Celebrating confusion

I liked how John Burton called the case of Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner "celebrating confusion".

Bruce was apparently born male, but had surgery to make himself look female.  This made headlines in world news in the last week.  Bruce seemed to have regretted his decision, at least for a moment, when he said "What did I just do? What did I just do to myself?".  However, the media seems to be promoting his action as a trend.

Actually, the case of transgender has been around for years.  What Bruce did is not so new.  Nor is it to something to glorify, in my opinion.

Michael Brown talks about it as being fluid something the world things as being desirable, even if unnatural.   It is as though we should be neither male nor female, even though God created us as male and female - Genesis 1:27).  That we should maim ourselves to identify with the maim, not because of something out of our control, but because we choose to.  That we should be able to switch identities at a whim.

Some say that we shouldn't care what others do to themselves.  Michael argues otherwise.  We should protect against people getting hurt, committing suicide, dismembering their bodies, etc.

What is the world coming to?  How should we live in this world?  Are there values, ethics, right and wrong that we need to protect?  Or can people have the right to do to themselves anything they like - even to the point of maiming or killing themselves?

I would lump issues of abortion together with this.  Should people be allowed to kill foetii because of unwanted pregnancies?  What of the lives of the young?  is that murder?

Surely, people have the right to decide some things about their own bodies, eg. to cloth ourselves and to keep ourselves healthy.  This is probably a responsibility too.  But how much right should we have?  Can we really do anything we like with the bodies that our God has given us?

Prefer male bosses

Aida Ahmad's survey found that many people prefer male bosses because they are less emotional.

Apparently, female bosses are more likely to micro-manage and appear less level headed in the way they express themselves.

Would you agree?  Is this stereotype generally true?  (I am sure that in such cases, there will always be exceptions to the rule.)  Does this generalisation hold true on a world-wide scale, or is it just in certain cultures and countries?

Is leadership male?  Why?

Does this apply only to the workplace?  Or also at home?

What do you believe?  Why?

Is it fair or sexist or neither?

Tony Abbott, the new Prime Minister of Australia, has chosen who he wants to be on his front-bench team in Parliament.  Many have noticed that he only has one woman on that team, and commented on it.

Some seem to think of him as sexist and old-school, to have so few women on the team.

I see the opposite, though.  Isn't it that those who think so the sexist ones?

I mean, Mr Abbott may have chosen his team based on the merit or reputation or credibility of those people.  As the Prime Minister, he would want people that he trusts in those positions.  He shouldn't be forced to think about the gender of his team-mates in the course of choosing his team, should he?  That the team-member is a man or a woman should be a minor detail - rather who they are and what they can do are the important aspects.

Maybe it is those who think in terms of the gender who are the sexist ones.

Maybe, if Tony were less sexist, more women would end up on his team since he regards these people as the ones with the merit, reputation and credibility.  Maybe not.  I am not saying that women are not trustworthy for these roles.  Just understanding that only one woman was chosen this time.  And that Tony should be allowed to make this choice without having it based on gender.

What do you think?  Is it sexual discrimination, or lack of sexual discrimination, that the ratio of men:women on the front bench ended up being what it is?  Does it matter?  Why or why not?