Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not sure that there is much difference. By "social contagion" do you mean that people copy behaviours that they see around them?
Oh I see you only want ones you like. I gave you some and you didn't want those you wanted others. Not gonna play that game.
Well, if they're copying others, sure. I'm not really sure what you're getting at, although you're not answering my question.
Not to mention all the social media out there on it. It looks like social media has a huge influential impact.
Yeah, but the connection is there. One is manufactured. And kids think 'Yeah, cool dudes smoke'. But if you didn't, but cool dudes you knew smoked (because they did fall for it), then...that was more immediate. Gee, he gets the girls. Because he's a cool dude. So I had to emulate as best I could. We tend to copy our successfull peers. Which is...peer pressure.
The ones you gave are specific to Christians. The discussion was about Christian morality (or law - I don't mind) that was the first cab off the rank for the rest of us.
But its not banning something I don't like. Its about banning something that is wrong regardless of likes and dislikes. We don't avoid making laws for murder, stealing and assault because we havn't addressed the reasons why. No these issues are serious enough to make laws regardless. If abortion is murder than it needs to be stopped period.
But the problem is its the assumption of Feminism which claims what "it is" ie "what the problem is we must critique" is wrong in the first place because its based on a belief about what causes the problem. We have to properly identify what the problem is before we can critique it which includes abdoning biases and predetermined assumptions and beliefs and be open to all possibilities.
The simple fact that life for early humans was harsh shows that being stoic was a survival advantage. It may not have been what we call stoicism today but it planted the basic instinct that as humans we had to sometimes if not often be hardened to the horrors of life. Stoicism actually involves mastery of one’s emotions, not their repression. Sometimes we have to repress our emotions for good healthy reasons. That doesn't mean this becomes a stock standard response to all situations or used to deny emotions. Its just a pragmatic reality of life.
Yes both genders have protective instincts. But notice that mama bears are big, agressive, powerful to ward off threats. So you are more or less supporting what I am saying that sometimes if not often but at least as a basic instinct in humans especially men power, strength, agression is useful for survival.
Well thats not the reality in education today. The simple fact that females dominate education points to a feminized education. Add the ideologies that underpin education like Feminism its a logical conclusion evidenced by males falling further and further behind while ideologues put the blame at males which actually makes it worse. Any other identity group and there would be outcries of descrimination which only shows that when it comes to victimhood males especially white males are the lowest priority.
yes feminist look for any reason other than males being disadvantaged and descriminated against by the system because it undermines their ideology that we live in a male dominated oppressive system. By the way isnt the production of serotonin and dopamine a a naturaly neurological factor.
Then why are males education results continuing to fall further behind. Whatever they are doing its not working. I would suggest that male teachers will make all the difference. But if it is school policies which have shifted dramatically in recent years then perhaps its the shift to feminise schools that influence such policies that is the issue.
I thought I already linked articles of CRT ect showing it to be more political and ideological than objective. The fact that Feminism is an ideology supports this as ideologies are not based on objective science. That you don't understand this is a concern.
This is a common problem inherent in ideologies like Feminism in that its an either or, black and white point of view and no balance position. The objections about feminism being one sided deeoesn't mean that people are saying equality for women is not an issue. Its more about how feminist go about understanding inequality and its causes thats the problem.
I am not sure about this and personal experience is not a good basis for facts. That you make an absolute claim "Oh, it certainly is" seems a bit over the top to me. Like you hold the truth and facts and everyone else is wrong.
You miss the point. Research shows that despite women gaining independence and freedeom and there being less descrimination seems to be coinciding with women being less happy. But I see that you keep coming back to everything being males fault. If women are unhappy "its the Patriarchy", if women gain freedoms and are still unhappy "its the Patriarchy", if men are suffering its their fault because of "the Patriarchy".
Your trying very hard to avoid acknowledging that males may be experiencing disadevantage in any way which for me points to bias. Any fair minded person would acknowledge mens disadevantage today. That you talk about level playing fields is part of the problem because it politicises everything making it about power rather than individual merit and ability. Sometimes if not often the playing field is equal but some just are better at the game. That doesn't mean they are oppressing anyone.
No not just men but fair minded women as well. That you automatically blame men shows your ideological bias. The ideas that feminism support equality I think everyone supports. Its just the way Feminist go about identifying it and addressing it is the problem. Its too political and ideologically motivated.
You completely missed the point. It seems your supporting my point that feminist thinking is too one sided and ideological in that every reply you give comes back to some sort of power game.
It seems you have had some bad experiences and I am sorry that this has happened to you. I agree that bad treatment of women and minorities should not be allowed and we will always be looking to make this better. But resentment is not the answer either as it tarnishes peoples views and actions. Most importantly it affects the person with resentment as well. Resentment can be all consuming and twist a person.
I have been promoting a balanced view if you go back over my posts. Both nature and culture play a role. The important point is that seeing things without both leads to a distorted view of reality. Sometimes its more about culture and other times its more about nature.
You would think your background would cause you to support nature afterall those disciplines are all about nature, finding the natural biological and genetic basis for behaviour. Otherwise the entire fields would become useless if there was no biological and genetic basis to human behaviour. Just about everything that in these fields is about behaviour ie inherited traits, epigenetic influences through behaviour like stress, there is a whole subsection of evolutionary behaviour including sexual selection.
Cheers Bradskii, down the hatch.
Irrelevant to my point. People (mostly) seek abortions out of desperation, so what will you do to address their desperate circumstances? Or do you not care as long as you get to pretend they don't exist because abortion is not available?
Not nearly well enough. Access to contraception can be a real issue.
A significant proportion of abortions are sought by married women. While I'm sure young girls making unwise choices is part of the picture, it would be a mistake to think we can sheet all of this home to casual sex.
It's getting quite difficult to follow your train of thought here, but if you want to claim that the underlying premises of the notion of toxic masculinity are incorrect, you can do that without misrepresenting the concept.
I'm not seeing a whole lot of openness in your posts. Just saying.
Nothing about this is gendered. It's equally true for men and women.
Lol. Yeah, no. Women are not cushioned from being physically and emotionally "taxed."
You have a very 1950s view of hunter-gatherer life.
Good grief. We're talking about higher male suicide rates, poorer health and mental health outcomes, violent behaviour, and so on; there are real, detrimental outcomes for men from the "stoic" masculine ideal. This isn't feminists being negative, it's identifying what's driving some of the largest problems men (as a group) face.
Sure, power, strength, and - assertiveness if not outright aggression - are useful. I'm not aguing against that. But this idea that men are innately provider-protectors to women's being provided for and sheltered, that I'm arguing against.
Again, Steve, the fact that these problems are being acknowledged, talked about and worked on, suggests that this is just not the case.
This is quite a good read: The trouble with boys starts before they step into a classroom
I see you throwing a lot of very generalised, sweeping statements out there without much detail. If we look at CRT, for example, it's true that there are negative stereotypes of different races that affect the way people are treated. If we look at feminism, it's true that sexism shapes many people's lives. These are not ideological claims massively divorced from reality. So if you want to take issue with these movements, bring something specific, don't just kind of hand-wave it all away as "not objective."
Tell you what, go browse the marriage section of a Christian bookshop. You might be astonished at the amount of drivel along these lines published. It's usually harder to find the healthy stuff.
Well, to be fair, it's characterising a particular subset of the Christian community, rather than secular society. But it's still a very powerful set of cultural ideas which isn't entirely absent from wider society, either.
I think you missed my point. You can have an education and a job and some agency in your marriage, but if you're constantly being attacked for it, that takes a significant toll.
I keep trying to explain to you that we all inhabit a patriarchal system. That the system is what it is, is not "males' fault," because we all have the responsibility to work to reform it.
That men face particular problems, sure, I acknowledge that. But disadvantage relative to women? I don't see it.
I would love a world in which individual merit and ability were what mattered most for success. We don't live in that world. That's what I'd like to see shift.
You're participating in a thread where men are repeatedly trying to tell me that my own life experience is not real. And then they expect me to buy into an alternative narrative where men are disadvantaged, when they can't even deal honestly with the experiences of women. Your claims are not credible.
I'm not "blaming" men. I'm just casting my mind around my peers - women who are beyond their earliest encounters with the real world and have had to deal with the issues of being women in a patriarchal world - and not one of them would say that feminism is unreal or not how they think. On the contrary, the older and wiser and more experienced we get, the more we tend to discover that feminism is articulating important truths.
If only those women were nicer, quieter, politer, meeker, I'm sure people would like them better.
No, I didn't. I rejected your point as hopelessly out of touch with the reality of women's lived experience.
Really? What are you prepared to do to make this better, for women, today?
Yeah, no. Bad treatment of different groups breeds resentment. Naming and describing that doesn't create resentment, it just makes it visible. I get that this might be uncomfortable for some people who would prefer to be blind to what's going on.
If - IF - this is true, you have to ask why. It's not enough to notice a trend and then claim that that's innate to our biology.
Here's the thing, though; most of the time, what they find is that there isn't much biological and genetic basis for behaviour. Studying the nature side of the equation convinced me that most of what we see in human behaviour comes from the nurture side.
Again, since I've had people tell me to my face that this is what they're doing, I'm not buying your explanation.
Well, no. But the measure of success isn't bums on pews.
I'm actually not particularly concerned about the very top roles. I'm concerned about all the barriers along the way, which affect pretty much all of us who don't decide to stay home and keep house (and actually do affect those women too, just indirectly).
False.
Specific evidence required.
Indeed (or more accurately, developmental evidence). That's gender identity, not behaviour.
I'm not arguing that the average woman ought to reach the "tippy top," though. That's completely unrelated to the question of whether women face barriers in various ways, as women.
So according to your logic murders or thiefs who are in desperate situations are ok to murder and steal. Tell me what are the desperate situations. I think most of the time its because of economic reasons or they are not ready to have a child due to other responsibilities.
How much is contraception. What about condoms they are cheap enough. Isn't the Pill available to low income people. I think there is a government program for cheap or free coverage for low income people. It appears over half abortions happen for College educated people. Nevertheless if there is an issue that is the governments fault.
It seems that the majority of abortions are from unmarried women 86%. But that will not reflect cohabitation so its hard to tell. But even that points to a problem where marriage is no longer seen as important. Marriage can help buffer financial hardship as well as child rearing.
My point is quite simple really. If the basis for feminist regarding male behaviour is wrong (that all differences between genders is because of oppression) then that is going to skew their view and attribute normal and natural behaviour as oppressive. Its the wrong position to begin any critique from.
Hum well I have acknowledged that men behave badly towards women. I have also said that things have gotten better. But it seems you have not once acknowledged that women, feminist contribute the the problem so I wonder who is really open to things. In fact as I mentioned all you responses are skewed towards being males fault even when they are suffering disadvantage somehow its still their fault as though they are not eligible for being disadvantaged.
See this is another example. Your unwillingness to ademit that maybe males may be in a position especially in the past where stoicism was useful and a natural response to the harsh realities of life. You admit that males were more often out there trying to support their families, out there fighting off predators and threats from other tribes and factions but you can't admit that they may have needed to be stoic more often because of this.
Ok then Stocism is a natural tendency for both males and females and its not just a socially constructed trait that is negative. The point was males for natural reasons as a basis are not as emotionally expressive as women and not just because they hold back their emotions. Just like females but in a different way. But feminist ideology doesn't recognise or acknowledge this. The language is stoicism is bad for men, thats all we hear.
Thats what feminist are doing though, they are holding on to a stereotypical view from the past and think its still the same. The Patriarchy is just as bad as it ever was and we need to tear it down. Much of their language is based on past assumtions.
This is another example of the skewed view by Feminists which attributes all differences in behaviour and their outcomes to toxic masscullinity rather than consider the many other factors involved. That all male suicide and mental health is their fault. So we are damned as not only do we cause all female suicide but we cause our own.
Thats one of the first times I have heard you begrudgingly admit that some male traits are natural and useful. The comes the 'But'. No one is saying because males have these natural tendencies that they should then be allowed to dominate wopmen. But rather allow males to celebrate these natural traits without them being turned into a moral issue.
Then why aren't feminist calling out and demanding something be done to help males improve their situation. They are falling further behind every year and no one seems to care. I take a more pragmatic view. People can claim that they acknowledge and talk about the problem but if there is no improvement and things are getting worse then words are useless and don't reflect the reality. We know that political ideologues are always acknowledging the problem like with Indigenous peoples but no real improvement happens.
Thats code for the system being more feminised ie DEI policies. Like I said everyone wants deeiversity, inclusion and equality but DEI ideology is not the same. Its a specific ideology about what causes inequality and how we can address it which takes a narrow view based on identity politics.
It makes sense at least to have more males in teaching. Why aren't feminist calling out for more equality in teaching. Here is an indeeustry dominated by women and its seems to be accepted as OK. If it was males dominating there would be protests. At least if males were present there would be an equal representation of male and female outlooks. A male perspective would benefit boys tremendously and would minimize the deomeinance of just one view which is female.
Your missing the point here. No one is saying there is no sexism or racism. Everyone wants more equality. Its how it is seen, what causes it and how this can be addressed that is the issue.
Yeah religion can be as much an ideology as feminism and CRT. When it gets political and diverges beyond the core beliefs and Truths of the Bible. I havn;t been in a Christian bookshop for years as most stuff can be found online.
Well there you go your absolute claim is shown to be over the top. perhaps an example of how views can be influenced by personal beliefs and assumptions as opposed to the reality.
Well now women can divorce a husband who is attacking them and move on as many have done. Not saying thats the solution but obviously both sides may have unreal expectation of marriage and relationships. They obviously loved each other once and things have broken down. But its not always the males fault.
I understand what the patriarchy is. But that is part of the problem in that the patriarchy is blamed for all our problems about gender inequality when its not. Its a coverall view which is inherent in in ideological thinking. Just like Marxism believes all inequality is cause by the economic system or CRT believes all inequality is caused by an inherently racist system.
No. Nor did I say abortion is "okay."
Actually, most of the people I've personally encountered have been in situations where they were being coerced into the abortion, by a partner or by parents. But it's also true that poverty is a significant driver of abortions; if women know very well they can't afford basic necessities for themselves, how can they imagine they might also support a child?
It's not just the cost, it's also access. To a GP who will prescribe, to a pharmacist who will dispense. Particularly in rural areas, this isn't always a given.
If the man will cooperate...
It's estimated that somewhere between one third and one half of all women have an unintended pregnancy in their lifetime. I'm not saying that's all the government's fault, but that's a very, very high burden for our society to manage.
Lack of sex education is also often cited as a leading cause. That a big part of it seems to be people not using contraceptives correctly would seem to support that.
Ok, well, not all differences between genders are because of oppression, nor is that a feminist claim. So I think you need to develop a better understanding of feminism before you can critique it.
Women, as half of society, contribute to society's problems, sure. There are also feminist arguments I think are flawed or wouldn't endorse. I'm not claiming it's perfect as as discourse, but nor am I seeing it as a massive driver of damage or disadvantage.
Again, acknowledging the system isn't blaming the people caught up in it...
They're just not, relative to women. Sorry, but systematically in our society men are not disadvantaged as men.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm rejecting the idea that "men have evolved to be more stoic than women." That doesn't mean there aren't situations where stoicism is useful (for men or women), although I'd argue it's largely nurture, not nature, that forms stoicism as a character trait.
Yeah, no, I don't even really admit that. I think it's projecting a very modern, post-industrial-revolution division of labour anachronistically back into a completely socially different time.
This is utter nonsense. That is not a feminist view. What some are arguing is that stoicism, taken too far from a moderate position, leads to the unhealthy repression of necessary emotions with all the attendant outcomes that we see from that in terms of mental health, violence, and so on; and that our society and culture has upheld that unhealthy repression as a masculine ideal.
Again, recognising the cultural factors in someone's situation is not blaming them for it!
I don't see them as "male traits," though.
It can't work like that, though. You can't be all, "Men are providers and protectors!" without looking at the flip side of that dynamic; that there are women being treated as weak and needy.
Why can't we celebrate them as human virtues?
I can find quite a lot of discussion online, so it seems to me that they are. I think part of the problem, from what I can see, is that nobody is really too sure what the answer is. It's one thing to say, "We need to do better for young boys in education!" but getting from here to there is not straightforward.
No, it really isn't. I was thinking about the way, for example, many kids with special needs don't necessarily thrive in traditional, old-school classrooms, and the way teaching approaches have modified as we've become more aware of the range of learning styles, sensory preferences, and so on, that might belong to the young people, all of whom we want to see thrive.
I'm not against men as teachers - most of the ones I've known have been excellent - but you might not be aware, we've got a national teacher shortage across the board. It's not just a challenge getting men into the classroom, it's a challenge getting teachers, full stop. We may need to address teachers' pay and conditions if we want to attract more men, in particular (who often have other, better options available to them).
Well, that's how your generalised, sweeping "CRT and feminism are ideological and not objective" type comments come across, if you don't provide any specific examples.
Ok, suppose we entertain this statement for a second. If the inequality of people of colour, and women, is not caused by oppression, what is it caused by?
What absolute claim? I claimed that this kind of attitude is present between men and women today. I didn't say it was true for every single person, or every single couple, simply that it was culturally prevalent. That is demonstrably true.
That wasn't what I was talking about.
But the point is it took continual pointing this out for you to acknowledge it. Then you spoil t by saying "But disadvantage relative to women? I don't see it". I provided support for example of how males from primary level to University are disadvantaged compared to women and its getting worse.
Well part of changing this is changing the ideological basis for measuring equality. So long as we measure equality by identity then we will continue to have these problems. Ideas like DEI only makes matters worse because it highlights certain groups over others and causes everyone to be pitted against each other not based on individuality but on your gropup identity.
Well first my participation should not be assumed to be aligned with others, thats unfair. Second if that is the case then that is wrong as we need to listen to peoples experiences. But also experience alone is not always the measure of reality aned thats not saying your experience is unreal.
Yes of course but deon't you think that because you may be in a position where you are going to come into contact with women who have experienced descrimination an oppression and because of that 'you will see more women with those problems' which is not a true representation of whats out there. Say compared to someone who is not in the same position.
See theres that black and white thinking again which twists things back to gendered power games. Rather than admit that perhaps Feminism does have a limited view of men which is evdienced by the fact that most people are turning off ideologies like Feminism but not equality itself you choose to turn it into mens fault again.
Ok so we have two different realities happening here. One is your personal experience and one is the experience of women generally. Though your experience may be similar to other women and that these experiences can then point to a more wide spread attitude towards women is true. But we have to remember that this alone is not the measure of reality outside the individual or group and society. I think both realities can be true at the same time. Sometimes its more a case of womens experiences exposing the reality of whats going on.
I actually just mentioned that before I even read this part of your post so I am in tune with you on that. Its especially bad in that I would imagine many are so called Religious themselves. There is no excuse and this though getting better is still a blight on humanity. Perhaps even in some ways its mostly religiously motivated and not a true representation of society in general. But I can see why you are so upset with some within our own beliefs that call themselves Christians.
I am not saying that individuality should replace any effort to stop descrimination and oppression by minmizing sections of society that have been denied equality.
Well I think we are doing a lot and womens equality has improved a lot. They are dominating education and certain industries and this will continue even to the point where males are suffering disadvantage. There are laws against such practices now. But I agree more can be done. I just don't agree with the current ideology about how this can be done as it ends up creating more inequality.
Your missing the point again. Its not about not identifying bad treatment of groups. Its about divideing society into groups based on that bad treatment according to all percieved bad treatment and differences in equality being because of one identity group over another. Its a reciept for disaster. You only have to go back to the original civil rights movement which began by the Church by the way which was not about identity politics. But ideologes and activists came along and took over and politicised it.
