Gender Fluidity should be an Adult topic

[Leo Gura]

37 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I am talking about practicality.

What I said is practical. It's not hard to make a course on Masculinity & Femininity and teach it across the country. The only obstacle is the political will. Such a course is badly needed and eventually it will be taught.

Empty whining and debate on this issue doesn't actually solve anything. What I said is a real solution and you could even get bipartisan support for it because it is so common sense and simple.

Edited April 22 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

7 minutes ago, Alexop said:

I saw how in Iceland they were separating girls form the boys and teaching boys how to be more sensitive and girls how to be stronger.

Do you have any source that sheds light on how this takes place in practice?

How does those boys even know what it means to be more sensitive? I heard they even make boys pee while sitting down and more buffoonery of the same sort.

You do not become stronger because your teacher told you so lmao..

Edited April 22 by Bobby_2021

[Alexop]

@Leo Gura DId you read Beyond Mars and Venus? Do you agree with John Gray's hormone theories?

[Alexop]

@Bobby_2021

 Ask them, have no idea what the hell they're doing.

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, Alexop said:

@Leo Gura DId you read Beyond Mars and Venus?

No

[Bobby_2021]

22 minutes ago, Alexop said:

@Bobby_2021

 Ask them, have no idea what the hell they're doing.

Funny how they went back the full circle to separating the boys and girls like they do in traditional catholic schools.

And despite all this women still seek traditional career choices and have less women in stem than in the middle east or India. The more they try to suppress the traditional roles, the more you see them acting traditionally in the real world.

This is why schools should give exposure to real world right in the schools itself, but in a controlled way. Kids will learn on their own with minimal help form adults. They just need to get out of their way.

 

[Alexop]

@Bobby_2021 Their problem is that they only use one half of the brain in the equation. They have good intentions but it is not enough. We are different, we have different prefferences in general. There are studies on this. Fun fact about the ICF coaching course I went to: coaching is an EQ-based profession, the trainers were two women and the attendees were 7 women... and me. At my first job in Sweden as a massage therapist at a SPA, the staff was composed of 11 girls, one gay guy, and me. At nurse school there are around 100 women for every 10 male students. Sweden the big mamma of gender equality has made considerable efforts to equalize the gender gap in professions, but the result was the opposite, the gap is even bigger in Scandinavia than in more traditional countries. People will choose to work whatever they want to work regardless of your equality ideals and ideologies. Scandinavian countries try to erase the behavioral difference between men and women, teaching boys to be more emotional and girls to be stronger and more resilient. Basically swingging the pedulum from one extreme to the other, if traditional countries push for widening the gap between men and women, progressive countries push for making them behave the same. As Leo said, teaching people about masculinity & femininity is crucial here. Yes there are some border cases of authentic feminie men and authentic masculine women, gay people etc... but the general trend is that 90%+ of people fit their biological gender and gravitate towards the corresponding energy.

Edited April 22 by Alexop

[Basman]

2 hours ago, Alexop said:

@Bobby_2021

 Ask them, have no idea what the hell they're doing.

How is it equal to essentially reverse the stereotypical roles? Wouldn't it be more equal to teach both children both the girly and laddy things? What if the boys enjoy the laddy lessons more and the reverse for the girls? Imagine if they did that and the boys just fully embrace those laddy lessons and the reverse for girls. It'll be like those videos where the vegan pet instantly picks the steak over a bowl of salad.

 

Edited April 22 by Basman

[Alexop]

10 minutes ago, Basman said:

How is it equal to essentially reverse the stereotypical roles? Wouldn't it be more equal to teach both children both the girly and laddy things? What if the boys enjoy the laddy lessons more and the reverse for the girls? Doesn't seem equal to me at all.

This is what happens when we let people who did not yet experience the Dunning–Kruger effect to rule society.

Same as in spirituality when a kid who went 10 days to a vipassana tells us how we should behave.

Edited April 22 by Alexop

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

What I said is practical. It's not hard to make a course on Masculinity & Femininity and teach it across the country. The only obstacle is the political will. Such a course is badly needed and eventually it will be taught.

But how feasible is such an idea really? The prerequisite to teaching what masculinity and femininity are, is that the people who give these courses understand it themselves. How do we reliably determine what values should be taught and who does the teaching, if society as a large seems to struggle with these things? Will it just have to balance itself out?

These courses would have to differentiate from regular education, as regular education relies on education plans written by academic, nerdy people. These are the types of people that will have the worst understanding of what society needs in this area. It would need to be government funded, but it should't be ran by government people.

Edited April 22 by DefinitelyNotARobot

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

The prerequisite to teaching what masculinity and femininity are, is that the people who give these courses understand it themselves.

It's not so hard.

David Deida's books explain the masculine/feminine dynamic very well. You can treat the topic as a social science and a kind of applied psychology. Similar to sex-ed.

It's not hard to turn masculine and feminine into a course. It's easier to understand than algebra. And it doesn't take 10 years of classes to get it.

Edited April 22 by Leo Gura

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

@Leo Gura Okay, but how do we make sure that such people end up at the top of this field? A lot of men for example gravitate to personalities such as Andrew Tate and Donald Trump. How do we make sure that these courses don't end up being taught by some dubious frat bro, or some fedora-wielding Reddit mod?

[Alexop]

2 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

@Leo Gura Okay, but how do we make sure that such people end up at the top of this field? A lot of men for example gravitate to personalities such as Andrew Tate and Donald Trump. How do we make sure that these courses don't end up being taught by some dubious frat bro, or some fedora-wielding Reddit mod?

A mature society will democratically choose mature people to teach their chidren. The same as swedes don't choose Tate figures to rule their country.

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

How do we make sure that these courses don't end up being taught by some dubious frat bro, or some fedora-wielding Reddit mod?

How do we make sure that biology is not taught by a fundamentalist Creationist Baptist preacher or physics by a FlatEarther?

Schools have standards for their teachers. An important part of this course would be teaching teens how to distinguish between healthy and toxic forms of masculinity and femininity. This is not something the teacher would invent, it would a standard curicullum based on psychology and social science. Teens would be taught to contemplate and study examples of masculine and feminine figures in history, media, and pop culture, and then discuss their observations, conclusions, and insights.

This is very basic stuff which good educators know how to do. You can pay David Deida to write you a textbook on it. Or pool together from a dozen experts and authors in this field to have some diversity of perspective. You could present traditonal and non-traditional gender roles and have teens contemplate and discuss their pros and cons.

Frankly, it's outrageous that such a class isn't already the norm.

Edited April 22 by Leo Gura

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

36 minutes ago, Alexop said:

A mature society will democratically choose mature people to teach their chidren. The same as swedes don't choose Tate figures to rule their country.

That's true. European leaders are definitely more mature than Andrew Tate (generally), but NOT being Andrew Tate doesn't necessarily make a person "wise" either (relatively speaking).

35 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This is not something the teacher would invent, it would a standard curicullum based on psychology and social science.

How advanced, would you say, is our current scientific understanding of these ideas? Do you think that our general comprehension is enough to accommodate for the lack of proper role models? I think the latter is a big issue when it comes to educating children on these topics. That obviously doesn't diminish the value of trying, I'm all for it, it's probably better than having a guy like this do the education...

... but it will probably take a good amount of designing, training and implementing before we could get there (plus political will as you've pointed out). These are "logistical" hurdles we will have to overcome first.

Edited April 22 by DefinitelyNotARobot

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

How advanced, would you say, is our current scientific understanding of these ideas?

This topic cannot be simply reduced to science. It's an experiential, psychological, felt thing. It requires subective exploration.

We teach poetry and that is not scientific. So this isn't such a radical idea.

Quote

Do you think that our general comprehension is enough to accommodate for the lack of proper role models?

We have plenty of good role-models. They just aren't popular with the kids. Kids love immature people.

Edited April 22 by Leo Gura

[Alexop]

2 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

That's true. European leaders are definitely more mature than Andrew Tate (generally), but NOT being Andrew Tate doesn't necessarily make a person "wise" either (relatively speaking).

Exactly, children are getting taught things that most politically active people think it is right. That will influence the academic world. If universities don't comply with what the government believes, they can get their licence withdrawn or whatever. When most politically active people think we are all the same and femininity & masculinity are conservative crap we have to get rid of, then you get that nuthead from Iceland separating girls and boys in kindergarden and teaching them different stuff. 

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

Okay, but how do we make sure that such people end up at the top of this field? A lot of men for example gravitate to personalities such as Andrew Tate and Donald Trump

Society hates masculine men who are unapologetically masculine. The only masculine figures left in the world are these sex traffickers and rapists.

And no, not there aren't others who qualify as masculine, enough, at least in the public influenzer realm. So people like Trump and Tate provide an outlet for the pent up masculine energy.  That is what enables there people to have a huge following on social media. It is not an accident.

26 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

We have plenty of good role-models. They just aren't popular with the kids. Kids love immature people.

To put it simply, they are not masculine enough to inspire young men.

Edited April 22 by Bobby_2021

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

We have plenty of good role-models. They just aren't popular with the kids.

The role models:

In all seriousness, I do think that there are a lot of good role models out there, but it's also important for the parent to be a role model as well. I suppose that what you're proposing is the first step for raising the next generation of parental role models. There certainly is a value for that kind of education. So I don't disagree with the fundamental point, I just think that it isn't something that we will realistically see within the next decade or two. I'd love to be wrong though.

12 minutes ago, Alexop said:

Iceland separating girls and boys in kindergarden

That is definitely problematic, but that is also the value of experimentation. Doing stupid stuff like that pokes holes into our ideas. I think that we're generally too afraid to try out different things and to make mistakes and to fuck up. Understandably so, we're dealing with children here, those are human lives that we can potentially ruin, but I also think that we underestimate children and their capacity to learn from our own stupidity.

Ironically, progressives are better at criticizing themselves than conservatives, because no intellectual argument you could lay out could hit as hard as the idiocy, of keeping young boys and girls from socializing with each other (I just assume that what you're saying is true for the sake of the argument, I won't bother checking the details of this story).

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

5 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Society hates masculine men who are unapologetically masculine. The only masculine figures left in the world are these sex traffickers and rapists.

I agree, but I'd say that the reason for this is that toxic masculinity and toxic femininity are asymmetrical.

An example of toxic masculinity: You're unable to deal with your anger internally and as such feel compulsed to lash out at another person for staring at you or something. You externalize.

An example of toxic femininity: You're unable to deal with your anger externally (through communication) and bottle it up, becoming passive-aggressive in the process. The sort of "Everything is fine *hmph* 🙄" deal.

Generally speaking, aggressive men will be the most noticeable people while passive-aggressive women will be the least obvious. That's just the nature of how aggression manifests in these polarities. One if crude and in your face, and the other is sneaky and more elusive.

So it's not that society "hates" masculine men, it's that masculine men are more direct in their influence than feminine women and as such tend to stand out further. This reflects in the discourse. That's the same reason the most outstanding SJW's are the dyed-hair women who yell at people and the Karen's. Those are women who reflect toxic masculinity. So don't get me wrong, I don't define these terms to be gender specific. Any person can reflect either extreme, to varying degrees.

25 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

So people like Trump and Tate provide an outlet for the pent up masculine energy.  That is what enables there people to have a huge following on social media. It is not an accident.

I agree.