Menu
header photo

Social Positivists

 teaching the church about human rights 

Scriptural Response

Social Positivists advocates a Scriptural response regarding the male role and societies response to low level behavioral issues; that is sub-legal behavioral issues

Social Positivists holds to a conservative and Christian attitude regarding man’s place in society. While many people will say this abandons the Social Positivists policy on science such is not the case. Science cannot come to any other position than that advocated by Scripture.

Social Positivists believe man is the head of the home, head of the church and is not out of place or depth heading up the state or other institutions. We believe male gender is identical to the male sex.

Sexuality is an emotionally charged issue better handled at the grassroots level, the level of the church. 

Sexuality

This is too diverse and emotionally loaded issue to be dealt with in anything but a summary fashion however a few points need to be made. 

Male sexuality is not just being questioned; it is under a concerted and often violent attack. The concept of maleness is being displaced by gender neutrality. There was never any question of identity fluidity for females. It was always more acceptable for a female to pose as a male or to even form a lesbian relationship than it ever was for males to cross over into what was seen as female territory. From Ritalin, to Bullyism, to manspaning, manspaining, discipline, and the injustice of female pregnancy the role and importance of men and even the validity of maleness is questioned and even disputed.

The media is almost universally averse to maleness. Males are ridiculed, and woman portrayed as the ones in control. Men, it is fair to say, are losing the right to be men.

Modern males are increasingly expected to be more female. As the line between right and left blurs so does the line between male and female merge but it is the male who moves to the effeminate side of the scale. The man who opposes homosexuality, effeminacy, cross dressing, gender fluidity is viewed as barbaric and a potential brutalizer of women. The woman who hates men and the male role is viewed as progressive and a feminist, as is the man who similarly adopts an anti-male position.

Interestingly the female who becomes butch is visibly a female who opposes maleness. The butch female is an aggressive female not really a masculinized female in the way a male who is feminized is a male who loses all sense of his masculinity.

The man who hunts, the boy who rough-houses, the male who exerts dominance in his relationships is the enemy of the left. He will be drugged, counselled, disciplined, mocked, abused and isolated. This is part of the problem male politicians face. Either they betray their own natures or become the targets of incessant attacks by the leftist media.

In every other situation society imposes a level of expectation on its citizen. Robbery was always illegal but those who choose to leave their wealth in the open were not treated as victims in the way someone was who was held up at gun point. The person who leaves his vehicle running in front of a store is apt to be viewed as an accomplice in the theft of the vehicle. But we are told woman can dress as they wish, act as they wish, put themselves in any situation they wish and are not to be held responsible or even a contributor to the offence.

A male and female of the same age and degree of inebriation are deemed to be in totally different categories of responsibility if the female deems her rights violated the next morning. There are no extenuating circumstances. Females cannot contribute to any criminal act performed by the male as the female is always considered absolutely and categorically the victim.

Men cannot excuse their actions by blaming someone else. They are always culpable. At the same time the law ought not to hold two persons to different standards or hold the same person to two different standards according to the circumstances. 

The lady in dress suit coming out of church is not to be seen as worthier of legal validation or assumption of innocence so liberals tell us, than the mostly naked, alcoholic teen who passes out in a hotel room surrounded by a dozen similarly drunk young males. Both are deemed equally deserving of protection, respect and assumptions of innocence. ​

Why do we have no expectation of culpability when it comes to woman? Why is the concern for violence against woman an issue but violence against men rarely considered? Is this a totally separate issue?

If we are equal why are woman given the preference when it comes to assigning victim status to them? ​

Can a millionaire walk down the street with a wad of money in his hands and be legally protected against theft to the same level a pensioner is?

The law must be blind to sex and culpability must be evenly distributed. If we become an accessory because we left our possessions in a place where they serve as an enticement, what of scantily dressed inebriated woman walking through dark allies or agreeing to enter men’s hotel rooms in the early hours of the morning? Is there no level of expectation to be put on females when it comes to morality? Are woman minors before the law, devoid of all culpability. In what other situation is the victim guaranteed innocence regardless of the circumstances surrounding the event other than minors? 

The male who threatens and abuses his spouse all but loses his legal protections by virtue of his actions. A sexual assault victim must be believed, we are told, which deprives men of their constitutional rights and due process. In no other situation is due process waived other than when a female reports a sexual assault. On the other hand, female assailants are treated differently than their male counterparts. The male victim of female abuse has a difficult time finding justice or even a sympathetic ear.

Violence against woman is viewed as a kind of separate and more deserving category of violence than other forms. The law must cease this excursion into divisive legal formulations. We need more social intervention at the local level. Behaviors need to be moderated before then lead to more serious things. The church was to serve as an advisory and counselling office; a place where unsavory behavior can be brought to the people’s attention before it erupts into legal charges. Society needs to learn how to intervene earlier and more compassionately than the justice system is able to do.

While the justice system can and ought to be operated by those in the justice system Positivists believe we need organizations that serve as informal civil coursts at the grassroots level. We need to be able to deal with problems earlier on and in an informal and less legalistic way, especially when a person’s sexual behavior is coming under scrutiny.

If it takes a community to raise a child, then it takes a community to deal with the issues relating to sexuality. The bottom line is we need a science-based response. We need to abandon this emotion driven progressive narrative.