aren't possible.

While it's true that SOME jobs could be altered to fit the person's schedule, but Most jobs cannot. It's very obvious that you don't have a grasp on reality of the business market. COVID taught us that there definitely are jobs that could be moved to home. It also taught us that there are an awful lot of jobs that can't. You either go out of business or do t have a job.

 

[ralliann]

Because they CHOOSE to! What you think all these men are ordering women around and telling them they have to quit their jobs and stay home or else? The poor woman has no way in the matter?

All these over the top descriptive terms, for preferences and choices.

 

[ralliann]

While it's true that SOME jobs could be altered to fit the person's schedule, but Most jobs cannot. It's very obvious that you don't have a grasp on reality of the business market. COVID taught us that there definitely are jobs that could be moved to home. It also taught us that there are an awful lot of jobs that can't. You either go out of business or do t have a job.

Yep, my daughter finally has a job she works from home. She is the main bread winner btween her and her husband in the family. She has worked towards this work for several years because as a mom SHE WANTED to be home.

 

[timothyu]

It's kind of like retirement. As soon as you achieve it you want to wander off to find something else to do.

 

[Paidiske]

Except gender ID isn't a physical handicap which the person has no control over. Feeling different is not physical disability. Are you equating someone that is paralyzed with gender identification?

I'm equating the willingness to support everybody's needs.

Then work part time. There are tons of part time jobs out there.

Not nearly enough, and there is enormous cultural resistance in many workplaces.

Because they CHOOSE to! What you think all these men are ordering women around and telling them they have to quit their jobs and stay home or else? The poor woman has no way in the matter?

There are many, many women who end up in situations they wouldn't choose, due to a combination of factors, in which the unwillingness of their spouse to compromise is absolutely a large one.

While it's true that SOME jobs could be altered to fit the person's schedule, but Most jobs cannot. It's very obvious that you don't have a grasp on reality of the business market. COVID taught us that there definitely are jobs that could be moved to home. It also taught us that there are an awful lot of jobs that can't. You either go out of business or do t have a job.

Working from home is a separate issue to working part time. Most jobs can be job-shared, especially today when the communications and task tracking software (for example) has never been better.

Don't misunderstand me; there are many benefits to working from home. Many people, men and women, prefer it. What I'm arguing against is the idea that patterns of disadvantage for women in employment (such as higher rates of underemployment) are necessary.

 

[ralliann]

I'm equating the willingness to support everybody's needs.

No, you are not. You have been very open about punishment of those that do not comply to their demands. You are also doing that with bathrooms the whole nine yards. As a "RELIGIOUS PERSON it is also a form of supporting the outcome that your religion be the only true legal one.

 

[rjs330]

My point is that it has typically been men who lead society into social reorientations of "worldview" that end up affecting everyone ... including the women and the children.

I would argue that men have been the guiding factors in the past based upon patriarchy. But that doesn't mean it would have been way better under women. I think that's a misnomer. When you look at the bible you see how manipulative women were. I honestly don't think the world would be in any better place if women had been in charge. There were very good men who protected people from very bad ones. And it's still that way today. Imperfect men of course.

Today this gender issue is very much fed by women. The majority of teachers are women who teach CRT and gender issues. That's not to say men are not part of it. After all it was a sick twisted perverted pedophile that came up with the idea in the first place. Today you often see mothers driving this in the kids.

So I'm not convinced in the least that men are worse, they just traditionally had more power

literally, (which I don't), we can also imply from our reading of Genesis 3 that Adam could have interceded and prevented the Fall ... Eve was merely deceived. Adam wasn't. People like Hugh Hefner were, as is so often the case these days, an educated sinner acting out from his own trauma. He gets money flowing .............. and entices women who want (or desparetely need) money.

MONEY (or Mammon, as Jesus seems to have thought of it) is the main problem, and it's people like King Solomon who have the position, power, influence and MONEY who contrive the systems into which women fall.

So women are willing to sell themselves for money? Are you trying to tell me that all those girls who were bunnies and models were all desperate women or greedy ones? Remember eve was deceived by greed and lust and pride. Eve was in need of nothing. She has everything and wanted more.

No she was not some innocent dupe. Neither are women today. That's kind of a sexist thought.

 

[rjs330]

I'm equating the willingness to support everybody's needs.

We are not talking about needs. We are talking about feelings. You think everyone's feelings ought to be supported by society no matter the cost or change that it requires?

Not nearly enough, and there is enormous cultural resistance in many workplaces.

How many are enough? How do you go about forcing enough?

There are many, many women who end up in situations they wouldn't choose, due to a combination of factors, in which the unwillingness of their spouse to compromise is absolutely a large one.

Oh? How large?

Working from home is a separate issue to working part time. Most jobs can be job-shared, especially today when the communications and task tracking software (for example) has never been better.

No they can't be. There are far too many factors that don't allow for that.

What I'm arguing against is the idea that patterns of disadvantage for women in employment (such as higher rates of underemployment) are necessary.

I don't think under employment is necessary either. But if there are any disadvantages many of them are chosen by the women themselves. By the jobs they seek, and by the decisions they make.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would argue that men have been the guiding factors in the past based upon patriarchy. But that doesn't mean it would have been way better under women. I think that's a misnomer. When you look at the bible you see how manipulative women were. I honestly don't think the world would be in any better place if women had been in charge. There were very good men who protected people from very bad ones. And it's still that way today. Imperfect men of course.

Today this gender issue is very much fed by women. The majority of teachers are women who teach CRT and gender issues. That's not to say men are not part of it. After all it was a sick twisted perverted pedophile that came up with the idea in the first place. Today you often see mothers driving this in the kids.

So I'm not convinced in the least that men are worse, they just traditionally had more power

So women are willing to sell themselves for money? Are you trying to tell me that all those girls who were bunnies and models were all desperate women or greedy ones? Remember eve was deceived by greed and lust and pride. Eve was in need of nothing. She has everything and wanted more.

No she was not some innocent dupe. Neither are women today. That's kind of a sexist thought.

There's so much in the way of incompleteness in your thoughts here. There's a hundred ways in which I could begin to dismantle your views.

Where shall I start?

I've about had my fill of so-called "spirit filled" fellow Christians who think they're going to best me with their 2 cent thick sets of reasonings.

 

[Paidiske]

You have been very open about punishment of those that do not comply to their demands.

I have no desire to punish everyone, but I acknowledge that, for example, workplaces need policies to prevent bullying and harassment.

As a "RELIGIOUS PERSON it is also a form of supporting the outcome that your religion be the only true legal one.

Not in the slightest.

We are talking about feelings.

That's rather dismissive and belittling of a much bigger set of issues.

You think everyone's feelings ought to be supported by society no matter the cost or change that it requires?

I think there's a conversation to be had about what's possible, and what's beneficial.

How do you go about forcing enough?

Why are we suddenly talking about "force"?

No they can't be. There are far too many factors that don't allow for that.

Such as?

But if there are any disadvantages many of them are chosen by the women themselves.

Many women do have to choose from a range of disadvantageouos options. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to make sure there are actually better options on offer.

 

[rjs330]

There's so much in the way of incompleteness in your thoughts here. There's a hundred ways in which I could begin to dismantle your views.

Where shall I start?

I've about had my fill of so-called "spirit filled" fellow Christians who think they're going to best me with their 2 cent thick sets of reasonings.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[rjs330]

That's rather dismissive and belittling of a much bigger set of issues.

No it's not because feelings is what it's all about.

I think there's a conversation to be had about what's possible, and what's beneficial.

Beneficial to whom?

Why are we suddenly talking about "force"?

B cause that's what it would take.

Such as?

Not enough workers who want to do that.

Many women do have to choose from a range of disadvantageouos options. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to make sure there are actually better options on offer.

Don't twist what I'm saying. It may be disadvantageous for them financially to not work and raise a child but they don't find it disadvantageous for the child. They prefer to do that because it's better.

 

[Paidiske]

Beneficial to whom?

All of us, as a community.

B cause that's what it would take.

People won't seek to do the right thing by others without force?

Not enough workers who want to do that.

From what I can find online, there are more people who want to job share, but employers aren't open to it.

Don't twist what I'm saying.

I'm providing context.

It may be disadvantageous for them financially to not work and raise a child but they don't find it disadvantageous for the child. They prefer to do that because it's better.

Your whole argument rests on a false dichotomoy between working and raising a child. It is very possible to both work and raise a child well. Until you get that, the rest of this conversation is going to rest on false premises.

 

[stevevw]

Seems to me that equal is equal.

Equal as in outcome or opportunity. Equal as in equal for every single aspect of society. I don't think there is such a thing. In fact the more egalitarian a society is the more differences come out between people.

The point, though, is that the systems we inhabit are formative, and so change has to be about more than individuals.

The question then is how that change happens, what that change is and whether its justified. If there are individuals who have not yet been changed in their beliefs then changing the system will more or less be forcing these people perhaps the majority into living within a system they don't believe or agree with. That sound awefully similar to totalitarianism.

That is why scrutinizing the assumptions and beliefs behind beliefs and ideologies and testing them in the light of day is important. If we start with the wrong assumption about people and how society should be ordered then all measures to correct this will be skewed and only make matters worse. That is why people are scrutinizing the current ideologies behinde laws and policies because they disagree and think they are not baseed on reality, what is actually going on.

So men don't agree that there's a set of behaviours, attitudes and ideologies about masculinity which are harmful to men, and to society? Commonly identified aspects of toxic masculinity are social dominance, misogyny, homophobia, normalisation of violence and emotional repression. Do these things not happen, or are they not problems? Because from where I'm sitting they do happen, and are problems.

They happen but they have nothing to edo with mascullinity. That is the problem with ideologies like Feminism, Marxism or theories like CRT. They have a one sided view of the world where all deifferences and problems trace back to that lens. If theres a difference in pay its because of a male Patriarachy, if theres DV its because men are violent, if theres a high proportion of blacks in jail its because of racism ect ect. But when we look at all the factors there are many contributing reasons which ideologues ignore.

By seeing the world this way it actually magnifies race and gender because everything is race and gender. Now its a multitude of identities that are being magnified rather than eliminated as far as not being an issue. have you noticed now we are always talking about identities. Now a white male is an identity and quickly becoming an oppressed one due to the attention on whiteness and the discourse in pointing out how bad and negative it is. This ideology actually creates what it is trying to eliminate and people just don't see it just like they say white don't see blacks.

You're not even giving a true account of the concept of toxic masculinity, so no, it's not what you've done, certainly in this thread.

Its like the "true' account of Woke, Women, Biological Sex, Gender, Racism. It all has a true meaning that only one side has and the other is false knowledge. Theory is one thing but practice is another. The ideal doesn't always pan out in reality. What it says on paper is different to the narrative in the streets, in the media, what is said by the activists and idologues out there in the worled.

That is the message that males recieve. So perhaps people are doing to males what they claim whites and males are doing to minorities erasing them, erasing their experiences. See how this becomes a game of who is the biggest victim. It just divides people and society by highlighting identity groups and attributing good and bad aspects to them based on a percieved idea of oppression and the oppressed rather than seeing the whole picture which includes many factors.

Are you writing a thesis, a book, a journal article? What form is your research taking, and where will it be submitted for review and publication?

Why do I have to publish or otherwise its I cannot comment. I am saying I have studied this area more than other areas like someone may be into gaming and be able to tell you a lot and probably beat most at gaming. Or how a mechanic knows about cars compared to a backyard mechanic. If you put your head into the subject and spend a lot of time your bound to increase your knowledge. But I also work in the industry so its in my interest for personal development and performance.

I think we'll skip the conspiracy theories, unless you want the thread moved to that section.

So wait a minute. I just said "do you want some evdience" how is that a conspiracy. Conspiracy theories usually lack evdience.

I'll just note that you didn't answer my question.

I thought I did, Yes minorites experiences are not taken seriously enough and we should listen and understand how one culture (dominant culture) can overlook them. That is one side but not the only side. The other side is the experiences of the deominant culture at the time. They are not representative of past cultural beliefs and ideas. Its wrong to assume that everyone is racist by connection to the past.

Most people are struggling with their own injustices today from the same system or different systems at work. Money seems to be the main one. But don't assume a worled that is just black and white, male or female, gay or heterosxual as that in itself is racist, sexist and homophobic and divides people.

Take my example of not speaking the dominant language. Let's say - for example - someone did something unintentionally and got in trouble with the law. Perhaps they made a mistake with their taxes, or something like that. "The system" they're going to encounter is going to be oppressive to them if, for example, they're sent difficult paperwork that they can't understand, and there's no available help in their own language, or with a translator. It's not intentionally oppressive - nobody set out to deliberately make that person's life miserable - but it's unconsciously oppressive because they're at the mercy of a system they can't navigate or understand. So that's where the person fluent in the language has a privilege; being able to understand and respond to communications that someone else can't.

And it's important to recognise that difference, so that we can make accommodations, either with simpler communications, or a translation service or whatever else might work in that particular setting. Because if we value each person and their potential contribution, we should value it enough to support the wellbeing of people who don't have every privilege.

Yes and no one is dentying that and in fact I would say out of all nations Western ones are at the forefront in accommodating that. For example the list of other languages forms come in has grown and most have contacts for interpreters. We have English classes all over the place. We use universal symbols ect.

But the system is not oppressive in this regard. Coming to another culture is hard, its just as hard for westerners going to China or Africa in many regards. To a large degree this is just natural when a person uproots into a forigne land. But what ideologues do is they don't see that side but only oppression where all deifficulties and deifferences are attributed to oppression.

DEI and equal opportunity are not mutually exclusive.

There are some fundemental differences. For example part of DEI policy is affirmative action and policies that give minorities advantages over the rest of society to help and ensure they end up with a similar outcome say graduating Uni or getting a job. That is different to equal opportunity which is based on merit.

A good example of DEI in schools is how competition is taken out of sports and even education so that everyone is reduced to the same. There are no winners as everyone is a winner. This affects boys as they are naturally competitive and part of development is to test boundaries and strive. So physical activity is reduced and even seen as trouble (rough and disorderly).

Yes, again, that brings us back around to intersectionality...

The point is when you add all the intersecting factors which include natural differences such as biology, genetics and natural talent, individual differences such hard work, effort, personalities such as temperament introvert, extrovert, neurotic, agressive, personal experiences such as upbringing, environmental, geography, family and upbringing and others the race, gender and sex is dispelled in its importance as influncing forces for differences.

When we do add all these factors in suddenly we have a raft of influences and reasons to explain differences and makes it more real as to what is actually happening because we get a truer picture of not only racial influences. The question is why do ideologues highligh certain factors like race, gender and over all others to make their case.

 

[stevevw]

But here's a question: when a minority group has significant and persistent worse experiences and outcomes (as, for example, we see with first nations folk in Australia), should we not address the reasons for that which are about oppression, or marginalisation, of that group?

Yes of course we all acknowledge that Indigenous peopples have been treated badely but the question is how should remedy this and this will depend on the assumption and belief about how Indigenous peoples end up in those situations. Is all of it the white mans doing or is some the result of other factors like the natural evolution of humans and societies. Is some because people feel we owe them for past wrongs or are Indigenous peoples contributing to their own demise to some extent.

We should not assume everything is about oppression or denial of equality. The 'Voice' referendum is a goode example. The 'Yes' side is calling those who are voting 'No' racist for simply just not agreeing with whatevery they say. The fact is there is little detail about what it will entail so people want to know more before they vote.

But the fact that the 'Yes" vote side is calling any disagreement racism is exactly the issue people are concerned about. Its has all the hallmarks of ideology, a narrow view of the world that sees everything even thinking as race and oppression. Very similar to the SSM vote and whats happening in academia and politics with PC and cancel culture.

That's going to depend on the exact situation. I gave an example above of making sure someone who doesn't speak the language has access to an interpreter, if need be.

Yes and I think we do a pretty good job at it. Not perfect and we can always improve things. But people should not make out that theres this big evil oppressive system. Why do you think all the immigrants of the world want to come to the west. Because their nations denied them rights and the west at least does a pretty good job in upholding them. We should also be concerned that we have our own citizens suffering as well.

Immigation, refugees, population growth and the resources to sustain this as well as safety/security issues is a big world problem. Shoul we have open boarders or have limits. If we are not able to intergrate current levels then why take more. It seems some want to keep brings people in without any plan in how to intergrate them. Its a big mess and will only get worse. Maybe multiculturalism doesn't work, has anyone considered that.

How about we take seriously investing in each person's potential.

I remeber seeing those movies where immigrants came to the US the land of opportunity and many made it though it was hard. It seems now we owe people a living. Even our own kids seem to expect a lot for little. I think the government should create the enviornment where people can find their own potential.

I don't think anyone should be investing in one individual more than another that seems unfair. Thats not to say that the State should have minimums of standard for living includinmg additional supports for minorities as this can help society overall. But they can only go so far otherwise they become too involved and controlling. Maybe thats a fault of the system and no matter how its setup its going to fail. Some say democracy and freedom is eating itself.

No, it isn't. Intersectionality might seek to take into account multiple axes of disadvantage, but that doesn't mean it denies other influences in play.

Then why is race and gender so often mentioned maybe 10 or 20 times over all other factors. In fact it absolutly dominates politics, academia and now social media and society. This is a good example of the difference between theory and praxis. People claim the theory but in practice, out in the real world what is actually being lived out is something difference. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. It doesn't matter what people say its how its actually applied that counts.

The problem I have with claims that CRT "puts social significance back into racial categories" is that it's blind to the fact that racial categories never lost their social significance. Being honest about that isn't inflaming racism, it's just naming what's there. Of course that might be uncomfortable for some people who would rather be able to ignore that reality.

I have no problem with being open to name hidden biases and thinking behind things. Its a principle of good psychology and social world. Especially working within the industry which represents the disadvantaged as you are the middle person who needs to understand and advocate for the disadvantaged with the system/s.

But CRT is different. Like Trans ideology or Queer theory, Critical Social Justice and the other Critical theories they are not science theories in the true sense but rather subjective. They are Postmodernist theories and the basic ideas of Postmodernism is that there is no objective reality, fixeed nature or Grand Truths and everything is self referential and subjective/relative.

So theres no way of checking it. We have to believe the stories and narratives as being real and fact like science fact even trumping science. We know that in the past this same thinking led us gradually to unreal and dangerous situations where freeedoms were lost nations fooled. That in itself without going into any further detail is enough to be skeptical and concerned. have you actually checked the actual literature on this and how it underpins policy in academia, education, law ect.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Let me help you out then.

1) Very likely, historically speaking, there was no Adam or Eve.

2) Your interpretation about "Eve" and her apparent attitude is contrived and misplaced.

3) And yes, men do lead the world in sin; women aren't that powerful politically and never have been (despite what the very few examples in the Bible say which you think you can bring up as "evidence")

...................... does this help in your understanding about "what" I'm talking about?

If this doesn't help, I have several hundred sources that I WILL bring to the fore to help you out.

 

[ralliann]

I have no desire to punish everyone, but I acknowledge that, for example, workplaces need policies to prevent bullying and harassment.

That is what I said. You support to our take away livelihood , our ability to live

Not in the slightest.

Because we do not agree with your religious ideology.

 

[rjs330]

Let me help you out then.

1) Very likely, historically speaking, there was no Adam or Eve.

2) Your interpretation about "Eve" and her apparent attitude is contrived and misplaced.

3) And yes, men do lead the world in sin; women aren't that powerful politically and never have been (despite what the very few examples in the Bible say which you think you can bring up as "evidence")

...................... does this help in your understanding about "what" I'm talking about?

If this doesn't help, I have several hundred sources that I WILL bring to the fore to help you out.

It's irrelevant whether or not you think they were real or not.

I don't believe my interpretation of Eves temptation is at all contrived. She was deceived, however she was deciev d based upon what looked good to her. What was the temptation again?

The serpent said to the woman, “It is not true that you will surely die; because God knows that on the day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it had a pleasing appearance and that the tree was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her; and he ate.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 3:4, Genesis 3:5, Genesis 3:6 - Complete Jewish Bible

You will be like God. You will not die. Eve saw it was good for food. It looked good to eat, she desired it to eat. She also wanted it to be like God. A desire for power of knowledge and wisdom.

As to your third point I already acknowledged that men have been in control politically since the beginning of time. But just cause they were in control doesn't mean they are worse than women. It just means they were in control. Had women been in control then their sins and desire would have been out front. Just look at the women today who have political power. I won't go naming them but you get the point. Give women the power men had and things wouldn't be any better. They might be different, but not better.

Now if course there is no way to prove that since they weren't. And there is no way to prove that they would have been any better cause they weren't. But women are not any less sinful than men. Their sins just might look different. So don't think your several hundred sources will make any difference because they won't refute anything I said. Because I fully acknowledge that men have been in control. I'm saying if women had been it wouldn't have been better, just different b cause women are just as bad a sinner as men it's just different sin.