Signs of a collapsing society? Or signs of a changing society?
What is the definition of a “good” family environment?
In the United States, conservatives bemoan the “fall of the family” with single parent households, the acceptability of divorce, and the fading influence of religion and church in daily life.
These same conservatives gloss over the hidden domestic violence (and I’m an ex-paramedic and am currently a registered nurse, so I know what I’m talking about) that divorce offers a solution for.
They seem to think that it’s better for a child to grow up in an abusive environment with two parents rather than in a loving environment with one parent . . . and I say that this reasoning is dogshit.
If society is more tolerant of divorce, gay marriage, and single-parent families to curb domestic violence, then this is a good thing. This doesn’t mean that “society is collapsing.”
I’ve thought a lot over the years about why some folks think it’s better to “keep a family intact” than to divorce when a marriage is toxic. I’ve concluded that, although folks say it is better for the children, I don’t think that’s the real reason. I think, purposefully hidden or unrealized, it’s all about control.
I agree to a point . . . but I also think that Stockholm Syndrome is a real thing and plays into this dynamic as well, and that this especially true in trans-generation abuse.
There is an Evangelical preacher (and walking piece of dogshit) named Steve Anderson who has an entire Baptist ministry that seems predicated on violence and familial abuse. He takes pride in the fact that he has been barred from entering over 20 countries because his preaching is about hate and violence.
He brags about adhering to Biblical principles by constantly beating his wife and 12 children, and 4 of his kids have come forward about the abuse and some of these kids have disowned him.
Still, I must admit that this human-shaped cockroach serves a vital, important purpose. It’s people like him who show us what organized religion is really about, and people like him are a part of why the United States is gradually becoming more secular.
This behavior can be explained using tribal trap which often centers on politics. Those ensnared in it will do anything they can to shut down the other side in an effort to prove that their side is right, just, and the only way forward. But from abortion to immigration, the problem is often not what we’re arguing about, it’s how.
Several strategies to escape the tribal trap and communicate effectively, include understanding the core values of the other side, listening intently to what they’re saying, conveying that you understand what they’re saying, and finding common ground in three components: Identity, Appreciation and Affiliation. Harvard negotiator explains how to argue | Dan Shapiro
You may have assumed I am against the gender equality; I am not opposing to gender equality I am opposing to the absurd way that they are trying to achieve it. raising awareness is completely different thing. I agree with Elon Musks idea where we should have diversity whenever it is possible but should never compromise our standards for it.
What I mean by “woke agenda” is as an effort to promote postmodern gender theory and other progressive ideas through various institutions, including education, media, and corporate policies.
1. Identity Politics- This involves focusing on the experiences and rights of marginalized groups, including those based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. This can lead to division and an overemphasis on identity over shared human experiences.
2. Postmodern Gender Theory- This theory challenges traditional notions of gender as binary (male and female) and instead views gender as a spectrum. It suggests that gender identity is fluid and socially constructed rather than biologically determined. Race is a spectrum in the modern world, but a man who is half black is still black in society (Trever Noah’s story). However this is a fact with evidence but when brought upon Gender theorists ignore or get angry.
3. Educational Influence - Some argue that teaching children about gender diversity and inclusivity is a form of indoctrination. They believe that such education can confuse children about their gender identity and undermine traditional family values. Since this is a new field people seem not interested in research about indoctrination issues. Not only gender but about religion as well. Giving all the information and censoring is a tricky job. Don’t know how much of it is political. I can’t make any conspiracy theories. It’ll be just a joke. But we are seeing anomalies in the paradigm, obviously. This is similar to Thomas Kuhn’s Crisis (anomalies challenge the paradigm) stage in a paradigm shift. “Fifty percent of interventions measuring social change in gender equality did not achieve beneficial effects. Most gender mainstreaming interventions had only partial beneficial effects on outcomes, calling into question their efficacy in practice.”
Children are not lab rats and these interventions are not as effective as they claim to be.
I have personal experience about gender issues within Sri Lankan population. some of them changed their mind after a while. Some of them understood their different gender and made peace with being different, they found good friends who support them without formal help and lives happy life. I believe we should be focusing on understanding Gender identities rather than fighting over so-called discrimination. In my opinion the notion of Gender dysphoria is misleading. Gender identity may have a genetic component and is supported by some research, but conclusive evidence is still lacking.
Some of them are just confused, several causes are there, in our settings. Education in Boys/Girls schools (Gift from colonial era we seem not getting rid of any sooner). Family background, despising other gender due to betrayal, abuse or family violence. This study highlights that while family and twin studies suggest a genetic role, no specific genes have been conclusively identified.
4. Cultural and Media Representation - The representation of diverse gender identities in media and popular culture is seen by some as a way to normalize these ideas and influence public perception. Feminists argue there is a gender pay gap, but not in all the cases. A football player is paid more because they bring more money, not because the sexism. Men in modeling get paid less, we don’t see them complaining. Things manifest in the society cannot be reduced to just one issue. that’s not rational just ridiculous.
5. Corporate Policies - Many companies have adopted diversity and inclusion policies that promote gender diversity and support for LGBTQ+ employees. These policies can sometimes prioritize identity over merit and lead to reverse discrimination. For an example Jorden Petersons case. I don’t support his lousy ideas about God and Bible, but in this case he seems reasonable.
I hope these points clarify the concerns of those who view the “woke agenda” as an attempt to reshape societal norms and values through the promotion of progressive ideologies.
I know that these views are part of a broader debate, and there are many who support these changes as necessary for achieving greater social justice and equality. I all for it, but as I see the ways to achieve it might not be that clear.
Dumping ideas and campaigning aggressively won’t bring any change to the society. When a group is aggressive, people from the opposite see them as a threat and retaliate. See what happened in the election. That is just not the way to do it.
You may also read The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, Religion fights back, because not all the people are rational. Some are desperate for a belief or some meaning to endure the angst and the absurdity of the life. They find religion comforting doesn’t matter we like it or not. People are too lazy or busy to think about these things. Sometimes even scientists when they cannot explain something loop back to delusion. Just hilarious when you think about it.
Like asking you to objectively list what you think this woke agenda is, it certainly seemed to shut you down lickety split. Ironic really, just like some people always have time to post claims, but when they are asked to evidence them, they are suddenly pressed for time, uncanny how often you see that really.
Anyway you’re back now, sadly not one word in that lengthy post explains what this woke agenda is, or evidences woke people are pursuing it. At least you had time to post a very lengthy response, so maybe now you can dedicate some to answering @CyberLN’s question?
Groovy, what has that to do with @CyberLN’s question, asking you what this woke agenda is, that you claim Sri Lankans aren’t buying into?
Have you tried Googling woke? Wikipedia has a fairly concise explanation of its origins and meaning:
“Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) originally meaning alertness to racial prejudice and discrimination. Beginning in the 2010s, it came to be used as slang for a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT rights.”
So whilst I have no idea what you mean by “postmodern gender theory”, but perhaps you can explain why you think being alert to social inequality, and racial discrimination is a bad thing, that should “not be bought into”?
So we should let people be persecuted and discriminated against based on gender, race, and sexual orientation, to try and avoid division? Do you understand how spectacularly stupid a claim that is?
So that’s a claim not a fact, nor does it make any sense to claim people who value gender equality, and LGBTQ rihts would be angered by it, which of course is also an unevidenced claim. Finally why would I care? It’s not illegal to be angered by things you view as unjust, and it is asinine to claim such a reaction is unique to people who are woke. I’ve seen people get bent out of shape over all manner of beliefs and political ideologies across the political spectrum.
Some argue that the earth is a few thousand years old, so why should I care what “some people think”? If gender dysphoria is real, and we can help people cope, where’s the problem?
I thought they didn’t believe gender identity was fluid? Now you’re saying they think it can be changed just by explaining some people suffer from gender dysphoria?
Oh I find that very dubious, just as I find the bare claim it amounts to indoctrination, pretty dubious.
Groovy, did you have a point? I imagine most attempts to at racial inequality and freeing slaves in the US could have cited similar stats, should they have given up then? How about women’s rights, the suffragette movement for example, many of the women who fought for suffrage in the UK ended up in prison, in awful conditions, this doesn’t mean it wasn’t important to challenge existing views, that were clearly discriminatory, and more than a little misogynistic.
Straw man fallacy, who ever claimed they were? Odd how children can be taught the one position, and it’s fine, but when other suggest challenging that position it’s indoctrination?
They’re not mutually exclusive, so clearly we ought to be doing both? Unless you think avoiding confrontation is more important than trying to stop discriminations and prejudice, in which case I strongly disagree. I don’t think any ideas should be ring-fenced from critical scrutiny.
If that string of claims is in that link, please put it in quotations for context, and cite where in the link it says this. In the meantime here is a quote from that link:
“Gender identity and sexual orientation are fundamental independent characteristics of an individual’s sexual identity.1 Gender identity refers to a person’s innermost concept of self as male, female or something else and can be the same or different from one’s physical sex.2 Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes.”
…and?
…and?
Not at all, striving to help prevent prejudice and discrimination is a good thing surely, I see no problem?
Yeah, bullies are often like that, they don’t like to be challenged, if I can speak plainly, fuck em!
I think that, given current conditions, if those standards do not embrace diversity and inclusion then they are rubbish to begin with. The avoidance of that embrace welcomes a standard that allows for exclusion. Until or unless bigotry is eradicated, prescriptive mechanisms for the provision of opportunity are warranted.
I believe (and please note that I said “believe” . . . and not “know”) that the Woke Agenda is an evolution of the “gay agenda” that began in the 1970s or–depending upon your criteria–in the 1950s.
Please see below for a book written about 22 years ago:
Anita Bryant popularized a “gay conspiracy” with her “Save the Children” movement that she pushed in the late 1970s. She wrote a book called The Anita Bryant Story (see below) where she dwelled on the malevolent aims of the militant homosexual movement to corrupt our children and destroy the family. This book was written in 1977, see below:
I argue that the idea of a “woke agenda” is an evolution of these ideas, as all of the same elements of the “gay agenda” seem to be there.
A fear of transgenderism
A fear of children being “converted” by being exposed to “gayness.”
The belief that the idea of the nuclear family is being systematically attacked.
The idea that organized religion is under attack.
That censorship, restriction of ideas, and sequestering LGBTQ people from the rest of society is the “answer” to this “problem.”
To me, a discussion of the Woke Agenda by people like Trump and Ron DiSantis seems a lot like Nazis discussing a “final solution” to the “Jewish question.”
But hey . . . that’s me, and I don’t speak for anyone else.
Another reason why garbage like this makes me angry is because people automatically assume that I’m gay because I’m now an RN . . . and I shouldn’t be allowed to interract with children because “all gay men are pedophiles,” and some people assume this about me simply because I’m a nurse and a man, which automatically means that I’m a criminal sexual deviant.
Dude use your qualifications and come to Western Australia…Not only will you be valued, your culture celebrated and I will take for as many beers as you can stomach…WE NEED MEDICS OF EVERY QUALIFICATION…tell you friends.
WTF? What is wrong with people? Why the fuck wouldn’t nursing be an appropriate job for men? Noone bats an eyelid if a man works as a gynecologist, but may the proverbial gods forbid that a man works in nursing!?!?
By the way, I don’t know about the US, but here (Norway) roughly 90% of nurses are women, while 10% are men. There were, as of 2021, 22 males working as midwives, which is a minuscule number compared to the amount of women doing the same job. But given the hypocritical resistance you are experiencing, this could be an interesting perspective.
I think this assumption of homosexuality with male nurses seems to be more common here in Florida (and the American South in general).
I also find this interesting because I was a paramedic many years ago, and being a paramedic is a “masculine, manly” job, and women in the EMS profession were assumed to be lesbian “dykes” . . . yet the activities and mechanics of these two jobs are very, very similar.
My parents didn’t have these attitudes, but my grandparents on my mother’s side felt this way. My grandfather felt that killing things was a way to affirm masculinity, so he wanted me to hunt and fish . . . because a reluctance to kill animals will ultimately lead a young man into homosexuality in small steps.
I think it is both proper and important to teach kids how to fish - both to catch the fish and to kill it. But for a completely different reason, namely that they need to know where their food comes from. They need to know that the piece of fish they get on their dinner plates does not come from a factory, but once was an actual living animal. And they need to know how it got there. Same with mammals: I think it is good for children to see the actual mechanics of slaughtering an animal for food. There are even kindergartens and schools here that take the kids to a farm and let them witness the farmer kill a sheep or something. Done properly, the kids will benefit from this.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, although I am a vegetarian . . . yet we can even argue that I’m still a bit of a hypocrite, as I drive on roads that kill animals all day long and I do wear leather. I also benefit from medical advances that came from animal experimentation.
Still, what you’re talking about with the kids being educated is different from what I’m talking about with my grandparents.
My grandfather was often needlessly cruel and callous toward animals, and he equated sensitivity with homosexuality. He would–as an example–intentionally shoot a deer in the hindquarters so he could demonstrate how to track it, and have the experience of finishing it off . . . when he could have shot it in cardiovascular region and killed it instantly.
I believe that kids should–as a part of a well-rounded education–understand some of the basics of survival, which include hunting, trapping, and fishing. I have even been in survival situations myself.
Yet I don’t think that any of this means that needless cruelty reinforces masculinity and–somehow–prevents homosexuality.
