When two worldviews collide.

[Robban]

At the time when women knew their place in the workplace. Brush up your Pittman and it's the typing pool for you, my girl. Please wear a dress and not too much makeup, thanks. And I take my tea black, no sugar.

I think some people in this thread see it as The Good Old Days.

View attachment 333419

As far as U.S. go I think of the the "good old days" as, Glen Miller, Benny Goodman

and a few others, cannot help it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ten commandments? Anything in the bible that says 'thou shalt' or 'thou shalt not'?

I was thinking more along the lines of bits and pieces from the New Testament rather than the Old one.

Like: "Love your enemies." We all know the non-Christian Romans did that very well.

 

[Bradskii]

I was thinking more along the lines of bits and pieces from the New Testament rather than the Old one.

Like: "Love your enemies." We all know the non-Christian Romans did that very well.

That's not a moral implication. As a stand alone statement, it's a nonsensical suggestion. If you want to discuss what it actually means regarding how we treat people who don't treat us well, then go for it. But you'll end up with something very much like the Golden Rule. Which as we both know is a moral position that predates Christianity and is common in all religions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Look, if you want to argue that men are, on average, physically stronger than women, that's true enough (although no reason to pigeonhole anyone). But if you want to argue that men are better leaders, (where leadership is the effective use of a mix of skills, none of them particularly about physicality) then you'd better come with evidence.

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

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

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

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

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's not a moral implication. As a stand alone statement, it's a nonsensical suggestion. If you want to discuss what it actually means regarding how we treat people who don't treat us well, then go for it. But you'll end up with something very much like the Golden Rule. Which as we both know is a moral position that predates Christianity and is common in all religions.

Don't change goal posts on me now, Bradskii. Yes, there is a moral implication. If Christians have moral set [A, D, J, M, L, T & Z], but non-Christians have, say, moral set [A, D, E, G, L, & T], we aren't precisely dealing with identical moral elements by which to then say "Ohhhh, it was all the same......!!!!" So, being that with my inserted question we've departed from the topic of Kylie's assertion over into the question I posed instead, "what specifically IS Chrisian morality," I kind of expect this transition to be recognized without the decent into my being gaslighted.

I still have yet to see my question answered. You haven't done so. Thus far, all I'm getting from Kylie and you is a kind of equivocation or hand-waving, which really shouldn't be the case since there were some social ideas that Christianity did offer in contradistinction to its cultural Roman host. If you and her aren't aware of what those differences are, I posted a list of 3 books in my response to Kylie above----you might want to read one of them. I'd especially consider the Orlando Patterson book.

 

[Bradskii]

I still have yet to see my question answered. You haven't done so.

I gave you the answer. Thou shalt, thou shalt not, ten commandments etc. Anything, in fact, that is biblical. Take any one as an example of what Christianity might claim as specifically Christian morality. And you did: Love thy enemy. But as I said, that, as a stand alone moral position, is one I would readily dismiss as being a nonsensical one. That is, if it means that we are to love the guy that's raping your daughter or love the men who are burning down your house and killing your family. But it goes a little deeper than that trite interpretation.

It actually means that we should empathise with those who would do us harm and perhaps give them an example of how to live in the hope that they will reciprocate. Which is not just a Christian position.

And what is it with this use of the term 'gaslighting'? It's the third time this a.m. that it's been used against me when there has been zero connection with what the term actually means.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I gave you the answer. Thou shalt, thou shalt not, ten commandments etc. Anything, in fact, that is biblical.

Actually, Old Testament references aren't enough where "Christianity" is concerned.

Take any one as an example of what Christianity might claim as specifically Christian morality. And you did: Love thy enemy. But as I said, that, as a stand alone moral position, is one I would readily dismiss as being a nonsensical one. That is, if it means that we are to love the guy that's raping your daughter or love the men who are burning down your house and killing your family. But it goes a little deeper than that trite interpretation.

It actually means that we should empathise with those who would do us harm and perhaps give them an example of how to live in the hope that they will reciprocate. Which is not just a Christian position.

Oh, so. It's non-sensical, but then you proceed to rationalize your own interpretation of it and ........... viola! It suddenly becomes "sensical."

Please note: When I said "Love thy enemy," no where did I imply the crass illustration that you did. I was actually thinking more about what Jesus said about it rather than what you're saying about it.

And what is it with this use of the term 'gaslighting'? It's the third time this a.m. that it's been used against me when there has been zero connection with what the term actually means.

I think you know what it means; you're a bright guy, brighter than most and I know you have the ability to easily look it up. Go look it up.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Don't change goal posts on me now, Bradskii. Yes, there is a moral implication. If Christians have moral set [A, D, J, M, L, T & Z], but non-Christians have, say, moral set [A, D, E, G, L, & T], we aren't precisely dealing with identical moral elements by which to then say "Ohhhh, it was all the same......!!!!" So, being that with my inserted question we've departed from the topic of Kylie's assertion over into the question I posed instead, "what specifically IS Chrisian morality," I kind of expect this transition to be recognized without the decent into my being gaslighted.

I still have yet to see my question answered. You haven't done so. Thus far, all I'm getting from Kylie and you is a kind of equivocation or hand-waving, which really shouldn't be the case since there were some social ideas that Christianity did offer in contradistinction to its cultural Roman host. If you and her aren't aware of what those differences are, I posted a list of 3 books in my response to Kylie above----you might want to read one of them. I'd especially consider the Orlando Patterson book.

If they are looking for specific examples, I think you can probably take the notion of the self sacrifice of one's own life for the greater populous or social group as the greatest act of good one can commit as a specific if not unique example of "Christian morality"....


That is, if I were simply going off the top of head without reading any of your references.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think you know what it means; you're a bright guy, brighter than most and I know you have the ability to easily look it up. Go look it up.

Just a mild FYI, some posters here ask for evidence they have absolutely no intention of examining nor does it have any bearing on their position.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually, Old Testament references aren't enough where "Christianity" is concerned.

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

Oh, so. It's non-sensical, but then you proceed to rationalize your own interpretation of it and ........... viola! It suddenly becomes "sensical."
Please note: When I said "Love thy enemy," no where did I imply the crass illustration that you did. I was actually thinking more about what Jesus said about it rather than what you're saying about it.

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

I think you know what it means; you're a bright guy, brighter than most and I know you have the ability to easily look it up. Go look it up.

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

 

[Paidiske]

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

Why would we assume that, though?

I mean, take my church as an example. We've had women bishops since 2008 in Australia. That there are still more men than women bishops doesn't mean the men are better, it means women haven't even been allowed to demonstrate that competency until incredibly recently.

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

Challenging the claim that "men are better" doesn't entail claiming that women are better. I have this apparently odd notion that the sexes are pretty much equally good (or equally bad, depending on your optimism level) at the leadership thing.

Rather, I said if someone wanted to claim men were better, they'd better bring evidence. Because on the face of it, there's no reason to think men are better at deploying the complex mix of skills and competencies that add up to "leadership" than women are.

 

[rjs330]

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

You member. It was patriarchy and still is. Men not allowing women to do it. Laws, rules, regulations all against it. I do understand the patriarchy argument in that it wasn't all that long ago when women could be beaten legally, couldn't vote, couldn't own property, couldn't divorce etc. So, I don't ignore all that. That being said, in most modern societies today that no longer exists. Women have had a while to build their skills and develope their abilities. Yet men are still primarily the leaders.

 

[rjs330]

Look, if you want to argue that men are, on average, physically stronger than women, that's true enough (although no reason to pigeonhole anyone). But if you want to argue that men are better leaders, (where leadership is the effective use of a mix of skills, none of them particularly about physicality) then you'd better come with evidence.

You really want me to name names? Seems like a waste of time.

 

[Paidiske]

You really want me to name names? Seems like a waste of time.

Names? No. The claim was not made that a particular individual man was a better leader than a particular individual woman, but that men were better leaders than women.

I would suggest that if you wanted to make that argument in a convincing way, you would need to:
- Identify what traits and skills go into the package of "leadership"
- Present compelling evidence that those traits and skills differ significantly by gender (and that those differences are innate rather than socially and culturally conditioned) such that men consistently outshine women
- Present compelling evidence that those traits and skills, should they differ significantly innately by gender, are actually employed in real life so as to result in more effective leadership.

I have every confidence that there is no evidence to support such a line of argument, but it might do you good to go and look at what the evidence does say.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You member. It was patriarchy and still is. Men not allowing women to do it. Laws, rules, regulations all against it. I do understand the patriarchy argument in that it wasn't all that long ago when women could be beaten legally, couldn't vote, couldn't own property, couldn't divorce etc.

Doesn't matter. We're talking about leadership. If you were an effective leader you out competed an ineffective one. It's not a position you can acquire by virtue of your sex. It was a position denied to nearly all women? Of course....it's also denied to nearly all men.

It's a position that is all but guaranteed to eventually be acquired by merit. Ineffective leaders cannot outcompete effective ones. Sure....Ineffective leaders could gain the position by inheritance....but they cannot keep it that way.

And we cannot dismiss the fact that female leaders existed long before feminism or equal rights....but their examples are few and legacies short or spotty. For every Joan of Arc there's a dozen Julius Ceasars. For every Queen Elizabeth the 1st theirs a dozen Charlemagnes.

It's the one position that meritocracy is all but assured to assert itself despite all attempts otherwise.

So, I don't ignore all that. That being said, in most modern societies today that no longer exists. Women have had a while to build their skills and develope their abilities. Yet men are still primarily the leaders.

The proposition that women are better leaders is basically insulting. It's a scenario that requires men to be so ignorant and stupid that they would rather follow an ineffective, foolish, or incompetent man....basically for all of history....instead of a competent, wise, or effective female....merely because she's a female. This isn't the case....and there's no real argument that it ever was.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why would we assume that, though?

Because despite whatever you may say about other positions of authority....leaders at the highest levels are almost certainly a meritocracy. Even in dynastic cycles of kingdoms where men inherited positions of leadership only lasted as long as the effectiveness of their leaders. It's a position where merit inherently asserts itself over time.

I mean, take my church as an example. We've had women bishops since 2008 in Australia.

Uh huh.

That there are still more men than women bishops doesn't mean the men are better, it means women haven't even been allowed to demonstrate that competency until incredibly recently.

It doesn't work that way. The number of men denied leadership is nearly exactly the same as women denied leadership when we consider all possible candidates.

Challenging the claim that "men are better" doesn't entail claiming that women are better.

That's exactly what it entails. It's implicit in the word "better". We are not equals in reality....regardless of whether we compare men to men, men to women, or women to women. No matter how the comparison is made, one candidate will be better than the other.

I have this apparently odd notion that the sexes are pretty much equally good (or equally bad, depending on your optimism level) at the leadership thing.

Yeah...it's the delusion of equality. We aren't equals. I'll easily, gladly, and without an ounce of insincerity concede that you're my superior in some ways. It's nigh impossible to conceive I'd be better than you in every way. Likewise, it would be foolish of you to be unable to concede the same. Surely I'm superior to you in some ways. So it is for everyone, so it always has been.

We are not equals.

Rather, I said if someone wanted to claim men were better, they'd better bring evidence.

The evidence is the numerical preponderance of men in leadership positions. Imagine any situation where a group of people contending for leadership includes both men and women. They can only get to such a position through those skills which enable them to outcompete or outperform their competitors. Even in the leaders we might consider terrible, for example. There's many a communist who imagines the way history would have changed had Trotsky gained control of the leadership position over Stalin. You know why he didn't? He wasn't as effective a leader. He failed to understand the circumstances....the power vacuum left when Lenin died. He failed to secure the necessary alliances to secure leadership. He failed to act boldly and decisively enough to outmanuver Stalin. Stalin's effectiveness was precisely in his ability to read the situation more accurately and conceal both his intelligence and willingness to act decisively and ruthlessly to secure leadership. He may not have had the intellectual depth of Trotsky to elaborate upon communist theory....but that was not the important trait in leadership needed in a power vacuum. Stalin was seen by his peers as a somewhat dim, if ruthless ally. It wasn't until too late that those who allied with him learned how ambitious and intelligent he actually was. They thought to use him to secure their position as leader....and ended up being his tool to secure his leadership position. Trotsky was only smart enough to recognize it in time to flee what was coming....and even in Mexico, he couldn't flee far enough.

There's no fixed set of traits for leadership. They're more often determined by circumstance. Some are great by their ability to compromise
....others by their lack of compromise. If any commonality exists....it's merely the ability to recognize and exploit opportunities.

Because on the face of it, there's no reason to think men are better at deploying the complex mix of skills and competencies that add up to "leadership" than women are.

I disagree. See above. There are examples of great female leaders in history. They simply aren't as common.

 

[rjs330]

Doesn't matter. We're talking about leadership. If you were an effective leader you out competed an ineffective one. It's not a position you can acquire by virtue of your sex. It was a position denied to nearly all women? Of course....it's also denied to nearly all men.

It's a position that is all but guaranteed to eventually be acquired by merit. Ineffective leaders cannot outcompete effective ones. Sure....Ineffective leaders could gain the position by inheritance....but they cannot keep it that way.

And we cannot dismiss the fact that female leaders existed long before feminism or equal rights....but their examples are few and legacies short or spotty. For every Joan of Arc there's a dozen Julius Ceasars. For every Queen Elizabeth the 1st theirs a dozen Charlemagnes.

It's the one position that meritocracy is all but assured to assert itself despite all attempts otherwise.




The proposition that women are better leaders is basically insulting. It's a scenario that requires men to be so ignorant and stupid that they would rather follow an ineffective, foolish, or incompetent man....basically for all of history....instead of a competent, wise, or effective female....merely because she's a female. This isn't the case....and there's no real argument that it ever was.

I think there are some that think so. I was discussing that in another thread with someone else who thought women would have made better leaders and the world wouldn't be such a mess if they had been through the eons.

I think Pads argument isn't that woman are better, but they are equal. And arguing against men being the better leaders. At least that's my take.

 

[Paidiske]

Because despite whatever you may say about other positions of authority....leaders at the highest levels are almost certainly a meritocracy.

I would think a quick glance at leaders at the highest level might be enough to call that assertion into question. Gender aside, there are an awful lot of stupid, ignorant, incompetent and uninspiring people who somehow manage to be given leadership responsibility.

It doesn't work that way. The number of men denied leadership is nearly exactly the same as women denied leadership when we consider all possible candidates.

No, it isn't. Given my example, before we even start, the pool of potential women who might become bishops is half the size of the pool of men. Because, again, we're starting from a very long way behind.

That's exactly what it entails.

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

No matter how the comparison is made, one candidate will be better than the other.

But we are not speaking of individuals, here.

I'll easily, gladly, and without an ounce of insincerity concede that you're my superior in some ways. It's nigh impossible to conceive I'd be better than you in every way. Likewise, it would be foolish of you to be unable to concede the same. Surely I'm superior to you in some ways. So it is for everyone, so it always has been.

But the argument here is not about which of you or me, individually, is better at this or that (or the better leader). It's about whether men, taken as a group, are better leaders than women, taken as a group.

The evidence is the numerical preponderance of men in leadership positions.

There are, however, alternative possible explanations for that preponderance. So we need to go further than that to test the hypothesis that this is due to ability levels innate in the sexes.

There's no fixed set of traits for leadership. They're more often determined by circumstance.

While it's true that different styles of leadership are needed in different situations (the classic peacetime CEO/wartime CEO distinction being a clear example), there are traits which are well recognised as necessary for good leadership in general. Self-awareness, vision, assertiveness, communication skills, empathy, networking and so on.

They are not particularly gendered traits.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The sooner western Christians realize they're idolatrous love of human power, i.e the force of government, is a mistake, the better.

How has Christians giving up power made things better exactly? For non Christians and their worldview of secular liberal decadence sure, but how has it made things better for your brothers and sisters in Christ?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think there are some that think so. I was discussing that in another thread with someone else who thought women would have made better leaders and the world wouldn't be such a mess if they had been through the eons.

Right....I've heard that before, but it's not a position I can really grasp. Why? What's the reason for imagining this?

I think Pads argument isn't that woman are better, but they are equal. And arguing against men being the better leaders. At least that's my take.

That's the myth of equality. We aren't equals. Not as individuals, not as groups. It doesn't matter which individuals we compare, nor which groups. Variance is the rule...not equality.