#progressive-masculinity — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #progressive-masculinity, aggregated by home.social.
-
Refreshing article, but imo missing the critical reading that "non-toxic masculinity" archetypes presented by the media were usually milquetoast capitalist darlings that felt forced into the conversation as a proxy for continued consumerism ("oh look, Harry Styles wore a dress, did I mention that it was Gucci?"). Ffs, even the Hasan Piker articles were focusing on his "MAGA body" (whatever that means), rather than his critical reading of society, Israel, men, etc.
I think unfortunately, feminism has slivers of political capital remaining, and a mountain of policy to summit. I understand the frustration and anger that causes "the ick list", "the bear meme" to exist, but they're quite vapid, have no pull towards changes in hard ink-on-paper policy, and are prime ammunition for manosphere types to point at and say "see, that's why we need to end universal suffrage".
I want women to have actual rights enshrined and protected by law, and this means that a sizeable proportion of men will have to be convinced to hold favourable positions towards those policies, so that a wedge can't be driven there as a means to win an election and make women second class citizens again. I really think this means stopping the "we're not centering men here", absolutes like "not all men but always a man", etc.
Men should be welcome to the progressive side of politics and encouraged to air their grievances with the state of society, not for centering them, but because it's good political strategy, and the core pillar of a grassroots movement. Borrowing from the tactics of the Workers' Party of Belgium
> The first pillar of this approach is political: listen to the people and find out which social problems concern them most, and put them on the agenda.
-
Refreshing article, but imo missing the critical reading that "non-toxic masculinity" archetypes presented by the media were usually milquetoast capitalist darlings that felt forced into the conversation as a proxy for continued consumerism ("oh look, Harry Styles wore a dress, did I mention that it was Gucci?"). Ffs, even the Hasan Piker articles were focusing on his "MAGA body" (whatever that means), rather than his critical reading of society, Israel, men, etc.
I think unfortunately, feminism has slivers of political capital remaining, and a mountain of policy to summit. I understand the frustration and anger that causes "the ick list", "the bear meme" to exist, but they're quite vapid, have no pull towards changes in hard ink-on-paper policy, and are prime ammunition for manosphere types to point at and say "see, that's why we need to end universal suffrage".
I want women to have actual rights enshrined and protected by law, and this means that a sizeable proportion of men will have to be convinced to hold favourable positions towards those policies, so that a wedge can't be driven there as a means to win an election and make women second class citizens again. I really think this means stopping the "we're not centering men here", absolutes like "not all men but always a man", etc.
Men should be welcome to the progressive side of politics and encouraged to air their grievances with the state of society, not for centering them, but because it's good political strategy, and the core pillar of a grassroots movement. Borrowing from the tactics of the Workers' Party of Belgium
> The first pillar of this approach is political: listen to the people and find out which social problems concern them most, and put them on the agenda.
-
Refreshing article, but imo missing the critical reading that "non-toxic masculinity" archetypes presented by the media were usually milquetoast capitalist darlings that felt forced into the conversation as a proxy for continued consumerism ("oh look, Harry Styles wore a dress, did I mention that it was Gucci?"). Ffs, even the Hasan Piker articles were focusing on his "MAGA body" (whatever that means), rather than his critical reading of society, Israel, men, etc.
I think unfortunately, feminism has slivers of political capital remaining, and a mountain of policy to summit. I understand the frustration and anger that causes "the ick list", "the bear meme" to exist, but they're quite vapid, have no pull towards changes in hard ink-on-paper policy, and are prime ammunition for manosphere types to point at and say "see, that's why we need to end universal suffrage".
I want women to have actual rights enshrined and protected by law, and this means that a sizeable proportion of men will have to be convinced to hold favourable positions towards those policies, so that a wedge can't be driven there as a means to win an election and make women second class citizens again. I really think this means stopping the "we're not centering men here", absolutes like "not all men but always a man", etc.
Men should be welcome to the progressive side of politics and encouraged to air their grievances with the state of society, not for centering them, but because it's good political strategy, and the core pillar of a grassroots movement. Borrowing from the tactics of the Workers' Party of Belgium
> The first pillar of this approach is political: listen to the people and find out which social problems concern them most, and put them on the agenda.
-
Refreshing article, but imo missing the critical reading that "non-toxic masculinity" archetypes presented by the media were usually milquetoast capitalist darlings that felt forced into the conversation as a proxy for continued consumerism ("oh look, Harry Styles wore a dress, did I mention that it was Gucci?"). Ffs, even the Hasan Piker articles were focusing on his "MAGA body" (whatever that means), rather than his critical reading of society, Israel, men, etc.
I think unfortunately, feminism has slivers of political capital remaining, and a mountain of policy to summit. I understand the frustration and anger that causes "the ick list", "the bear meme" to exist, but they're quite vapid, have no pull towards changes in hard ink-on-paper policy, and are prime ammunition for manosphere types to point at and say "see, that's why we need to end universal suffrage".
I want women to have actual rights enshrined and protected by law, and this means that a sizeable proportion of men will have to be convinced to hold favourable positions towards those policies, so that a wedge can't be driven there as a means to win an election and make women second class citizens again. I really think this means stopping the "we're not centering men here", absolutes like "not all men but always a man", etc.
Men should be welcome to the progressive side of politics and encouraged to air their grievances with the state of society, not for centering them, but because it's good political strategy, and the core pillar of a grassroots movement. Borrowing from the tactics of the Workers' Party of Belgium
> The first pillar of this approach is political: listen to the people and find out which social problems concern them most, and put them on the agenda.
-
Refreshing article, but imo missing the critical reading that "non-toxic masculinity" archetypes presented by the media were usually milquetoast capitalist darlings that felt forced into the conversation as a proxy for continued consumerism ("oh look, Harry Styles wore a dress, did I mention that it was Gucci?"). Ffs, even the Hasan Piker articles were focusing on his "MAGA body" (whatever that means), rather than his critical reading of society, Israel, men, etc.
I think unfortunately, feminism has slivers of political capital remaining, and a mountain of policy to summit. I understand the frustration and anger that causes "the ick list", "the bear meme" to exist, but they're quite vapid, have no pull towards changes in hard ink-on-paper policy, and are prime ammunition for manosphere types to point at and say "see, that's why we need to end universal suffrage".
I want women to have actual rights enshrined and protected by law, and this means that a sizeable proportion of men will have to be convinced to hold favourable positions towards those policies, so that a wedge can't be driven there as a means to win an election and make women second class citizens again. I really think this means stopping the "we're not centering men here", absolutes like "not all men but always a man", etc.
Men should be welcome to the progressive side of politics and encouraged to air their grievances with the state of society, not for centering them, but because it's good political strategy, and the core pillar of a grassroots movement. Borrowing from the tactics of the Workers' Party of Belgium
> The first pillar of this approach is political: listen to the people and find out which social problems concern them most, and put them on the agenda.
-
Secular Coalition Warns of Christian Nationalist Bias in U.S. Religious Liberty Commission
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Nnenna Onwukwe (They/Them) is the Federal Policy Associate at the Secular Coalition for America, where she advocates for church-state separation, secular inclusion in policy, and protections for religious freedom for all. Onwukwe discusses the Religious Liberty Commission, criticizing its predominantly Christian nationalist composition and lack of secular or interfaith representation. They warn the Commission may use “religious freedom” as a tool for legalizing discrimination, especially against LGBTQ and non-Christian communities. Onwukwe also highlights concerns about IRS policy shifts, political endorsements from the pulpit, and school voucher programs redirecting public funds to private, religious institutions, which threaten public education and constitutional neutrality. SCA has sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury regarding the IRS’s decision not to enforce the Johnson Amendment. You can read the full document on their website: https://secular.org/2025/07/sca-lets-it-be-known-the-johnson-amendment-must-be-enforced
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, what is the Religious Liberty Commission? Moreover, how have they responded to concerns about bias toward one faith over another?
Nnenna Onwukwe: The Religious Liberty Commission was established by President Trump via executive order on May 1, 2025, as part of his broader agenda to promote religious expression in public life. It is housed in the Department of Justice and overseen by the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships and the Domestic Policy Council.
It is chaired by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, with Dr. Ben Carson as vice chair. The Commission’s term runs through July 4, 2026, coinciding with the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
The Commission’s goals include producing a report on the history and current state of religious liberty in America, identifying threats, and recommending policies, particularly regarding parental rights in religious education, conscience protections, vaccine exemptions, and the use of religious symbols in public spaces.
Jacobsen: So, where does SCA come in?
Onwukwe: We are with the Secular Coalition for America. Our concern is whether the Commission is showing bias toward Christian perspectives. The panel is predominantly composed of conservative evangelical Christians, along with a few Catholics and one Orthodox Jewish representative. There is no real representation of secular individuals, Muslims, Hindus, or other minority faiths.
Before their first public meeting in June, held at the Museum of the Bible, we sent a letter requesting clarity. We wanted to know whether the Commission’s reports would primarily focus on Christians or encompass all faiths, including nonreligious Americans. We also raised concerns about possible discrimination against non-Christian groups.
Jacobsen: Did they respond?
Onwukwe: No, we have not received a reply. Given the composition of the panel and the rhetoric at their first meeting, they may not be interested in secular input. However, we will keep advocating. They must know we are here and that we are watching.
Jacobsen: What are some of your specific concerns with how they are operating?
Onwukwe: So we sent them a couple of questions. We were particularly concerned because, even in the first meeting, there was much rhetoric about America being a “Christian nation.” However, if you examine the actual history of the United States, the founding documents intentionally omitted references to religion.
The founders deliberately moved away from a system that fused religion with government. They envisioned a secular nation with a clear separation of church and state. Hearing language that implies otherwise is troubling.
The composition of the Commission is also a concern, as it lacks secular voices on the panel. During and even before the first meeting, we observed a strong focus on what is often referred to as “anti-Christian bias,” particularly with the establishment of the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.
The issue is, organizations like ours—and others—have not seen compelling evidence of systemic anti-Christian bias. We worry that the phrase “anti-Christian bias” is being used to justify policies that would allow Christians to discriminate against others, especially in workplaces or service settings.
For example, if a Christian employee claims their religious beliefs are being “discriminated against,” that might be used to excuse discriminatory behaviour toward LGBTQ individuals or people of other faiths. So the implications could be profound.
Jacobsen: Who comprises the Liberty Commission? That is important to know.
Onwukwe: The Commission includes Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Dr. Ben Carson, and Paula White, who serves as a senior adviser in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships. Interestingly, Dr. Phil McGraw is also on the panel, though his inclusion has raised some eyebrows.
The panel consists of Christian leaders, many of whom are affiliated with the Christian nationalist movement. It was strange. Even during the Commission meeting, Dr. Phil spoke out against one of the issues being discussed, which was interesting. Dr. Phil may be the one person on the panel who speaks up. I do not know.
The panel is primarily composed of Christians, many of whom are recognizable figures in the Christian nationalist movement. I believe one of them was a former Miss America contestant who publicly stated that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
That kind of viewpoint reflects the broader makeup of the Commission. Paula White—the head of the White House Faith Office—has been actively pushing the narrative of “anti-Christian bias” and helped establish the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.
She was a frequent spiritual adviser during Trump’s presidency and was present when both the Religious Liberty Commission and the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force were launched, often leading prayers at those events.
Interestingly, she has also claimed that women should not hold positions of power, despite holding one herself. That contradiction is, of course, hard to ignore. Overall, it is a panel dominated by prominent Christian nationalist voices who support the idea that America is inherently a Christian nation.
Even the Jewish panellists did not speak up when those kinds of statements were made, which we found concerning, mainly because those statements are not factual.
Jacobsen: What about their makeup?
Onwukwe: The majority of the makeup of the commission are Protestant and conservative Catholics. There are a few rabbis and other Jewish members and at least one person who is Muslim. During their first meeting there was only one Jewish person sitting on the panel, the rest of the panelists were Christian or Catholic.
Jacobsen: Are there any secular voices on the Commission or involved in any way?
Onwukwe: None that we saw. None that are openly secular, at least. Most of the individuals involved are prominent figures in Christian media or associated with the Christian nationalist movement, unfortunately. That is a significant concern for us.
Onwukwe: We even provided them with names—people who could represent secular Americans and offer a valuable perspective—but nothing has come of it so far.
Jacobsen: Another important point—while not necessarily from a secular perspective alone, it is still concerning: How diverse is the Commission in terms of religious representation? Because it is not just secular voices being excluded; it is also about whether they include a broad interfaith representation.
Do they reflect the growing diversity in American religious identity? They ignore the expanding secular population, but are they at least capturing denominational or interfaith diversity?
Onwukwe: The majority are Christians, as I mentioned earlier. There are a few Jewish voices, and I believe there may be one or two Muslim individuals involved. However, it is unclear whether they are formally part of the panel or just a participant in the broader conversation.
However, aside from that, the overwhelming majority of the Commission members are Christian. So, in terms of true interfaith diversity, it is minimal. As you said, there is a growing secular movement—an increasing number of Americans now identify as nonreligious.
We have been advocating for secular representation in Congress and other federal bodies for years. It is deeply concerning that this Commission was created without any meaningful representation of nonreligious Americans.
Jacobsen: So, in a sense, this version of “religious liberty” seems like a highly selective interpretation of freedom of religion and conscience?
Onwukwe: We often see this with groups like this one and others that promote Christian nationalism.
They often claim they are fighting for “religious freedom” or “religious liberty,” and that they are being discriminated against, when in reality, what they are pushing for is the freedom to use their religion to discriminate against others or insert their religious beliefs into public institutions, like schools.
The Commission reflects this mindset. They interpret the First Amendment not as a protection from religious imposition, but as a license to impose their spiritual values on public life under the guise of protecting religious freedom.
So yes, that is our concern. They have taken a highly selective interpretation of religious liberty—one that favours a particular brand of Christianity—and are using it to advance a very narrow cultural and political agenda.
Jacobsen: They are using that interpretation to justify discrimination.
Onwukwe: And that is one of our biggest concerns: that the Commission will use this distorted view of religious freedom to target minority groups, framing it as though Christians are being discriminated against, when in fact, they are the ones seeking legal cover to discriminate.
Jacobsen: And this is not new. I remember hearing similar arguments as far back as seven years ago. It would usually come in the form of a brief controversy, such as a 15-minute segment on Fox News, when something happens at a school or church.
When I was interviewing two people from The Satanic Temple several years ago, they mentioned a persistent persecution complex. They have framed it in a way that if they do not get 100% of what they want, they see it as oppression. They push this narrative. So when they do not get everything exactly as they want it, they claim they are being persecuted.
How they frame this “victimization” is revealing. Some isolated concerns might be valid, but overall, they are using the idea of victimhood as a political tool.
Onwukwe: Yes. Moreover, as we have discussed, the secular community is growing. Younger generations, especially, have different views on social and moral issues—things the older, more religious generations often find threatening or uncomfortable. That discomfort is sometimes interpreted as discrimination by those older groups.
The rise of LGBTQ rights—such as marriage equality, trans rights, and protections for people of other religions or no religion—is often perceived by some conservative Christian groups as an attack on their faith.
They see it as a threat to the version of America they grew up with, even though the United States has always been a secular nation. It is unfamiliar to them, and they interpret these changes as direct attacks on their beliefs.
This perception extends to issues such as vaccine mandates and mask requirements. In 2020, we witnessed widespread outrage over church closures, despite all public gathering places being closed due to health concerns.
Still, they felt singled out because of their religion, even though the policies were broad and applied to everyone equally. What we are discussing is ensuring that all Americans—regardless of their religion or identity—have equal rights and freedoms.
However, for some, equality feels like persecution because it challenges the privileged position they have long held. You can also see it in schools. Many Christian organizations have been advocating for initiatives such as mandatory prayer in public schools.
Moreover, with the recent Supreme Court decision—Mahmood v. Taylor—there has been a push to allow parents to opt their children out of public education that conflicts with their religious views.
So when they claim they are being “discriminated against,” it often really means they want their religious beliefs to take precedence over others’ rights. That is something we see a lot in the Christian nationalist movement and among many far-right Christian groups.
Jacobsen: So, the IRS has weighed in on political endorsements from the pulpit. That is the way it is being framed, although the specifics, outside of press releases, are essential to examine. There are questions about what exactly constitutes a political endorsement—financial or otherwise—and how that interacts with the Johnson Amendment, or whether this is an attempt to override or circumvent it. I am not yet aware of the implications.
Onwukwe: So basically, over the years—as you have probably seen—a lot of Americans have filed complaints with the IRS, objecting to religious institutions and leaders openly endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. That is a clear violation of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt religious organizations from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.
Despite this, the IRS has taken minimal action. We, along with other secular organizations, have issued alerts and encouraged the public to submit formal objections to the IRS. However, the agency has not responded decisively or pursued many of these cases.
With the recent developments, the IRS is now taking the stance that religious institutions can endorse political candidates from the pulpit, essentially making it clear there will be no consequences. That is deeply concerning.
It opens the door for politicians to funnel untaxed money through churches in exchange for endorsements. You will start seeing political ads or candidate promotions coming directly from megachurches on TV or in services. Since these ads occur within religious institutions, the funds and activities associated with them will not be taxed.
This poses a serious threat to the separation of church and state. We expect this will have significant adverse effects on future elections, undermining fair democratic processes and increasing the influence of religious institutions in partisan politics.
Jacobsen: Are there any limits on the amount?
Onwukwe: On how much someone can donate to a church for political purposes? No, there are no clear limits. So, someone could donate any amount they want to a church to promote a candidate. Moreover, that messaging will end up on people’s TVs, in their social feeds, or even from the pulpit itself.
There is also ambiguity around whether religious institutions can now endorse candidates on social media or through other channels. That is something we are still watching closely. Since this just happened, we will have to see how far it goes. A lot is still unclear at this point.
Jacobsen: When was the last time the United States was in a situation like this? Was there anything before the Johnson Amendment that served a similar purpose? Or has it always really just been the Johnson Amendment?
Onwukwe: That is a good question. I do not know. I am aware that the Johnson Amendment was introduced to prevent churches and other tax-exempt institutions from endorsing political candidates.
However, it was created in response to a specific incident, or was it a more preventative measure, intended to ensure that political activity remained separate from tax-exempt religious institutions?
Jacobsen: Does this change anything regarding verbal endorsements, written endorsements, or other forms of promotion from churches or politicians?
Onwukwe: That is another good question. We are still not sure. In this particular case, the IRS was responding to a specific incident and stated that the priest involved could promote candidates from the pulpit. So, that is the precedent being set right now.
However, whether that opens the door to broader endorsements—such as written letters, church-produced media, or full-on political ads on TV from a megachurch—is still unknown. It is very concerning. Like I said, we will have to wait and see how churches use this new leeway—and how prominent political donors might take advantage of it.
If someone wants to make a tax-free donation to promote a candidate, they could funnel it through a church and let the church handle the endorsement.
Jacobsen: The reality is, voters get their information about politicians from many different sources. For some, it might come directly from the presidential campaign. Still, for others—especially down-ballot races—it could come from more indirect means.
Depending on the voter, they may not have regular access to the internet or social media. They may not be tech-savvy or connected digitally at all. A significant portion of their political information comes through TV, primarily through ads like these.
That is where attack ads are particularly effective. Moreover, now, imagine that same person regularly attending church. If their priest or pastor is saying, “This is what you should be doing,” “This is who you should be voting for,” and “This is how to act as a faithful person,” that has a profound influence.
If someone has a strong connection to their religious leader, that endorsement can significantly shape their vote. This influence had already been happening under the radar, but now it has essentially been given the green light to proceed at full speed ahead. Is there already a legal counter-challenge to this decision?
Onwukwe: So far, I have not seen any formal legal challenges. I am sure efforts are being made behind the scenes, or announcements may be forthcoming soon. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds legally, especially when it comes to directly challenging this interpretation of the Johnson Amendment.
If it can be challenged, we will see action to at least slow it down or stop it entirely. However, for now, we are in a “wait and see” phase.
Jacobsen: How is this being received within your network, such as the Secular Coalition and its partner organizations?
Onwukwe: Across the board, our network has reacted strongly. All of our member organizations are in substantial alignment on this issue. Even in the past, when megachurches came out publicly in support of candidates, the Secular Coalition for America and many of our partners would issue public statements, send letters to the IRS, and encourage members and supporters to do the same.
Seeing this new stance—effectively dismantling the Johnson Amendment—has sparked considerable concern. Many people are speaking out and trying to figure out what can be done next. What is especially striking is that this new interpretation appears to be limited to churches.
Other 501(c)(3) organizations—particularly secular nonprofits—are still prohibited from endorsing candidates. While religious organizations can now promote political figures from the pulpit, secular nonprofits, including ours and many of our partner groups, are still bound by these restrictions. It is an apparent double standard.
Jacobsen: To be explicit and specific about leaders, what about pastoral political advertising?
Onwukwe: It does not appear this ruling will explicitly allow pastors to engage in political advertising. They may, however, be able to circumvent this by sending social media, emails, and other forms of communications to their congregations to further endorse political candidates.
Jacobsen, what about temples or mosques—are other religions also allowed to do this?
Onwukwe: Yes, they are. It applies broadly to religious institutions, such as churches, mosques, and temples. However, again, secular 501(c)(3) organizations are excluded from this privilege.
Jacobsen: There we go. Are there any final points we should add?
Onwukwe: I guess one other thing we have been working on—you might have heard about it—is the Educational Choice for Children Act. That has been in the works for a while now. We discussed it during our lobbying event in March.
A lot has been happening behind the scenes. It ended up being included in what the Trump administration has been calling their “Big, Beautiful Bill”—the actual language they have used to brand it. It is a terrible name, honestly.
However, the bottom line is that the bill passed in an amended form. The Secular Coalition for America is particularly concerned about the implications it could have on the separation of church and state, especially in the education sector.
What this law does is allow for federal school vouchers. The vast majority of those vouchers ultimately end up in private religious schools. That means public funds, which could be used for public schools and essential services, are being diverted to help families pay for religious education. That is a significant problem.
We are particularly concerned about how this affects public schools and marginalized students. These private religious schools are allowed to discriminate in admissions, whether that is against families of a different religion, students with disabilities, or families who do not meet their financial expectations.
For example, if a parent does not belong to the school’s preferred faith, the child can be rejected. If a student has a disability that the school does not want to accommodate, the school can also refuse to accept that student.
Moreover, the vouchers themselves do not cover the full cost of tuition at these schools. So they will not help low-income students get access—they will primarily benefit families who are already close to being able to afford it. It is a subsidy for the middle and upper-middle class, not real access for the underserved.
Additionally, in rural areas—where there are few or no private schools—students often lack the option to take advantage of the voucher program. In those areas, states that opt into the program will see funding stripped away from their public schools, without offering any viable alternative.
So there is much concern. We will have to wait and see how this plays out. The way the bill was passed includes an option for states to opt out, which is one positive aspect. States that do not wish to participate in the program are not required to do so.
However, we are already seeing signs that some states—which have previously expressed support for school vouchers—are moving forward with implementation, despite local opposition.
Even in states where voters have rejected similar measures in the past, leaders now have the green light to proceed without another public vote. In states where political leadership is divided—say, a governor who supports vouchers and a legislature that does not, or vice versa—this can also lead to significant internal conflict.
So we will continue to spread the word. You will probably see something from us in the next few days that lays out what the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) is, what it does now that it has passed, and what kind of impact we might see on public education.
We will continue to raise awareness and ensure that people are informed, so they can speak out against it if they choose.
Jacobsen: Good work—let us stay in touch.
Onwukwe: Thanks so much, Scott.
Jacobsen: Thanks so much.
Onwukwe: Have a good one. Bye-bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #lifestyle #menSIssues #movies #progressiveMasculinity #selfImprovement #technology #TheGoodMenProject #travel
-
Secular Coalition Warns of Christian Nationalist Bias in U.S. Religious Liberty Commission
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Nnenna Onwukwe (They/Them) is the Federal Policy Associate at the Secular Coalition for America, where she advocates for church-state separation, secular inclusion in policy, and protections for religious freedom for all. Onwukwe discusses the Religious Liberty Commission, criticizing its predominantly Christian nationalist composition and lack of secular or interfaith representation. They warn the Commission may use “religious freedom” as a tool for legalizing discrimination, especially against LGBTQ and non-Christian communities. Onwukwe also highlights concerns about IRS policy shifts, political endorsements from the pulpit, and school voucher programs redirecting public funds to private, religious institutions, which threaten public education and constitutional neutrality. SCA has sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury regarding the IRS’s decision not to enforce the Johnson Amendment. You can read the full document on their website: https://secular.org/2025/07/sca-lets-it-be-known-the-johnson-amendment-must-be-enforced
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, what is the Religious Liberty Commission? Moreover, how have they responded to concerns about bias toward one faith over another?
Nnenna Onwukwe: The Religious Liberty Commission was established by President Trump via executive order on May 1, 2025, as part of his broader agenda to promote religious expression in public life. It is housed in the Department of Justice and overseen by the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships and the Domestic Policy Council.
It is chaired by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, with Dr. Ben Carson as vice chair. The Commission’s term runs through July 4, 2026, coinciding with the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
The Commission’s goals include producing a report on the history and current state of religious liberty in America, identifying threats, and recommending policies, particularly regarding parental rights in religious education, conscience protections, vaccine exemptions, and the use of religious symbols in public spaces.
Jacobsen: So, where does SCA come in?
Onwukwe: We are with the Secular Coalition for America. Our concern is whether the Commission is showing bias toward Christian perspectives. The panel is predominantly composed of conservative evangelical Christians, along with a few Catholics and one Orthodox Jewish representative. There is no real representation of secular individuals, Muslims, Hindus, or other minority faiths.
Before their first public meeting in June, held at the Museum of the Bible, we sent a letter requesting clarity. We wanted to know whether the Commission’s reports would primarily focus on Christians or encompass all faiths, including nonreligious Americans. We also raised concerns about possible discrimination against non-Christian groups.
Jacobsen: Did they respond?
Onwukwe: No, we have not received a reply. Given the composition of the panel and the rhetoric at their first meeting, they may not be interested in secular input. However, we will keep advocating. They must know we are here and that we are watching.
Jacobsen: What are some of your specific concerns with how they are operating?
Onwukwe: So we sent them a couple of questions. We were particularly concerned because, even in the first meeting, there was much rhetoric about America being a “Christian nation.” However, if you examine the actual history of the United States, the founding documents intentionally omitted references to religion.
The founders deliberately moved away from a system that fused religion with government. They envisioned a secular nation with a clear separation of church and state. Hearing language that implies otherwise is troubling.
The composition of the Commission is also a concern, as it lacks secular voices on the panel. During and even before the first meeting, we observed a strong focus on what is often referred to as “anti-Christian bias,” particularly with the establishment of the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.
The issue is, organizations like ours—and others—have not seen compelling evidence of systemic anti-Christian bias. We worry that the phrase “anti-Christian bias” is being used to justify policies that would allow Christians to discriminate against others, especially in workplaces or service settings.
For example, if a Christian employee claims their religious beliefs are being “discriminated against,” that might be used to excuse discriminatory behaviour toward LGBTQ individuals or people of other faiths. So the implications could be profound.
Jacobsen: Who comprises the Liberty Commission? That is important to know.
Onwukwe: The Commission includes Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Dr. Ben Carson, and Paula White, who serves as a senior adviser in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships. Interestingly, Dr. Phil McGraw is also on the panel, though his inclusion has raised some eyebrows.
The panel consists of Christian leaders, many of whom are affiliated with the Christian nationalist movement. It was strange. Even during the Commission meeting, Dr. Phil spoke out against one of the issues being discussed, which was interesting. Dr. Phil may be the one person on the panel who speaks up. I do not know.
The panel is primarily composed of Christians, many of whom are recognizable figures in the Christian nationalist movement. I believe one of them was a former Miss America contestant who publicly stated that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
That kind of viewpoint reflects the broader makeup of the Commission. Paula White—the head of the White House Faith Office—has been actively pushing the narrative of “anti-Christian bias” and helped establish the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.
She was a frequent spiritual adviser during Trump’s presidency and was present when both the Religious Liberty Commission and the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force were launched, often leading prayers at those events.
Interestingly, she has also claimed that women should not hold positions of power, despite holding one herself. That contradiction is, of course, hard to ignore. Overall, it is a panel dominated by prominent Christian nationalist voices who support the idea that America is inherently a Christian nation.
Even the Jewish panellists did not speak up when those kinds of statements were made, which we found concerning, mainly because those statements are not factual.
Jacobsen: What about their makeup?
Onwukwe: The majority of the makeup of the commission are Protestant and conservative Catholics. There are a few rabbis and other Jewish members and at least one person who is Muslim. During their first meeting there was only one Jewish person sitting on the panel, the rest of the panelists were Christian or Catholic.
Jacobsen: Are there any secular voices on the Commission or involved in any way?
Onwukwe: None that we saw. None that are openly secular, at least. Most of the individuals involved are prominent figures in Christian media or associated with the Christian nationalist movement, unfortunately. That is a significant concern for us.
Onwukwe: We even provided them with names—people who could represent secular Americans and offer a valuable perspective—but nothing has come of it so far.
Jacobsen: Another important point—while not necessarily from a secular perspective alone, it is still concerning: How diverse is the Commission in terms of religious representation? Because it is not just secular voices being excluded; it is also about whether they include a broad interfaith representation.
Do they reflect the growing diversity in American religious identity? They ignore the expanding secular population, but are they at least capturing denominational or interfaith diversity?
Onwukwe: The majority are Christians, as I mentioned earlier. There are a few Jewish voices, and I believe there may be one or two Muslim individuals involved. However, it is unclear whether they are formally part of the panel or just a participant in the broader conversation.
However, aside from that, the overwhelming majority of the Commission members are Christian. So, in terms of true interfaith diversity, it is minimal. As you said, there is a growing secular movement—an increasing number of Americans now identify as nonreligious.
We have been advocating for secular representation in Congress and other federal bodies for years. It is deeply concerning that this Commission was created without any meaningful representation of nonreligious Americans.
Jacobsen: So, in a sense, this version of “religious liberty” seems like a highly selective interpretation of freedom of religion and conscience?
Onwukwe: We often see this with groups like this one and others that promote Christian nationalism.
They often claim they are fighting for “religious freedom” or “religious liberty,” and that they are being discriminated against, when in reality, what they are pushing for is the freedom to use their religion to discriminate against others or insert their religious beliefs into public institutions, like schools.
The Commission reflects this mindset. They interpret the First Amendment not as a protection from religious imposition, but as a license to impose their spiritual values on public life under the guise of protecting religious freedom.
So yes, that is our concern. They have taken a highly selective interpretation of religious liberty—one that favours a particular brand of Christianity—and are using it to advance a very narrow cultural and political agenda.
Jacobsen: They are using that interpretation to justify discrimination.
Onwukwe: And that is one of our biggest concerns: that the Commission will use this distorted view of religious freedom to target minority groups, framing it as though Christians are being discriminated against, when in fact, they are the ones seeking legal cover to discriminate.
Jacobsen: And this is not new. I remember hearing similar arguments as far back as seven years ago. It would usually come in the form of a brief controversy, such as a 15-minute segment on Fox News, when something happens at a school or church.
When I was interviewing two people from The Satanic Temple several years ago, they mentioned a persistent persecution complex. They have framed it in a way that if they do not get 100% of what they want, they see it as oppression. They push this narrative. So when they do not get everything exactly as they want it, they claim they are being persecuted.
How they frame this “victimization” is revealing. Some isolated concerns might be valid, but overall, they are using the idea of victimhood as a political tool.
Onwukwe: Yes. Moreover, as we have discussed, the secular community is growing. Younger generations, especially, have different views on social and moral issues—things the older, more religious generations often find threatening or uncomfortable. That discomfort is sometimes interpreted as discrimination by those older groups.
The rise of LGBTQ rights—such as marriage equality, trans rights, and protections for people of other religions or no religion—is often perceived by some conservative Christian groups as an attack on their faith.
They see it as a threat to the version of America they grew up with, even though the United States has always been a secular nation. It is unfamiliar to them, and they interpret these changes as direct attacks on their beliefs.
This perception extends to issues such as vaccine mandates and mask requirements. In 2020, we witnessed widespread outrage over church closures, despite all public gathering places being closed due to health concerns.
Still, they felt singled out because of their religion, even though the policies were broad and applied to everyone equally. What we are discussing is ensuring that all Americans—regardless of their religion or identity—have equal rights and freedoms.
However, for some, equality feels like persecution because it challenges the privileged position they have long held. You can also see it in schools. Many Christian organizations have been advocating for initiatives such as mandatory prayer in public schools.
Moreover, with the recent Supreme Court decision—Mahmood v. Taylor—there has been a push to allow parents to opt their children out of public education that conflicts with their religious views.
So when they claim they are being “discriminated against,” it often really means they want their religious beliefs to take precedence over others’ rights. That is something we see a lot in the Christian nationalist movement and among many far-right Christian groups.
Jacobsen: So, the IRS has weighed in on political endorsements from the pulpit. That is the way it is being framed, although the specifics, outside of press releases, are essential to examine. There are questions about what exactly constitutes a political endorsement—financial or otherwise—and how that interacts with the Johnson Amendment, or whether this is an attempt to override or circumvent it. I am not yet aware of the implications.
Onwukwe: So basically, over the years—as you have probably seen—a lot of Americans have filed complaints with the IRS, objecting to religious institutions and leaders openly endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. That is a clear violation of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt religious organizations from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.
Despite this, the IRS has taken minimal action. We, along with other secular organizations, have issued alerts and encouraged the public to submit formal objections to the IRS. However, the agency has not responded decisively or pursued many of these cases.
With the recent developments, the IRS is now taking the stance that religious institutions can endorse political candidates from the pulpit, essentially making it clear there will be no consequences. That is deeply concerning.
It opens the door for politicians to funnel untaxed money through churches in exchange for endorsements. You will start seeing political ads or candidate promotions coming directly from megachurches on TV or in services. Since these ads occur within religious institutions, the funds and activities associated with them will not be taxed.
This poses a serious threat to the separation of church and state. We expect this will have significant adverse effects on future elections, undermining fair democratic processes and increasing the influence of religious institutions in partisan politics.
Jacobsen: Are there any limits on the amount?
Onwukwe: On how much someone can donate to a church for political purposes? No, there are no clear limits. So, someone could donate any amount they want to a church to promote a candidate. Moreover, that messaging will end up on people’s TVs, in their social feeds, or even from the pulpit itself.
There is also ambiguity around whether religious institutions can now endorse candidates on social media or through other channels. That is something we are still watching closely. Since this just happened, we will have to see how far it goes. A lot is still unclear at this point.
Jacobsen: When was the last time the United States was in a situation like this? Was there anything before the Johnson Amendment that served a similar purpose? Or has it always really just been the Johnson Amendment?
Onwukwe: That is a good question. I do not know. I am aware that the Johnson Amendment was introduced to prevent churches and other tax-exempt institutions from endorsing political candidates.
However, it was created in response to a specific incident, or was it a more preventative measure, intended to ensure that political activity remained separate from tax-exempt religious institutions?
Jacobsen: Does this change anything regarding verbal endorsements, written endorsements, or other forms of promotion from churches or politicians?
Onwukwe: That is another good question. We are still not sure. In this particular case, the IRS was responding to a specific incident and stated that the priest involved could promote candidates from the pulpit. So, that is the precedent being set right now.
However, whether that opens the door to broader endorsements—such as written letters, church-produced media, or full-on political ads on TV from a megachurch—is still unknown. It is very concerning. Like I said, we will have to wait and see how churches use this new leeway—and how prominent political donors might take advantage of it.
If someone wants to make a tax-free donation to promote a candidate, they could funnel it through a church and let the church handle the endorsement.
Jacobsen: The reality is, voters get their information about politicians from many different sources. For some, it might come directly from the presidential campaign. Still, for others—especially down-ballot races—it could come from more indirect means.
Depending on the voter, they may not have regular access to the internet or social media. They may not be tech-savvy or connected digitally at all. A significant portion of their political information comes through TV, primarily through ads like these.
That is where attack ads are particularly effective. Moreover, now, imagine that same person regularly attending church. If their priest or pastor is saying, “This is what you should be doing,” “This is who you should be voting for,” and “This is how to act as a faithful person,” that has a profound influence.
If someone has a strong connection to their religious leader, that endorsement can significantly shape their vote. This influence had already been happening under the radar, but now it has essentially been given the green light to proceed at full speed ahead. Is there already a legal counter-challenge to this decision?
Onwukwe: So far, I have not seen any formal legal challenges. I am sure efforts are being made behind the scenes, or announcements may be forthcoming soon. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds legally, especially when it comes to directly challenging this interpretation of the Johnson Amendment.
If it can be challenged, we will see action to at least slow it down or stop it entirely. However, for now, we are in a “wait and see” phase.
Jacobsen: How is this being received within your network, such as the Secular Coalition and its partner organizations?
Onwukwe: Across the board, our network has reacted strongly. All of our member organizations are in substantial alignment on this issue. Even in the past, when megachurches came out publicly in support of candidates, the Secular Coalition for America and many of our partners would issue public statements, send letters to the IRS, and encourage members and supporters to do the same.
Seeing this new stance—effectively dismantling the Johnson Amendment—has sparked considerable concern. Many people are speaking out and trying to figure out what can be done next. What is especially striking is that this new interpretation appears to be limited to churches.
Other 501(c)(3) organizations—particularly secular nonprofits—are still prohibited from endorsing candidates. While religious organizations can now promote political figures from the pulpit, secular nonprofits, including ours and many of our partner groups, are still bound by these restrictions. It is an apparent double standard.
Jacobsen: To be explicit and specific about leaders, what about pastoral political advertising?
Onwukwe: It does not appear this ruling will explicitly allow pastors to engage in political advertising. They may, however, be able to circumvent this by sending social media, emails, and other forms of communications to their congregations to further endorse political candidates.
Jacobsen, what about temples or mosques—are other religions also allowed to do this?
Onwukwe: Yes, they are. It applies broadly to religious institutions, such as churches, mosques, and temples. However, again, secular 501(c)(3) organizations are excluded from this privilege.
Jacobsen: There we go. Are there any final points we should add?
Onwukwe: I guess one other thing we have been working on—you might have heard about it—is the Educational Choice for Children Act. That has been in the works for a while now. We discussed it during our lobbying event in March.
A lot has been happening behind the scenes. It ended up being included in what the Trump administration has been calling their “Big, Beautiful Bill”—the actual language they have used to brand it. It is a terrible name, honestly.
However, the bottom line is that the bill passed in an amended form. The Secular Coalition for America is particularly concerned about the implications it could have on the separation of church and state, especially in the education sector.
What this law does is allow for federal school vouchers. The vast majority of those vouchers ultimately end up in private religious schools. That means public funds, which could be used for public schools and essential services, are being diverted to help families pay for religious education. That is a significant problem.
We are particularly concerned about how this affects public schools and marginalized students. These private religious schools are allowed to discriminate in admissions, whether that is against families of a different religion, students with disabilities, or families who do not meet their financial expectations.
For example, if a parent does not belong to the school’s preferred faith, the child can be rejected. If a student has a disability that the school does not want to accommodate, the school can also refuse to accept that student.
Moreover, the vouchers themselves do not cover the full cost of tuition at these schools. So they will not help low-income students get access—they will primarily benefit families who are already close to being able to afford it. It is a subsidy for the middle and upper-middle class, not real access for the underserved.
Additionally, in rural areas—where there are few or no private schools—students often lack the option to take advantage of the voucher program. In those areas, states that opt into the program will see funding stripped away from their public schools, without offering any viable alternative.
So there is much concern. We will have to wait and see how this plays out. The way the bill was passed includes an option for states to opt out, which is one positive aspect. States that do not wish to participate in the program are not required to do so.
However, we are already seeing signs that some states—which have previously expressed support for school vouchers—are moving forward with implementation, despite local opposition.
Even in states where voters have rejected similar measures in the past, leaders now have the green light to proceed without another public vote. In states where political leadership is divided—say, a governor who supports vouchers and a legislature that does not, or vice versa—this can also lead to significant internal conflict.
So we will continue to spread the word. You will probably see something from us in the next few days that lays out what the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) is, what it does now that it has passed, and what kind of impact we might see on public education.
We will continue to raise awareness and ensure that people are informed, so they can speak out against it if they choose.
Jacobsen: Good work—let us stay in touch.
Onwukwe: Thanks so much, Scott.
Jacobsen: Thanks so much.
Onwukwe: Have a good one. Bye-bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #lifestyle #menSIssues #movies #progressiveMasculinity #selfImprovement #technology #TheGoodMenProject #travel
-
Secular Coalition Warns of Christian Nationalist Bias in U.S. Religious Liberty Commission
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Nnenna Onwukwe (They/Them) is the Federal Policy Associate at the Secular Coalition for America, where she advocates for church-state separation, secular inclusion in policy, and protections for religious freedom for all. Onwukwe discusses the Religious Liberty Commission, criticizing its predominantly Christian nationalist composition and lack of secular or interfaith representation. They warn the Commission may use “religious freedom” as a tool for legalizing discrimination, especially against LGBTQ and non-Christian communities. Onwukwe also highlights concerns about IRS policy shifts, political endorsements from the pulpit, and school voucher programs redirecting public funds to private, religious institutions, which threaten public education and constitutional neutrality. SCA has sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury regarding the IRS’s decision not to enforce the Johnson Amendment. You can read the full document on their website: https://secular.org/2025/07/sca-lets-it-be-known-the-johnson-amendment-must-be-enforced
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, what is the Religious Liberty Commission? Moreover, how have they responded to concerns about bias toward one faith over another?
Nnenna Onwukwe: The Religious Liberty Commission was established by President Trump via executive order on May 1, 2025, as part of his broader agenda to promote religious expression in public life. It is housed in the Department of Justice and overseen by the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships and the Domestic Policy Council.
It is chaired by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, with Dr. Ben Carson as vice chair. The Commission’s term runs through July 4, 2026, coinciding with the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
The Commission’s goals include producing a report on the history and current state of religious liberty in America, identifying threats, and recommending policies, particularly regarding parental rights in religious education, conscience protections, vaccine exemptions, and the use of religious symbols in public spaces.
Jacobsen: So, where does SCA come in?
Onwukwe: We are with the Secular Coalition for America. Our concern is whether the Commission is showing bias toward Christian perspectives. The panel is predominantly composed of conservative evangelical Christians, along with a few Catholics and one Orthodox Jewish representative. There is no real representation of secular individuals, Muslims, Hindus, or other minority faiths.
Before their first public meeting in June, held at the Museum of the Bible, we sent a letter requesting clarity. We wanted to know whether the Commission’s reports would primarily focus on Christians or encompass all faiths, including nonreligious Americans. We also raised concerns about possible discrimination against non-Christian groups.
Jacobsen: Did they respond?
Onwukwe: No, we have not received a reply. Given the composition of the panel and the rhetoric at their first meeting, they may not be interested in secular input. However, we will keep advocating. They must know we are here and that we are watching.
Jacobsen: What are some of your specific concerns with how they are operating?
Onwukwe: So we sent them a couple of questions. We were particularly concerned because, even in the first meeting, there was much rhetoric about America being a “Christian nation.” However, if you examine the actual history of the United States, the founding documents intentionally omitted references to religion.
The founders deliberately moved away from a system that fused religion with government. They envisioned a secular nation with a clear separation of church and state. Hearing language that implies otherwise is troubling.
The composition of the Commission is also a concern, as it lacks secular voices on the panel. During and even before the first meeting, we observed a strong focus on what is often referred to as “anti-Christian bias,” particularly with the establishment of the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.
The issue is, organizations like ours—and others—have not seen compelling evidence of systemic anti-Christian bias. We worry that the phrase “anti-Christian bias” is being used to justify policies that would allow Christians to discriminate against others, especially in workplaces or service settings.
For example, if a Christian employee claims their religious beliefs are being “discriminated against,” that might be used to excuse discriminatory behaviour toward LGBTQ individuals or people of other faiths. So the implications could be profound.
Jacobsen: Who comprises the Liberty Commission? That is important to know.
Onwukwe: The Commission includes Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Dr. Ben Carson, and Paula White, who serves as a senior adviser in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships. Interestingly, Dr. Phil McGraw is also on the panel, though his inclusion has raised some eyebrows.
The panel consists of Christian leaders, many of whom are affiliated with the Christian nationalist movement. It was strange. Even during the Commission meeting, Dr. Phil spoke out against one of the issues being discussed, which was interesting. Dr. Phil may be the one person on the panel who speaks up. I do not know.
The panel is primarily composed of Christians, many of whom are recognizable figures in the Christian nationalist movement. I believe one of them was a former Miss America contestant who publicly stated that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
That kind of viewpoint reflects the broader makeup of the Commission. Paula White—the head of the White House Faith Office—has been actively pushing the narrative of “anti-Christian bias” and helped establish the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.
She was a frequent spiritual adviser during Trump’s presidency and was present when both the Religious Liberty Commission and the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force were launched, often leading prayers at those events.
Interestingly, she has also claimed that women should not hold positions of power, despite holding one herself. That contradiction is, of course, hard to ignore. Overall, it is a panel dominated by prominent Christian nationalist voices who support the idea that America is inherently a Christian nation.
Even the Jewish panellists did not speak up when those kinds of statements were made, which we found concerning, mainly because those statements are not factual.
Jacobsen: What about their makeup?
Onwukwe: The majority of the makeup of the commission are Protestant and conservative Catholics. There are a few rabbis and other Jewish members and at least one person who is Muslim. During their first meeting there was only one Jewish person sitting on the panel, the rest of the panelists were Christian or Catholic.
Jacobsen: Are there any secular voices on the Commission or involved in any way?
Onwukwe: None that we saw. None that are openly secular, at least. Most of the individuals involved are prominent figures in Christian media or associated with the Christian nationalist movement, unfortunately. That is a significant concern for us.
Onwukwe: We even provided them with names—people who could represent secular Americans and offer a valuable perspective—but nothing has come of it so far.
Jacobsen: Another important point—while not necessarily from a secular perspective alone, it is still concerning: How diverse is the Commission in terms of religious representation? Because it is not just secular voices being excluded; it is also about whether they include a broad interfaith representation.
Do they reflect the growing diversity in American religious identity? They ignore the expanding secular population, but are they at least capturing denominational or interfaith diversity?
Onwukwe: The majority are Christians, as I mentioned earlier. There are a few Jewish voices, and I believe there may be one or two Muslim individuals involved. However, it is unclear whether they are formally part of the panel or just a participant in the broader conversation.
However, aside from that, the overwhelming majority of the Commission members are Christian. So, in terms of true interfaith diversity, it is minimal. As you said, there is a growing secular movement—an increasing number of Americans now identify as nonreligious.
We have been advocating for secular representation in Congress and other federal bodies for years. It is deeply concerning that this Commission was created without any meaningful representation of nonreligious Americans.
Jacobsen: So, in a sense, this version of “religious liberty” seems like a highly selective interpretation of freedom of religion and conscience?
Onwukwe: We often see this with groups like this one and others that promote Christian nationalism.
They often claim they are fighting for “religious freedom” or “religious liberty,” and that they are being discriminated against, when in reality, what they are pushing for is the freedom to use their religion to discriminate against others or insert their religious beliefs into public institutions, like schools.
The Commission reflects this mindset. They interpret the First Amendment not as a protection from religious imposition, but as a license to impose their spiritual values on public life under the guise of protecting religious freedom.
So yes, that is our concern. They have taken a highly selective interpretation of religious liberty—one that favours a particular brand of Christianity—and are using it to advance a very narrow cultural and political agenda.
Jacobsen: They are using that interpretation to justify discrimination.
Onwukwe: And that is one of our biggest concerns: that the Commission will use this distorted view of religious freedom to target minority groups, framing it as though Christians are being discriminated against, when in fact, they are the ones seeking legal cover to discriminate.
Jacobsen: And this is not new. I remember hearing similar arguments as far back as seven years ago. It would usually come in the form of a brief controversy, such as a 15-minute segment on Fox News, when something happens at a school or church.
When I was interviewing two people from The Satanic Temple several years ago, they mentioned a persistent persecution complex. They have framed it in a way that if they do not get 100% of what they want, they see it as oppression. They push this narrative. So when they do not get everything exactly as they want it, they claim they are being persecuted.
How they frame this “victimization” is revealing. Some isolated concerns might be valid, but overall, they are using the idea of victimhood as a political tool.
Onwukwe: Yes. Moreover, as we have discussed, the secular community is growing. Younger generations, especially, have different views on social and moral issues—things the older, more religious generations often find threatening or uncomfortable. That discomfort is sometimes interpreted as discrimination by those older groups.
The rise of LGBTQ rights—such as marriage equality, trans rights, and protections for people of other religions or no religion—is often perceived by some conservative Christian groups as an attack on their faith.
They see it as a threat to the version of America they grew up with, even though the United States has always been a secular nation. It is unfamiliar to them, and they interpret these changes as direct attacks on their beliefs.
This perception extends to issues such as vaccine mandates and mask requirements. In 2020, we witnessed widespread outrage over church closures, despite all public gathering places being closed due to health concerns.
Still, they felt singled out because of their religion, even though the policies were broad and applied to everyone equally. What we are discussing is ensuring that all Americans—regardless of their religion or identity—have equal rights and freedoms.
However, for some, equality feels like persecution because it challenges the privileged position they have long held. You can also see it in schools. Many Christian organizations have been advocating for initiatives such as mandatory prayer in public schools.
Moreover, with the recent Supreme Court decision—Mahmood v. Taylor—there has been a push to allow parents to opt their children out of public education that conflicts with their religious views.
So when they claim they are being “discriminated against,” it often really means they want their religious beliefs to take precedence over others’ rights. That is something we see a lot in the Christian nationalist movement and among many far-right Christian groups.
Jacobsen: So, the IRS has weighed in on political endorsements from the pulpit. That is the way it is being framed, although the specifics, outside of press releases, are essential to examine. There are questions about what exactly constitutes a political endorsement—financial or otherwise—and how that interacts with the Johnson Amendment, or whether this is an attempt to override or circumvent it. I am not yet aware of the implications.
Onwukwe: So basically, over the years—as you have probably seen—a lot of Americans have filed complaints with the IRS, objecting to religious institutions and leaders openly endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. That is a clear violation of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt religious organizations from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.
Despite this, the IRS has taken minimal action. We, along with other secular organizations, have issued alerts and encouraged the public to submit formal objections to the IRS. However, the agency has not responded decisively or pursued many of these cases.
With the recent developments, the IRS is now taking the stance that religious institutions can endorse political candidates from the pulpit, essentially making it clear there will be no consequences. That is deeply concerning.
It opens the door for politicians to funnel untaxed money through churches in exchange for endorsements. You will start seeing political ads or candidate promotions coming directly from megachurches on TV or in services. Since these ads occur within religious institutions, the funds and activities associated with them will not be taxed.
This poses a serious threat to the separation of church and state. We expect this will have significant adverse effects on future elections, undermining fair democratic processes and increasing the influence of religious institutions in partisan politics.
Jacobsen: Are there any limits on the amount?
Onwukwe: On how much someone can donate to a church for political purposes? No, there are no clear limits. So, someone could donate any amount they want to a church to promote a candidate. Moreover, that messaging will end up on people’s TVs, in their social feeds, or even from the pulpit itself.
There is also ambiguity around whether religious institutions can now endorse candidates on social media or through other channels. That is something we are still watching closely. Since this just happened, we will have to see how far it goes. A lot is still unclear at this point.
Jacobsen: When was the last time the United States was in a situation like this? Was there anything before the Johnson Amendment that served a similar purpose? Or has it always really just been the Johnson Amendment?
Onwukwe: That is a good question. I do not know. I am aware that the Johnson Amendment was introduced to prevent churches and other tax-exempt institutions from endorsing political candidates.
However, it was created in response to a specific incident, or was it a more preventative measure, intended to ensure that political activity remained separate from tax-exempt religious institutions?
Jacobsen: Does this change anything regarding verbal endorsements, written endorsements, or other forms of promotion from churches or politicians?
Onwukwe: That is another good question. We are still not sure. In this particular case, the IRS was responding to a specific incident and stated that the priest involved could promote candidates from the pulpit. So, that is the precedent being set right now.
However, whether that opens the door to broader endorsements—such as written letters, church-produced media, or full-on political ads on TV from a megachurch—is still unknown. It is very concerning. Like I said, we will have to wait and see how churches use this new leeway—and how prominent political donors might take advantage of it.
If someone wants to make a tax-free donation to promote a candidate, they could funnel it through a church and let the church handle the endorsement.
Jacobsen: The reality is, voters get their information about politicians from many different sources. For some, it might come directly from the presidential campaign. Still, for others—especially down-ballot races—it could come from more indirect means.
Depending on the voter, they may not have regular access to the internet or social media. They may not be tech-savvy or connected digitally at all. A significant portion of their political information comes through TV, primarily through ads like these.
That is where attack ads are particularly effective. Moreover, now, imagine that same person regularly attending church. If their priest or pastor is saying, “This is what you should be doing,” “This is who you should be voting for,” and “This is how to act as a faithful person,” that has a profound influence.
If someone has a strong connection to their religious leader, that endorsement can significantly shape their vote. This influence had already been happening under the radar, but now it has essentially been given the green light to proceed at full speed ahead. Is there already a legal counter-challenge to this decision?
Onwukwe: So far, I have not seen any formal legal challenges. I am sure efforts are being made behind the scenes, or announcements may be forthcoming soon. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds legally, especially when it comes to directly challenging this interpretation of the Johnson Amendment.
If it can be challenged, we will see action to at least slow it down or stop it entirely. However, for now, we are in a “wait and see” phase.
Jacobsen: How is this being received within your network, such as the Secular Coalition and its partner organizations?
Onwukwe: Across the board, our network has reacted strongly. All of our member organizations are in substantial alignment on this issue. Even in the past, when megachurches came out publicly in support of candidates, the Secular Coalition for America and many of our partners would issue public statements, send letters to the IRS, and encourage members and supporters to do the same.
Seeing this new stance—effectively dismantling the Johnson Amendment—has sparked considerable concern. Many people are speaking out and trying to figure out what can be done next. What is especially striking is that this new interpretation appears to be limited to churches.
Other 501(c)(3) organizations—particularly secular nonprofits—are still prohibited from endorsing candidates. While religious organizations can now promote political figures from the pulpit, secular nonprofits, including ours and many of our partner groups, are still bound by these restrictions. It is an apparent double standard.
Jacobsen: To be explicit and specific about leaders, what about pastoral political advertising?
Onwukwe: It does not appear this ruling will explicitly allow pastors to engage in political advertising. They may, however, be able to circumvent this by sending social media, emails, and other forms of communications to their congregations to further endorse political candidates.
Jacobsen, what about temples or mosques—are other religions also allowed to do this?
Onwukwe: Yes, they are. It applies broadly to religious institutions, such as churches, mosques, and temples. However, again, secular 501(c)(3) organizations are excluded from this privilege.
Jacobsen: There we go. Are there any final points we should add?
Onwukwe: I guess one other thing we have been working on—you might have heard about it—is the Educational Choice for Children Act. That has been in the works for a while now. We discussed it during our lobbying event in March.
A lot has been happening behind the scenes. It ended up being included in what the Trump administration has been calling their “Big, Beautiful Bill”—the actual language they have used to brand it. It is a terrible name, honestly.
However, the bottom line is that the bill passed in an amended form. The Secular Coalition for America is particularly concerned about the implications it could have on the separation of church and state, especially in the education sector.
What this law does is allow for federal school vouchers. The vast majority of those vouchers ultimately end up in private religious schools. That means public funds, which could be used for public schools and essential services, are being diverted to help families pay for religious education. That is a significant problem.
We are particularly concerned about how this affects public schools and marginalized students. These private religious schools are allowed to discriminate in admissions, whether that is against families of a different religion, students with disabilities, or families who do not meet their financial expectations.
For example, if a parent does not belong to the school’s preferred faith, the child can be rejected. If a student has a disability that the school does not want to accommodate, the school can also refuse to accept that student.
Moreover, the vouchers themselves do not cover the full cost of tuition at these schools. So they will not help low-income students get access—they will primarily benefit families who are already close to being able to afford it. It is a subsidy for the middle and upper-middle class, not real access for the underserved.
Additionally, in rural areas—where there are few or no private schools—students often lack the option to take advantage of the voucher program. In those areas, states that opt into the program will see funding stripped away from their public schools, without offering any viable alternative.
So there is much concern. We will have to wait and see how this plays out. The way the bill was passed includes an option for states to opt out, which is one positive aspect. States that do not wish to participate in the program are not required to do so.
However, we are already seeing signs that some states—which have previously expressed support for school vouchers—are moving forward with implementation, despite local opposition.
Even in states where voters have rejected similar measures in the past, leaders now have the green light to proceed without another public vote. In states where political leadership is divided—say, a governor who supports vouchers and a legislature that does not, or vice versa—this can also lead to significant internal conflict.
So we will continue to spread the word. You will probably see something from us in the next few days that lays out what the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) is, what it does now that it has passed, and what kind of impact we might see on public education.
We will continue to raise awareness and ensure that people are informed, so they can speak out against it if they choose.
Jacobsen: Good work—let us stay in touch.
Onwukwe: Thanks so much, Scott.
Jacobsen: Thanks so much.
Onwukwe: Have a good one. Bye-bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #lifestyle #menSIssues #movies #progressiveMasculinity #selfImprovement #technology #TheGoodMenProject #travel
-
Secular Coalition Warns of Christian Nationalist Bias in U.S. Religious Liberty Commission
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Nnenna Onwukwe (They/Them) is the Federal Policy Associate at the Secular Coalition for America, where she advocates for church-state separation, secular inclusion in policy, and protections for religious freedom for all. Onwukwe discusses the Religious Liberty Commission, criticizing its predominantly Christian nationalist composition and lack of secular or interfaith representation. They warn the Commission may use “religious freedom” as a tool for legalizing discrimination, especially against LGBTQ and non-Christian communities. Onwukwe also highlights concerns about IRS policy shifts, political endorsements from the pulpit, and school voucher programs redirecting public funds to private, religious institutions, which threaten public education and constitutional neutrality. SCA has sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury regarding the IRS’s decision not to enforce the Johnson Amendment. You can read the full document on their website: https://secular.org/2025/07/sca-lets-it-be-known-the-johnson-amendment-must-be-enforced
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, what is the Religious Liberty Commission? Moreover, how have they responded to concerns about bias toward one faith over another?
Nnenna Onwukwe: The Religious Liberty Commission was established by President Trump via executive order on May 1, 2025, as part of his broader agenda to promote religious expression in public life. It is housed in the Department of Justice and overseen by the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships and the Domestic Policy Council.
It is chaired by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, with Dr. Ben Carson as vice chair. The Commission’s term runs through July 4, 2026, coinciding with the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
The Commission’s goals include producing a report on the history and current state of religious liberty in America, identifying threats, and recommending policies, particularly regarding parental rights in religious education, conscience protections, vaccine exemptions, and the use of religious symbols in public spaces.
Jacobsen: So, where does SCA come in?
Onwukwe: We are with the Secular Coalition for America. Our concern is whether the Commission is showing bias toward Christian perspectives. The panel is predominantly composed of conservative evangelical Christians, along with a few Catholics and one Orthodox Jewish representative. There is no real representation of secular individuals, Muslims, Hindus, or other minority faiths.
Before their first public meeting in June, held at the Museum of the Bible, we sent a letter requesting clarity. We wanted to know whether the Commission’s reports would primarily focus on Christians or encompass all faiths, including nonreligious Americans. We also raised concerns about possible discrimination against non-Christian groups.
Jacobsen: Did they respond?
Onwukwe: No, we have not received a reply. Given the composition of the panel and the rhetoric at their first meeting, they may not be interested in secular input. However, we will keep advocating. They must know we are here and that we are watching.
Jacobsen: What are some of your specific concerns with how they are operating?
Onwukwe: So we sent them a couple of questions. We were particularly concerned because, even in the first meeting, there was much rhetoric about America being a “Christian nation.” However, if you examine the actual history of the United States, the founding documents intentionally omitted references to religion.
The founders deliberately moved away from a system that fused religion with government. They envisioned a secular nation with a clear separation of church and state. Hearing language that implies otherwise is troubling.
The composition of the Commission is also a concern, as it lacks secular voices on the panel. During and even before the first meeting, we observed a strong focus on what is often referred to as “anti-Christian bias,” particularly with the establishment of the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.
The issue is, organizations like ours—and others—have not seen compelling evidence of systemic anti-Christian bias. We worry that the phrase “anti-Christian bias” is being used to justify policies that would allow Christians to discriminate against others, especially in workplaces or service settings.
For example, if a Christian employee claims their religious beliefs are being “discriminated against,” that might be used to excuse discriminatory behaviour toward LGBTQ individuals or people of other faiths. So the implications could be profound.
Jacobsen: Who comprises the Liberty Commission? That is important to know.
Onwukwe: The Commission includes Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Dr. Ben Carson, and Paula White, who serves as a senior adviser in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships. Interestingly, Dr. Phil McGraw is also on the panel, though his inclusion has raised some eyebrows.
The panel consists of Christian leaders, many of whom are affiliated with the Christian nationalist movement. It was strange. Even during the Commission meeting, Dr. Phil spoke out against one of the issues being discussed, which was interesting. Dr. Phil may be the one person on the panel who speaks up. I do not know.
The panel is primarily composed of Christians, many of whom are recognizable figures in the Christian nationalist movement. I believe one of them was a former Miss America contestant who publicly stated that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
That kind of viewpoint reflects the broader makeup of the Commission. Paula White—the head of the White House Faith Office—has been actively pushing the narrative of “anti-Christian bias” and helped establish the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.
She was a frequent spiritual adviser during Trump’s presidency and was present when both the Religious Liberty Commission and the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force were launched, often leading prayers at those events.
Interestingly, she has also claimed that women should not hold positions of power, despite holding one herself. That contradiction is, of course, hard to ignore. Overall, it is a panel dominated by prominent Christian nationalist voices who support the idea that America is inherently a Christian nation.
Even the Jewish panellists did not speak up when those kinds of statements were made, which we found concerning, mainly because those statements are not factual.
Jacobsen: What about their makeup?
Onwukwe: The majority of the makeup of the commission are Protestant and conservative Catholics. There are a few rabbis and other Jewish members and at least one person who is Muslim. During their first meeting there was only one Jewish person sitting on the panel, the rest of the panelists were Christian or Catholic.
Jacobsen: Are there any secular voices on the Commission or involved in any way?
Onwukwe: None that we saw. None that are openly secular, at least. Most of the individuals involved are prominent figures in Christian media or associated with the Christian nationalist movement, unfortunately. That is a significant concern for us.
Onwukwe: We even provided them with names—people who could represent secular Americans and offer a valuable perspective—but nothing has come of it so far.
Jacobsen: Another important point—while not necessarily from a secular perspective alone, it is still concerning: How diverse is the Commission in terms of religious representation? Because it is not just secular voices being excluded; it is also about whether they include a broad interfaith representation.
Do they reflect the growing diversity in American religious identity? They ignore the expanding secular population, but are they at least capturing denominational or interfaith diversity?
Onwukwe: The majority are Christians, as I mentioned earlier. There are a few Jewish voices, and I believe there may be one or two Muslim individuals involved. However, it is unclear whether they are formally part of the panel or just a participant in the broader conversation.
However, aside from that, the overwhelming majority of the Commission members are Christian. So, in terms of true interfaith diversity, it is minimal. As you said, there is a growing secular movement—an increasing number of Americans now identify as nonreligious.
We have been advocating for secular representation in Congress and other federal bodies for years. It is deeply concerning that this Commission was created without any meaningful representation of nonreligious Americans.
Jacobsen: So, in a sense, this version of “religious liberty” seems like a highly selective interpretation of freedom of religion and conscience?
Onwukwe: We often see this with groups like this one and others that promote Christian nationalism.
They often claim they are fighting for “religious freedom” or “religious liberty,” and that they are being discriminated against, when in reality, what they are pushing for is the freedom to use their religion to discriminate against others or insert their religious beliefs into public institutions, like schools.
The Commission reflects this mindset. They interpret the First Amendment not as a protection from religious imposition, but as a license to impose their spiritual values on public life under the guise of protecting religious freedom.
So yes, that is our concern. They have taken a highly selective interpretation of religious liberty—one that favours a particular brand of Christianity—and are using it to advance a very narrow cultural and political agenda.
Jacobsen: They are using that interpretation to justify discrimination.
Onwukwe: And that is one of our biggest concerns: that the Commission will use this distorted view of religious freedom to target minority groups, framing it as though Christians are being discriminated against, when in fact, they are the ones seeking legal cover to discriminate.
Jacobsen: And this is not new. I remember hearing similar arguments as far back as seven years ago. It would usually come in the form of a brief controversy, such as a 15-minute segment on Fox News, when something happens at a school or church.
When I was interviewing two people from The Satanic Temple several years ago, they mentioned a persistent persecution complex. They have framed it in a way that if they do not get 100% of what they want, they see it as oppression. They push this narrative. So when they do not get everything exactly as they want it, they claim they are being persecuted.
How they frame this “victimization” is revealing. Some isolated concerns might be valid, but overall, they are using the idea of victimhood as a political tool.
Onwukwe: Yes. Moreover, as we have discussed, the secular community is growing. Younger generations, especially, have different views on social and moral issues—things the older, more religious generations often find threatening or uncomfortable. That discomfort is sometimes interpreted as discrimination by those older groups.
The rise of LGBTQ rights—such as marriage equality, trans rights, and protections for people of other religions or no religion—is often perceived by some conservative Christian groups as an attack on their faith.
They see it as a threat to the version of America they grew up with, even though the United States has always been a secular nation. It is unfamiliar to them, and they interpret these changes as direct attacks on their beliefs.
This perception extends to issues such as vaccine mandates and mask requirements. In 2020, we witnessed widespread outrage over church closures, despite all public gathering places being closed due to health concerns.
Still, they felt singled out because of their religion, even though the policies were broad and applied to everyone equally. What we are discussing is ensuring that all Americans—regardless of their religion or identity—have equal rights and freedoms.
However, for some, equality feels like persecution because it challenges the privileged position they have long held. You can also see it in schools. Many Christian organizations have been advocating for initiatives such as mandatory prayer in public schools.
Moreover, with the recent Supreme Court decision—Mahmood v. Taylor—there has been a push to allow parents to opt their children out of public education that conflicts with their religious views.
So when they claim they are being “discriminated against,” it often really means they want their religious beliefs to take precedence over others’ rights. That is something we see a lot in the Christian nationalist movement and among many far-right Christian groups.
Jacobsen: So, the IRS has weighed in on political endorsements from the pulpit. That is the way it is being framed, although the specifics, outside of press releases, are essential to examine. There are questions about what exactly constitutes a political endorsement—financial or otherwise—and how that interacts with the Johnson Amendment, or whether this is an attempt to override or circumvent it. I am not yet aware of the implications.
Onwukwe: So basically, over the years—as you have probably seen—a lot of Americans have filed complaints with the IRS, objecting to religious institutions and leaders openly endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. That is a clear violation of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt religious organizations from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.
Despite this, the IRS has taken minimal action. We, along with other secular organizations, have issued alerts and encouraged the public to submit formal objections to the IRS. However, the agency has not responded decisively or pursued many of these cases.
With the recent developments, the IRS is now taking the stance that religious institutions can endorse political candidates from the pulpit, essentially making it clear there will be no consequences. That is deeply concerning.
It opens the door for politicians to funnel untaxed money through churches in exchange for endorsements. You will start seeing political ads or candidate promotions coming directly from megachurches on TV or in services. Since these ads occur within religious institutions, the funds and activities associated with them will not be taxed.
This poses a serious threat to the separation of church and state. We expect this will have significant adverse effects on future elections, undermining fair democratic processes and increasing the influence of religious institutions in partisan politics.
Jacobsen: Are there any limits on the amount?
Onwukwe: On how much someone can donate to a church for political purposes? No, there are no clear limits. So, someone could donate any amount they want to a church to promote a candidate. Moreover, that messaging will end up on people’s TVs, in their social feeds, or even from the pulpit itself.
There is also ambiguity around whether religious institutions can now endorse candidates on social media or through other channels. That is something we are still watching closely. Since this just happened, we will have to see how far it goes. A lot is still unclear at this point.
Jacobsen: When was the last time the United States was in a situation like this? Was there anything before the Johnson Amendment that served a similar purpose? Or has it always really just been the Johnson Amendment?
Onwukwe: That is a good question. I do not know. I am aware that the Johnson Amendment was introduced to prevent churches and other tax-exempt institutions from endorsing political candidates.
However, it was created in response to a specific incident, or was it a more preventative measure, intended to ensure that political activity remained separate from tax-exempt religious institutions?
Jacobsen: Does this change anything regarding verbal endorsements, written endorsements, or other forms of promotion from churches or politicians?
Onwukwe: That is another good question. We are still not sure. In this particular case, the IRS was responding to a specific incident and stated that the priest involved could promote candidates from the pulpit. So, that is the precedent being set right now.
However, whether that opens the door to broader endorsements—such as written letters, church-produced media, or full-on political ads on TV from a megachurch—is still unknown. It is very concerning. Like I said, we will have to wait and see how churches use this new leeway—and how prominent political donors might take advantage of it.
If someone wants to make a tax-free donation to promote a candidate, they could funnel it through a church and let the church handle the endorsement.
Jacobsen: The reality is, voters get their information about politicians from many different sources. For some, it might come directly from the presidential campaign. Still, for others—especially down-ballot races—it could come from more indirect means.
Depending on the voter, they may not have regular access to the internet or social media. They may not be tech-savvy or connected digitally at all. A significant portion of their political information comes through TV, primarily through ads like these.
That is where attack ads are particularly effective. Moreover, now, imagine that same person regularly attending church. If their priest or pastor is saying, “This is what you should be doing,” “This is who you should be voting for,” and “This is how to act as a faithful person,” that has a profound influence.
If someone has a strong connection to their religious leader, that endorsement can significantly shape their vote. This influence had already been happening under the radar, but now it has essentially been given the green light to proceed at full speed ahead. Is there already a legal counter-challenge to this decision?
Onwukwe: So far, I have not seen any formal legal challenges. I am sure efforts are being made behind the scenes, or announcements may be forthcoming soon. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds legally, especially when it comes to directly challenging this interpretation of the Johnson Amendment.
If it can be challenged, we will see action to at least slow it down or stop it entirely. However, for now, we are in a “wait and see” phase.
Jacobsen: How is this being received within your network, such as the Secular Coalition and its partner organizations?
Onwukwe: Across the board, our network has reacted strongly. All of our member organizations are in substantial alignment on this issue. Even in the past, when megachurches came out publicly in support of candidates, the Secular Coalition for America and many of our partners would issue public statements, send letters to the IRS, and encourage members and supporters to do the same.
Seeing this new stance—effectively dismantling the Johnson Amendment—has sparked considerable concern. Many people are speaking out and trying to figure out what can be done next. What is especially striking is that this new interpretation appears to be limited to churches.
Other 501(c)(3) organizations—particularly secular nonprofits—are still prohibited from endorsing candidates. While religious organizations can now promote political figures from the pulpit, secular nonprofits, including ours and many of our partner groups, are still bound by these restrictions. It is an apparent double standard.
Jacobsen: To be explicit and specific about leaders, what about pastoral political advertising?
Onwukwe: It does not appear this ruling will explicitly allow pastors to engage in political advertising. They may, however, be able to circumvent this by sending social media, emails, and other forms of communications to their congregations to further endorse political candidates.
Jacobsen, what about temples or mosques—are other religions also allowed to do this?
Onwukwe: Yes, they are. It applies broadly to religious institutions, such as churches, mosques, and temples. However, again, secular 501(c)(3) organizations are excluded from this privilege.
Jacobsen: There we go. Are there any final points we should add?
Onwukwe: I guess one other thing we have been working on—you might have heard about it—is the Educational Choice for Children Act. That has been in the works for a while now. We discussed it during our lobbying event in March.
A lot has been happening behind the scenes. It ended up being included in what the Trump administration has been calling their “Big, Beautiful Bill”—the actual language they have used to brand it. It is a terrible name, honestly.
However, the bottom line is that the bill passed in an amended form. The Secular Coalition for America is particularly concerned about the implications it could have on the separation of church and state, especially in the education sector.
What this law does is allow for federal school vouchers. The vast majority of those vouchers ultimately end up in private religious schools. That means public funds, which could be used for public schools and essential services, are being diverted to help families pay for religious education. That is a significant problem.
We are particularly concerned about how this affects public schools and marginalized students. These private religious schools are allowed to discriminate in admissions, whether that is against families of a different religion, students with disabilities, or families who do not meet their financial expectations.
For example, if a parent does not belong to the school’s preferred faith, the child can be rejected. If a student has a disability that the school does not want to accommodate, the school can also refuse to accept that student.
Moreover, the vouchers themselves do not cover the full cost of tuition at these schools. So they will not help low-income students get access—they will primarily benefit families who are already close to being able to afford it. It is a subsidy for the middle and upper-middle class, not real access for the underserved.
Additionally, in rural areas—where there are few or no private schools—students often lack the option to take advantage of the voucher program. In those areas, states that opt into the program will see funding stripped away from their public schools, without offering any viable alternative.
So there is much concern. We will have to wait and see how this plays out. The way the bill was passed includes an option for states to opt out, which is one positive aspect. States that do not wish to participate in the program are not required to do so.
However, we are already seeing signs that some states—which have previously expressed support for school vouchers—are moving forward with implementation, despite local opposition.
Even in states where voters have rejected similar measures in the past, leaders now have the green light to proceed without another public vote. In states where political leadership is divided—say, a governor who supports vouchers and a legislature that does not, or vice versa—this can also lead to significant internal conflict.
So we will continue to spread the word. You will probably see something from us in the next few days that lays out what the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) is, what it does now that it has passed, and what kind of impact we might see on public education.
We will continue to raise awareness and ensure that people are informed, so they can speak out against it if they choose.
Jacobsen: Good work—let us stay in touch.
Onwukwe: Thanks so much, Scott.
Jacobsen: Thanks so much.
Onwukwe: Have a good one. Bye-bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #lifestyle #menSIssues #movies #progressiveMasculinity #selfImprovement #technology #TheGoodMenProject #travel
-
Secular Coalition Warns of Christian Nationalist Bias in U.S. Religious Liberty Commission
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Nnenna Onwukwe (They/Them) is the Federal Policy Associate at the Secular Coalition for America, where she advocates for church-state separation, secular inclusion in policy, and protections for religious freedom for all. Onwukwe discusses the Religious Liberty Commission, criticizing its predominantly Christian nationalist composition and lack of secular or interfaith representation. They warn the Commission may use “religious freedom” as a tool for legalizing discrimination, especially against LGBTQ and non-Christian communities. Onwukwe also highlights concerns about IRS policy shifts, political endorsements from the pulpit, and school voucher programs redirecting public funds to private, religious institutions, which threaten public education and constitutional neutrality. SCA has sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury regarding the IRS’s decision not to enforce the Johnson Amendment. You can read the full document on their website: https://secular.org/2025/07/sca-lets-it-be-known-the-johnson-amendment-must-be-enforced
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, what is the Religious Liberty Commission? Moreover, how have they responded to concerns about bias toward one faith over another?
Nnenna Onwukwe: The Religious Liberty Commission was established by President Trump via executive order on May 1, 2025, as part of his broader agenda to promote religious expression in public life. It is housed in the Department of Justice and overseen by the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships and the Domestic Policy Council.
It is chaired by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, with Dr. Ben Carson as vice chair. The Commission’s term runs through July 4, 2026, coinciding with the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
The Commission’s goals include producing a report on the history and current state of religious liberty in America, identifying threats, and recommending policies, particularly regarding parental rights in religious education, conscience protections, vaccine exemptions, and the use of religious symbols in public spaces.
Jacobsen: So, where does SCA come in?
Onwukwe: We are with the Secular Coalition for America. Our concern is whether the Commission is showing bias toward Christian perspectives. The panel is predominantly composed of conservative evangelical Christians, along with a few Catholics and one Orthodox Jewish representative. There is no real representation of secular individuals, Muslims, Hindus, or other minority faiths.
Before their first public meeting in June, held at the Museum of the Bible, we sent a letter requesting clarity. We wanted to know whether the Commission’s reports would primarily focus on Christians or encompass all faiths, including nonreligious Americans. We also raised concerns about possible discrimination against non-Christian groups.
Jacobsen: Did they respond?
Onwukwe: No, we have not received a reply. Given the composition of the panel and the rhetoric at their first meeting, they may not be interested in secular input. However, we will keep advocating. They must know we are here and that we are watching.
Jacobsen: What are some of your specific concerns with how they are operating?
Onwukwe: So we sent them a couple of questions. We were particularly concerned because, even in the first meeting, there was much rhetoric about America being a “Christian nation.” However, if you examine the actual history of the United States, the founding documents intentionally omitted references to religion.
The founders deliberately moved away from a system that fused religion with government. They envisioned a secular nation with a clear separation of church and state. Hearing language that implies otherwise is troubling.
The composition of the Commission is also a concern, as it lacks secular voices on the panel. During and even before the first meeting, we observed a strong focus on what is often referred to as “anti-Christian bias,” particularly with the establishment of the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.
The issue is, organizations like ours—and others—have not seen compelling evidence of systemic anti-Christian bias. We worry that the phrase “anti-Christian bias” is being used to justify policies that would allow Christians to discriminate against others, especially in workplaces or service settings.
For example, if a Christian employee claims their religious beliefs are being “discriminated against,” that might be used to excuse discriminatory behaviour toward LGBTQ individuals or people of other faiths. So the implications could be profound.
Jacobsen: Who comprises the Liberty Commission? That is important to know.
Onwukwe: The Commission includes Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Dr. Ben Carson, and Paula White, who serves as a senior adviser in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships. Interestingly, Dr. Phil McGraw is also on the panel, though his inclusion has raised some eyebrows.
The panel consists of Christian leaders, many of whom are affiliated with the Christian nationalist movement. It was strange. Even during the Commission meeting, Dr. Phil spoke out against one of the issues being discussed, which was interesting. Dr. Phil may be the one person on the panel who speaks up. I do not know.
The panel is primarily composed of Christians, many of whom are recognizable figures in the Christian nationalist movement. I believe one of them was a former Miss America contestant who publicly stated that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
That kind of viewpoint reflects the broader makeup of the Commission. Paula White—the head of the White House Faith Office—has been actively pushing the narrative of “anti-Christian bias” and helped establish the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.
She was a frequent spiritual adviser during Trump’s presidency and was present when both the Religious Liberty Commission and the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force were launched, often leading prayers at those events.
Interestingly, she has also claimed that women should not hold positions of power, despite holding one herself. That contradiction is, of course, hard to ignore. Overall, it is a panel dominated by prominent Christian nationalist voices who support the idea that America is inherently a Christian nation.
Even the Jewish panellists did not speak up when those kinds of statements were made, which we found concerning, mainly because those statements are not factual.
Jacobsen: What about their makeup?
Onwukwe: The majority of the makeup of the commission are Protestant and conservative Catholics. There are a few rabbis and other Jewish members and at least one person who is Muslim. During their first meeting there was only one Jewish person sitting on the panel, the rest of the panelists were Christian or Catholic.
Jacobsen: Are there any secular voices on the Commission or involved in any way?
Onwukwe: None that we saw. None that are openly secular, at least. Most of the individuals involved are prominent figures in Christian media or associated with the Christian nationalist movement, unfortunately. That is a significant concern for us.
Onwukwe: We even provided them with names—people who could represent secular Americans and offer a valuable perspective—but nothing has come of it so far.
Jacobsen: Another important point—while not necessarily from a secular perspective alone, it is still concerning: How diverse is the Commission in terms of religious representation? Because it is not just secular voices being excluded; it is also about whether they include a broad interfaith representation.
Do they reflect the growing diversity in American religious identity? They ignore the expanding secular population, but are they at least capturing denominational or interfaith diversity?
Onwukwe: The majority are Christians, as I mentioned earlier. There are a few Jewish voices, and I believe there may be one or two Muslim individuals involved. However, it is unclear whether they are formally part of the panel or just a participant in the broader conversation.
However, aside from that, the overwhelming majority of the Commission members are Christian. So, in terms of true interfaith diversity, it is minimal. As you said, there is a growing secular movement—an increasing number of Americans now identify as nonreligious.
We have been advocating for secular representation in Congress and other federal bodies for years. It is deeply concerning that this Commission was created without any meaningful representation of nonreligious Americans.
Jacobsen: So, in a sense, this version of “religious liberty” seems like a highly selective interpretation of freedom of religion and conscience?
Onwukwe: We often see this with groups like this one and others that promote Christian nationalism.
They often claim they are fighting for “religious freedom” or “religious liberty,” and that they are being discriminated against, when in reality, what they are pushing for is the freedom to use their religion to discriminate against others or insert their religious beliefs into public institutions, like schools.
The Commission reflects this mindset. They interpret the First Amendment not as a protection from religious imposition, but as a license to impose their spiritual values on public life under the guise of protecting religious freedom.
So yes, that is our concern. They have taken a highly selective interpretation of religious liberty—one that favours a particular brand of Christianity—and are using it to advance a very narrow cultural and political agenda.
Jacobsen: They are using that interpretation to justify discrimination.
Onwukwe: And that is one of our biggest concerns: that the Commission will use this distorted view of religious freedom to target minority groups, framing it as though Christians are being discriminated against, when in fact, they are the ones seeking legal cover to discriminate.
Jacobsen: And this is not new. I remember hearing similar arguments as far back as seven years ago. It would usually come in the form of a brief controversy, such as a 15-minute segment on Fox News, when something happens at a school or church.
When I was interviewing two people from The Satanic Temple several years ago, they mentioned a persistent persecution complex. They have framed it in a way that if they do not get 100% of what they want, they see it as oppression. They push this narrative. So when they do not get everything exactly as they want it, they claim they are being persecuted.
How they frame this “victimization” is revealing. Some isolated concerns might be valid, but overall, they are using the idea of victimhood as a political tool.
Onwukwe: Yes. Moreover, as we have discussed, the secular community is growing. Younger generations, especially, have different views on social and moral issues—things the older, more religious generations often find threatening or uncomfortable. That discomfort is sometimes interpreted as discrimination by those older groups.
The rise of LGBTQ rights—such as marriage equality, trans rights, and protections for people of other religions or no religion—is often perceived by some conservative Christian groups as an attack on their faith.
They see it as a threat to the version of America they grew up with, even though the United States has always been a secular nation. It is unfamiliar to them, and they interpret these changes as direct attacks on their beliefs.
This perception extends to issues such as vaccine mandates and mask requirements. In 2020, we witnessed widespread outrage over church closures, despite all public gathering places being closed due to health concerns.
Still, they felt singled out because of their religion, even though the policies were broad and applied to everyone equally. What we are discussing is ensuring that all Americans—regardless of their religion or identity—have equal rights and freedoms.
However, for some, equality feels like persecution because it challenges the privileged position they have long held. You can also see it in schools. Many Christian organizations have been advocating for initiatives such as mandatory prayer in public schools.
Moreover, with the recent Supreme Court decision—Mahmood v. Taylor—there has been a push to allow parents to opt their children out of public education that conflicts with their religious views.
So when they claim they are being “discriminated against,” it often really means they want their religious beliefs to take precedence over others’ rights. That is something we see a lot in the Christian nationalist movement and among many far-right Christian groups.
Jacobsen: So, the IRS has weighed in on political endorsements from the pulpit. That is the way it is being framed, although the specifics, outside of press releases, are essential to examine. There are questions about what exactly constitutes a political endorsement—financial or otherwise—and how that interacts with the Johnson Amendment, or whether this is an attempt to override or circumvent it. I am not yet aware of the implications.
Onwukwe: So basically, over the years—as you have probably seen—a lot of Americans have filed complaints with the IRS, objecting to religious institutions and leaders openly endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. That is a clear violation of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt religious organizations from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.
Despite this, the IRS has taken minimal action. We, along with other secular organizations, have issued alerts and encouraged the public to submit formal objections to the IRS. However, the agency has not responded decisively or pursued many of these cases.
With the recent developments, the IRS is now taking the stance that religious institutions can endorse political candidates from the pulpit, essentially making it clear there will be no consequences. That is deeply concerning.
It opens the door for politicians to funnel untaxed money through churches in exchange for endorsements. You will start seeing political ads or candidate promotions coming directly from megachurches on TV or in services. Since these ads occur within religious institutions, the funds and activities associated with them will not be taxed.
This poses a serious threat to the separation of church and state. We expect this will have significant adverse effects on future elections, undermining fair democratic processes and increasing the influence of religious institutions in partisan politics.
Jacobsen: Are there any limits on the amount?
Onwukwe: On how much someone can donate to a church for political purposes? No, there are no clear limits. So, someone could donate any amount they want to a church to promote a candidate. Moreover, that messaging will end up on people’s TVs, in their social feeds, or even from the pulpit itself.
There is also ambiguity around whether religious institutions can now endorse candidates on social media or through other channels. That is something we are still watching closely. Since this just happened, we will have to see how far it goes. A lot is still unclear at this point.
Jacobsen: When was the last time the United States was in a situation like this? Was there anything before the Johnson Amendment that served a similar purpose? Or has it always really just been the Johnson Amendment?
Onwukwe: That is a good question. I do not know. I am aware that the Johnson Amendment was introduced to prevent churches and other tax-exempt institutions from endorsing political candidates.
However, it was created in response to a specific incident, or was it a more preventative measure, intended to ensure that political activity remained separate from tax-exempt religious institutions?
Jacobsen: Does this change anything regarding verbal endorsements, written endorsements, or other forms of promotion from churches or politicians?
Onwukwe: That is another good question. We are still not sure. In this particular case, the IRS was responding to a specific incident and stated that the priest involved could promote candidates from the pulpit. So, that is the precedent being set right now.
However, whether that opens the door to broader endorsements—such as written letters, church-produced media, or full-on political ads on TV from a megachurch—is still unknown. It is very concerning. Like I said, we will have to wait and see how churches use this new leeway—and how prominent political donors might take advantage of it.
If someone wants to make a tax-free donation to promote a candidate, they could funnel it through a church and let the church handle the endorsement.
Jacobsen: The reality is, voters get their information about politicians from many different sources. For some, it might come directly from the presidential campaign. Still, for others—especially down-ballot races—it could come from more indirect means.
Depending on the voter, they may not have regular access to the internet or social media. They may not be tech-savvy or connected digitally at all. A significant portion of their political information comes through TV, primarily through ads like these.
That is where attack ads are particularly effective. Moreover, now, imagine that same person regularly attending church. If their priest or pastor is saying, “This is what you should be doing,” “This is who you should be voting for,” and “This is how to act as a faithful person,” that has a profound influence.
If someone has a strong connection to their religious leader, that endorsement can significantly shape their vote. This influence had already been happening under the radar, but now it has essentially been given the green light to proceed at full speed ahead. Is there already a legal counter-challenge to this decision?
Onwukwe: So far, I have not seen any formal legal challenges. I am sure efforts are being made behind the scenes, or announcements may be forthcoming soon. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds legally, especially when it comes to directly challenging this interpretation of the Johnson Amendment.
If it can be challenged, we will see action to at least slow it down or stop it entirely. However, for now, we are in a “wait and see” phase.
Jacobsen: How is this being received within your network, such as the Secular Coalition and its partner organizations?
Onwukwe: Across the board, our network has reacted strongly. All of our member organizations are in substantial alignment on this issue. Even in the past, when megachurches came out publicly in support of candidates, the Secular Coalition for America and many of our partners would issue public statements, send letters to the IRS, and encourage members and supporters to do the same.
Seeing this new stance—effectively dismantling the Johnson Amendment—has sparked considerable concern. Many people are speaking out and trying to figure out what can be done next. What is especially striking is that this new interpretation appears to be limited to churches.
Other 501(c)(3) organizations—particularly secular nonprofits—are still prohibited from endorsing candidates. While religious organizations can now promote political figures from the pulpit, secular nonprofits, including ours and many of our partner groups, are still bound by these restrictions. It is an apparent double standard.
Jacobsen: To be explicit and specific about leaders, what about pastoral political advertising?
Onwukwe: It does not appear this ruling will explicitly allow pastors to engage in political advertising. They may, however, be able to circumvent this by sending social media, emails, and other forms of communications to their congregations to further endorse political candidates.
Jacobsen, what about temples or mosques—are other religions also allowed to do this?
Onwukwe: Yes, they are. It applies broadly to religious institutions, such as churches, mosques, and temples. However, again, secular 501(c)(3) organizations are excluded from this privilege.
Jacobsen: There we go. Are there any final points we should add?
Onwukwe: I guess one other thing we have been working on—you might have heard about it—is the Educational Choice for Children Act. That has been in the works for a while now. We discussed it during our lobbying event in March.
A lot has been happening behind the scenes. It ended up being included in what the Trump administration has been calling their “Big, Beautiful Bill”—the actual language they have used to brand it. It is a terrible name, honestly.
However, the bottom line is that the bill passed in an amended form. The Secular Coalition for America is particularly concerned about the implications it could have on the separation of church and state, especially in the education sector.
What this law does is allow for federal school vouchers. The vast majority of those vouchers ultimately end up in private religious schools. That means public funds, which could be used for public schools and essential services, are being diverted to help families pay for religious education. That is a significant problem.
We are particularly concerned about how this affects public schools and marginalized students. These private religious schools are allowed to discriminate in admissions, whether that is against families of a different religion, students with disabilities, or families who do not meet their financial expectations.
For example, if a parent does not belong to the school’s preferred faith, the child can be rejected. If a student has a disability that the school does not want to accommodate, the school can also refuse to accept that student.
Moreover, the vouchers themselves do not cover the full cost of tuition at these schools. So they will not help low-income students get access—they will primarily benefit families who are already close to being able to afford it. It is a subsidy for the middle and upper-middle class, not real access for the underserved.
Additionally, in rural areas—where there are few or no private schools—students often lack the option to take advantage of the voucher program. In those areas, states that opt into the program will see funding stripped away from their public schools, without offering any viable alternative.
So there is much concern. We will have to wait and see how this plays out. The way the bill was passed includes an option for states to opt out, which is one positive aspect. States that do not wish to participate in the program are not required to do so.
However, we are already seeing signs that some states—which have previously expressed support for school vouchers—are moving forward with implementation, despite local opposition.
Even in states where voters have rejected similar measures in the past, leaders now have the green light to proceed without another public vote. In states where political leadership is divided—say, a governor who supports vouchers and a legislature that does not, or vice versa—this can also lead to significant internal conflict.
So we will continue to spread the word. You will probably see something from us in the next few days that lays out what the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) is, what it does now that it has passed, and what kind of impact we might see on public education.
We will continue to raise awareness and ensure that people are informed, so they can speak out against it if they choose.
Jacobsen: Good work—let us stay in touch.
Onwukwe: Thanks so much, Scott.
Jacobsen: Thanks so much.
Onwukwe: Have a good one. Bye-bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #lifestyle #menSIssues #movies #progressiveMasculinity #selfImprovement #technology #TheGoodMenProject #travel
-
Nimrokh Media Marks 8 Years of Independent Journalism With Calgary Event Honouring Afghan Journalists
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/06
Calgary, Alberta – August 10, 2025 – Nimrokh Media will host the 8th annual celebration of its founding by Fatima Roshanian. Fatima Roshanian, Founder of Nimrokh Media, said, “This anniversary is not only a celebration of Nimrokh’s journey but a testament to the resilience of Afghan journalists, and the importance of a free press in the face of adversity.”
It is a way to honour the courageous work of Afghan journalists while reflecting on the fall of Afghanistan to the theocratic, repressive forces of the Taliban. All Canadian media are encouraged to come to the event. The event happens Sunday, August 10, 2025, from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm (Calgary Time). It will be at Banu Kabob Restaurant, 575 28 Street SE, Calgary.
Nimrokh Media’s commitment to independent journalism is marked by this anniversary, a platform for dialogue and community connection. There will be traditional Afghan music and cuisine. There will be cultural conversations. There will be presentations about press freedom and the future of Afghan journalism.
Guest Speakers will be Parwiz Kawa, Zahra Nader, and Carolyn Campbell. There will be a special segment by Fatima Roshanian on personal stories of resistance and resilience.
The ticket costs are $35 per person to cover the costs of the event. Payments are accepted via e-transfer to [email protected] (include first name and last name, and number of tickets). Any journalists attending as the press are welcome as guests—no ticket required.
Please make sure to RSVP prior to the event. Any additional donations to support Nimrokh Media’s journalism are welcome, as well.
About Nimrokh Media
Nimrokh Media is an independent platform dedicated to elevating the voices of Afghan women and marginalized communities, advocating for press freedom, and telling the stories that matter most. Since its founding, Nimrokh has become a vital source of truth and a symbol of resilience for Afghan journalists in exile.
Contact:
Nimrokh Media
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.nimrokhmedia.com
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #feminism #genderEquality #menSIssues #mentalHealth #movies #politics #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject #travel
-
Nimrokh Media Marks 8 Years of Independent Journalism With Calgary Event Honouring Afghan Journalists
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/06
Calgary, Alberta – August 10, 2025 – Nimrokh Media will host the 8th annual celebration of its founding by Fatima Roshanian. Fatima Roshanian, Founder of Nimrokh Media, said, “This anniversary is not only a celebration of Nimrokh’s journey but a testament to the resilience of Afghan journalists, and the importance of a free press in the face of adversity.”
It is a way to honour the courageous work of Afghan journalists while reflecting on the fall of Afghanistan to the theocratic, repressive forces of the Taliban. All Canadian media are encouraged to come to the event. The event happens Sunday, August 10, 2025, from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm (Calgary Time). It will be at Banu Kabob Restaurant, 575 28 Street SE, Calgary.
Nimrokh Media’s commitment to independent journalism is marked by this anniversary, a platform for dialogue and community connection. There will be traditional Afghan music and cuisine. There will be cultural conversations. There will be presentations about press freedom and the future of Afghan journalism.
Guest Speakers will be Parwiz Kawa, Zahra Nader, and Carolyn Campbell. There will be a special segment by Fatima Roshanian on personal stories of resistance and resilience.
The ticket costs are $35 per person to cover the costs of the event. Payments are accepted via e-transfer to [email protected] (include first name and last name, and number of tickets). Any journalists attending as the press are welcome as guests—no ticket required.
Please make sure to RSVP prior to the event. Any additional donations to support Nimrokh Media’s journalism are welcome, as well.
About Nimrokh Media
Nimrokh Media is an independent platform dedicated to elevating the voices of Afghan women and marginalized communities, advocating for press freedom, and telling the stories that matter most. Since its founding, Nimrokh has become a vital source of truth and a symbol of resilience for Afghan journalists in exile.
Contact:
Nimrokh Media
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.nimrokhmedia.com
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #feminism #genderEquality #menSIssues #mentalHealth #movies #politics #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject #travel
-
Nimrokh Media Marks 8 Years of Independent Journalism With Calgary Event Honouring Afghan Journalists
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/06
Calgary, Alberta – August 10, 2025 – Nimrokh Media will host the 8th annual celebration of its founding by Fatima Roshanian. Fatima Roshanian, Founder of Nimrokh Media, said, “This anniversary is not only a celebration of Nimrokh’s journey but a testament to the resilience of Afghan journalists, and the importance of a free press in the face of adversity.”
It is a way to honour the courageous work of Afghan journalists while reflecting on the fall of Afghanistan to the theocratic, repressive forces of the Taliban. All Canadian media are encouraged to come to the event. The event happens Sunday, August 10, 2025, from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm (Calgary Time). It will be at Banu Kabob Restaurant, 575 28 Street SE, Calgary.
Nimrokh Media’s commitment to independent journalism is marked by this anniversary, a platform for dialogue and community connection. There will be traditional Afghan music and cuisine. There will be cultural conversations. There will be presentations about press freedom and the future of Afghan journalism.
Guest Speakers will be Parwiz Kawa, Zahra Nader, and Carolyn Campbell. There will be a special segment by Fatima Roshanian on personal stories of resistance and resilience.
The ticket costs are $35 per person to cover the costs of the event. Payments are accepted via e-transfer to [email protected] (include first name and last name, and number of tickets). Any journalists attending as the press are welcome as guests—no ticket required.
Please make sure to RSVP prior to the event. Any additional donations to support Nimrokh Media’s journalism are welcome, as well.
About Nimrokh Media
Nimrokh Media is an independent platform dedicated to elevating the voices of Afghan women and marginalized communities, advocating for press freedom, and telling the stories that matter most. Since its founding, Nimrokh has become a vital source of truth and a symbol of resilience for Afghan journalists in exile.
Contact:
Nimrokh Media
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.nimrokhmedia.com
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #feminism #genderEquality #menSIssues #mentalHealth #movies #politics #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject #travel
-
Nimrokh Media Marks 8 Years of Independent Journalism With Calgary Event Honouring Afghan Journalists
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/06
Calgary, Alberta – August 10, 2025 – Nimrokh Media will host the 8th annual celebration of its founding by Fatima Roshanian. Fatima Roshanian, Founder of Nimrokh Media, said, “This anniversary is not only a celebration of Nimrokh’s journey but a testament to the resilience of Afghan journalists, and the importance of a free press in the face of adversity.”
It is a way to honour the courageous work of Afghan journalists while reflecting on the fall of Afghanistan to the theocratic, repressive forces of the Taliban. All Canadian media are encouraged to come to the event. The event happens Sunday, August 10, 2025, from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm (Calgary Time). It will be at Banu Kabob Restaurant, 575 28 Street SE, Calgary.
Nimrokh Media’s commitment to independent journalism is marked by this anniversary, a platform for dialogue and community connection. There will be traditional Afghan music and cuisine. There will be cultural conversations. There will be presentations about press freedom and the future of Afghan journalism.
Guest Speakers will be Parwiz Kawa, Zahra Nader, and Carolyn Campbell. There will be a special segment by Fatima Roshanian on personal stories of resistance and resilience.
The ticket costs are $35 per person to cover the costs of the event. Payments are accepted via e-transfer to [email protected] (include first name and last name, and number of tickets). Any journalists attending as the press are welcome as guests—no ticket required.
Please make sure to RSVP prior to the event. Any additional donations to support Nimrokh Media’s journalism are welcome, as well.
About Nimrokh Media
Nimrokh Media is an independent platform dedicated to elevating the voices of Afghan women and marginalized communities, advocating for press freedom, and telling the stories that matter most. Since its founding, Nimrokh has become a vital source of truth and a symbol of resilience for Afghan journalists in exile.
Contact:
Nimrokh Media
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.nimrokhmedia.com
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #feminism #genderEquality #menSIssues #mentalHealth #movies #politics #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject #travel
-
Empowering Women in BPO: Leadership and Gender Equity
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/05
Kiona Bodasing, Head of Talent Acquisition at CCI South Africa, talks about the company’s commitment to women’s empowerment and inclusive leadership. Bodasing highlights success stories like Lizelle Strydom and Anusha Ramraj, who rose from entry-level roles to executive positions. CCI Global supports female talent through mentorship, hybrid learning, leadership boot camps, and performance tracking. With over 50% female leadership, CCI fosters equity by redesigning systems and ensuring accessible growth opportunities across Africa’s BPO sector.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Kiona Bodasing, Head of Talent Acquisition at CCI South Africa, a division of CCI Global, a leading business process outsourcing (BPO) company operating across Africa. Based in the Durban Metropolitan Area, Kiona plays a pivotal role in recruiting and developing talent for the organization.
Bodasing: Yes, thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: Kiona is an alumna of IIE Varsity College and the University of South Africa (UNISA), where she studied BCom in Human Resources. In her role, Kiona has been instrumental in expanding CCI’s workforce, particularly in South Africa and Kenya, aligning with the company’s commitment to creating meaningful career opportunities and promoting diversity. Her efforts contribute to CCI Global’s mission of transforming communities through employment and skill development. Thank you for joining me today. Let us begin. What CCI Global success story illustrates women’s empowerment in leadership?
Bodasing: Two standout examples are Lizelle Strydom and Anusha Ramraj. Lizelle began as a call center agent and has risen to become the Managing Director of CareerBox, CCI Global’s talent development arm. Anusha started in a junior finance role and is now the Chief Financial Officer of CCI South Africa. Their journeys demonstrate how we prioritize internal mobility and support high-potential women with structured career planning and skills training. We have seen multiple examples across Kenya, Ethiopia, and South Africa where women rise from entry-level roles into management positions within just a few years.
Jacobsen: How does CCI Global support high-potential talent?
Bodasing: We invest early and consistently, from onboarding to performance coaching. Our learning programs are tailored to help women build confidence, skills, and visibility. We also track performance through a gender lens to know who is ready for the next step and proactively match them to opportunities.
Jacobsen: What strategies have worked to achieve over 50% female leadership at CCI Global?
Bodasing combines intentional hiring, transparent promotion pipelines, and inclusive leadership training. We do not just look at who is ready—we look at who is often overlooked. We design for equity, not just equality; that mindset drives real representation.
Jacobsen: How has the company’s gender parity impacted operational performance?
Bodasing: Our gender-balanced teams are more collaborative and empathetic and often outperform in customer service and customer experience metrics. This also improves retention. People stay where they feel seen and supported.
Jacobsen: How does CCI Global ensure leadership development opportunities are accessible?
Bodasing: We ensure that leadership development opportunities are accessible by implementing mentorship programs, offering continuous learning and development courses, and creating clear pathways for career advancement. This approach helps us identify and nurture talent from within, ensuring that all employees have the opportunity to grow into leadership roles.
Jacobsen: So, access means flexibility?
Bodasing: Yes. We offer hybrid learning, local mentorships, and leadership boot camps that do not require sacrificing family or personal time. We also partner with CareerBox to reach young women from underserved communities, expanding the talent pool from the ground up.
Jacobsen: What are mentorship, sponsorship, or peer support programs in place?
Bodasing: We have formal mentorship programs, but some of the most powerful support comes from our women-led circles—informal, peer-driven spaces for coaching, storytelling, and career navigation.
Jacobsen: How is the long-term impact of gender parity initiatives measured?
Bodasing: We track promotion rates, performance scores, and retention through a gender lens. However, we also gather qualitative feedback—how empowered women feel, what barriers they face, and what changes they want to see. It is not just about numbers. It is about transforming the lived experience of women at work.
Jacobsen: What promotes gender equality and women’s leadership?
Bodasing: intentional. It does not happen by chance. We bake equity into every decision, from job design and pay transparency to who is in the room when leadership decisions are made. We do not just ask, “Why aren’t women leading?” We ask, “What systems are in the way—and how do we redesign them?”
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Bodasing: Thank you. It has been a pleasure.
–
”We Don’t Wait for Women to Lead—We Build the Systems That Let Them.”
At CCI, we don’t wait for women to lead—we build the systems that make it inevitable. Here, women don’t just get a seat at the table; they’re redesigning the table itself.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Empowering Women in BPO: Leadership and Gender Equity
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/05
Kiona Bodasing, Head of Talent Acquisition at CCI South Africa, talks about the company’s commitment to women’s empowerment and inclusive leadership. Bodasing highlights success stories like Lizelle Strydom and Anusha Ramraj, who rose from entry-level roles to executive positions. CCI Global supports female talent through mentorship, hybrid learning, leadership boot camps, and performance tracking. With over 50% female leadership, CCI fosters equity by redesigning systems and ensuring accessible growth opportunities across Africa’s BPO sector.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Kiona Bodasing, Head of Talent Acquisition at CCI South Africa, a division of CCI Global, a leading business process outsourcing (BPO) company operating across Africa. Based in the Durban Metropolitan Area, Kiona plays a pivotal role in recruiting and developing talent for the organization.
Bodasing: Yes, thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: Kiona is an alumna of IIE Varsity College and the University of South Africa (UNISA), where she studied BCom in Human Resources. In her role, Kiona has been instrumental in expanding CCI’s workforce, particularly in South Africa and Kenya, aligning with the company’s commitment to creating meaningful career opportunities and promoting diversity. Her efforts contribute to CCI Global’s mission of transforming communities through employment and skill development. Thank you for joining me today. Let us begin. What CCI Global success story illustrates women’s empowerment in leadership?
Bodasing: Two standout examples are Lizelle Strydom and Anusha Ramraj. Lizelle began as a call center agent and has risen to become the Managing Director of CareerBox, CCI Global’s talent development arm. Anusha started in a junior finance role and is now the Chief Financial Officer of CCI South Africa. Their journeys demonstrate how we prioritize internal mobility and support high-potential women with structured career planning and skills training. We have seen multiple examples across Kenya, Ethiopia, and South Africa where women rise from entry-level roles into management positions within just a few years.
Jacobsen: How does CCI Global support high-potential talent?
Bodasing: We invest early and consistently, from onboarding to performance coaching. Our learning programs are tailored to help women build confidence, skills, and visibility. We also track performance through a gender lens to know who is ready for the next step and proactively match them to opportunities.
Jacobsen: What strategies have worked to achieve over 50% female leadership at CCI Global?
Bodasing combines intentional hiring, transparent promotion pipelines, and inclusive leadership training. We do not just look at who is ready—we look at who is often overlooked. We design for equity, not just equality; that mindset drives real representation.
Jacobsen: How has the company’s gender parity impacted operational performance?
Bodasing: Our gender-balanced teams are more collaborative and empathetic and often outperform in customer service and customer experience metrics. This also improves retention. People stay where they feel seen and supported.
Jacobsen: How does CCI Global ensure leadership development opportunities are accessible?
Bodasing: We ensure that leadership development opportunities are accessible by implementing mentorship programs, offering continuous learning and development courses, and creating clear pathways for career advancement. This approach helps us identify and nurture talent from within, ensuring that all employees have the opportunity to grow into leadership roles.
Jacobsen: So, access means flexibility?
Bodasing: Yes. We offer hybrid learning, local mentorships, and leadership boot camps that do not require sacrificing family or personal time. We also partner with CareerBox to reach young women from underserved communities, expanding the talent pool from the ground up.
Jacobsen: What are mentorship, sponsorship, or peer support programs in place?
Bodasing: We have formal mentorship programs, but some of the most powerful support comes from our women-led circles—informal, peer-driven spaces for coaching, storytelling, and career navigation.
Jacobsen: How is the long-term impact of gender parity initiatives measured?
Bodasing: We track promotion rates, performance scores, and retention through a gender lens. However, we also gather qualitative feedback—how empowered women feel, what barriers they face, and what changes they want to see. It is not just about numbers. It is about transforming the lived experience of women at work.
Jacobsen: What promotes gender equality and women’s leadership?
Bodasing: intentional. It does not happen by chance. We bake equity into every decision, from job design and pay transparency to who is in the room when leadership decisions are made. We do not just ask, “Why aren’t women leading?” We ask, “What systems are in the way—and how do we redesign them?”
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Bodasing: Thank you. It has been a pleasure.
–
”We Don’t Wait for Women to Lead—We Build the Systems That Let Them.”
At CCI, we don’t wait for women to lead—we build the systems that make it inevitable. Here, women don’t just get a seat at the table; they’re redesigning the table itself.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Empowering Women in BPO: Leadership and Gender Equity
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/05
Kiona Bodasing, Head of Talent Acquisition at CCI South Africa, talks about the company’s commitment to women’s empowerment and inclusive leadership. Bodasing highlights success stories like Lizelle Strydom and Anusha Ramraj, who rose from entry-level roles to executive positions. CCI Global supports female talent through mentorship, hybrid learning, leadership boot camps, and performance tracking. With over 50% female leadership, CCI fosters equity by redesigning systems and ensuring accessible growth opportunities across Africa’s BPO sector.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Kiona Bodasing, Head of Talent Acquisition at CCI South Africa, a division of CCI Global, a leading business process outsourcing (BPO) company operating across Africa. Based in the Durban Metropolitan Area, Kiona plays a pivotal role in recruiting and developing talent for the organization.
Bodasing: Yes, thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: Kiona is an alumna of IIE Varsity College and the University of South Africa (UNISA), where she studied BCom in Human Resources. In her role, Kiona has been instrumental in expanding CCI’s workforce, particularly in South Africa and Kenya, aligning with the company’s commitment to creating meaningful career opportunities and promoting diversity. Her efforts contribute to CCI Global’s mission of transforming communities through employment and skill development. Thank you for joining me today. Let us begin. What CCI Global success story illustrates women’s empowerment in leadership?
Bodasing: Two standout examples are Lizelle Strydom and Anusha Ramraj. Lizelle began as a call center agent and has risen to become the Managing Director of CareerBox, CCI Global’s talent development arm. Anusha started in a junior finance role and is now the Chief Financial Officer of CCI South Africa. Their journeys demonstrate how we prioritize internal mobility and support high-potential women with structured career planning and skills training. We have seen multiple examples across Kenya, Ethiopia, and South Africa where women rise from entry-level roles into management positions within just a few years.
Jacobsen: How does CCI Global support high-potential talent?
Bodasing: We invest early and consistently, from onboarding to performance coaching. Our learning programs are tailored to help women build confidence, skills, and visibility. We also track performance through a gender lens to know who is ready for the next step and proactively match them to opportunities.
Jacobsen: What strategies have worked to achieve over 50% female leadership at CCI Global?
Bodasing combines intentional hiring, transparent promotion pipelines, and inclusive leadership training. We do not just look at who is ready—we look at who is often overlooked. We design for equity, not just equality; that mindset drives real representation.
Jacobsen: How has the company’s gender parity impacted operational performance?
Bodasing: Our gender-balanced teams are more collaborative and empathetic and often outperform in customer service and customer experience metrics. This also improves retention. People stay where they feel seen and supported.
Jacobsen: How does CCI Global ensure leadership development opportunities are accessible?
Bodasing: We ensure that leadership development opportunities are accessible by implementing mentorship programs, offering continuous learning and development courses, and creating clear pathways for career advancement. This approach helps us identify and nurture talent from within, ensuring that all employees have the opportunity to grow into leadership roles.
Jacobsen: So, access means flexibility?
Bodasing: Yes. We offer hybrid learning, local mentorships, and leadership boot camps that do not require sacrificing family or personal time. We also partner with CareerBox to reach young women from underserved communities, expanding the talent pool from the ground up.
Jacobsen: What are mentorship, sponsorship, or peer support programs in place?
Bodasing: We have formal mentorship programs, but some of the most powerful support comes from our women-led circles—informal, peer-driven spaces for coaching, storytelling, and career navigation.
Jacobsen: How is the long-term impact of gender parity initiatives measured?
Bodasing: We track promotion rates, performance scores, and retention through a gender lens. However, we also gather qualitative feedback—how empowered women feel, what barriers they face, and what changes they want to see. It is not just about numbers. It is about transforming the lived experience of women at work.
Jacobsen: What promotes gender equality and women’s leadership?
Bodasing: intentional. It does not happen by chance. We bake equity into every decision, from job design and pay transparency to who is in the room when leadership decisions are made. We do not just ask, “Why aren’t women leading?” We ask, “What systems are in the way—and how do we redesign them?”
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Bodasing: Thank you. It has been a pleasure.
–
”We Don’t Wait for Women to Lead—We Build the Systems That Let Them.”
At CCI, we don’t wait for women to lead—we build the systems that make it inevitable. Here, women don’t just get a seat at the table; they’re redesigning the table itself.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Empowering Women in BPO: Leadership and Gender Equity
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/05
Kiona Bodasing, Head of Talent Acquisition at CCI South Africa, talks about the company’s commitment to women’s empowerment and inclusive leadership. Bodasing highlights success stories like Lizelle Strydom and Anusha Ramraj, who rose from entry-level roles to executive positions. CCI Global supports female talent through mentorship, hybrid learning, leadership boot camps, and performance tracking. With over 50% female leadership, CCI fosters equity by redesigning systems and ensuring accessible growth opportunities across Africa’s BPO sector.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Kiona Bodasing, Head of Talent Acquisition at CCI South Africa, a division of CCI Global, a leading business process outsourcing (BPO) company operating across Africa. Based in the Durban Metropolitan Area, Kiona plays a pivotal role in recruiting and developing talent for the organization.
Bodasing: Yes, thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: Kiona is an alumna of IIE Varsity College and the University of South Africa (UNISA), where she studied BCom in Human Resources. In her role, Kiona has been instrumental in expanding CCI’s workforce, particularly in South Africa and Kenya, aligning with the company’s commitment to creating meaningful career opportunities and promoting diversity. Her efforts contribute to CCI Global’s mission of transforming communities through employment and skill development. Thank you for joining me today. Let us begin. What CCI Global success story illustrates women’s empowerment in leadership?
Bodasing: Two standout examples are Lizelle Strydom and Anusha Ramraj. Lizelle began as a call center agent and has risen to become the Managing Director of CareerBox, CCI Global’s talent development arm. Anusha started in a junior finance role and is now the Chief Financial Officer of CCI South Africa. Their journeys demonstrate how we prioritize internal mobility and support high-potential women with structured career planning and skills training. We have seen multiple examples across Kenya, Ethiopia, and South Africa where women rise from entry-level roles into management positions within just a few years.
Jacobsen: How does CCI Global support high-potential talent?
Bodasing: We invest early and consistently, from onboarding to performance coaching. Our learning programs are tailored to help women build confidence, skills, and visibility. We also track performance through a gender lens to know who is ready for the next step and proactively match them to opportunities.
Jacobsen: What strategies have worked to achieve over 50% female leadership at CCI Global?
Bodasing combines intentional hiring, transparent promotion pipelines, and inclusive leadership training. We do not just look at who is ready—we look at who is often overlooked. We design for equity, not just equality; that mindset drives real representation.
Jacobsen: How has the company’s gender parity impacted operational performance?
Bodasing: Our gender-balanced teams are more collaborative and empathetic and often outperform in customer service and customer experience metrics. This also improves retention. People stay where they feel seen and supported.
Jacobsen: How does CCI Global ensure leadership development opportunities are accessible?
Bodasing: We ensure that leadership development opportunities are accessible by implementing mentorship programs, offering continuous learning and development courses, and creating clear pathways for career advancement. This approach helps us identify and nurture talent from within, ensuring that all employees have the opportunity to grow into leadership roles.
Jacobsen: So, access means flexibility?
Bodasing: Yes. We offer hybrid learning, local mentorships, and leadership boot camps that do not require sacrificing family or personal time. We also partner with CareerBox to reach young women from underserved communities, expanding the talent pool from the ground up.
Jacobsen: What are mentorship, sponsorship, or peer support programs in place?
Bodasing: We have formal mentorship programs, but some of the most powerful support comes from our women-led circles—informal, peer-driven spaces for coaching, storytelling, and career navigation.
Jacobsen: How is the long-term impact of gender parity initiatives measured?
Bodasing: We track promotion rates, performance scores, and retention through a gender lens. However, we also gather qualitative feedback—how empowered women feel, what barriers they face, and what changes they want to see. It is not just about numbers. It is about transforming the lived experience of women at work.
Jacobsen: What promotes gender equality and women’s leadership?
Bodasing: intentional. It does not happen by chance. We bake equity into every decision, from job design and pay transparency to who is in the room when leadership decisions are made. We do not just ask, “Why aren’t women leading?” We ask, “What systems are in the way—and how do we redesign them?”
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Bodasing: Thank you. It has been a pleasure.
–
”We Don’t Wait for Women to Lead—We Build the Systems That Let Them.”
At CCI, we don’t wait for women to lead—we build the systems that make it inevitable. Here, women don’t just get a seat at the table; they’re redesigning the table itself.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#business #ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #news #politics #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject #women
-
Gytaute Gyneityte on Lithuania’s Defense, Democracy, and Resilience
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/03
Gytaute Gyneityte is a Lithuanian architect and military conscript who advocates for civic preparedness and national resilience. She speaks passionately about Lithuania’s history, cultural preservation, and defence readiness. Gyneityte emphasizes unity, human rights, and resistance to authoritarianism, drawing on both professional and personal insights into architecture, security, and collective memory. Gyneityte reflects on Lithuania’s resilience, military preparedness, and cultural survival amid threats from Russia. Emphasizing civic unity, historical memory, and democratic values, she expresses hope for Europe’s commitment to human rights and national sovereignty in the face of authoritarian aggression and hybrid warfare.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You are an architect. Is Lithuania’s architecture also very angular?
Gytaute Gyneityte: I’d say so. Maybe not as much in contemporary architecture anymore, but yes, it is more about the quality of the materials—they use very high-end materials.
Jacobsen: You can see it everywhere: the roads, the cobblestones—everything is done beautifully. One example is in Ukraine, in Kharkiv. The stonework and masonry were done exceptionally well. That is old construction, of course. So, talking about military preparedness—what is your name and title, and how long were you in the military at that point?
Gyneityte: I’m Gytaute Gyneityte. In February 2015, I was conscripted and spent nine months in military service, training alongside other conscripts.
Jacobsen: What did you learn?
Gyneityte: I was assigned to the engineering battalion. Lithuania reinstated mandatory conscription in early 2015, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. As an architect, I opted for the engineering battalion because there might be an overlap with my civilian skills. However, in reality, it was more focused on constructing field fortifications and obstacles.
We trained in handling explosives—detecting, neutralizing, and using them to breach structures. That included learning how to open doors with a charge. Of course, we also received basic military training, which included firearms handling, grenade throwing, physical fitness, and combat drills. That is the core of what the engineering battalion focuses on.
Jacobsen: Now, regarding the threat posed by the Russian Federation—by that I mean the Kremlin under Vladimir Putin, and perhaps vice versa to some extent—how do Lithuanians perceive that threat? How is it characterized, both politically and militarily, especially in the context of a possible escalation of the current conflict?
Gyneityte: We have always viewed Russia as a threat. There was never a time when the possibility of Russian aggression was ruled out. Hybrid warfare—encompassing cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and attempts to influence our political system—has been a consistent feature since we regained independence in 1990.
Russia has never been a friendly neighbour. However, since 2014, things have felt more acute and more dangerous. We have been warning the rest of Europe about Russia’s aggressive intentions since the annexation of Crimea. Back then, many European leaders told us we were paranoid. Unfortunately, we were right, and recent events have confirmed that. We have never forgotten the threat Russia poses.
You might have heard of the hybrid tactics involving Belarus. In 2021, the Lukashenko regime began directing thousands of migrants—mainly from the Middle East—toward Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia as a form of state-orchestrated pressure. It was widely interpreted as a retaliatory measure for EU sanctions.
What we did in response was a controversial move. We placed the migrants in detention centers and began constructing barbed-wire fencing along the Belarusian border. While the humanitarian aspect of that response has been criticized, we successfully controlled the situation.
Now, Lithuania has significantly strengthened its border security. We have fortified the borders with Belarus and the Kaliningrad region of Russia, and we continue to invest in military preparedness in cooperation with NATO.
We have, what do you call it—we have suspended parts of the Ottawa Convention, or at least adjusted our interpretation of it, in terms of the use of anti-personnel mines. Now, we are permitted to deploy certain types of landmines for defensive purposes, in coordination with other Baltic countries, as well as Finland and Poland, I believe.
What else? We have established what might be called a Commander’s Reserve or civilian auxiliary units—basically, civilians who receive some basic military training so they can assist the army or the police forces in the event of an emergency.
Generally, public support for the military has increased substantially. Military service and defence are seen much more positively now. Salaries for professional armed forces have also been raised. Conscription is still active. We have a standard nine-month conscription period, and that has not been cancelled. So yes, these are some of the main defence-related efforts underway.
Jacobsen: Now, cyber warfare seems to be Russia’s primary tool of disruption in Lithuania. Is that correct?
Gyneityte: Not only in Lithuania. I think they are doing that across Europe—and beyond. They have been involved in various acts of sabotage throughout the continent.
We had an incident where a plane exploded, and the cause is still under investigation. Events like that always raise suspicions, and unfortunately, the default assumption tends to be that Russian involvement is involved. Russia also regularly interferes in elections across Europe.
Jacobsen: Now, when it comes to Lithuania’s military preparedness, what can the country realistically do in the event of an invasion?
Gyneityte: Realistically, it has long been acknowledged that Lithuania could only hold out for a few days on its own, just enough time for NATO forces to arrive.
The critical vulnerability is the Suwałki Gap—a narrow stretch of land, approximately 60 kilometres wide, that forms the only land connection between the Baltic states and the rest of NATO, specifically between Lithuania and Poland. To the north is the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, and to the south is Belarus. Everyone knows this is the weak link—Lithuania knows it, NATO knows it, and indeed, Russia and Belarus are aware of it.
Every September—or every two years in September—Russia and Belarus hold extensive joint military exercises known as Zapad (“West”). These drills are essentially rehearsals for potential conflict scenarios in this region. Their maneuvers often simulate actions like securing the Suwałki Gap, which would connect Kaliningrad to Belarus and effectively cut off the Baltic states from NATO reinforcements.
Naturally, we are not particularly enthusiastic about these exercises, and Zapad is scheduled to take place this year. If something were to happen, it could be timed to coincide with those drills. In other words, it would not necessarily be just a drill.
Jacobsen: What about the leadership of Lithuania? Are they issuing public statements to raise awareness—within NATO or through other alliances—that could facilitate military or critical intelligence support?
Gyneityte: We have been very vocal for the past ten years. The Baltic states and Scandinavia, together with Poland, are the ones who truly understand the threat, especially since we are closer geographically and have a better understanding of the Russian culture and language.
So, for years, we have known what they have been saying and planning. For example, Russia recently published a so-called “history” of Lithuania, claiming that Lithuania is not a real country, that our language is fabricated, just like they have done with other former Soviet republics. This was officially signed by Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister. Yes, that is indeed very concerning. Our politicians always respond to these provocations. In Lithuania, if you go around saying pro-Russian things, you are not going to win a majority of votes. However, our current ruling coalition is somewhat corrupt, which is a concerning development. A protest is planned for Tuesday because our Prime Minister is allegedly involved in corruption.
Jacobsen: What are the allegations?
Gyneityte: A detailed investigative report was conducted by journalists. It revealed that he was living in a costly apartment that did not belong to him, despite having a modest official salary. He also allegedly has business ties that suggest financial misconduct. It is a long story—at least an hour-long investigative piece—but it is packed with information. Moreover, this is not the first time he has been implicated. He has previously been found guilty of corruption.
It was a mess how he got elected, to be honest. So yes, people are worried. However, even with all that, nobody can openly say they want to be friends with Russia or Belarus now. Our laws—and our constitution—do not allow that. Moreover, the public would be furious if anyone were to try.
Jacobsen: How do people in the military talk about these kinds of threats?
Gyneityte: When we refer to “the enemy,” everyone knows who we mean. There is no ambiguity. It is not some vague, abstract threat. It is very clear. It is not hypothetical. We all know who we are preparing to defend against.
Jacobsen: How much of Lithuania’s GDP is allocated to the military?
Gyneityte: As of now, Lithuania is spending over 2% of its GDP on defence, which meets NATO’s target commitment. We plan to increase it even further in the coming years—toward 3%—due to the current security situation. There is a broad consensus that this is necessary.
Jacobsen: How big is the military?
Gyneityte: Currently, Lithuania has approximately 20,000 professional military personnel. The number is approximately 26,000 when including both full-time and reserve forces.
In terms of conscription, we have had approximately 3,000 conscripts each year since February 2015, when conscription was reinstated. That would amount to around 30,000 trained conscripts to date.
We also have the Lithuanian Riflemen’s Union, which is a paramilitary organization. You will want to check the official numbers for that. In addition, there are volunteer forces—our volunteer national defence units. Again, exact figures can be verified, but they represent a meaningful segment of our broader defensive capacity.
Moreover, there is now also the Commanders’ Office—a relatively new initiative that allows civilians to undergo a short training program to prepare them to support military or police operations in emergencies, even in a limited capacity. For comparison, I believe Lithuania’s professional armed forces are now larger than those of Australia.
Jacobsen: That may be true. Australia is interesting, however. In the G20, Canada ranks nineteenth and Australia twentieth in terms of defence personnel size. However, Australia has perhaps the most generous benefits package for military personnel in the G20. Canada might be second-best in that regard. That is why both countries have large incentive programs—they struggle to recruit enough people to meet their targets. Within the Lithuanian context, when people talk about “the enemy,” do you think the political leadership might be corruptible enough to undermine Lithuania during a military incursion? Say, in the event of another so-called “special military operation” by the Kremlin-led Russian Federation, would some leaders offer no resistance? Or would civilians override executive orders and defend themselves regardless, because the political will lies more with the people than the leadership?
Gyneityte: Option number two. If we had the same kind of government for the past thirty years, maybe things would be different—perhaps we would be more brainwashed, or living in some grey zone politically. However, it is now a matter of black and white. In Lithuania’s history, the Singing Revolution took place on January 13, 1991. Sausio 13-oji. That was a critical moment.
So, to give an example: on January 13, 1991, Soviet tanks entered Lithuania. Civilians—many of them unarmed—came out to defend the parliament building, the television tower, and the national broadcaster.
In that case, they formed human shields—standing in large crowds around these buildings so the tanks could not proceed without running them over. There were thousands of people. You have no idea how many came out. They stood out there all night in minus-20-degree weather, singing songs, drinking coffee and tea, doing whatever they could to stay warm—and to stand their ground peacefully.
It was such a scary time. Moreover, I was not even born yet, but I cry every year. I put a candle on the windowsill, and we do this every year in remembrance of them. To give you an example: people from all over Lithuania came—no guns, no formal preparation—just to stand there and defend strategic buildings with their bodies. Moreover, I truly believe the same would happen today.
No doubt in my mind—crowds would appear again. This cab driver once told me that he was at the TV tower that night. Moreover, the radio host said, “It is a cold night. If anyone living near the TV tower can welcome people in for some tea, to warm up, please do. Moreover, put a candle on your windowsill.” Moreover, the cab driver said, “I looked around, and there was not a single window without a candle.”
That is who we are. This is our main existential threat—Russia. Moreover, we know just how expensive our freedom has been—our independence. We have been losing and regaining it for centuries. The fact that we have kept our language—even when it was banned—our alphabet, our traditions, including our Christmas celebrations, all of it was outlawed. Russia tried to erase us—our history, our culture, everything. However, we kept it. We still speak Lithuanian. We still have our country. That is a miracle. Moreover, I believe it shows we will maintain this miracle, no matter what happens.
Jacobsen: Are there different gendered experiences of this history? I mean, the Singing Revolution, the threat of Russia, the military—do men and women carry different memories, perspectives, or sentiments about these events? So, how might men think and feel about this history versus how women might?
Gyneityte: No, I do not believe there is a significant difference. After World War II, during the partisan resistance, the Russians killed a lot of Lithuanian men. Women had to step up in their place. During Soviet times, everyone, regardless of gender, was considered a worker.
That is why I think we have made relatively good progress on gender equality. Not perfect, not great—but not terrible either. I do not think men or women fought more or less for freedom. It was the same enemy, and it was the same difficult life, no matter your gender.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?
Gyneityte: I do not know—maybe a message of hope. I believe that we can be united and work together. That we can choose human values—and not succumb to dictatorships, fake news, propaganda, or fear. I still have much hope that Europe remains a place that fights for human rights.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gytaute.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Gytaute Gyneityte on Lithuania’s Defense, Democracy, and Resilience
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/03
Gytaute Gyneityte is a Lithuanian architect and military conscript who advocates for civic preparedness and national resilience. She speaks passionately about Lithuania’s history, cultural preservation, and defence readiness. Gyneityte emphasizes unity, human rights, and resistance to authoritarianism, drawing on both professional and personal insights into architecture, security, and collective memory. Gyneityte reflects on Lithuania’s resilience, military preparedness, and cultural survival amid threats from Russia. Emphasizing civic unity, historical memory, and democratic values, she expresses hope for Europe’s commitment to human rights and national sovereignty in the face of authoritarian aggression and hybrid warfare.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You are an architect. Is Lithuania’s architecture also very angular?
Gytaute Gyneityte: I’d say so. Maybe not as much in contemporary architecture anymore, but yes, it is more about the quality of the materials—they use very high-end materials.
Jacobsen: You can see it everywhere: the roads, the cobblestones—everything is done beautifully. One example is in Ukraine, in Kharkiv. The stonework and masonry were done exceptionally well. That is old construction, of course. So, talking about military preparedness—what is your name and title, and how long were you in the military at that point?
Gyneityte: I’m Gytaute Gyneityte. In February 2015, I was conscripted and spent nine months in military service, training alongside other conscripts.
Jacobsen: What did you learn?
Gyneityte: I was assigned to the engineering battalion. Lithuania reinstated mandatory conscription in early 2015, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. As an architect, I opted for the engineering battalion because there might be an overlap with my civilian skills. However, in reality, it was more focused on constructing field fortifications and obstacles.
We trained in handling explosives—detecting, neutralizing, and using them to breach structures. That included learning how to open doors with a charge. Of course, we also received basic military training, which included firearms handling, grenade throwing, physical fitness, and combat drills. That is the core of what the engineering battalion focuses on.
Jacobsen: Now, regarding the threat posed by the Russian Federation—by that I mean the Kremlin under Vladimir Putin, and perhaps vice versa to some extent—how do Lithuanians perceive that threat? How is it characterized, both politically and militarily, especially in the context of a possible escalation of the current conflict?
Gyneityte: We have always viewed Russia as a threat. There was never a time when the possibility of Russian aggression was ruled out. Hybrid warfare—encompassing cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and attempts to influence our political system—has been a consistent feature since we regained independence in 1990.
Russia has never been a friendly neighbour. However, since 2014, things have felt more acute and more dangerous. We have been warning the rest of Europe about Russia’s aggressive intentions since the annexation of Crimea. Back then, many European leaders told us we were paranoid. Unfortunately, we were right, and recent events have confirmed that. We have never forgotten the threat Russia poses.
You might have heard of the hybrid tactics involving Belarus. In 2021, the Lukashenko regime began directing thousands of migrants—mainly from the Middle East—toward Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia as a form of state-orchestrated pressure. It was widely interpreted as a retaliatory measure for EU sanctions.
What we did in response was a controversial move. We placed the migrants in detention centers and began constructing barbed-wire fencing along the Belarusian border. While the humanitarian aspect of that response has been criticized, we successfully controlled the situation.
Now, Lithuania has significantly strengthened its border security. We have fortified the borders with Belarus and the Kaliningrad region of Russia, and we continue to invest in military preparedness in cooperation with NATO.
We have, what do you call it—we have suspended parts of the Ottawa Convention, or at least adjusted our interpretation of it, in terms of the use of anti-personnel mines. Now, we are permitted to deploy certain types of landmines for defensive purposes, in coordination with other Baltic countries, as well as Finland and Poland, I believe.
What else? We have established what might be called a Commander’s Reserve or civilian auxiliary units—basically, civilians who receive some basic military training so they can assist the army or the police forces in the event of an emergency.
Generally, public support for the military has increased substantially. Military service and defence are seen much more positively now. Salaries for professional armed forces have also been raised. Conscription is still active. We have a standard nine-month conscription period, and that has not been cancelled. So yes, these are some of the main defence-related efforts underway.
Jacobsen: Now, cyber warfare seems to be Russia’s primary tool of disruption in Lithuania. Is that correct?
Gyneityte: Not only in Lithuania. I think they are doing that across Europe—and beyond. They have been involved in various acts of sabotage throughout the continent.
We had an incident where a plane exploded, and the cause is still under investigation. Events like that always raise suspicions, and unfortunately, the default assumption tends to be that Russian involvement is involved. Russia also regularly interferes in elections across Europe.
Jacobsen: Now, when it comes to Lithuania’s military preparedness, what can the country realistically do in the event of an invasion?
Gyneityte: Realistically, it has long been acknowledged that Lithuania could only hold out for a few days on its own, just enough time for NATO forces to arrive.
The critical vulnerability is the Suwałki Gap—a narrow stretch of land, approximately 60 kilometres wide, that forms the only land connection between the Baltic states and the rest of NATO, specifically between Lithuania and Poland. To the north is the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, and to the south is Belarus. Everyone knows this is the weak link—Lithuania knows it, NATO knows it, and indeed, Russia and Belarus are aware of it.
Every September—or every two years in September—Russia and Belarus hold extensive joint military exercises known as Zapad (“West”). These drills are essentially rehearsals for potential conflict scenarios in this region. Their maneuvers often simulate actions like securing the Suwałki Gap, which would connect Kaliningrad to Belarus and effectively cut off the Baltic states from NATO reinforcements.
Naturally, we are not particularly enthusiastic about these exercises, and Zapad is scheduled to take place this year. If something were to happen, it could be timed to coincide with those drills. In other words, it would not necessarily be just a drill.
Jacobsen: What about the leadership of Lithuania? Are they issuing public statements to raise awareness—within NATO or through other alliances—that could facilitate military or critical intelligence support?
Gyneityte: We have been very vocal for the past ten years. The Baltic states and Scandinavia, together with Poland, are the ones who truly understand the threat, especially since we are closer geographically and have a better understanding of the Russian culture and language.
So, for years, we have known what they have been saying and planning. For example, Russia recently published a so-called “history” of Lithuania, claiming that Lithuania is not a real country, that our language is fabricated, just like they have done with other former Soviet republics. This was officially signed by Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister. Yes, that is indeed very concerning. Our politicians always respond to these provocations. In Lithuania, if you go around saying pro-Russian things, you are not going to win a majority of votes. However, our current ruling coalition is somewhat corrupt, which is a concerning development. A protest is planned for Tuesday because our Prime Minister is allegedly involved in corruption.
Jacobsen: What are the allegations?
Gyneityte: A detailed investigative report was conducted by journalists. It revealed that he was living in a costly apartment that did not belong to him, despite having a modest official salary. He also allegedly has business ties that suggest financial misconduct. It is a long story—at least an hour-long investigative piece—but it is packed with information. Moreover, this is not the first time he has been implicated. He has previously been found guilty of corruption.
It was a mess how he got elected, to be honest. So yes, people are worried. However, even with all that, nobody can openly say they want to be friends with Russia or Belarus now. Our laws—and our constitution—do not allow that. Moreover, the public would be furious if anyone were to try.
Jacobsen: How do people in the military talk about these kinds of threats?
Gyneityte: When we refer to “the enemy,” everyone knows who we mean. There is no ambiguity. It is not some vague, abstract threat. It is very clear. It is not hypothetical. We all know who we are preparing to defend against.
Jacobsen: How much of Lithuania’s GDP is allocated to the military?
Gyneityte: As of now, Lithuania is spending over 2% of its GDP on defence, which meets NATO’s target commitment. We plan to increase it even further in the coming years—toward 3%—due to the current security situation. There is a broad consensus that this is necessary.
Jacobsen: How big is the military?
Gyneityte: Currently, Lithuania has approximately 20,000 professional military personnel. The number is approximately 26,000 when including both full-time and reserve forces.
In terms of conscription, we have had approximately 3,000 conscripts each year since February 2015, when conscription was reinstated. That would amount to around 30,000 trained conscripts to date.
We also have the Lithuanian Riflemen’s Union, which is a paramilitary organization. You will want to check the official numbers for that. In addition, there are volunteer forces—our volunteer national defence units. Again, exact figures can be verified, but they represent a meaningful segment of our broader defensive capacity.
Moreover, there is now also the Commanders’ Office—a relatively new initiative that allows civilians to undergo a short training program to prepare them to support military or police operations in emergencies, even in a limited capacity. For comparison, I believe Lithuania’s professional armed forces are now larger than those of Australia.
Jacobsen: That may be true. Australia is interesting, however. In the G20, Canada ranks nineteenth and Australia twentieth in terms of defence personnel size. However, Australia has perhaps the most generous benefits package for military personnel in the G20. Canada might be second-best in that regard. That is why both countries have large incentive programs—they struggle to recruit enough people to meet their targets. Within the Lithuanian context, when people talk about “the enemy,” do you think the political leadership might be corruptible enough to undermine Lithuania during a military incursion? Say, in the event of another so-called “special military operation” by the Kremlin-led Russian Federation, would some leaders offer no resistance? Or would civilians override executive orders and defend themselves regardless, because the political will lies more with the people than the leadership?
Gyneityte: Option number two. If we had the same kind of government for the past thirty years, maybe things would be different—perhaps we would be more brainwashed, or living in some grey zone politically. However, it is now a matter of black and white. In Lithuania’s history, the Singing Revolution took place on January 13, 1991. Sausio 13-oji. That was a critical moment.
So, to give an example: on January 13, 1991, Soviet tanks entered Lithuania. Civilians—many of them unarmed—came out to defend the parliament building, the television tower, and the national broadcaster.
In that case, they formed human shields—standing in large crowds around these buildings so the tanks could not proceed without running them over. There were thousands of people. You have no idea how many came out. They stood out there all night in minus-20-degree weather, singing songs, drinking coffee and tea, doing whatever they could to stay warm—and to stand their ground peacefully.
It was such a scary time. Moreover, I was not even born yet, but I cry every year. I put a candle on the windowsill, and we do this every year in remembrance of them. To give you an example: people from all over Lithuania came—no guns, no formal preparation—just to stand there and defend strategic buildings with their bodies. Moreover, I truly believe the same would happen today.
No doubt in my mind—crowds would appear again. This cab driver once told me that he was at the TV tower that night. Moreover, the radio host said, “It is a cold night. If anyone living near the TV tower can welcome people in for some tea, to warm up, please do. Moreover, put a candle on your windowsill.” Moreover, the cab driver said, “I looked around, and there was not a single window without a candle.”
That is who we are. This is our main existential threat—Russia. Moreover, we know just how expensive our freedom has been—our independence. We have been losing and regaining it for centuries. The fact that we have kept our language—even when it was banned—our alphabet, our traditions, including our Christmas celebrations, all of it was outlawed. Russia tried to erase us—our history, our culture, everything. However, we kept it. We still speak Lithuanian. We still have our country. That is a miracle. Moreover, I believe it shows we will maintain this miracle, no matter what happens.
Jacobsen: Are there different gendered experiences of this history? I mean, the Singing Revolution, the threat of Russia, the military—do men and women carry different memories, perspectives, or sentiments about these events? So, how might men think and feel about this history versus how women might?
Gyneityte: No, I do not believe there is a significant difference. After World War II, during the partisan resistance, the Russians killed a lot of Lithuanian men. Women had to step up in their place. During Soviet times, everyone, regardless of gender, was considered a worker.
That is why I think we have made relatively good progress on gender equality. Not perfect, not great—but not terrible either. I do not think men or women fought more or less for freedom. It was the same enemy, and it was the same difficult life, no matter your gender.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?
Gyneityte: I do not know—maybe a message of hope. I believe that we can be united and work together. That we can choose human values—and not succumb to dictatorships, fake news, propaganda, or fear. I still have much hope that Europe remains a place that fights for human rights.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gytaute.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Gytaute Gyneityte on Lithuania’s Defense, Democracy, and Resilience
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/03
Gytaute Gyneityte is a Lithuanian architect and military conscript who advocates for civic preparedness and national resilience. She speaks passionately about Lithuania’s history, cultural preservation, and defence readiness. Gyneityte emphasizes unity, human rights, and resistance to authoritarianism, drawing on both professional and personal insights into architecture, security, and collective memory. Gyneityte reflects on Lithuania’s resilience, military preparedness, and cultural survival amid threats from Russia. Emphasizing civic unity, historical memory, and democratic values, she expresses hope for Europe’s commitment to human rights and national sovereignty in the face of authoritarian aggression and hybrid warfare.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You are an architect. Is Lithuania’s architecture also very angular?
Gytaute Gyneityte: I’d say so. Maybe not as much in contemporary architecture anymore, but yes, it is more about the quality of the materials—they use very high-end materials.
Jacobsen: You can see it everywhere: the roads, the cobblestones—everything is done beautifully. One example is in Ukraine, in Kharkiv. The stonework and masonry were done exceptionally well. That is old construction, of course. So, talking about military preparedness—what is your name and title, and how long were you in the military at that point?
Gyneityte: I’m Gytaute Gyneityte. In February 2015, I was conscripted and spent nine months in military service, training alongside other conscripts.
Jacobsen: What did you learn?
Gyneityte: I was assigned to the engineering battalion. Lithuania reinstated mandatory conscription in early 2015, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. As an architect, I opted for the engineering battalion because there might be an overlap with my civilian skills. However, in reality, it was more focused on constructing field fortifications and obstacles.
We trained in handling explosives—detecting, neutralizing, and using them to breach structures. That included learning how to open doors with a charge. Of course, we also received basic military training, which included firearms handling, grenade throwing, physical fitness, and combat drills. That is the core of what the engineering battalion focuses on.
Jacobsen: Now, regarding the threat posed by the Russian Federation—by that I mean the Kremlin under Vladimir Putin, and perhaps vice versa to some extent—how do Lithuanians perceive that threat? How is it characterized, both politically and militarily, especially in the context of a possible escalation of the current conflict?
Gyneityte: We have always viewed Russia as a threat. There was never a time when the possibility of Russian aggression was ruled out. Hybrid warfare—encompassing cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and attempts to influence our political system—has been a consistent feature since we regained independence in 1990.
Russia has never been a friendly neighbour. However, since 2014, things have felt more acute and more dangerous. We have been warning the rest of Europe about Russia’s aggressive intentions since the annexation of Crimea. Back then, many European leaders told us we were paranoid. Unfortunately, we were right, and recent events have confirmed that. We have never forgotten the threat Russia poses.
You might have heard of the hybrid tactics involving Belarus. In 2021, the Lukashenko regime began directing thousands of migrants—mainly from the Middle East—toward Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia as a form of state-orchestrated pressure. It was widely interpreted as a retaliatory measure for EU sanctions.
What we did in response was a controversial move. We placed the migrants in detention centers and began constructing barbed-wire fencing along the Belarusian border. While the humanitarian aspect of that response has been criticized, we successfully controlled the situation.
Now, Lithuania has significantly strengthened its border security. We have fortified the borders with Belarus and the Kaliningrad region of Russia, and we continue to invest in military preparedness in cooperation with NATO.
We have, what do you call it—we have suspended parts of the Ottawa Convention, or at least adjusted our interpretation of it, in terms of the use of anti-personnel mines. Now, we are permitted to deploy certain types of landmines for defensive purposes, in coordination with other Baltic countries, as well as Finland and Poland, I believe.
What else? We have established what might be called a Commander’s Reserve or civilian auxiliary units—basically, civilians who receive some basic military training so they can assist the army or the police forces in the event of an emergency.
Generally, public support for the military has increased substantially. Military service and defence are seen much more positively now. Salaries for professional armed forces have also been raised. Conscription is still active. We have a standard nine-month conscription period, and that has not been cancelled. So yes, these are some of the main defence-related efforts underway.
Jacobsen: Now, cyber warfare seems to be Russia’s primary tool of disruption in Lithuania. Is that correct?
Gyneityte: Not only in Lithuania. I think they are doing that across Europe—and beyond. They have been involved in various acts of sabotage throughout the continent.
We had an incident where a plane exploded, and the cause is still under investigation. Events like that always raise suspicions, and unfortunately, the default assumption tends to be that Russian involvement is involved. Russia also regularly interferes in elections across Europe.
Jacobsen: Now, when it comes to Lithuania’s military preparedness, what can the country realistically do in the event of an invasion?
Gyneityte: Realistically, it has long been acknowledged that Lithuania could only hold out for a few days on its own, just enough time for NATO forces to arrive.
The critical vulnerability is the Suwałki Gap—a narrow stretch of land, approximately 60 kilometres wide, that forms the only land connection between the Baltic states and the rest of NATO, specifically between Lithuania and Poland. To the north is the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, and to the south is Belarus. Everyone knows this is the weak link—Lithuania knows it, NATO knows it, and indeed, Russia and Belarus are aware of it.
Every September—or every two years in September—Russia and Belarus hold extensive joint military exercises known as Zapad (“West”). These drills are essentially rehearsals for potential conflict scenarios in this region. Their maneuvers often simulate actions like securing the Suwałki Gap, which would connect Kaliningrad to Belarus and effectively cut off the Baltic states from NATO reinforcements.
Naturally, we are not particularly enthusiastic about these exercises, and Zapad is scheduled to take place this year. If something were to happen, it could be timed to coincide with those drills. In other words, it would not necessarily be just a drill.
Jacobsen: What about the leadership of Lithuania? Are they issuing public statements to raise awareness—within NATO or through other alliances—that could facilitate military or critical intelligence support?
Gyneityte: We have been very vocal for the past ten years. The Baltic states and Scandinavia, together with Poland, are the ones who truly understand the threat, especially since we are closer geographically and have a better understanding of the Russian culture and language.
So, for years, we have known what they have been saying and planning. For example, Russia recently published a so-called “history” of Lithuania, claiming that Lithuania is not a real country, that our language is fabricated, just like they have done with other former Soviet republics. This was officially signed by Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister. Yes, that is indeed very concerning. Our politicians always respond to these provocations. In Lithuania, if you go around saying pro-Russian things, you are not going to win a majority of votes. However, our current ruling coalition is somewhat corrupt, which is a concerning development. A protest is planned for Tuesday because our Prime Minister is allegedly involved in corruption.
Jacobsen: What are the allegations?
Gyneityte: A detailed investigative report was conducted by journalists. It revealed that he was living in a costly apartment that did not belong to him, despite having a modest official salary. He also allegedly has business ties that suggest financial misconduct. It is a long story—at least an hour-long investigative piece—but it is packed with information. Moreover, this is not the first time he has been implicated. He has previously been found guilty of corruption.
It was a mess how he got elected, to be honest. So yes, people are worried. However, even with all that, nobody can openly say they want to be friends with Russia or Belarus now. Our laws—and our constitution—do not allow that. Moreover, the public would be furious if anyone were to try.
Jacobsen: How do people in the military talk about these kinds of threats?
Gyneityte: When we refer to “the enemy,” everyone knows who we mean. There is no ambiguity. It is not some vague, abstract threat. It is very clear. It is not hypothetical. We all know who we are preparing to defend against.
Jacobsen: How much of Lithuania’s GDP is allocated to the military?
Gyneityte: As of now, Lithuania is spending over 2% of its GDP on defence, which meets NATO’s target commitment. We plan to increase it even further in the coming years—toward 3%—due to the current security situation. There is a broad consensus that this is necessary.
Jacobsen: How big is the military?
Gyneityte: Currently, Lithuania has approximately 20,000 professional military personnel. The number is approximately 26,000 when including both full-time and reserve forces.
In terms of conscription, we have had approximately 3,000 conscripts each year since February 2015, when conscription was reinstated. That would amount to around 30,000 trained conscripts to date.
We also have the Lithuanian Riflemen’s Union, which is a paramilitary organization. You will want to check the official numbers for that. In addition, there are volunteer forces—our volunteer national defence units. Again, exact figures can be verified, but they represent a meaningful segment of our broader defensive capacity.
Moreover, there is now also the Commanders’ Office—a relatively new initiative that allows civilians to undergo a short training program to prepare them to support military or police operations in emergencies, even in a limited capacity. For comparison, I believe Lithuania’s professional armed forces are now larger than those of Australia.
Jacobsen: That may be true. Australia is interesting, however. In the G20, Canada ranks nineteenth and Australia twentieth in terms of defence personnel size. However, Australia has perhaps the most generous benefits package for military personnel in the G20. Canada might be second-best in that regard. That is why both countries have large incentive programs—they struggle to recruit enough people to meet their targets. Within the Lithuanian context, when people talk about “the enemy,” do you think the political leadership might be corruptible enough to undermine Lithuania during a military incursion? Say, in the event of another so-called “special military operation” by the Kremlin-led Russian Federation, would some leaders offer no resistance? Or would civilians override executive orders and defend themselves regardless, because the political will lies more with the people than the leadership?
Gyneityte: Option number two. If we had the same kind of government for the past thirty years, maybe things would be different—perhaps we would be more brainwashed, or living in some grey zone politically. However, it is now a matter of black and white. In Lithuania’s history, the Singing Revolution took place on January 13, 1991. Sausio 13-oji. That was a critical moment.
So, to give an example: on January 13, 1991, Soviet tanks entered Lithuania. Civilians—many of them unarmed—came out to defend the parliament building, the television tower, and the national broadcaster.
In that case, they formed human shields—standing in large crowds around these buildings so the tanks could not proceed without running them over. There were thousands of people. You have no idea how many came out. They stood out there all night in minus-20-degree weather, singing songs, drinking coffee and tea, doing whatever they could to stay warm—and to stand their ground peacefully.
It was such a scary time. Moreover, I was not even born yet, but I cry every year. I put a candle on the windowsill, and we do this every year in remembrance of them. To give you an example: people from all over Lithuania came—no guns, no formal preparation—just to stand there and defend strategic buildings with their bodies. Moreover, I truly believe the same would happen today.
No doubt in my mind—crowds would appear again. This cab driver once told me that he was at the TV tower that night. Moreover, the radio host said, “It is a cold night. If anyone living near the TV tower can welcome people in for some tea, to warm up, please do. Moreover, put a candle on your windowsill.” Moreover, the cab driver said, “I looked around, and there was not a single window without a candle.”
That is who we are. This is our main existential threat—Russia. Moreover, we know just how expensive our freedom has been—our independence. We have been losing and regaining it for centuries. The fact that we have kept our language—even when it was banned—our alphabet, our traditions, including our Christmas celebrations, all of it was outlawed. Russia tried to erase us—our history, our culture, everything. However, we kept it. We still speak Lithuanian. We still have our country. That is a miracle. Moreover, I believe it shows we will maintain this miracle, no matter what happens.
Jacobsen: Are there different gendered experiences of this history? I mean, the Singing Revolution, the threat of Russia, the military—do men and women carry different memories, perspectives, or sentiments about these events? So, how might men think and feel about this history versus how women might?
Gyneityte: No, I do not believe there is a significant difference. After World War II, during the partisan resistance, the Russians killed a lot of Lithuanian men. Women had to step up in their place. During Soviet times, everyone, regardless of gender, was considered a worker.
That is why I think we have made relatively good progress on gender equality. Not perfect, not great—but not terrible either. I do not think men or women fought more or less for freedom. It was the same enemy, and it was the same difficult life, no matter your gender.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?
Gyneityte: I do not know—maybe a message of hope. I believe that we can be united and work together. That we can choose human values—and not succumb to dictatorships, fake news, propaganda, or fear. I still have much hope that Europe remains a place that fights for human rights.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gytaute.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Gytaute Gyneityte on Lithuania’s Defense, Democracy, and Resilience
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/03
Gytaute Gyneityte is a Lithuanian architect and military conscript who advocates for civic preparedness and national resilience. She speaks passionately about Lithuania’s history, cultural preservation, and defence readiness. Gyneityte emphasizes unity, human rights, and resistance to authoritarianism, drawing on both professional and personal insights into architecture, security, and collective memory. Gyneityte reflects on Lithuania’s resilience, military preparedness, and cultural survival amid threats from Russia. Emphasizing civic unity, historical memory, and democratic values, she expresses hope for Europe’s commitment to human rights and national sovereignty in the face of authoritarian aggression and hybrid warfare.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You are an architect. Is Lithuania’s architecture also very angular?
Gytaute Gyneityte: I’d say so. Maybe not as much in contemporary architecture anymore, but yes, it is more about the quality of the materials—they use very high-end materials.
Jacobsen: You can see it everywhere: the roads, the cobblestones—everything is done beautifully. One example is in Ukraine, in Kharkiv. The stonework and masonry were done exceptionally well. That is old construction, of course. So, talking about military preparedness—what is your name and title, and how long were you in the military at that point?
Gyneityte: I’m Gytaute Gyneityte. In February 2015, I was conscripted and spent nine months in military service, training alongside other conscripts.
Jacobsen: What did you learn?
Gyneityte: I was assigned to the engineering battalion. Lithuania reinstated mandatory conscription in early 2015, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. As an architect, I opted for the engineering battalion because there might be an overlap with my civilian skills. However, in reality, it was more focused on constructing field fortifications and obstacles.
We trained in handling explosives—detecting, neutralizing, and using them to breach structures. That included learning how to open doors with a charge. Of course, we also received basic military training, which included firearms handling, grenade throwing, physical fitness, and combat drills. That is the core of what the engineering battalion focuses on.
Jacobsen: Now, regarding the threat posed by the Russian Federation—by that I mean the Kremlin under Vladimir Putin, and perhaps vice versa to some extent—how do Lithuanians perceive that threat? How is it characterized, both politically and militarily, especially in the context of a possible escalation of the current conflict?
Gyneityte: We have always viewed Russia as a threat. There was never a time when the possibility of Russian aggression was ruled out. Hybrid warfare—encompassing cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and attempts to influence our political system—has been a consistent feature since we regained independence in 1990.
Russia has never been a friendly neighbour. However, since 2014, things have felt more acute and more dangerous. We have been warning the rest of Europe about Russia’s aggressive intentions since the annexation of Crimea. Back then, many European leaders told us we were paranoid. Unfortunately, we were right, and recent events have confirmed that. We have never forgotten the threat Russia poses.
You might have heard of the hybrid tactics involving Belarus. In 2021, the Lukashenko regime began directing thousands of migrants—mainly from the Middle East—toward Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia as a form of state-orchestrated pressure. It was widely interpreted as a retaliatory measure for EU sanctions.
What we did in response was a controversial move. We placed the migrants in detention centers and began constructing barbed-wire fencing along the Belarusian border. While the humanitarian aspect of that response has been criticized, we successfully controlled the situation.
Now, Lithuania has significantly strengthened its border security. We have fortified the borders with Belarus and the Kaliningrad region of Russia, and we continue to invest in military preparedness in cooperation with NATO.
We have, what do you call it—we have suspended parts of the Ottawa Convention, or at least adjusted our interpretation of it, in terms of the use of anti-personnel mines. Now, we are permitted to deploy certain types of landmines for defensive purposes, in coordination with other Baltic countries, as well as Finland and Poland, I believe.
What else? We have established what might be called a Commander’s Reserve or civilian auxiliary units—basically, civilians who receive some basic military training so they can assist the army or the police forces in the event of an emergency.
Generally, public support for the military has increased substantially. Military service and defence are seen much more positively now. Salaries for professional armed forces have also been raised. Conscription is still active. We have a standard nine-month conscription period, and that has not been cancelled. So yes, these are some of the main defence-related efforts underway.
Jacobsen: Now, cyber warfare seems to be Russia’s primary tool of disruption in Lithuania. Is that correct?
Gyneityte: Not only in Lithuania. I think they are doing that across Europe—and beyond. They have been involved in various acts of sabotage throughout the continent.
We had an incident where a plane exploded, and the cause is still under investigation. Events like that always raise suspicions, and unfortunately, the default assumption tends to be that Russian involvement is involved. Russia also regularly interferes in elections across Europe.
Jacobsen: Now, when it comes to Lithuania’s military preparedness, what can the country realistically do in the event of an invasion?
Gyneityte: Realistically, it has long been acknowledged that Lithuania could only hold out for a few days on its own, just enough time for NATO forces to arrive.
The critical vulnerability is the Suwałki Gap—a narrow stretch of land, approximately 60 kilometres wide, that forms the only land connection between the Baltic states and the rest of NATO, specifically between Lithuania and Poland. To the north is the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, and to the south is Belarus. Everyone knows this is the weak link—Lithuania knows it, NATO knows it, and indeed, Russia and Belarus are aware of it.
Every September—or every two years in September—Russia and Belarus hold extensive joint military exercises known as Zapad (“West”). These drills are essentially rehearsals for potential conflict scenarios in this region. Their maneuvers often simulate actions like securing the Suwałki Gap, which would connect Kaliningrad to Belarus and effectively cut off the Baltic states from NATO reinforcements.
Naturally, we are not particularly enthusiastic about these exercises, and Zapad is scheduled to take place this year. If something were to happen, it could be timed to coincide with those drills. In other words, it would not necessarily be just a drill.
Jacobsen: What about the leadership of Lithuania? Are they issuing public statements to raise awareness—within NATO or through other alliances—that could facilitate military or critical intelligence support?
Gyneityte: We have been very vocal for the past ten years. The Baltic states and Scandinavia, together with Poland, are the ones who truly understand the threat, especially since we are closer geographically and have a better understanding of the Russian culture and language.
So, for years, we have known what they have been saying and planning. For example, Russia recently published a so-called “history” of Lithuania, claiming that Lithuania is not a real country, that our language is fabricated, just like they have done with other former Soviet republics. This was officially signed by Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister. Yes, that is indeed very concerning. Our politicians always respond to these provocations. In Lithuania, if you go around saying pro-Russian things, you are not going to win a majority of votes. However, our current ruling coalition is somewhat corrupt, which is a concerning development. A protest is planned for Tuesday because our Prime Minister is allegedly involved in corruption.
Jacobsen: What are the allegations?
Gyneityte: A detailed investigative report was conducted by journalists. It revealed that he was living in a costly apartment that did not belong to him, despite having a modest official salary. He also allegedly has business ties that suggest financial misconduct. It is a long story—at least an hour-long investigative piece—but it is packed with information. Moreover, this is not the first time he has been implicated. He has previously been found guilty of corruption.
It was a mess how he got elected, to be honest. So yes, people are worried. However, even with all that, nobody can openly say they want to be friends with Russia or Belarus now. Our laws—and our constitution—do not allow that. Moreover, the public would be furious if anyone were to try.
Jacobsen: How do people in the military talk about these kinds of threats?
Gyneityte: When we refer to “the enemy,” everyone knows who we mean. There is no ambiguity. It is not some vague, abstract threat. It is very clear. It is not hypothetical. We all know who we are preparing to defend against.
Jacobsen: How much of Lithuania’s GDP is allocated to the military?
Gyneityte: As of now, Lithuania is spending over 2% of its GDP on defence, which meets NATO’s target commitment. We plan to increase it even further in the coming years—toward 3%—due to the current security situation. There is a broad consensus that this is necessary.
Jacobsen: How big is the military?
Gyneityte: Currently, Lithuania has approximately 20,000 professional military personnel. The number is approximately 26,000 when including both full-time and reserve forces.
In terms of conscription, we have had approximately 3,000 conscripts each year since February 2015, when conscription was reinstated. That would amount to around 30,000 trained conscripts to date.
We also have the Lithuanian Riflemen’s Union, which is a paramilitary organization. You will want to check the official numbers for that. In addition, there are volunteer forces—our volunteer national defence units. Again, exact figures can be verified, but they represent a meaningful segment of our broader defensive capacity.
Moreover, there is now also the Commanders’ Office—a relatively new initiative that allows civilians to undergo a short training program to prepare them to support military or police operations in emergencies, even in a limited capacity. For comparison, I believe Lithuania’s professional armed forces are now larger than those of Australia.
Jacobsen: That may be true. Australia is interesting, however. In the G20, Canada ranks nineteenth and Australia twentieth in terms of defence personnel size. However, Australia has perhaps the most generous benefits package for military personnel in the G20. Canada might be second-best in that regard. That is why both countries have large incentive programs—they struggle to recruit enough people to meet their targets. Within the Lithuanian context, when people talk about “the enemy,” do you think the political leadership might be corruptible enough to undermine Lithuania during a military incursion? Say, in the event of another so-called “special military operation” by the Kremlin-led Russian Federation, would some leaders offer no resistance? Or would civilians override executive orders and defend themselves regardless, because the political will lies more with the people than the leadership?
Gyneityte: Option number two. If we had the same kind of government for the past thirty years, maybe things would be different—perhaps we would be more brainwashed, or living in some grey zone politically. However, it is now a matter of black and white. In Lithuania’s history, the Singing Revolution took place on January 13, 1991. Sausio 13-oji. That was a critical moment.
So, to give an example: on January 13, 1991, Soviet tanks entered Lithuania. Civilians—many of them unarmed—came out to defend the parliament building, the television tower, and the national broadcaster.
In that case, they formed human shields—standing in large crowds around these buildings so the tanks could not proceed without running them over. There were thousands of people. You have no idea how many came out. They stood out there all night in minus-20-degree weather, singing songs, drinking coffee and tea, doing whatever they could to stay warm—and to stand their ground peacefully.
It was such a scary time. Moreover, I was not even born yet, but I cry every year. I put a candle on the windowsill, and we do this every year in remembrance of them. To give you an example: people from all over Lithuania came—no guns, no formal preparation—just to stand there and defend strategic buildings with their bodies. Moreover, I truly believe the same would happen today.
No doubt in my mind—crowds would appear again. This cab driver once told me that he was at the TV tower that night. Moreover, the radio host said, “It is a cold night. If anyone living near the TV tower can welcome people in for some tea, to warm up, please do. Moreover, put a candle on your windowsill.” Moreover, the cab driver said, “I looked around, and there was not a single window without a candle.”
That is who we are. This is our main existential threat—Russia. Moreover, we know just how expensive our freedom has been—our independence. We have been losing and regaining it for centuries. The fact that we have kept our language—even when it was banned—our alphabet, our traditions, including our Christmas celebrations, all of it was outlawed. Russia tried to erase us—our history, our culture, everything. However, we kept it. We still speak Lithuanian. We still have our country. That is a miracle. Moreover, I believe it shows we will maintain this miracle, no matter what happens.
Jacobsen: Are there different gendered experiences of this history? I mean, the Singing Revolution, the threat of Russia, the military—do men and women carry different memories, perspectives, or sentiments about these events? So, how might men think and feel about this history versus how women might?
Gyneityte: No, I do not believe there is a significant difference. After World War II, during the partisan resistance, the Russians killed a lot of Lithuanian men. Women had to step up in their place. During Soviet times, everyone, regardless of gender, was considered a worker.
That is why I think we have made relatively good progress on gender equality. Not perfect, not great—but not terrible either. I do not think men or women fought more or less for freedom. It was the same enemy, and it was the same difficult life, no matter your gender.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?
Gyneityte: I do not know—maybe a message of hope. I believe that we can be united and work together. That we can choose human values—and not succumb to dictatorships, fake news, propaganda, or fear. I still have much hope that Europe remains a place that fights for human rights.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gytaute.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Gytaute Gyneityte on Lithuania’s Defense, Democracy, and Resilience
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/03
Gytaute Gyneityte is a Lithuanian architect and military conscript who advocates for civic preparedness and national resilience. She speaks passionately about Lithuania’s history, cultural preservation, and defence readiness. Gyneityte emphasizes unity, human rights, and resistance to authoritarianism, drawing on both professional and personal insights into architecture, security, and collective memory. Gyneityte reflects on Lithuania’s resilience, military preparedness, and cultural survival amid threats from Russia. Emphasizing civic unity, historical memory, and democratic values, she expresses hope for Europe’s commitment to human rights and national sovereignty in the face of authoritarian aggression and hybrid warfare.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You are an architect. Is Lithuania’s architecture also very angular?
Gytaute Gyneityte: I’d say so. Maybe not as much in contemporary architecture anymore, but yes, it is more about the quality of the materials—they use very high-end materials.
Jacobsen: You can see it everywhere: the roads, the cobblestones—everything is done beautifully. One example is in Ukraine, in Kharkiv. The stonework and masonry were done exceptionally well. That is old construction, of course. So, talking about military preparedness—what is your name and title, and how long were you in the military at that point?
Gyneityte: I’m Gytaute Gyneityte. In February 2015, I was conscripted and spent nine months in military service, training alongside other conscripts.
Jacobsen: What did you learn?
Gyneityte: I was assigned to the engineering battalion. Lithuania reinstated mandatory conscription in early 2015, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. As an architect, I opted for the engineering battalion because there might be an overlap with my civilian skills. However, in reality, it was more focused on constructing field fortifications and obstacles.
We trained in handling explosives—detecting, neutralizing, and using them to breach structures. That included learning how to open doors with a charge. Of course, we also received basic military training, which included firearms handling, grenade throwing, physical fitness, and combat drills. That is the core of what the engineering battalion focuses on.
Jacobsen: Now, regarding the threat posed by the Russian Federation—by that I mean the Kremlin under Vladimir Putin, and perhaps vice versa to some extent—how do Lithuanians perceive that threat? How is it characterized, both politically and militarily, especially in the context of a possible escalation of the current conflict?
Gyneityte: We have always viewed Russia as a threat. There was never a time when the possibility of Russian aggression was ruled out. Hybrid warfare—encompassing cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and attempts to influence our political system—has been a consistent feature since we regained independence in 1990.
Russia has never been a friendly neighbour. However, since 2014, things have felt more acute and more dangerous. We have been warning the rest of Europe about Russia’s aggressive intentions since the annexation of Crimea. Back then, many European leaders told us we were paranoid. Unfortunately, we were right, and recent events have confirmed that. We have never forgotten the threat Russia poses.
You might have heard of the hybrid tactics involving Belarus. In 2021, the Lukashenko regime began directing thousands of migrants—mainly from the Middle East—toward Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia as a form of state-orchestrated pressure. It was widely interpreted as a retaliatory measure for EU sanctions.
What we did in response was a controversial move. We placed the migrants in detention centers and began constructing barbed-wire fencing along the Belarusian border. While the humanitarian aspect of that response has been criticized, we successfully controlled the situation.
Now, Lithuania has significantly strengthened its border security. We have fortified the borders with Belarus and the Kaliningrad region of Russia, and we continue to invest in military preparedness in cooperation with NATO.
We have, what do you call it—we have suspended parts of the Ottawa Convention, or at least adjusted our interpretation of it, in terms of the use of anti-personnel mines. Now, we are permitted to deploy certain types of landmines for defensive purposes, in coordination with other Baltic countries, as well as Finland and Poland, I believe.
What else? We have established what might be called a Commander’s Reserve or civilian auxiliary units—basically, civilians who receive some basic military training so they can assist the army or the police forces in the event of an emergency.
Generally, public support for the military has increased substantially. Military service and defence are seen much more positively now. Salaries for professional armed forces have also been raised. Conscription is still active. We have a standard nine-month conscription period, and that has not been cancelled. So yes, these are some of the main defence-related efforts underway.
Jacobsen: Now, cyber warfare seems to be Russia’s primary tool of disruption in Lithuania. Is that correct?
Gyneityte: Not only in Lithuania. I think they are doing that across Europe—and beyond. They have been involved in various acts of sabotage throughout the continent.
We had an incident where a plane exploded, and the cause is still under investigation. Events like that always raise suspicions, and unfortunately, the default assumption tends to be that Russian involvement is involved. Russia also regularly interferes in elections across Europe.
Jacobsen: Now, when it comes to Lithuania’s military preparedness, what can the country realistically do in the event of an invasion?
Gyneityte: Realistically, it has long been acknowledged that Lithuania could only hold out for a few days on its own, just enough time for NATO forces to arrive.
The critical vulnerability is the Suwałki Gap—a narrow stretch of land, approximately 60 kilometres wide, that forms the only land connection between the Baltic states and the rest of NATO, specifically between Lithuania and Poland. To the north is the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, and to the south is Belarus. Everyone knows this is the weak link—Lithuania knows it, NATO knows it, and indeed, Russia and Belarus are aware of it.
Every September—or every two years in September—Russia and Belarus hold extensive joint military exercises known as Zapad (“West”). These drills are essentially rehearsals for potential conflict scenarios in this region. Their maneuvers often simulate actions like securing the Suwałki Gap, which would connect Kaliningrad to Belarus and effectively cut off the Baltic states from NATO reinforcements.
Naturally, we are not particularly enthusiastic about these exercises, and Zapad is scheduled to take place this year. If something were to happen, it could be timed to coincide with those drills. In other words, it would not necessarily be just a drill.
Jacobsen: What about the leadership of Lithuania? Are they issuing public statements to raise awareness—within NATO or through other alliances—that could facilitate military or critical intelligence support?
Gyneityte: We have been very vocal for the past ten years. The Baltic states and Scandinavia, together with Poland, are the ones who truly understand the threat, especially since we are closer geographically and have a better understanding of the Russian culture and language.
So, for years, we have known what they have been saying and planning. For example, Russia recently published a so-called “history” of Lithuania, claiming that Lithuania is not a real country, that our language is fabricated, just like they have done with other former Soviet republics. This was officially signed by Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister. Yes, that is indeed very concerning. Our politicians always respond to these provocations. In Lithuania, if you go around saying pro-Russian things, you are not going to win a majority of votes. However, our current ruling coalition is somewhat corrupt, which is a concerning development. A protest is planned for Tuesday because our Prime Minister is allegedly involved in corruption.
Jacobsen: What are the allegations?
Gyneityte: A detailed investigative report was conducted by journalists. It revealed that he was living in a costly apartment that did not belong to him, despite having a modest official salary. He also allegedly has business ties that suggest financial misconduct. It is a long story—at least an hour-long investigative piece—but it is packed with information. Moreover, this is not the first time he has been implicated. He has previously been found guilty of corruption.
It was a mess how he got elected, to be honest. So yes, people are worried. However, even with all that, nobody can openly say they want to be friends with Russia or Belarus now. Our laws—and our constitution—do not allow that. Moreover, the public would be furious if anyone were to try.
Jacobsen: How do people in the military talk about these kinds of threats?
Gyneityte: When we refer to “the enemy,” everyone knows who we mean. There is no ambiguity. It is not some vague, abstract threat. It is very clear. It is not hypothetical. We all know who we are preparing to defend against.
Jacobsen: How much of Lithuania’s GDP is allocated to the military?
Gyneityte: As of now, Lithuania is spending over 2% of its GDP on defence, which meets NATO’s target commitment. We plan to increase it even further in the coming years—toward 3%—due to the current security situation. There is a broad consensus that this is necessary.
Jacobsen: How big is the military?
Gyneityte: Currently, Lithuania has approximately 20,000 professional military personnel. The number is approximately 26,000 when including both full-time and reserve forces.
In terms of conscription, we have had approximately 3,000 conscripts each year since February 2015, when conscription was reinstated. That would amount to around 30,000 trained conscripts to date.
We also have the Lithuanian Riflemen’s Union, which is a paramilitary organization. You will want to check the official numbers for that. In addition, there are volunteer forces—our volunteer national defence units. Again, exact figures can be verified, but they represent a meaningful segment of our broader defensive capacity.
Moreover, there is now also the Commanders’ Office—a relatively new initiative that allows civilians to undergo a short training program to prepare them to support military or police operations in emergencies, even in a limited capacity. For comparison, I believe Lithuania’s professional armed forces are now larger than those of Australia.
Jacobsen: That may be true. Australia is interesting, however. In the G20, Canada ranks nineteenth and Australia twentieth in terms of defence personnel size. However, Australia has perhaps the most generous benefits package for military personnel in the G20. Canada might be second-best in that regard. That is why both countries have large incentive programs—they struggle to recruit enough people to meet their targets. Within the Lithuanian context, when people talk about “the enemy,” do you think the political leadership might be corruptible enough to undermine Lithuania during a military incursion? Say, in the event of another so-called “special military operation” by the Kremlin-led Russian Federation, would some leaders offer no resistance? Or would civilians override executive orders and defend themselves regardless, because the political will lies more with the people than the leadership?
Gyneityte: Option number two. If we had the same kind of government for the past thirty years, maybe things would be different—perhaps we would be more brainwashed, or living in some grey zone politically. However, it is now a matter of black and white. In Lithuania’s history, the Singing Revolution took place on January 13, 1991. Sausio 13-oji. That was a critical moment.
So, to give an example: on January 13, 1991, Soviet tanks entered Lithuania. Civilians—many of them unarmed—came out to defend the parliament building, the television tower, and the national broadcaster.
In that case, they formed human shields—standing in large crowds around these buildings so the tanks could not proceed without running them over. There were thousands of people. You have no idea how many came out. They stood out there all night in minus-20-degree weather, singing songs, drinking coffee and tea, doing whatever they could to stay warm—and to stand their ground peacefully.
It was such a scary time. Moreover, I was not even born yet, but I cry every year. I put a candle on the windowsill, and we do this every year in remembrance of them. To give you an example: people from all over Lithuania came—no guns, no formal preparation—just to stand there and defend strategic buildings with their bodies. Moreover, I truly believe the same would happen today.
No doubt in my mind—crowds would appear again. This cab driver once told me that he was at the TV tower that night. Moreover, the radio host said, “It is a cold night. If anyone living near the TV tower can welcome people in for some tea, to warm up, please do. Moreover, put a candle on your windowsill.” Moreover, the cab driver said, “I looked around, and there was not a single window without a candle.”
That is who we are. This is our main existential threat—Russia. Moreover, we know just how expensive our freedom has been—our independence. We have been losing and regaining it for centuries. The fact that we have kept our language—even when it was banned—our alphabet, our traditions, including our Christmas celebrations, all of it was outlawed. Russia tried to erase us—our history, our culture, everything. However, we kept it. We still speak Lithuanian. We still have our country. That is a miracle. Moreover, I believe it shows we will maintain this miracle, no matter what happens.
Jacobsen: Are there different gendered experiences of this history? I mean, the Singing Revolution, the threat of Russia, the military—do men and women carry different memories, perspectives, or sentiments about these events? So, how might men think and feel about this history versus how women might?
Gyneityte: No, I do not believe there is a significant difference. After World War II, during the partisan resistance, the Russians killed a lot of Lithuanian men. Women had to step up in their place. During Soviet times, everyone, regardless of gender, was considered a worker.
That is why I think we have made relatively good progress on gender equality. Not perfect, not great—but not terrible either. I do not think men or women fought more or less for freedom. It was the same enemy, and it was the same difficult life, no matter your gender.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?
Gyneityte: I do not know—maybe a message of hope. I believe that we can be united and work together. That we can choose human values—and not succumb to dictatorships, fake news, propaganda, or fear. I still have much hope that Europe remains a place that fights for human rights.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gytaute.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Gytaute Gyneityte on Lithuania’s Defense, Democracy, and Resilience
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/03
Gytaute Gyneityte is a Lithuanian architect and military conscript who advocates for civic preparedness and national resilience. She speaks passionately about Lithuania’s history, cultural preservation, and defence readiness. Gyneityte emphasizes unity, human rights, and resistance to authoritarianism, drawing on both professional and personal insights into architecture, security, and collective memory. Gyneityte reflects on Lithuania’s resilience, military preparedness, and cultural survival amid threats from Russia. Emphasizing civic unity, historical memory, and democratic values, she expresses hope for Europe’s commitment to human rights and national sovereignty in the face of authoritarian aggression and hybrid warfare.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You are an architect. Is Lithuania’s architecture also very angular?
Gytaute Gyneityte: I’d say so. Maybe not as much in contemporary architecture anymore, but yes, it is more about the quality of the materials—they use very high-end materials.
Jacobsen: You can see it everywhere: the roads, the cobblestones—everything is done beautifully. One example is in Ukraine, in Kharkiv. The stonework and masonry were done exceptionally well. That is old construction, of course. So, talking about military preparedness—what is your name and title, and how long were you in the military at that point?
Gyneityte: I’m Gytaute Gyneityte. In February 2015, I was conscripted and spent nine months in military service, training alongside other conscripts.
Jacobsen: What did you learn?
Gyneityte: I was assigned to the engineering battalion. Lithuania reinstated mandatory conscription in early 2015, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. As an architect, I opted for the engineering battalion because there might be an overlap with my civilian skills. However, in reality, it was more focused on constructing field fortifications and obstacles.
We trained in handling explosives—detecting, neutralizing, and using them to breach structures. That included learning how to open doors with a charge. Of course, we also received basic military training, which included firearms handling, grenade throwing, physical fitness, and combat drills. That is the core of what the engineering battalion focuses on.
Jacobsen: Now, regarding the threat posed by the Russian Federation—by that I mean the Kremlin under Vladimir Putin, and perhaps vice versa to some extent—how do Lithuanians perceive that threat? How is it characterized, both politically and militarily, especially in the context of a possible escalation of the current conflict?
Gyneityte: We have always viewed Russia as a threat. There was never a time when the possibility of Russian aggression was ruled out. Hybrid warfare—encompassing cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and attempts to influence our political system—has been a consistent feature since we regained independence in 1990.
Russia has never been a friendly neighbour. However, since 2014, things have felt more acute and more dangerous. We have been warning the rest of Europe about Russia’s aggressive intentions since the annexation of Crimea. Back then, many European leaders told us we were paranoid. Unfortunately, we were right, and recent events have confirmed that. We have never forgotten the threat Russia poses.
You might have heard of the hybrid tactics involving Belarus. In 2021, the Lukashenko regime began directing thousands of migrants—mainly from the Middle East—toward Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia as a form of state-orchestrated pressure. It was widely interpreted as a retaliatory measure for EU sanctions.
What we did in response was a controversial move. We placed the migrants in detention centers and began constructing barbed-wire fencing along the Belarusian border. While the humanitarian aspect of that response has been criticized, we successfully controlled the situation.
Now, Lithuania has significantly strengthened its border security. We have fortified the borders with Belarus and the Kaliningrad region of Russia, and we continue to invest in military preparedness in cooperation with NATO.
We have, what do you call it—we have suspended parts of the Ottawa Convention, or at least adjusted our interpretation of it, in terms of the use of anti-personnel mines. Now, we are permitted to deploy certain types of landmines for defensive purposes, in coordination with other Baltic countries, as well as Finland and Poland, I believe.
What else? We have established what might be called a Commander’s Reserve or civilian auxiliary units—basically, civilians who receive some basic military training so they can assist the army or the police forces in the event of an emergency.
Generally, public support for the military has increased substantially. Military service and defence are seen much more positively now. Salaries for professional armed forces have also been raised. Conscription is still active. We have a standard nine-month conscription period, and that has not been cancelled. So yes, these are some of the main defence-related efforts underway.
Jacobsen: Now, cyber warfare seems to be Russia’s primary tool of disruption in Lithuania. Is that correct?
Gyneityte: Not only in Lithuania. I think they are doing that across Europe—and beyond. They have been involved in various acts of sabotage throughout the continent.
We had an incident where a plane exploded, and the cause is still under investigation. Events like that always raise suspicions, and unfortunately, the default assumption tends to be that Russian involvement is involved. Russia also regularly interferes in elections across Europe.
Jacobsen: Now, when it comes to Lithuania’s military preparedness, what can the country realistically do in the event of an invasion?
Gyneityte: Realistically, it has long been acknowledged that Lithuania could only hold out for a few days on its own, just enough time for NATO forces to arrive.
The critical vulnerability is the Suwałki Gap—a narrow stretch of land, approximately 60 kilometres wide, that forms the only land connection between the Baltic states and the rest of NATO, specifically between Lithuania and Poland. To the north is the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, and to the south is Belarus. Everyone knows this is the weak link—Lithuania knows it, NATO knows it, and indeed, Russia and Belarus are aware of it.
Every September—or every two years in September—Russia and Belarus hold extensive joint military exercises known as Zapad (“West”). These drills are essentially rehearsals for potential conflict scenarios in this region. Their maneuvers often simulate actions like securing the Suwałki Gap, which would connect Kaliningrad to Belarus and effectively cut off the Baltic states from NATO reinforcements.
Naturally, we are not particularly enthusiastic about these exercises, and Zapad is scheduled to take place this year. If something were to happen, it could be timed to coincide with those drills. In other words, it would not necessarily be just a drill.
Jacobsen: What about the leadership of Lithuania? Are they issuing public statements to raise awareness—within NATO or through other alliances—that could facilitate military or critical intelligence support?
Gyneityte: We have been very vocal for the past ten years. The Baltic states and Scandinavia, together with Poland, are the ones who truly understand the threat, especially since we are closer geographically and have a better understanding of the Russian culture and language.
So, for years, we have known what they have been saying and planning. For example, Russia recently published a so-called “history” of Lithuania, claiming that Lithuania is not a real country, that our language is fabricated, just like they have done with other former Soviet republics. This was officially signed by Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister. Yes, that is indeed very concerning. Our politicians always respond to these provocations. In Lithuania, if you go around saying pro-Russian things, you are not going to win a majority of votes. However, our current ruling coalition is somewhat corrupt, which is a concerning development. A protest is planned for Tuesday because our Prime Minister is allegedly involved in corruption.
Jacobsen: What are the allegations?
Gyneityte: A detailed investigative report was conducted by journalists. It revealed that he was living in a costly apartment that did not belong to him, despite having a modest official salary. He also allegedly has business ties that suggest financial misconduct. It is a long story—at least an hour-long investigative piece—but it is packed with information. Moreover, this is not the first time he has been implicated. He has previously been found guilty of corruption.
It was a mess how he got elected, to be honest. So yes, people are worried. However, even with all that, nobody can openly say they want to be friends with Russia or Belarus now. Our laws—and our constitution—do not allow that. Moreover, the public would be furious if anyone were to try.
Jacobsen: How do people in the military talk about these kinds of threats?
Gyneityte: When we refer to “the enemy,” everyone knows who we mean. There is no ambiguity. It is not some vague, abstract threat. It is very clear. It is not hypothetical. We all know who we are preparing to defend against.
Jacobsen: How much of Lithuania’s GDP is allocated to the military?
Gyneityte: As of now, Lithuania is spending over 2% of its GDP on defence, which meets NATO’s target commitment. We plan to increase it even further in the coming years—toward 3%—due to the current security situation. There is a broad consensus that this is necessary.
Jacobsen: How big is the military?
Gyneityte: Currently, Lithuania has approximately 20,000 professional military personnel. The number is approximately 26,000 when including both full-time and reserve forces.
In terms of conscription, we have had approximately 3,000 conscripts each year since February 2015, when conscription was reinstated. That would amount to around 30,000 trained conscripts to date.
We also have the Lithuanian Riflemen’s Union, which is a paramilitary organization. You will want to check the official numbers for that. In addition, there are volunteer forces—our volunteer national defence units. Again, exact figures can be verified, but they represent a meaningful segment of our broader defensive capacity.
Moreover, there is now also the Commanders’ Office—a relatively new initiative that allows civilians to undergo a short training program to prepare them to support military or police operations in emergencies, even in a limited capacity. For comparison, I believe Lithuania’s professional armed forces are now larger than those of Australia.
Jacobsen: That may be true. Australia is interesting, however. In the G20, Canada ranks nineteenth and Australia twentieth in terms of defence personnel size. However, Australia has perhaps the most generous benefits package for military personnel in the G20. Canada might be second-best in that regard. That is why both countries have large incentive programs—they struggle to recruit enough people to meet their targets. Within the Lithuanian context, when people talk about “the enemy,” do you think the political leadership might be corruptible enough to undermine Lithuania during a military incursion? Say, in the event of another so-called “special military operation” by the Kremlin-led Russian Federation, would some leaders offer no resistance? Or would civilians override executive orders and defend themselves regardless, because the political will lies more with the people than the leadership?
Gyneityte: Option number two. If we had the same kind of government for the past thirty years, maybe things would be different—perhaps we would be more brainwashed, or living in some grey zone politically. However, it is now a matter of black and white. In Lithuania’s history, the Singing Revolution took place on January 13, 1991. Sausio 13-oji. That was a critical moment.
So, to give an example: on January 13, 1991, Soviet tanks entered Lithuania. Civilians—many of them unarmed—came out to defend the parliament building, the television tower, and the national broadcaster.
In that case, they formed human shields—standing in large crowds around these buildings so the tanks could not proceed without running them over. There were thousands of people. You have no idea how many came out. They stood out there all night in minus-20-degree weather, singing songs, drinking coffee and tea, doing whatever they could to stay warm—and to stand their ground peacefully.
It was such a scary time. Moreover, I was not even born yet, but I cry every year. I put a candle on the windowsill, and we do this every year in remembrance of them. To give you an example: people from all over Lithuania came—no guns, no formal preparation—just to stand there and defend strategic buildings with their bodies. Moreover, I truly believe the same would happen today.
No doubt in my mind—crowds would appear again. This cab driver once told me that he was at the TV tower that night. Moreover, the radio host said, “It is a cold night. If anyone living near the TV tower can welcome people in for some tea, to warm up, please do. Moreover, put a candle on your windowsill.” Moreover, the cab driver said, “I looked around, and there was not a single window without a candle.”
That is who we are. This is our main existential threat—Russia. Moreover, we know just how expensive our freedom has been—our independence. We have been losing and regaining it for centuries. The fact that we have kept our language—even when it was banned—our alphabet, our traditions, including our Christmas celebrations, all of it was outlawed. Russia tried to erase us—our history, our culture, everything. However, we kept it. We still speak Lithuanian. We still have our country. That is a miracle. Moreover, I believe it shows we will maintain this miracle, no matter what happens.
Jacobsen: Are there different gendered experiences of this history? I mean, the Singing Revolution, the threat of Russia, the military—do men and women carry different memories, perspectives, or sentiments about these events? So, how might men think and feel about this history versus how women might?
Gyneityte: No, I do not believe there is a significant difference. After World War II, during the partisan resistance, the Russians killed a lot of Lithuanian men. Women had to step up in their place. During Soviet times, everyone, regardless of gender, was considered a worker.
That is why I think we have made relatively good progress on gender equality. Not perfect, not great—but not terrible either. I do not think men or women fought more or less for freedom. It was the same enemy, and it was the same difficult life, no matter your gender.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?
Gyneityte: I do not know—maybe a message of hope. I believe that we can be united and work together. That we can choose human values—and not succumb to dictatorships, fake news, propaganda, or fear. I still have much hope that Europe remains a place that fights for human rights.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gytaute.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Gytaute Gyneityte on Lithuania’s Defense, Democracy, and Resilience
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/03
Gytaute Gyneityte is a Lithuanian architect and military conscript who advocates for civic preparedness and national resilience. She speaks passionately about Lithuania’s history, cultural preservation, and defence readiness. Gyneityte emphasizes unity, human rights, and resistance to authoritarianism, drawing on both professional and personal insights into architecture, security, and collective memory. Gyneityte reflects on Lithuania’s resilience, military preparedness, and cultural survival amid threats from Russia. Emphasizing civic unity, historical memory, and democratic values, she expresses hope for Europe’s commitment to human rights and national sovereignty in the face of authoritarian aggression and hybrid warfare.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You are an architect. Is Lithuania’s architecture also very angular?
Gytaute Gyneityte: I’d say so. Maybe not as much in contemporary architecture anymore, but yes, it is more about the quality of the materials—they use very high-end materials.
Jacobsen: You can see it everywhere: the roads, the cobblestones—everything is done beautifully. One example is in Ukraine, in Kharkiv. The stonework and masonry were done exceptionally well. That is old construction, of course. So, talking about military preparedness—what is your name and title, and how long were you in the military at that point?
Gyneityte: I’m Gytaute Gyneityte. In February 2015, I was conscripted and spent nine months in military service, training alongside other conscripts.
Jacobsen: What did you learn?
Gyneityte: I was assigned to the engineering battalion. Lithuania reinstated mandatory conscription in early 2015, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. As an architect, I opted for the engineering battalion because there might be an overlap with my civilian skills. However, in reality, it was more focused on constructing field fortifications and obstacles.
We trained in handling explosives—detecting, neutralizing, and using them to breach structures. That included learning how to open doors with a charge. Of course, we also received basic military training, which included firearms handling, grenade throwing, physical fitness, and combat drills. That is the core of what the engineering battalion focuses on.
Jacobsen: Now, regarding the threat posed by the Russian Federation—by that I mean the Kremlin under Vladimir Putin, and perhaps vice versa to some extent—how do Lithuanians perceive that threat? How is it characterized, both politically and militarily, especially in the context of a possible escalation of the current conflict?
Gyneityte: We have always viewed Russia as a threat. There was never a time when the possibility of Russian aggression was ruled out. Hybrid warfare—encompassing cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and attempts to influence our political system—has been a consistent feature since we regained independence in 1990.
Russia has never been a friendly neighbour. However, since 2014, things have felt more acute and more dangerous. We have been warning the rest of Europe about Russia’s aggressive intentions since the annexation of Crimea. Back then, many European leaders told us we were paranoid. Unfortunately, we were right, and recent events have confirmed that. We have never forgotten the threat Russia poses.
You might have heard of the hybrid tactics involving Belarus. In 2021, the Lukashenko regime began directing thousands of migrants—mainly from the Middle East—toward Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia as a form of state-orchestrated pressure. It was widely interpreted as a retaliatory measure for EU sanctions.
What we did in response was a controversial move. We placed the migrants in detention centers and began constructing barbed-wire fencing along the Belarusian border. While the humanitarian aspect of that response has been criticized, we successfully controlled the situation.
Now, Lithuania has significantly strengthened its border security. We have fortified the borders with Belarus and the Kaliningrad region of Russia, and we continue to invest in military preparedness in cooperation with NATO.
We have, what do you call it—we have suspended parts of the Ottawa Convention, or at least adjusted our interpretation of it, in terms of the use of anti-personnel mines. Now, we are permitted to deploy certain types of landmines for defensive purposes, in coordination with other Baltic countries, as well as Finland and Poland, I believe.
What else? We have established what might be called a Commander’s Reserve or civilian auxiliary units—basically, civilians who receive some basic military training so they can assist the army or the police forces in the event of an emergency.
Generally, public support for the military has increased substantially. Military service and defence are seen much more positively now. Salaries for professional armed forces have also been raised. Conscription is still active. We have a standard nine-month conscription period, and that has not been cancelled. So yes, these are some of the main defence-related efforts underway.
Jacobsen: Now, cyber warfare seems to be Russia’s primary tool of disruption in Lithuania. Is that correct?
Gyneityte: Not only in Lithuania. I think they are doing that across Europe—and beyond. They have been involved in various acts of sabotage throughout the continent.
We had an incident where a plane exploded, and the cause is still under investigation. Events like that always raise suspicions, and unfortunately, the default assumption tends to be that Russian involvement is involved. Russia also regularly interferes in elections across Europe.
Jacobsen: Now, when it comes to Lithuania’s military preparedness, what can the country realistically do in the event of an invasion?
Gyneityte: Realistically, it has long been acknowledged that Lithuania could only hold out for a few days on its own, just enough time for NATO forces to arrive.
The critical vulnerability is the Suwałki Gap—a narrow stretch of land, approximately 60 kilometres wide, that forms the only land connection between the Baltic states and the rest of NATO, specifically between Lithuania and Poland. To the north is the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, and to the south is Belarus. Everyone knows this is the weak link—Lithuania knows it, NATO knows it, and indeed, Russia and Belarus are aware of it.
Every September—or every two years in September—Russia and Belarus hold extensive joint military exercises known as Zapad (“West”). These drills are essentially rehearsals for potential conflict scenarios in this region. Their maneuvers often simulate actions like securing the Suwałki Gap, which would connect Kaliningrad to Belarus and effectively cut off the Baltic states from NATO reinforcements.
Naturally, we are not particularly enthusiastic about these exercises, and Zapad is scheduled to take place this year. If something were to happen, it could be timed to coincide with those drills. In other words, it would not necessarily be just a drill.
Jacobsen: What about the leadership of Lithuania? Are they issuing public statements to raise awareness—within NATO or through other alliances—that could facilitate military or critical intelligence support?
Gyneityte: We have been very vocal for the past ten years. The Baltic states and Scandinavia, together with Poland, are the ones who truly understand the threat, especially since we are closer geographically and have a better understanding of the Russian culture and language.
So, for years, we have known what they have been saying and planning. For example, Russia recently published a so-called “history” of Lithuania, claiming that Lithuania is not a real country, that our language is fabricated, just like they have done with other former Soviet republics. This was officially signed by Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister. Yes, that is indeed very concerning. Our politicians always respond to these provocations. In Lithuania, if you go around saying pro-Russian things, you are not going to win a majority of votes. However, our current ruling coalition is somewhat corrupt, which is a concerning development. A protest is planned for Tuesday because our Prime Minister is allegedly involved in corruption.
Jacobsen: What are the allegations?
Gyneityte: A detailed investigative report was conducted by journalists. It revealed that he was living in a costly apartment that did not belong to him, despite having a modest official salary. He also allegedly has business ties that suggest financial misconduct. It is a long story—at least an hour-long investigative piece—but it is packed with information. Moreover, this is not the first time he has been implicated. He has previously been found guilty of corruption.
It was a mess how he got elected, to be honest. So yes, people are worried. However, even with all that, nobody can openly say they want to be friends with Russia or Belarus now. Our laws—and our constitution—do not allow that. Moreover, the public would be furious if anyone were to try.
Jacobsen: How do people in the military talk about these kinds of threats?
Gyneityte: When we refer to “the enemy,” everyone knows who we mean. There is no ambiguity. It is not some vague, abstract threat. It is very clear. It is not hypothetical. We all know who we are preparing to defend against.
Jacobsen: How much of Lithuania’s GDP is allocated to the military?
Gyneityte: As of now, Lithuania is spending over 2% of its GDP on defence, which meets NATO’s target commitment. We plan to increase it even further in the coming years—toward 3%—due to the current security situation. There is a broad consensus that this is necessary.
Jacobsen: How big is the military?
Gyneityte: Currently, Lithuania has approximately 20,000 professional military personnel. The number is approximately 26,000 when including both full-time and reserve forces.
In terms of conscription, we have had approximately 3,000 conscripts each year since February 2015, when conscription was reinstated. That would amount to around 30,000 trained conscripts to date.
We also have the Lithuanian Riflemen’s Union, which is a paramilitary organization. You will want to check the official numbers for that. In addition, there are volunteer forces—our volunteer national defence units. Again, exact figures can be verified, but they represent a meaningful segment of our broader defensive capacity.
Moreover, there is now also the Commanders’ Office—a relatively new initiative that allows civilians to undergo a short training program to prepare them to support military or police operations in emergencies, even in a limited capacity. For comparison, I believe Lithuania’s professional armed forces are now larger than those of Australia.
Jacobsen: That may be true. Australia is interesting, however. In the G20, Canada ranks nineteenth and Australia twentieth in terms of defence personnel size. However, Australia has perhaps the most generous benefits package for military personnel in the G20. Canada might be second-best in that regard. That is why both countries have large incentive programs—they struggle to recruit enough people to meet their targets. Within the Lithuanian context, when people talk about “the enemy,” do you think the political leadership might be corruptible enough to undermine Lithuania during a military incursion? Say, in the event of another so-called “special military operation” by the Kremlin-led Russian Federation, would some leaders offer no resistance? Or would civilians override executive orders and defend themselves regardless, because the political will lies more with the people than the leadership?
Gyneityte: Option number two. If we had the same kind of government for the past thirty years, maybe things would be different—perhaps we would be more brainwashed, or living in some grey zone politically. However, it is now a matter of black and white. In Lithuania’s history, the Singing Revolution took place on January 13, 1991. Sausio 13-oji. That was a critical moment.
So, to give an example: on January 13, 1991, Soviet tanks entered Lithuania. Civilians—many of them unarmed—came out to defend the parliament building, the television tower, and the national broadcaster.
In that case, they formed human shields—standing in large crowds around these buildings so the tanks could not proceed without running them over. There were thousands of people. You have no idea how many came out. They stood out there all night in minus-20-degree weather, singing songs, drinking coffee and tea, doing whatever they could to stay warm—and to stand their ground peacefully.
It was such a scary time. Moreover, I was not even born yet, but I cry every year. I put a candle on the windowsill, and we do this every year in remembrance of them. To give you an example: people from all over Lithuania came—no guns, no formal preparation—just to stand there and defend strategic buildings with their bodies. Moreover, I truly believe the same would happen today.
No doubt in my mind—crowds would appear again. This cab driver once told me that he was at the TV tower that night. Moreover, the radio host said, “It is a cold night. If anyone living near the TV tower can welcome people in for some tea, to warm up, please do. Moreover, put a candle on your windowsill.” Moreover, the cab driver said, “I looked around, and there was not a single window without a candle.”
That is who we are. This is our main existential threat—Russia. Moreover, we know just how expensive our freedom has been—our independence. We have been losing and regaining it for centuries. The fact that we have kept our language—even when it was banned—our alphabet, our traditions, including our Christmas celebrations, all of it was outlawed. Russia tried to erase us—our history, our culture, everything. However, we kept it. We still speak Lithuanian. We still have our country. That is a miracle. Moreover, I believe it shows we will maintain this miracle, no matter what happens.
Jacobsen: Are there different gendered experiences of this history? I mean, the Singing Revolution, the threat of Russia, the military—do men and women carry different memories, perspectives, or sentiments about these events? So, how might men think and feel about this history versus how women might?
Gyneityte: No, I do not believe there is a significant difference. After World War II, during the partisan resistance, the Russians killed a lot of Lithuanian men. Women had to step up in their place. During Soviet times, everyone, regardless of gender, was considered a worker.
That is why I think we have made relatively good progress on gender equality. Not perfect, not great—but not terrible either. I do not think men or women fought more or less for freedom. It was the same enemy, and it was the same difficult life, no matter your gender.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?
Gyneityte: I do not know—maybe a message of hope. I believe that we can be united and work together. That we can choose human values—and not succumb to dictatorships, fake news, propaganda, or fear. I still have much hope that Europe remains a place that fights for human rights.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gytaute.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Gytaute Gyneityte on Lithuania’s Defense, Democracy, and Resilience
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/03
Gytaute Gyneityte is a Lithuanian architect and military conscript who advocates for civic preparedness and national resilience. She speaks passionately about Lithuania’s history, cultural preservation, and defence readiness. Gyneityte emphasizes unity, human rights, and resistance to authoritarianism, drawing on both professional and personal insights into architecture, security, and collective memory. Gyneityte reflects on Lithuania’s resilience, military preparedness, and cultural survival amid threats from Russia. Emphasizing civic unity, historical memory, and democratic values, she expresses hope for Europe’s commitment to human rights and national sovereignty in the face of authoritarian aggression and hybrid warfare.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You are an architect. Is Lithuania’s architecture also very angular?
Gytaute Gyneityte: I’d say so. Maybe not as much in contemporary architecture anymore, but yes, it is more about the quality of the materials—they use very high-end materials.
Jacobsen: You can see it everywhere: the roads, the cobblestones—everything is done beautifully. One example is in Ukraine, in Kharkiv. The stonework and masonry were done exceptionally well. That is old construction, of course. So, talking about military preparedness—what is your name and title, and how long were you in the military at that point?
Gyneityte: I’m Gytaute Gyneityte. In February 2015, I was conscripted and spent nine months in military service, training alongside other conscripts.
Jacobsen: What did you learn?
Gyneityte: I was assigned to the engineering battalion. Lithuania reinstated mandatory conscription in early 2015, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. As an architect, I opted for the engineering battalion because there might be an overlap with my civilian skills. However, in reality, it was more focused on constructing field fortifications and obstacles.
We trained in handling explosives—detecting, neutralizing, and using them to breach structures. That included learning how to open doors with a charge. Of course, we also received basic military training, which included firearms handling, grenade throwing, physical fitness, and combat drills. That is the core of what the engineering battalion focuses on.
Jacobsen: Now, regarding the threat posed by the Russian Federation—by that I mean the Kremlin under Vladimir Putin, and perhaps vice versa to some extent—how do Lithuanians perceive that threat? How is it characterized, both politically and militarily, especially in the context of a possible escalation of the current conflict?
Gyneityte: We have always viewed Russia as a threat. There was never a time when the possibility of Russian aggression was ruled out. Hybrid warfare—encompassing cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and attempts to influence our political system—has been a consistent feature since we regained independence in 1990.
Russia has never been a friendly neighbour. However, since 2014, things have felt more acute and more dangerous. We have been warning the rest of Europe about Russia’s aggressive intentions since the annexation of Crimea. Back then, many European leaders told us we were paranoid. Unfortunately, we were right, and recent events have confirmed that. We have never forgotten the threat Russia poses.
You might have heard of the hybrid tactics involving Belarus. In 2021, the Lukashenko regime began directing thousands of migrants—mainly from the Middle East—toward Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia as a form of state-orchestrated pressure. It was widely interpreted as a retaliatory measure for EU sanctions.
What we did in response was a controversial move. We placed the migrants in detention centers and began constructing barbed-wire fencing along the Belarusian border. While the humanitarian aspect of that response has been criticized, we successfully controlled the situation.
Now, Lithuania has significantly strengthened its border security. We have fortified the borders with Belarus and the Kaliningrad region of Russia, and we continue to invest in military preparedness in cooperation with NATO.
We have, what do you call it—we have suspended parts of the Ottawa Convention, or at least adjusted our interpretation of it, in terms of the use of anti-personnel mines. Now, we are permitted to deploy certain types of landmines for defensive purposes, in coordination with other Baltic countries, as well as Finland and Poland, I believe.
What else? We have established what might be called a Commander’s Reserve or civilian auxiliary units—basically, civilians who receive some basic military training so they can assist the army or the police forces in the event of an emergency.
Generally, public support for the military has increased substantially. Military service and defence are seen much more positively now. Salaries for professional armed forces have also been raised. Conscription is still active. We have a standard nine-month conscription period, and that has not been cancelled. So yes, these are some of the main defence-related efforts underway.
Jacobsen: Now, cyber warfare seems to be Russia’s primary tool of disruption in Lithuania. Is that correct?
Gyneityte: Not only in Lithuania. I think they are doing that across Europe—and beyond. They have been involved in various acts of sabotage throughout the continent.
We had an incident where a plane exploded, and the cause is still under investigation. Events like that always raise suspicions, and unfortunately, the default assumption tends to be that Russian involvement is involved. Russia also regularly interferes in elections across Europe.
Jacobsen: Now, when it comes to Lithuania’s military preparedness, what can the country realistically do in the event of an invasion?
Gyneityte: Realistically, it has long been acknowledged that Lithuania could only hold out for a few days on its own, just enough time for NATO forces to arrive.
The critical vulnerability is the Suwałki Gap—a narrow stretch of land, approximately 60 kilometres wide, that forms the only land connection between the Baltic states and the rest of NATO, specifically between Lithuania and Poland. To the north is the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, and to the south is Belarus. Everyone knows this is the weak link—Lithuania knows it, NATO knows it, and indeed, Russia and Belarus are aware of it.
Every September—or every two years in September—Russia and Belarus hold extensive joint military exercises known as Zapad (“West”). These drills are essentially rehearsals for potential conflict scenarios in this region. Their maneuvers often simulate actions like securing the Suwałki Gap, which would connect Kaliningrad to Belarus and effectively cut off the Baltic states from NATO reinforcements.
Naturally, we are not particularly enthusiastic about these exercises, and Zapad is scheduled to take place this year. If something were to happen, it could be timed to coincide with those drills. In other words, it would not necessarily be just a drill.
Jacobsen: What about the leadership of Lithuania? Are they issuing public statements to raise awareness—within NATO or through other alliances—that could facilitate military or critical intelligence support?
Gyneityte: We have been very vocal for the past ten years. The Baltic states and Scandinavia, together with Poland, are the ones who truly understand the threat, especially since we are closer geographically and have a better understanding of the Russian culture and language.
So, for years, we have known what they have been saying and planning. For example, Russia recently published a so-called “history” of Lithuania, claiming that Lithuania is not a real country, that our language is fabricated, just like they have done with other former Soviet republics. This was officially signed by Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister. Yes, that is indeed very concerning. Our politicians always respond to these provocations. In Lithuania, if you go around saying pro-Russian things, you are not going to win a majority of votes. However, our current ruling coalition is somewhat corrupt, which is a concerning development. A protest is planned for Tuesday because our Prime Minister is allegedly involved in corruption.
Jacobsen: What are the allegations?
Gyneityte: A detailed investigative report was conducted by journalists. It revealed that he was living in a costly apartment that did not belong to him, despite having a modest official salary. He also allegedly has business ties that suggest financial misconduct. It is a long story—at least an hour-long investigative piece—but it is packed with information. Moreover, this is not the first time he has been implicated. He has previously been found guilty of corruption.
It was a mess how he got elected, to be honest. So yes, people are worried. However, even with all that, nobody can openly say they want to be friends with Russia or Belarus now. Our laws—and our constitution—do not allow that. Moreover, the public would be furious if anyone were to try.
Jacobsen: How do people in the military talk about these kinds of threats?
Gyneityte: When we refer to “the enemy,” everyone knows who we mean. There is no ambiguity. It is not some vague, abstract threat. It is very clear. It is not hypothetical. We all know who we are preparing to defend against.
Jacobsen: How much of Lithuania’s GDP is allocated to the military?
Gyneityte: As of now, Lithuania is spending over 2% of its GDP on defence, which meets NATO’s target commitment. We plan to increase it even further in the coming years—toward 3%—due to the current security situation. There is a broad consensus that this is necessary.
Jacobsen: How big is the military?
Gyneityte: Currently, Lithuania has approximately 20,000 professional military personnel. The number is approximately 26,000 when including both full-time and reserve forces.
In terms of conscription, we have had approximately 3,000 conscripts each year since February 2015, when conscription was reinstated. That would amount to around 30,000 trained conscripts to date.
We also have the Lithuanian Riflemen’s Union, which is a paramilitary organization. You will want to check the official numbers for that. In addition, there are volunteer forces—our volunteer national defence units. Again, exact figures can be verified, but they represent a meaningful segment of our broader defensive capacity.
Moreover, there is now also the Commanders’ Office—a relatively new initiative that allows civilians to undergo a short training program to prepare them to support military or police operations in emergencies, even in a limited capacity. For comparison, I believe Lithuania’s professional armed forces are now larger than those of Australia.
Jacobsen: That may be true. Australia is interesting, however. In the G20, Canada ranks nineteenth and Australia twentieth in terms of defence personnel size. However, Australia has perhaps the most generous benefits package for military personnel in the G20. Canada might be second-best in that regard. That is why both countries have large incentive programs—they struggle to recruit enough people to meet their targets. Within the Lithuanian context, when people talk about “the enemy,” do you think the political leadership might be corruptible enough to undermine Lithuania during a military incursion? Say, in the event of another so-called “special military operation” by the Kremlin-led Russian Federation, would some leaders offer no resistance? Or would civilians override executive orders and defend themselves regardless, because the political will lies more with the people than the leadership?
Gyneityte: Option number two. If we had the same kind of government for the past thirty years, maybe things would be different—perhaps we would be more brainwashed, or living in some grey zone politically. However, it is now a matter of black and white. In Lithuania’s history, the Singing Revolution took place on January 13, 1991. Sausio 13-oji. That was a critical moment.
So, to give an example: on January 13, 1991, Soviet tanks entered Lithuania. Civilians—many of them unarmed—came out to defend the parliament building, the television tower, and the national broadcaster.
In that case, they formed human shields—standing in large crowds around these buildings so the tanks could not proceed without running them over. There were thousands of people. You have no idea how many came out. They stood out there all night in minus-20-degree weather, singing songs, drinking coffee and tea, doing whatever they could to stay warm—and to stand their ground peacefully.
It was such a scary time. Moreover, I was not even born yet, but I cry every year. I put a candle on the windowsill, and we do this every year in remembrance of them. To give you an example: people from all over Lithuania came—no guns, no formal preparation—just to stand there and defend strategic buildings with their bodies. Moreover, I truly believe the same would happen today.
No doubt in my mind—crowds would appear again. This cab driver once told me that he was at the TV tower that night. Moreover, the radio host said, “It is a cold night. If anyone living near the TV tower can welcome people in for some tea, to warm up, please do. Moreover, put a candle on your windowsill.” Moreover, the cab driver said, “I looked around, and there was not a single window without a candle.”
That is who we are. This is our main existential threat—Russia. Moreover, we know just how expensive our freedom has been—our independence. We have been losing and regaining it for centuries. The fact that we have kept our language—even when it was banned—our alphabet, our traditions, including our Christmas celebrations, all of it was outlawed. Russia tried to erase us—our history, our culture, everything. However, we kept it. We still speak Lithuanian. We still have our country. That is a miracle. Moreover, I believe it shows we will maintain this miracle, no matter what happens.
Jacobsen: Are there different gendered experiences of this history? I mean, the Singing Revolution, the threat of Russia, the military—do men and women carry different memories, perspectives, or sentiments about these events? So, how might men think and feel about this history versus how women might?
Gyneityte: No, I do not believe there is a significant difference. After World War II, during the partisan resistance, the Russians killed a lot of Lithuanian men. Women had to step up in their place. During Soviet times, everyone, regardless of gender, was considered a worker.
That is why I think we have made relatively good progress on gender equality. Not perfect, not great—but not terrible either. I do not think men or women fought more or less for freedom. It was the same enemy, and it was the same difficult life, no matter your gender.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?
Gyneityte: I do not know—maybe a message of hope. I believe that we can be united and work together. That we can choose human values—and not succumb to dictatorships, fake news, propaganda, or fear. I still have much hope that Europe remains a place that fights for human rights.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gytaute.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
The Luxembourgish Humanist Conference Reflection
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/31
Bob Reuter shared his reflections on the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and the International Humanist Conference held in Luxembourg, highlighting a warm, collegial atmosphere and emotional moments, such as Mubarak Bala’s attendance. He praised the dynamic “inspiring practices” format and emphasized the importance of striking a balance between local and international contributions. Challenges such as funding for global collaboration and inclusion of diverse communities were discussed. Reuter advocated for practical humanist services, like non-religious weddings and funerals, to better reflect non-religious values. He also emphasized the importance of emotional connection, leadership accountability, and fostering solidarity, suggesting ideas such as humanist couchsurfing to strengthen community ties across borders.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your main takeaways from the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and the International Humanist Conference you hosted in Luxembourg?
Bob Reuter: A feeling of bliss is the first thing that comes to mind. I found the entire weekend — from Friday to Sunday — to be exceptionally warm and friendly. It was truly remarkable to see so many people gathered together. Everything went well. Aside from a few minor hiccups, the event ran very smoothly.
Jacobsen: What kind of hiccups?
Reuter: Just a minor one — Andrew Copson did not receive a lunch that accommodated his dietary requirements. It was a minor oversight, likely unnoticed by most attendees, but it stood out to me. I try to be very attentive to the well-being of participants, especially those in key roles.
Jacobsen: Like Sideshow Bob stepping on a rake — it hits you in the face, even if you saw it coming. There is even a whole episode devoted to that gag. What were some highlights from the speakers? What stood out to you? What feedback did you hear from attendees?
Reuter: I will start with the first keynote speaker — someone I know personally. He was relieved that his talk went smoothly, that his English was clear enough, and that he stayed within the time limit. During the break, he received many thoughtful and friendly questions. As academics, we are used to conferences where questions sometimes aim to show off. However, the atmosphere here was much more collegial. Attendees asked questions out of genuine interest. It created a space focused on sharing ideas and learning, where people gained new perspectives on topics they may not have been familiar with before.
Regarding the sessions on “inspiring practices,” many attendees praised the format. Each speaker had ten minutes, which made the sessions feel dynamic and engaging. If one speaker was less engaging for you, it was only a short wait until the next — potentially more inspiring — presentation. This approach worked well because people’s interests are personal, and the short format helped sustain engagement across a wide range of topics.
Jacobsen: Would it be helpful to have a semi-academic format, such as poster presentations, where attendees could present their ideas in a less formal setting?
Reuter: Potentially, yes. At the 2023 World Humanist Congress in Copenhagen, for instance, a poster session was held. That event was larger, with parallel sessions on various themes. I attended one focused on humanist services, particularly in youth work. Those talks were significantly longer than ten minutes.
It was very appropriate for those presentations to be much longer because you want to dig deeply into an established practice. You want to learn how they do it, what their foundational principles are, and also what observed effects they have had.
It is tough to convey all of that in just ten minutes. Consider showing a video of an activity, such as a ceremony, youth camp, or similar event. Therefore, the ten-minute quick talks, followed by a roundtable, are not necessarily the ideal format.
However, if you only have one day, it is a good way to provide people with a wide range of input without making it too long or overwhelming. I remained alert and excited throughout the day. However, as an organizer, you have that adrenaline running through your system, wondering: will everything be okay? Will we stay on schedule? Will we make it to the restaurant? Will people like the food? Will the music work?
So, yes. For other participants, the day might have felt long because the amount of input was quite intense.
Jacobsen: Do you think humanist organizations, if they were to host a similar event in the future, and let us say they are mid-sized or even small but highly motivated to host, should leverage their specific strengths within the context of the conference?
Reuter: It’s always a good recommendation to lean on your strengths. However, it is challenging to pinpoint exactly what those strengths are, as they can vary significantly.
In my case, one of my strengths in this context was that about half of the presentations came from people based in Luxembourg. As a small country, we know everyone and have quick access to many interesting individuals. I could have invited even more people involved in public science communication because I know many in that field.
However, I also did not want the conference to be overly local. I wanted a balance between local contributors and international experiences. In other contexts, strengths could be entirely different.
In much larger countries, one of the strengths might be access to internationally well-known figures. In Luxembourg, we do not have many internationally famous personalities — that is a challenge.
When I look at what Humanists UK did during the pandemic with their online seminars, they featured some famous people — individuals you would recognize from television or prominent YouTube channels. They could host them and draw in a large audience simply because people wanted to hear from someone well-known.
That is something we struggle with in Luxembourg. Mainly, when catering to a more Luxembourgish audience, well, “No one is a prophet in their town,” to use that phrase. In Luxembourg, you often know the locally famous figures personally, and you are also aware of their shortcomings. So it is harder to place them on a pedestal.
Even though, as a humanist, I do not believe anyone should be put on a pedestal — we are all human and should be treated as such. Still, there is this effect where people who have achieved something gain attention and admiration. When someone is internationally famous, it is easier for the public to overlook their flaws or not even consider them. That distance creates a kind of allure.
Jacobsen: On that note, there was a massive boost to the humanist movement when it gained momentum alongside the New Atheist movement. However, that movement has fragmented and declined in terms of its core following.
What should humanists lean on now — whether it is around a personality or alignment with another movement — to maintain relevance or momentum on specific issues? How can we ensure that the humanist life stance remains responsive and relevant to the context?
Reuter: One thing I heard during the weekend event is that many people want to develop intercontinental collaborations and stay connected, doing things together across borders. We already have the European Forum within Humanists International, where we collaborate regularly.
We’ve had a lot of online meetings — that’s just how it unfolded. We recently had our first in-person meeting. I think it will be beneficial to have more of those in the future. These intracontinental meetings are feasible due to the ease and speed of travel nowadays.
However, especially when you want to collaborate and secure funding — particularly from sources other than our own organization or umbrella organization — that is where people tend to struggle. With Erasmus+, organizations in different countries can jointly submit a proposal, but it has to be organizations from European countries. I know the Romanians did that with colleagues from Malta and another country. You need at least three countries, and then it becomes viable. However, imagine you want to do something with an organization in Nigeria — there is no international funding scheme currently available to support that.
So yes, it is something people aspire to, but there are fundamental limitations. I do not have answers, I recognize the gap.
Jacobsen: The international case is tricky. For instance, the Norwegians do receive significant governmental or federal funding for identifying as a humanist organization and having a large membership. Additionally, a substantial portion of the public — whether tacitly or explicitly — identifies as humanist, making it a very welcoming environment for them at this point. Another issue, however, is that they cannot use that government funding internationally.
Reuter: They are not supposed to — exactly. The same applies to our Belgian colleagues. They do receive public funding, which is quite substantial compared to others, but it must be used within the country.
Jacobsen: One way to utilize those funds in an international context is to invite people — scholars, fellows, or organizers.
Reuter: Yes, that is a possibility. You can frame it as continuous professional development for young people, which it genuinely is.
Jacobsen: It benefits them, and they gain international European experience in a humanist context. That could be valuable. It does not require a significant amount of funding. For example, a buddy system could be helpful: their flight is paid for, but they stay with a colleague or a host family — someone from that country who is willing to support them. That would reduce costs if that is a concern.
Reuter: Yes, and that reminds me of an idea I heard in Glasgow a few years ago at another International Humanist Conference. It was the concept of staying over at a fellow humanist’s home.
The idea, proposed by someone at the time, was that religious communities already do this — they rely on mutual solidarity. You essentially trust someone you do not know personally. You trust a stranger simply because you share the same religious faith, which is unusual, but that’s what people often do. There is a certain built-in credibility, or credit, that you are granted in advance. Only if you prove unworthy of that credit does it disappear.
So, humanist couchsurfing — I think that is a nice idea. Many of us travel internationally as humanists, often without funding from an organization or employer. So this kind of network could be a valuable initiative.
It could also be a great way to connect with people internationally and show that we are a community with a sense of solidarity.
Because having a network that offers reciprocal support — where being part of the community means not just giving but also receiving — is powerful.
Jacobsen: What were some moments that stood out for you during the conference?
Reuter: Honestly, the fact that Mubarak Bala was with us — that was incredibly emotional. We had been celebrating his release and donating money to support him, even though most of us had never met him. That kind of altruistic concern for another human being, based solely on shared values, was profoundly moving.
I remember thinking how lucky I am. I can be the president of an association of Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics in Luxembourg and speak out publicly without really fearing for my safety. I do not believe my life is in danger because of my humanist identity — at least, so far, I have not felt that way.
Meanwhile, in another country, just saying something that would be considered mundane here — like criticizing religion or the Prophet — can lead to imprisonment or worse. Perhaps that is because the religious communities in Europe have undergone a kind of moderation. I guess 200 years ago, saying such things here might have gotten you killed, too.
So yes, imagining that expressing your beliefs could be dangerous — it is almost unimaginable. And then hearing Mubarak speak, talking with him on Sunday evening after everything quieted down — that was powerful.
Listening to him describe what it felt like to be imprisoned, the uncertainty, not knowing if or when he would be released — it was chilling. And then, hearing how elements of his religious upbringing still linger with him, even in terms of how he feels he should dress, that struck me.
There are moments when he breaks free from that influence, and he questions: Why shouldn’t I dress how I like? I may enjoy dressing that way. Moreover, I can separate it from its religious or cultural significance and make it my own.
Another very emotional moment for me was when Leo spoke about Andrew’s achievements. I had not realized it was under Andrew’s leadership that Humanists International became a much more diverse organization.
To me, that diversity now feels natural. It is like — yes, this is how it should be. Moreover, to some extent, you could say, well, it is still not enough.
I have seen it from behind the scenes — the delegates from Uganda were not present because they did not receive their visas. Europe, and Luxembourg as part of the Schengen Area, did not allow them in.
They were not there. So, it is still not the safe and inclusive space that it should be. However, we have rules, regulations, and bylaws stating that people must run this association from different continents and regions of the world. That now seems natural — but apparently, it was not always the case. So yes, it is still a challenge. Moreover, we also struggle with diversity here in Luxembourg.
We do not have 50% women on our board, and we do not have 50% of our overall membership represented by women. Moreover, it is not because we do not want that — I am not entirely sure why that is the case. I think it is worth analyzing.
Also, in terms of our membership, we are not fully reaching or engaging with the internationally diverse population living in Luxembourg. Around 50% of people living in Luxembourg do not have a Luxembourgish passport. We fail to engage with some of them. Part of it may be due to prejudice — we may assume specific communities are more religious than they are. So we may think: “This will not interest them, because they are just religious — end of story.”
However, is that the case? Probably not. So then — why not try? In that sense, there is something to be learned from this international organization — lessons that can be applied to local organizations in highly diverse countries.
Jacobsen: A good observation is that, in many cases, when you look at religious populations within a given country — especially newer ones — they are often minority groups demographically. However, when those communities have been around for 20 or 30 years, a new generation has emerged.
That generation tends to be much less religious on average than their parents. They also tend to adopt many local cultural customs as part of adapting their belief systems. Moreover, about one-third of those kids tend to leave religion altogether.
Therefore, the self and identity are not static. Culture is fluid. Moreover, people are, too. It is not as though those things are fixed forever. Moreover, in terms of the gifting to Andrew, what did you think of the enormous number of gifts? At least three scarves, if I recall.
Reuter: Yes. I found it comical. It almost looked like a religious ritual. However, I took it as an opportunity to think: “No, this is just a human way of giving something from one’s culture or community to someone as a symbol.” It says, “We consider you one of us.”
If people associate that with religion or religious traditions, so be it. However, I think we are always in a space where we do things — and also observe and critique what we are doing — yet we do it anyway. Because, why not?
Jacobsen: It is also — I mean — we are not dry. You know? This is not a science conference. However, science plays a part in it.
Reuter: Exactly, I appreciated the fact that humanism is also about emotions.
Jacobsen: That is a huge comfort, yes. I think many people see it as a way of looking at — or at least approaching — the world, not just intellectually. There is a great deal of comfort in it. I remember Leo; when he was speaking with Andrew, he used the word ‘longing‘.
He said he was “longing” for these moments — seeing people from all over the world come together. Moreover, I think that is a widespread sentiment. It is always there. This is one of my favourite times of the year — attending a big international humanist conference. What was your funniest moment?
Reuter: That is interesting. I do not know. I do not think the event was funny — I would not call it humourless — but there is no specific moment that stands out to me as the most amusing.
Jacobsen: I found the banter over dinner — just little things like that — hilarious—the random conversations. One of my funniest moments was actually with Mubarak. I did several interviews with him. Moreover, when we spoke, he said I was the last person (or among the very last) he talked to before the police took him.
We were doing an “Ask Mubarak” series for a now-defunct publication, Canadian Atheist. The session right before — the one I was about to send him — had a subtitle that included: How bad can it get? I attended the conference, but I couldn’t find our seating area.
I was unable to find the conference room at the time. I had been travelling, so I went to the bathroom. As I turned, I saw a man wearing a small hat — someone I recognized. Moreover, I said, “Are you Mubarak Bala?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Hi, I am Scott.”
Then he said, “Oh… what?”
Then he told me, “Come with me.”
He took me through the back entrance — through the red slider, where you would usually need the ticker tape or badge access. We went under and through, using the back route into the conference room. And so the first person I ran into at the conference was Mubarak Bala. Stuff like that — circumstantial happenstance, funny.
What else? We had a first for Humanists International this year. We had the first VP-P woman duo in the history of Humanists International.
That will be very fruitful and interesting, as you will gain a completely different approach and perspective on specific topics that may have been overlooked for a while. I am very excited to see how that develops over the next few years.
Reuter: Yes, true. Even though we should not expect too much from women in leadership to change the world just because they are women. The structure of the world is not necessarily conducive to change, particularly when it comes to dismantling patriarchy.
Jacobsen: A big help will be that the strengths of Ross and Maggie will come through. Maggie, in particular, is — I think — a quintessentially American phenomenon. She has much energy.
Reuter: That may be one moment I found funny. When she spoke before she was elected, I had the impression, “This is a politician speaking.”
And I mean that in a good way. She is very eloquent. She knows how to address a crowd. She knows how to engage both emotionally and intellectually. So, yes — I thought, “Wow”.
But, in our community, we have an ambivalent relationship with the allure of power. Because, yes, like Karl Popper, the Austrian philosopher, we think we should give power to those who do not want it. Because those who excel in leadership are often at risk of being seduced by the power that comes with it. I believe it is essential to have safeguards in place — mechanisms to ensure that the people we elect into power do not accumulate too much power.
This is precisely what we are seeing now in the United States — with someone who appears extremely egocentric, or even narcissistic, or however you might describe it. I am not trying to diagnose anyone from a distance — that is always dangerous — but from what I observe, they seem to love being in charge. They love using that power to their advantage.
There is now sufficient evidence to support this case. That is truly dangerous. Because people in leadership should care about others, that is how democracy should function. We should also be able to remove leaders — peacefully, through democratic means — without resorting to violence.
I mean, voting — one aspect that people often take as fundamental to democracy is the idea of majority rule. However, I do not think that is the most crucial part. What matters more to me is that we can remove our leaders without needing to kill them, because we can change our minds about who we want to lead us.
And not just about the person, but also about the government’s ideas and the policies they promote. We can say, “Okay, we were wrong — let us change it.”
Jacobsen: Right, we do that quite well. It is not always easy, but we manage it better overall than many. I like the idea of elections as a “mini revolution.” You know — so we do not have to behead Marie Antoinette to move forward.
Reuter: Yes, true.
Jacobsen: What is next for the Luxembourgish Humanists?
Reuter: One thing we have been working on, in parallel to organizing conferences, is setting up humanist services, particularly through the European Humanist Services Network.
For instance, we have been working on the EU wedding standard and implementing it, including providing training. On Monday, just after the conference, we had a meeting with people from Flanders, Belgium, who will provide training for our celebrants. That way, we can get things going and offer practical humanist outreach by providing services to the broader community.
This can help us become known for something positive, rather than being known as the group that opposes religion and fights against religious privilege (which, of course, we will continue doing as long as it is necessary).
The next big area is developing services for humanist funerals. We have been working on a new brochure. In 2019, we published a small booklet on baby-naming or newborn welcoming ceremonies — how to conduct them in a humanist and non-religious manner, your rights, and the possibilities available.
It was not meant to be a recipe book but rather an encouragement to empower people to do something on their own, in their own way.
We are now attempting to create a similar publication, focusing on death and funerals. Because when you have a newborn or are planning a wedding, you typically have more time to prepare. There is no urgency. However, with funerals, it is different. Things must happen within days.
Moreover, we still see that many people default to contacting a priest and having a religious funeral, because that is what people know. It is still the standard offer. It is culturally familiar.
However, more than 50% of Luxembourg’s population identifies as non-religious. In that case, they should have access to funeral services that reflect their values — services that cater to their own needs and convictions.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time. Have a good day.
Reuter: You are welcome. Bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #lifestyle #menSIssues #movies #music #progressiveMasculinity #technology #TheGoodMenProject #travel
-
The Luxembourgish Humanist Conference Reflection
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/31
Bob Reuter shared his reflections on the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and the International Humanist Conference held in Luxembourg, highlighting a warm, collegial atmosphere and emotional moments, such as Mubarak Bala’s attendance. He praised the dynamic “inspiring practices” format and emphasized the importance of striking a balance between local and international contributions. Challenges such as funding for global collaboration and inclusion of diverse communities were discussed. Reuter advocated for practical humanist services, like non-religious weddings and funerals, to better reflect non-religious values. He also emphasized the importance of emotional connection, leadership accountability, and fostering solidarity, suggesting ideas such as humanist couchsurfing to strengthen community ties across borders.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your main takeaways from the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and the International Humanist Conference you hosted in Luxembourg?
Bob Reuter: A feeling of bliss is the first thing that comes to mind. I found the entire weekend — from Friday to Sunday — to be exceptionally warm and friendly. It was truly remarkable to see so many people gathered together. Everything went well. Aside from a few minor hiccups, the event ran very smoothly.
Jacobsen: What kind of hiccups?
Reuter: Just a minor one — Andrew Copson did not receive a lunch that accommodated his dietary requirements. It was a minor oversight, likely unnoticed by most attendees, but it stood out to me. I try to be very attentive to the well-being of participants, especially those in key roles.
Jacobsen: Like Sideshow Bob stepping on a rake — it hits you in the face, even if you saw it coming. There is even a whole episode devoted to that gag. What were some highlights from the speakers? What stood out to you? What feedback did you hear from attendees?
Reuter: I will start with the first keynote speaker — someone I know personally. He was relieved that his talk went smoothly, that his English was clear enough, and that he stayed within the time limit. During the break, he received many thoughtful and friendly questions. As academics, we are used to conferences where questions sometimes aim to show off. However, the atmosphere here was much more collegial. Attendees asked questions out of genuine interest. It created a space focused on sharing ideas and learning, where people gained new perspectives on topics they may not have been familiar with before.
Regarding the sessions on “inspiring practices,” many attendees praised the format. Each speaker had ten minutes, which made the sessions feel dynamic and engaging. If one speaker was less engaging for you, it was only a short wait until the next — potentially more inspiring — presentation. This approach worked well because people’s interests are personal, and the short format helped sustain engagement across a wide range of topics.
Jacobsen: Would it be helpful to have a semi-academic format, such as poster presentations, where attendees could present their ideas in a less formal setting?
Reuter: Potentially, yes. At the 2023 World Humanist Congress in Copenhagen, for instance, a poster session was held. That event was larger, with parallel sessions on various themes. I attended one focused on humanist services, particularly in youth work. Those talks were significantly longer than ten minutes.
It was very appropriate for those presentations to be much longer because you want to dig deeply into an established practice. You want to learn how they do it, what their foundational principles are, and also what observed effects they have had.
It is tough to convey all of that in just ten minutes. Consider showing a video of an activity, such as a ceremony, youth camp, or similar event. Therefore, the ten-minute quick talks, followed by a roundtable, are not necessarily the ideal format.
However, if you only have one day, it is a good way to provide people with a wide range of input without making it too long or overwhelming. I remained alert and excited throughout the day. However, as an organizer, you have that adrenaline running through your system, wondering: will everything be okay? Will we stay on schedule? Will we make it to the restaurant? Will people like the food? Will the music work?
So, yes. For other participants, the day might have felt long because the amount of input was quite intense.
Jacobsen: Do you think humanist organizations, if they were to host a similar event in the future, and let us say they are mid-sized or even small but highly motivated to host, should leverage their specific strengths within the context of the conference?
Reuter: It’s always a good recommendation to lean on your strengths. However, it is challenging to pinpoint exactly what those strengths are, as they can vary significantly.
In my case, one of my strengths in this context was that about half of the presentations came from people based in Luxembourg. As a small country, we know everyone and have quick access to many interesting individuals. I could have invited even more people involved in public science communication because I know many in that field.
However, I also did not want the conference to be overly local. I wanted a balance between local contributors and international experiences. In other contexts, strengths could be entirely different.
In much larger countries, one of the strengths might be access to internationally well-known figures. In Luxembourg, we do not have many internationally famous personalities — that is a challenge.
When I look at what Humanists UK did during the pandemic with their online seminars, they featured some famous people — individuals you would recognize from television or prominent YouTube channels. They could host them and draw in a large audience simply because people wanted to hear from someone well-known.
That is something we struggle with in Luxembourg. Mainly, when catering to a more Luxembourgish audience, well, “No one is a prophet in their town,” to use that phrase. In Luxembourg, you often know the locally famous figures personally, and you are also aware of their shortcomings. So it is harder to place them on a pedestal.
Even though, as a humanist, I do not believe anyone should be put on a pedestal — we are all human and should be treated as such. Still, there is this effect where people who have achieved something gain attention and admiration. When someone is internationally famous, it is easier for the public to overlook their flaws or not even consider them. That distance creates a kind of allure.
Jacobsen: On that note, there was a massive boost to the humanist movement when it gained momentum alongside the New Atheist movement. However, that movement has fragmented and declined in terms of its core following.
What should humanists lean on now — whether it is around a personality or alignment with another movement — to maintain relevance or momentum on specific issues? How can we ensure that the humanist life stance remains responsive and relevant to the context?
Reuter: One thing I heard during the weekend event is that many people want to develop intercontinental collaborations and stay connected, doing things together across borders. We already have the European Forum within Humanists International, where we collaborate regularly.
We’ve had a lot of online meetings — that’s just how it unfolded. We recently had our first in-person meeting. I think it will be beneficial to have more of those in the future. These intracontinental meetings are feasible due to the ease and speed of travel nowadays.
However, especially when you want to collaborate and secure funding — particularly from sources other than our own organization or umbrella organization — that is where people tend to struggle. With Erasmus+, organizations in different countries can jointly submit a proposal, but it has to be organizations from European countries. I know the Romanians did that with colleagues from Malta and another country. You need at least three countries, and then it becomes viable. However, imagine you want to do something with an organization in Nigeria — there is no international funding scheme currently available to support that.
So yes, it is something people aspire to, but there are fundamental limitations. I do not have answers, I recognize the gap.
Jacobsen: The international case is tricky. For instance, the Norwegians do receive significant governmental or federal funding for identifying as a humanist organization and having a large membership. Additionally, a substantial portion of the public — whether tacitly or explicitly — identifies as humanist, making it a very welcoming environment for them at this point. Another issue, however, is that they cannot use that government funding internationally.
Reuter: They are not supposed to — exactly. The same applies to our Belgian colleagues. They do receive public funding, which is quite substantial compared to others, but it must be used within the country.
Jacobsen: One way to utilize those funds in an international context is to invite people — scholars, fellows, or organizers.
Reuter: Yes, that is a possibility. You can frame it as continuous professional development for young people, which it genuinely is.
Jacobsen: It benefits them, and they gain international European experience in a humanist context. That could be valuable. It does not require a significant amount of funding. For example, a buddy system could be helpful: their flight is paid for, but they stay with a colleague or a host family — someone from that country who is willing to support them. That would reduce costs if that is a concern.
Reuter: Yes, and that reminds me of an idea I heard in Glasgow a few years ago at another International Humanist Conference. It was the concept of staying over at a fellow humanist’s home.
The idea, proposed by someone at the time, was that religious communities already do this — they rely on mutual solidarity. You essentially trust someone you do not know personally. You trust a stranger simply because you share the same religious faith, which is unusual, but that’s what people often do. There is a certain built-in credibility, or credit, that you are granted in advance. Only if you prove unworthy of that credit does it disappear.
So, humanist couchsurfing — I think that is a nice idea. Many of us travel internationally as humanists, often without funding from an organization or employer. So this kind of network could be a valuable initiative.
It could also be a great way to connect with people internationally and show that we are a community with a sense of solidarity.
Because having a network that offers reciprocal support — where being part of the community means not just giving but also receiving — is powerful.
Jacobsen: What were some moments that stood out for you during the conference?
Reuter: Honestly, the fact that Mubarak Bala was with us — that was incredibly emotional. We had been celebrating his release and donating money to support him, even though most of us had never met him. That kind of altruistic concern for another human being, based solely on shared values, was profoundly moving.
I remember thinking how lucky I am. I can be the president of an association of Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics in Luxembourg and speak out publicly without really fearing for my safety. I do not believe my life is in danger because of my humanist identity — at least, so far, I have not felt that way.
Meanwhile, in another country, just saying something that would be considered mundane here — like criticizing religion or the Prophet — can lead to imprisonment or worse. Perhaps that is because the religious communities in Europe have undergone a kind of moderation. I guess 200 years ago, saying such things here might have gotten you killed, too.
So yes, imagining that expressing your beliefs could be dangerous — it is almost unimaginable. And then hearing Mubarak speak, talking with him on Sunday evening after everything quieted down — that was powerful.
Listening to him describe what it felt like to be imprisoned, the uncertainty, not knowing if or when he would be released — it was chilling. And then, hearing how elements of his religious upbringing still linger with him, even in terms of how he feels he should dress, that struck me.
There are moments when he breaks free from that influence, and he questions: Why shouldn’t I dress how I like? I may enjoy dressing that way. Moreover, I can separate it from its religious or cultural significance and make it my own.
Another very emotional moment for me was when Leo spoke about Andrew’s achievements. I had not realized it was under Andrew’s leadership that Humanists International became a much more diverse organization.
To me, that diversity now feels natural. It is like — yes, this is how it should be. Moreover, to some extent, you could say, well, it is still not enough.
I have seen it from behind the scenes — the delegates from Uganda were not present because they did not receive their visas. Europe, and Luxembourg as part of the Schengen Area, did not allow them in.
They were not there. So, it is still not the safe and inclusive space that it should be. However, we have rules, regulations, and bylaws stating that people must run this association from different continents and regions of the world. That now seems natural — but apparently, it was not always the case. So yes, it is still a challenge. Moreover, we also struggle with diversity here in Luxembourg.
We do not have 50% women on our board, and we do not have 50% of our overall membership represented by women. Moreover, it is not because we do not want that — I am not entirely sure why that is the case. I think it is worth analyzing.
Also, in terms of our membership, we are not fully reaching or engaging with the internationally diverse population living in Luxembourg. Around 50% of people living in Luxembourg do not have a Luxembourgish passport. We fail to engage with some of them. Part of it may be due to prejudice — we may assume specific communities are more religious than they are. So we may think: “This will not interest them, because they are just religious — end of story.”
However, is that the case? Probably not. So then — why not try? In that sense, there is something to be learned from this international organization — lessons that can be applied to local organizations in highly diverse countries.
Jacobsen: A good observation is that, in many cases, when you look at religious populations within a given country — especially newer ones — they are often minority groups demographically. However, when those communities have been around for 20 or 30 years, a new generation has emerged.
That generation tends to be much less religious on average than their parents. They also tend to adopt many local cultural customs as part of adapting their belief systems. Moreover, about one-third of those kids tend to leave religion altogether.
Therefore, the self and identity are not static. Culture is fluid. Moreover, people are, too. It is not as though those things are fixed forever. Moreover, in terms of the gifting to Andrew, what did you think of the enormous number of gifts? At least three scarves, if I recall.
Reuter: Yes. I found it comical. It almost looked like a religious ritual. However, I took it as an opportunity to think: “No, this is just a human way of giving something from one’s culture or community to someone as a symbol.” It says, “We consider you one of us.”
If people associate that with religion or religious traditions, so be it. However, I think we are always in a space where we do things — and also observe and critique what we are doing — yet we do it anyway. Because, why not?
Jacobsen: It is also — I mean — we are not dry. You know? This is not a science conference. However, science plays a part in it.
Reuter: Exactly, I appreciated the fact that humanism is also about emotions.
Jacobsen: That is a huge comfort, yes. I think many people see it as a way of looking at — or at least approaching — the world, not just intellectually. There is a great deal of comfort in it. I remember Leo; when he was speaking with Andrew, he used the word ‘longing‘.
He said he was “longing” for these moments — seeing people from all over the world come together. Moreover, I think that is a widespread sentiment. It is always there. This is one of my favourite times of the year — attending a big international humanist conference. What was your funniest moment?
Reuter: That is interesting. I do not know. I do not think the event was funny — I would not call it humourless — but there is no specific moment that stands out to me as the most amusing.
Jacobsen: I found the banter over dinner — just little things like that — hilarious—the random conversations. One of my funniest moments was actually with Mubarak. I did several interviews with him. Moreover, when we spoke, he said I was the last person (or among the very last) he talked to before the police took him.
We were doing an “Ask Mubarak” series for a now-defunct publication, Canadian Atheist. The session right before — the one I was about to send him — had a subtitle that included: How bad can it get? I attended the conference, but I couldn’t find our seating area.
I was unable to find the conference room at the time. I had been travelling, so I went to the bathroom. As I turned, I saw a man wearing a small hat — someone I recognized. Moreover, I said, “Are you Mubarak Bala?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Hi, I am Scott.”
Then he said, “Oh… what?”
Then he told me, “Come with me.”
He took me through the back entrance — through the red slider, where you would usually need the ticker tape or badge access. We went under and through, using the back route into the conference room. And so the first person I ran into at the conference was Mubarak Bala. Stuff like that — circumstantial happenstance, funny.
What else? We had a first for Humanists International this year. We had the first VP-P woman duo in the history of Humanists International.
That will be very fruitful and interesting, as you will gain a completely different approach and perspective on specific topics that may have been overlooked for a while. I am very excited to see how that develops over the next few years.
Reuter: Yes, true. Even though we should not expect too much from women in leadership to change the world just because they are women. The structure of the world is not necessarily conducive to change, particularly when it comes to dismantling patriarchy.
Jacobsen: A big help will be that the strengths of Ross and Maggie will come through. Maggie, in particular, is — I think — a quintessentially American phenomenon. She has much energy.
Reuter: That may be one moment I found funny. When she spoke before she was elected, I had the impression, “This is a politician speaking.”
And I mean that in a good way. She is very eloquent. She knows how to address a crowd. She knows how to engage both emotionally and intellectually. So, yes — I thought, “Wow”.
But, in our community, we have an ambivalent relationship with the allure of power. Because, yes, like Karl Popper, the Austrian philosopher, we think we should give power to those who do not want it. Because those who excel in leadership are often at risk of being seduced by the power that comes with it. I believe it is essential to have safeguards in place — mechanisms to ensure that the people we elect into power do not accumulate too much power.
This is precisely what we are seeing now in the United States — with someone who appears extremely egocentric, or even narcissistic, or however you might describe it. I am not trying to diagnose anyone from a distance — that is always dangerous — but from what I observe, they seem to love being in charge. They love using that power to their advantage.
There is now sufficient evidence to support this case. That is truly dangerous. Because people in leadership should care about others, that is how democracy should function. We should also be able to remove leaders — peacefully, through democratic means — without resorting to violence.
I mean, voting — one aspect that people often take as fundamental to democracy is the idea of majority rule. However, I do not think that is the most crucial part. What matters more to me is that we can remove our leaders without needing to kill them, because we can change our minds about who we want to lead us.
And not just about the person, but also about the government’s ideas and the policies they promote. We can say, “Okay, we were wrong — let us change it.”
Jacobsen: Right, we do that quite well. It is not always easy, but we manage it better overall than many. I like the idea of elections as a “mini revolution.” You know — so we do not have to behead Marie Antoinette to move forward.
Reuter: Yes, true.
Jacobsen: What is next for the Luxembourgish Humanists?
Reuter: One thing we have been working on, in parallel to organizing conferences, is setting up humanist services, particularly through the European Humanist Services Network.
For instance, we have been working on the EU wedding standard and implementing it, including providing training. On Monday, just after the conference, we had a meeting with people from Flanders, Belgium, who will provide training for our celebrants. That way, we can get things going and offer practical humanist outreach by providing services to the broader community.
This can help us become known for something positive, rather than being known as the group that opposes religion and fights against religious privilege (which, of course, we will continue doing as long as it is necessary).
The next big area is developing services for humanist funerals. We have been working on a new brochure. In 2019, we published a small booklet on baby-naming or newborn welcoming ceremonies — how to conduct them in a humanist and non-religious manner, your rights, and the possibilities available.
It was not meant to be a recipe book but rather an encouragement to empower people to do something on their own, in their own way.
We are now attempting to create a similar publication, focusing on death and funerals. Because when you have a newborn or are planning a wedding, you typically have more time to prepare. There is no urgency. However, with funerals, it is different. Things must happen within days.
Moreover, we still see that many people default to contacting a priest and having a religious funeral, because that is what people know. It is still the standard offer. It is culturally familiar.
However, more than 50% of Luxembourg’s population identifies as non-religious. In that case, they should have access to funeral services that reflect their values — services that cater to their own needs and convictions.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time. Have a good day.
Reuter: You are welcome. Bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #lifestyle #menSIssues #movies #music #progressiveMasculinity #technology #TheGoodMenProject #travel
-
The Luxembourgish Humanist Conference Reflection
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/31
Bob Reuter shared his reflections on the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and the International Humanist Conference held in Luxembourg, highlighting a warm, collegial atmosphere and emotional moments, such as Mubarak Bala’s attendance. He praised the dynamic “inspiring practices” format and emphasized the importance of striking a balance between local and international contributions. Challenges such as funding for global collaboration and inclusion of diverse communities were discussed. Reuter advocated for practical humanist services, like non-religious weddings and funerals, to better reflect non-religious values. He also emphasized the importance of emotional connection, leadership accountability, and fostering solidarity, suggesting ideas such as humanist couchsurfing to strengthen community ties across borders.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your main takeaways from the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and the International Humanist Conference you hosted in Luxembourg?
Bob Reuter: A feeling of bliss is the first thing that comes to mind. I found the entire weekend — from Friday to Sunday — to be exceptionally warm and friendly. It was truly remarkable to see so many people gathered together. Everything went well. Aside from a few minor hiccups, the event ran very smoothly.
Jacobsen: What kind of hiccups?
Reuter: Just a minor one — Andrew Copson did not receive a lunch that accommodated his dietary requirements. It was a minor oversight, likely unnoticed by most attendees, but it stood out to me. I try to be very attentive to the well-being of participants, especially those in key roles.
Jacobsen: Like Sideshow Bob stepping on a rake — it hits you in the face, even if you saw it coming. There is even a whole episode devoted to that gag. What were some highlights from the speakers? What stood out to you? What feedback did you hear from attendees?
Reuter: I will start with the first keynote speaker — someone I know personally. He was relieved that his talk went smoothly, that his English was clear enough, and that he stayed within the time limit. During the break, he received many thoughtful and friendly questions. As academics, we are used to conferences where questions sometimes aim to show off. However, the atmosphere here was much more collegial. Attendees asked questions out of genuine interest. It created a space focused on sharing ideas and learning, where people gained new perspectives on topics they may not have been familiar with before.
Regarding the sessions on “inspiring practices,” many attendees praised the format. Each speaker had ten minutes, which made the sessions feel dynamic and engaging. If one speaker was less engaging for you, it was only a short wait until the next — potentially more inspiring — presentation. This approach worked well because people’s interests are personal, and the short format helped sustain engagement across a wide range of topics.
Jacobsen: Would it be helpful to have a semi-academic format, such as poster presentations, where attendees could present their ideas in a less formal setting?
Reuter: Potentially, yes. At the 2023 World Humanist Congress in Copenhagen, for instance, a poster session was held. That event was larger, with parallel sessions on various themes. I attended one focused on humanist services, particularly in youth work. Those talks were significantly longer than ten minutes.
It was very appropriate for those presentations to be much longer because you want to dig deeply into an established practice. You want to learn how they do it, what their foundational principles are, and also what observed effects they have had.
It is tough to convey all of that in just ten minutes. Consider showing a video of an activity, such as a ceremony, youth camp, or similar event. Therefore, the ten-minute quick talks, followed by a roundtable, are not necessarily the ideal format.
However, if you only have one day, it is a good way to provide people with a wide range of input without making it too long or overwhelming. I remained alert and excited throughout the day. However, as an organizer, you have that adrenaline running through your system, wondering: will everything be okay? Will we stay on schedule? Will we make it to the restaurant? Will people like the food? Will the music work?
So, yes. For other participants, the day might have felt long because the amount of input was quite intense.
Jacobsen: Do you think humanist organizations, if they were to host a similar event in the future, and let us say they are mid-sized or even small but highly motivated to host, should leverage their specific strengths within the context of the conference?
Reuter: It’s always a good recommendation to lean on your strengths. However, it is challenging to pinpoint exactly what those strengths are, as they can vary significantly.
In my case, one of my strengths in this context was that about half of the presentations came from people based in Luxembourg. As a small country, we know everyone and have quick access to many interesting individuals. I could have invited even more people involved in public science communication because I know many in that field.
However, I also did not want the conference to be overly local. I wanted a balance between local contributors and international experiences. In other contexts, strengths could be entirely different.
In much larger countries, one of the strengths might be access to internationally well-known figures. In Luxembourg, we do not have many internationally famous personalities — that is a challenge.
When I look at what Humanists UK did during the pandemic with their online seminars, they featured some famous people — individuals you would recognize from television or prominent YouTube channels. They could host them and draw in a large audience simply because people wanted to hear from someone well-known.
That is something we struggle with in Luxembourg. Mainly, when catering to a more Luxembourgish audience, well, “No one is a prophet in their town,” to use that phrase. In Luxembourg, you often know the locally famous figures personally, and you are also aware of their shortcomings. So it is harder to place them on a pedestal.
Even though, as a humanist, I do not believe anyone should be put on a pedestal — we are all human and should be treated as such. Still, there is this effect where people who have achieved something gain attention and admiration. When someone is internationally famous, it is easier for the public to overlook their flaws or not even consider them. That distance creates a kind of allure.
Jacobsen: On that note, there was a massive boost to the humanist movement when it gained momentum alongside the New Atheist movement. However, that movement has fragmented and declined in terms of its core following.
What should humanists lean on now — whether it is around a personality or alignment with another movement — to maintain relevance or momentum on specific issues? How can we ensure that the humanist life stance remains responsive and relevant to the context?
Reuter: One thing I heard during the weekend event is that many people want to develop intercontinental collaborations and stay connected, doing things together across borders. We already have the European Forum within Humanists International, where we collaborate regularly.
We’ve had a lot of online meetings — that’s just how it unfolded. We recently had our first in-person meeting. I think it will be beneficial to have more of those in the future. These intracontinental meetings are feasible due to the ease and speed of travel nowadays.
However, especially when you want to collaborate and secure funding — particularly from sources other than our own organization or umbrella organization — that is where people tend to struggle. With Erasmus+, organizations in different countries can jointly submit a proposal, but it has to be organizations from European countries. I know the Romanians did that with colleagues from Malta and another country. You need at least three countries, and then it becomes viable. However, imagine you want to do something with an organization in Nigeria — there is no international funding scheme currently available to support that.
So yes, it is something people aspire to, but there are fundamental limitations. I do not have answers, I recognize the gap.
Jacobsen: The international case is tricky. For instance, the Norwegians do receive significant governmental or federal funding for identifying as a humanist organization and having a large membership. Additionally, a substantial portion of the public — whether tacitly or explicitly — identifies as humanist, making it a very welcoming environment for them at this point. Another issue, however, is that they cannot use that government funding internationally.
Reuter: They are not supposed to — exactly. The same applies to our Belgian colleagues. They do receive public funding, which is quite substantial compared to others, but it must be used within the country.
Jacobsen: One way to utilize those funds in an international context is to invite people — scholars, fellows, or organizers.
Reuter: Yes, that is a possibility. You can frame it as continuous professional development for young people, which it genuinely is.
Jacobsen: It benefits them, and they gain international European experience in a humanist context. That could be valuable. It does not require a significant amount of funding. For example, a buddy system could be helpful: their flight is paid for, but they stay with a colleague or a host family — someone from that country who is willing to support them. That would reduce costs if that is a concern.
Reuter: Yes, and that reminds me of an idea I heard in Glasgow a few years ago at another International Humanist Conference. It was the concept of staying over at a fellow humanist’s home.
The idea, proposed by someone at the time, was that religious communities already do this — they rely on mutual solidarity. You essentially trust someone you do not know personally. You trust a stranger simply because you share the same religious faith, which is unusual, but that’s what people often do. There is a certain built-in credibility, or credit, that you are granted in advance. Only if you prove unworthy of that credit does it disappear.
So, humanist couchsurfing — I think that is a nice idea. Many of us travel internationally as humanists, often without funding from an organization or employer. So this kind of network could be a valuable initiative.
It could also be a great way to connect with people internationally and show that we are a community with a sense of solidarity.
Because having a network that offers reciprocal support — where being part of the community means not just giving but also receiving — is powerful.
Jacobsen: What were some moments that stood out for you during the conference?
Reuter: Honestly, the fact that Mubarak Bala was with us — that was incredibly emotional. We had been celebrating his release and donating money to support him, even though most of us had never met him. That kind of altruistic concern for another human being, based solely on shared values, was profoundly moving.
I remember thinking how lucky I am. I can be the president of an association of Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics in Luxembourg and speak out publicly without really fearing for my safety. I do not believe my life is in danger because of my humanist identity — at least, so far, I have not felt that way.
Meanwhile, in another country, just saying something that would be considered mundane here — like criticizing religion or the Prophet — can lead to imprisonment or worse. Perhaps that is because the religious communities in Europe have undergone a kind of moderation. I guess 200 years ago, saying such things here might have gotten you killed, too.
So yes, imagining that expressing your beliefs could be dangerous — it is almost unimaginable. And then hearing Mubarak speak, talking with him on Sunday evening after everything quieted down — that was powerful.
Listening to him describe what it felt like to be imprisoned, the uncertainty, not knowing if or when he would be released — it was chilling. And then, hearing how elements of his religious upbringing still linger with him, even in terms of how he feels he should dress, that struck me.
There are moments when he breaks free from that influence, and he questions: Why shouldn’t I dress how I like? I may enjoy dressing that way. Moreover, I can separate it from its religious or cultural significance and make it my own.
Another very emotional moment for me was when Leo spoke about Andrew’s achievements. I had not realized it was under Andrew’s leadership that Humanists International became a much more diverse organization.
To me, that diversity now feels natural. It is like — yes, this is how it should be. Moreover, to some extent, you could say, well, it is still not enough.
I have seen it from behind the scenes — the delegates from Uganda were not present because they did not receive their visas. Europe, and Luxembourg as part of the Schengen Area, did not allow them in.
They were not there. So, it is still not the safe and inclusive space that it should be. However, we have rules, regulations, and bylaws stating that people must run this association from different continents and regions of the world. That now seems natural — but apparently, it was not always the case. So yes, it is still a challenge. Moreover, we also struggle with diversity here in Luxembourg.
We do not have 50% women on our board, and we do not have 50% of our overall membership represented by women. Moreover, it is not because we do not want that — I am not entirely sure why that is the case. I think it is worth analyzing.
Also, in terms of our membership, we are not fully reaching or engaging with the internationally diverse population living in Luxembourg. Around 50% of people living in Luxembourg do not have a Luxembourgish passport. We fail to engage with some of them. Part of it may be due to prejudice — we may assume specific communities are more religious than they are. So we may think: “This will not interest them, because they are just religious — end of story.”
However, is that the case? Probably not. So then — why not try? In that sense, there is something to be learned from this international organization — lessons that can be applied to local organizations in highly diverse countries.
Jacobsen: A good observation is that, in many cases, when you look at religious populations within a given country — especially newer ones — they are often minority groups demographically. However, when those communities have been around for 20 or 30 years, a new generation has emerged.
That generation tends to be much less religious on average than their parents. They also tend to adopt many local cultural customs as part of adapting their belief systems. Moreover, about one-third of those kids tend to leave religion altogether.
Therefore, the self and identity are not static. Culture is fluid. Moreover, people are, too. It is not as though those things are fixed forever. Moreover, in terms of the gifting to Andrew, what did you think of the enormous number of gifts? At least three scarves, if I recall.
Reuter: Yes. I found it comical. It almost looked like a religious ritual. However, I took it as an opportunity to think: “No, this is just a human way of giving something from one’s culture or community to someone as a symbol.” It says, “We consider you one of us.”
If people associate that with religion or religious traditions, so be it. However, I think we are always in a space where we do things — and also observe and critique what we are doing — yet we do it anyway. Because, why not?
Jacobsen: It is also — I mean — we are not dry. You know? This is not a science conference. However, science plays a part in it.
Reuter: Exactly, I appreciated the fact that humanism is also about emotions.
Jacobsen: That is a huge comfort, yes. I think many people see it as a way of looking at — or at least approaching — the world, not just intellectually. There is a great deal of comfort in it. I remember Leo; when he was speaking with Andrew, he used the word ‘longing‘.
He said he was “longing” for these moments — seeing people from all over the world come together. Moreover, I think that is a widespread sentiment. It is always there. This is one of my favourite times of the year — attending a big international humanist conference. What was your funniest moment?
Reuter: That is interesting. I do not know. I do not think the event was funny — I would not call it humourless — but there is no specific moment that stands out to me as the most amusing.
Jacobsen: I found the banter over dinner — just little things like that — hilarious—the random conversations. One of my funniest moments was actually with Mubarak. I did several interviews with him. Moreover, when we spoke, he said I was the last person (or among the very last) he talked to before the police took him.
We were doing an “Ask Mubarak” series for a now-defunct publication, Canadian Atheist. The session right before — the one I was about to send him — had a subtitle that included: How bad can it get? I attended the conference, but I couldn’t find our seating area.
I was unable to find the conference room at the time. I had been travelling, so I went to the bathroom. As I turned, I saw a man wearing a small hat — someone I recognized. Moreover, I said, “Are you Mubarak Bala?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Hi, I am Scott.”
Then he said, “Oh… what?”
Then he told me, “Come with me.”
He took me through the back entrance — through the red slider, where you would usually need the ticker tape or badge access. We went under and through, using the back route into the conference room. And so the first person I ran into at the conference was Mubarak Bala. Stuff like that — circumstantial happenstance, funny.
What else? We had a first for Humanists International this year. We had the first VP-P woman duo in the history of Humanists International.
That will be very fruitful and interesting, as you will gain a completely different approach and perspective on specific topics that may have been overlooked for a while. I am very excited to see how that develops over the next few years.
Reuter: Yes, true. Even though we should not expect too much from women in leadership to change the world just because they are women. The structure of the world is not necessarily conducive to change, particularly when it comes to dismantling patriarchy.
Jacobsen: A big help will be that the strengths of Ross and Maggie will come through. Maggie, in particular, is — I think — a quintessentially American phenomenon. She has much energy.
Reuter: That may be one moment I found funny. When she spoke before she was elected, I had the impression, “This is a politician speaking.”
And I mean that in a good way. She is very eloquent. She knows how to address a crowd. She knows how to engage both emotionally and intellectually. So, yes — I thought, “Wow”.
But, in our community, we have an ambivalent relationship with the allure of power. Because, yes, like Karl Popper, the Austrian philosopher, we think we should give power to those who do not want it. Because those who excel in leadership are often at risk of being seduced by the power that comes with it. I believe it is essential to have safeguards in place — mechanisms to ensure that the people we elect into power do not accumulate too much power.
This is precisely what we are seeing now in the United States — with someone who appears extremely egocentric, or even narcissistic, or however you might describe it. I am not trying to diagnose anyone from a distance — that is always dangerous — but from what I observe, they seem to love being in charge. They love using that power to their advantage.
There is now sufficient evidence to support this case. That is truly dangerous. Because people in leadership should care about others, that is how democracy should function. We should also be able to remove leaders — peacefully, through democratic means — without resorting to violence.
I mean, voting — one aspect that people often take as fundamental to democracy is the idea of majority rule. However, I do not think that is the most crucial part. What matters more to me is that we can remove our leaders without needing to kill them, because we can change our minds about who we want to lead us.
And not just about the person, but also about the government’s ideas and the policies they promote. We can say, “Okay, we were wrong — let us change it.”
Jacobsen: Right, we do that quite well. It is not always easy, but we manage it better overall than many. I like the idea of elections as a “mini revolution.” You know — so we do not have to behead Marie Antoinette to move forward.
Reuter: Yes, true.
Jacobsen: What is next for the Luxembourgish Humanists?
Reuter: One thing we have been working on, in parallel to organizing conferences, is setting up humanist services, particularly through the European Humanist Services Network.
For instance, we have been working on the EU wedding standard and implementing it, including providing training. On Monday, just after the conference, we had a meeting with people from Flanders, Belgium, who will provide training for our celebrants. That way, we can get things going and offer practical humanist outreach by providing services to the broader community.
This can help us become known for something positive, rather than being known as the group that opposes religion and fights against religious privilege (which, of course, we will continue doing as long as it is necessary).
The next big area is developing services for humanist funerals. We have been working on a new brochure. In 2019, we published a small booklet on baby-naming or newborn welcoming ceremonies — how to conduct them in a humanist and non-religious manner, your rights, and the possibilities available.
It was not meant to be a recipe book but rather an encouragement to empower people to do something on their own, in their own way.
We are now attempting to create a similar publication, focusing on death and funerals. Because when you have a newborn or are planning a wedding, you typically have more time to prepare. There is no urgency. However, with funerals, it is different. Things must happen within days.
Moreover, we still see that many people default to contacting a priest and having a religious funeral, because that is what people know. It is still the standard offer. It is culturally familiar.
However, more than 50% of Luxembourg’s population identifies as non-religious. In that case, they should have access to funeral services that reflect their values — services that cater to their own needs and convictions.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time. Have a good day.
Reuter: You are welcome. Bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #lifestyle #menSIssues #movies #music #progressiveMasculinity #technology #TheGoodMenProject #travel
-
The Luxembourgish Humanist Conference Reflection
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/31
Bob Reuter shared his reflections on the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and the International Humanist Conference held in Luxembourg, highlighting a warm, collegial atmosphere and emotional moments, such as Mubarak Bala’s attendance. He praised the dynamic “inspiring practices” format and emphasized the importance of striking a balance between local and international contributions. Challenges such as funding for global collaboration and inclusion of diverse communities were discussed. Reuter advocated for practical humanist services, like non-religious weddings and funerals, to better reflect non-religious values. He also emphasized the importance of emotional connection, leadership accountability, and fostering solidarity, suggesting ideas such as humanist couchsurfing to strengthen community ties across borders.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your main takeaways from the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and the International Humanist Conference you hosted in Luxembourg?
Bob Reuter: A feeling of bliss is the first thing that comes to mind. I found the entire weekend — from Friday to Sunday — to be exceptionally warm and friendly. It was truly remarkable to see so many people gathered together. Everything went well. Aside from a few minor hiccups, the event ran very smoothly.
Jacobsen: What kind of hiccups?
Reuter: Just a minor one — Andrew Copson did not receive a lunch that accommodated his dietary requirements. It was a minor oversight, likely unnoticed by most attendees, but it stood out to me. I try to be very attentive to the well-being of participants, especially those in key roles.
Jacobsen: Like Sideshow Bob stepping on a rake — it hits you in the face, even if you saw it coming. There is even a whole episode devoted to that gag. What were some highlights from the speakers? What stood out to you? What feedback did you hear from attendees?
Reuter: I will start with the first keynote speaker — someone I know personally. He was relieved that his talk went smoothly, that his English was clear enough, and that he stayed within the time limit. During the break, he received many thoughtful and friendly questions. As academics, we are used to conferences where questions sometimes aim to show off. However, the atmosphere here was much more collegial. Attendees asked questions out of genuine interest. It created a space focused on sharing ideas and learning, where people gained new perspectives on topics they may not have been familiar with before.
Regarding the sessions on “inspiring practices,” many attendees praised the format. Each speaker had ten minutes, which made the sessions feel dynamic and engaging. If one speaker was less engaging for you, it was only a short wait until the next — potentially more inspiring — presentation. This approach worked well because people’s interests are personal, and the short format helped sustain engagement across a wide range of topics.
Jacobsen: Would it be helpful to have a semi-academic format, such as poster presentations, where attendees could present their ideas in a less formal setting?
Reuter: Potentially, yes. At the 2023 World Humanist Congress in Copenhagen, for instance, a poster session was held. That event was larger, with parallel sessions on various themes. I attended one focused on humanist services, particularly in youth work. Those talks were significantly longer than ten minutes.
It was very appropriate for those presentations to be much longer because you want to dig deeply into an established practice. You want to learn how they do it, what their foundational principles are, and also what observed effects they have had.
It is tough to convey all of that in just ten minutes. Consider showing a video of an activity, such as a ceremony, youth camp, or similar event. Therefore, the ten-minute quick talks, followed by a roundtable, are not necessarily the ideal format.
However, if you only have one day, it is a good way to provide people with a wide range of input without making it too long or overwhelming. I remained alert and excited throughout the day. However, as an organizer, you have that adrenaline running through your system, wondering: will everything be okay? Will we stay on schedule? Will we make it to the restaurant? Will people like the food? Will the music work?
So, yes. For other participants, the day might have felt long because the amount of input was quite intense.
Jacobsen: Do you think humanist organizations, if they were to host a similar event in the future, and let us say they are mid-sized or even small but highly motivated to host, should leverage their specific strengths within the context of the conference?
Reuter: It’s always a good recommendation to lean on your strengths. However, it is challenging to pinpoint exactly what those strengths are, as they can vary significantly.
In my case, one of my strengths in this context was that about half of the presentations came from people based in Luxembourg. As a small country, we know everyone and have quick access to many interesting individuals. I could have invited even more people involved in public science communication because I know many in that field.
However, I also did not want the conference to be overly local. I wanted a balance between local contributors and international experiences. In other contexts, strengths could be entirely different.
In much larger countries, one of the strengths might be access to internationally well-known figures. In Luxembourg, we do not have many internationally famous personalities — that is a challenge.
When I look at what Humanists UK did during the pandemic with their online seminars, they featured some famous people — individuals you would recognize from television or prominent YouTube channels. They could host them and draw in a large audience simply because people wanted to hear from someone well-known.
That is something we struggle with in Luxembourg. Mainly, when catering to a more Luxembourgish audience, well, “No one is a prophet in their town,” to use that phrase. In Luxembourg, you often know the locally famous figures personally, and you are also aware of their shortcomings. So it is harder to place them on a pedestal.
Even though, as a humanist, I do not believe anyone should be put on a pedestal — we are all human and should be treated as such. Still, there is this effect where people who have achieved something gain attention and admiration. When someone is internationally famous, it is easier for the public to overlook their flaws or not even consider them. That distance creates a kind of allure.
Jacobsen: On that note, there was a massive boost to the humanist movement when it gained momentum alongside the New Atheist movement. However, that movement has fragmented and declined in terms of its core following.
What should humanists lean on now — whether it is around a personality or alignment with another movement — to maintain relevance or momentum on specific issues? How can we ensure that the humanist life stance remains responsive and relevant to the context?
Reuter: One thing I heard during the weekend event is that many people want to develop intercontinental collaborations and stay connected, doing things together across borders. We already have the European Forum within Humanists International, where we collaborate regularly.
We’ve had a lot of online meetings — that’s just how it unfolded. We recently had our first in-person meeting. I think it will be beneficial to have more of those in the future. These intracontinental meetings are feasible due to the ease and speed of travel nowadays.
However, especially when you want to collaborate and secure funding — particularly from sources other than our own organization or umbrella organization — that is where people tend to struggle. With Erasmus+, organizations in different countries can jointly submit a proposal, but it has to be organizations from European countries. I know the Romanians did that with colleagues from Malta and another country. You need at least three countries, and then it becomes viable. However, imagine you want to do something with an organization in Nigeria — there is no international funding scheme currently available to support that.
So yes, it is something people aspire to, but there are fundamental limitations. I do not have answers, I recognize the gap.
Jacobsen: The international case is tricky. For instance, the Norwegians do receive significant governmental or federal funding for identifying as a humanist organization and having a large membership. Additionally, a substantial portion of the public — whether tacitly or explicitly — identifies as humanist, making it a very welcoming environment for them at this point. Another issue, however, is that they cannot use that government funding internationally.
Reuter: They are not supposed to — exactly. The same applies to our Belgian colleagues. They do receive public funding, which is quite substantial compared to others, but it must be used within the country.
Jacobsen: One way to utilize those funds in an international context is to invite people — scholars, fellows, or organizers.
Reuter: Yes, that is a possibility. You can frame it as continuous professional development for young people, which it genuinely is.
Jacobsen: It benefits them, and they gain international European experience in a humanist context. That could be valuable. It does not require a significant amount of funding. For example, a buddy system could be helpful: their flight is paid for, but they stay with a colleague or a host family — someone from that country who is willing to support them. That would reduce costs if that is a concern.
Reuter: Yes, and that reminds me of an idea I heard in Glasgow a few years ago at another International Humanist Conference. It was the concept of staying over at a fellow humanist’s home.
The idea, proposed by someone at the time, was that religious communities already do this — they rely on mutual solidarity. You essentially trust someone you do not know personally. You trust a stranger simply because you share the same religious faith, which is unusual, but that’s what people often do. There is a certain built-in credibility, or credit, that you are granted in advance. Only if you prove unworthy of that credit does it disappear.
So, humanist couchsurfing — I think that is a nice idea. Many of us travel internationally as humanists, often without funding from an organization or employer. So this kind of network could be a valuable initiative.
It could also be a great way to connect with people internationally and show that we are a community with a sense of solidarity.
Because having a network that offers reciprocal support — where being part of the community means not just giving but also receiving — is powerful.
Jacobsen: What were some moments that stood out for you during the conference?
Reuter: Honestly, the fact that Mubarak Bala was with us — that was incredibly emotional. We had been celebrating his release and donating money to support him, even though most of us had never met him. That kind of altruistic concern for another human being, based solely on shared values, was profoundly moving.
I remember thinking how lucky I am. I can be the president of an association of Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics in Luxembourg and speak out publicly without really fearing for my safety. I do not believe my life is in danger because of my humanist identity — at least, so far, I have not felt that way.
Meanwhile, in another country, just saying something that would be considered mundane here — like criticizing religion or the Prophet — can lead to imprisonment or worse. Perhaps that is because the religious communities in Europe have undergone a kind of moderation. I guess 200 years ago, saying such things here might have gotten you killed, too.
So yes, imagining that expressing your beliefs could be dangerous — it is almost unimaginable. And then hearing Mubarak speak, talking with him on Sunday evening after everything quieted down — that was powerful.
Listening to him describe what it felt like to be imprisoned, the uncertainty, not knowing if or when he would be released — it was chilling. And then, hearing how elements of his religious upbringing still linger with him, even in terms of how he feels he should dress, that struck me.
There are moments when he breaks free from that influence, and he questions: Why shouldn’t I dress how I like? I may enjoy dressing that way. Moreover, I can separate it from its religious or cultural significance and make it my own.
Another very emotional moment for me was when Leo spoke about Andrew’s achievements. I had not realized it was under Andrew’s leadership that Humanists International became a much more diverse organization.
To me, that diversity now feels natural. It is like — yes, this is how it should be. Moreover, to some extent, you could say, well, it is still not enough.
I have seen it from behind the scenes — the delegates from Uganda were not present because they did not receive their visas. Europe, and Luxembourg as part of the Schengen Area, did not allow them in.
They were not there. So, it is still not the safe and inclusive space that it should be. However, we have rules, regulations, and bylaws stating that people must run this association from different continents and regions of the world. That now seems natural — but apparently, it was not always the case. So yes, it is still a challenge. Moreover, we also struggle with diversity here in Luxembourg.
We do not have 50% women on our board, and we do not have 50% of our overall membership represented by women. Moreover, it is not because we do not want that — I am not entirely sure why that is the case. I think it is worth analyzing.
Also, in terms of our membership, we are not fully reaching or engaging with the internationally diverse population living in Luxembourg. Around 50% of people living in Luxembourg do not have a Luxembourgish passport. We fail to engage with some of them. Part of it may be due to prejudice — we may assume specific communities are more religious than they are. So we may think: “This will not interest them, because they are just religious — end of story.”
However, is that the case? Probably not. So then — why not try? In that sense, there is something to be learned from this international organization — lessons that can be applied to local organizations in highly diverse countries.
Jacobsen: A good observation is that, in many cases, when you look at religious populations within a given country — especially newer ones — they are often minority groups demographically. However, when those communities have been around for 20 or 30 years, a new generation has emerged.
That generation tends to be much less religious on average than their parents. They also tend to adopt many local cultural customs as part of adapting their belief systems. Moreover, about one-third of those kids tend to leave religion altogether.
Therefore, the self and identity are not static. Culture is fluid. Moreover, people are, too. It is not as though those things are fixed forever. Moreover, in terms of the gifting to Andrew, what did you think of the enormous number of gifts? At least three scarves, if I recall.
Reuter: Yes. I found it comical. It almost looked like a religious ritual. However, I took it as an opportunity to think: “No, this is just a human way of giving something from one’s culture or community to someone as a symbol.” It says, “We consider you one of us.”
If people associate that with religion or religious traditions, so be it. However, I think we are always in a space where we do things — and also observe and critique what we are doing — yet we do it anyway. Because, why not?
Jacobsen: It is also — I mean — we are not dry. You know? This is not a science conference. However, science plays a part in it.
Reuter: Exactly, I appreciated the fact that humanism is also about emotions.
Jacobsen: That is a huge comfort, yes. I think many people see it as a way of looking at — or at least approaching — the world, not just intellectually. There is a great deal of comfort in it. I remember Leo; when he was speaking with Andrew, he used the word ‘longing‘.
He said he was “longing” for these moments — seeing people from all over the world come together. Moreover, I think that is a widespread sentiment. It is always there. This is one of my favourite times of the year — attending a big international humanist conference. What was your funniest moment?
Reuter: That is interesting. I do not know. I do not think the event was funny — I would not call it humourless — but there is no specific moment that stands out to me as the most amusing.
Jacobsen: I found the banter over dinner — just little things like that — hilarious—the random conversations. One of my funniest moments was actually with Mubarak. I did several interviews with him. Moreover, when we spoke, he said I was the last person (or among the very last) he talked to before the police took him.
We were doing an “Ask Mubarak” series for a now-defunct publication, Canadian Atheist. The session right before — the one I was about to send him — had a subtitle that included: How bad can it get? I attended the conference, but I couldn’t find our seating area.
I was unable to find the conference room at the time. I had been travelling, so I went to the bathroom. As I turned, I saw a man wearing a small hat — someone I recognized. Moreover, I said, “Are you Mubarak Bala?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Hi, I am Scott.”
Then he said, “Oh… what?”
Then he told me, “Come with me.”
He took me through the back entrance — through the red slider, where you would usually need the ticker tape or badge access. We went under and through, using the back route into the conference room. And so the first person I ran into at the conference was Mubarak Bala. Stuff like that — circumstantial happenstance, funny.
What else? We had a first for Humanists International this year. We had the first VP-P woman duo in the history of Humanists International.
That will be very fruitful and interesting, as you will gain a completely different approach and perspective on specific topics that may have been overlooked for a while. I am very excited to see how that develops over the next few years.
Reuter: Yes, true. Even though we should not expect too much from women in leadership to change the world just because they are women. The structure of the world is not necessarily conducive to change, particularly when it comes to dismantling patriarchy.
Jacobsen: A big help will be that the strengths of Ross and Maggie will come through. Maggie, in particular, is — I think — a quintessentially American phenomenon. She has much energy.
Reuter: That may be one moment I found funny. When she spoke before she was elected, I had the impression, “This is a politician speaking.”
And I mean that in a good way. She is very eloquent. She knows how to address a crowd. She knows how to engage both emotionally and intellectually. So, yes — I thought, “Wow”.
But, in our community, we have an ambivalent relationship with the allure of power. Because, yes, like Karl Popper, the Austrian philosopher, we think we should give power to those who do not want it. Because those who excel in leadership are often at risk of being seduced by the power that comes with it. I believe it is essential to have safeguards in place — mechanisms to ensure that the people we elect into power do not accumulate too much power.
This is precisely what we are seeing now in the United States — with someone who appears extremely egocentric, or even narcissistic, or however you might describe it. I am not trying to diagnose anyone from a distance — that is always dangerous — but from what I observe, they seem to love being in charge. They love using that power to their advantage.
There is now sufficient evidence to support this case. That is truly dangerous. Because people in leadership should care about others, that is how democracy should function. We should also be able to remove leaders — peacefully, through democratic means — without resorting to violence.
I mean, voting — one aspect that people often take as fundamental to democracy is the idea of majority rule. However, I do not think that is the most crucial part. What matters more to me is that we can remove our leaders without needing to kill them, because we can change our minds about who we want to lead us.
And not just about the person, but also about the government’s ideas and the policies they promote. We can say, “Okay, we were wrong — let us change it.”
Jacobsen: Right, we do that quite well. It is not always easy, but we manage it better overall than many. I like the idea of elections as a “mini revolution.” You know — so we do not have to behead Marie Antoinette to move forward.
Reuter: Yes, true.
Jacobsen: What is next for the Luxembourgish Humanists?
Reuter: One thing we have been working on, in parallel to organizing conferences, is setting up humanist services, particularly through the European Humanist Services Network.
For instance, we have been working on the EU wedding standard and implementing it, including providing training. On Monday, just after the conference, we had a meeting with people from Flanders, Belgium, who will provide training for our celebrants. That way, we can get things going and offer practical humanist outreach by providing services to the broader community.
This can help us become known for something positive, rather than being known as the group that opposes religion and fights against religious privilege (which, of course, we will continue doing as long as it is necessary).
The next big area is developing services for humanist funerals. We have been working on a new brochure. In 2019, we published a small booklet on baby-naming or newborn welcoming ceremonies — how to conduct them in a humanist and non-religious manner, your rights, and the possibilities available.
It was not meant to be a recipe book but rather an encouragement to empower people to do something on their own, in their own way.
We are now attempting to create a similar publication, focusing on death and funerals. Because when you have a newborn or are planning a wedding, you typically have more time to prepare. There is no urgency. However, with funerals, it is different. Things must happen within days.
Moreover, we still see that many people default to contacting a priest and having a religious funeral, because that is what people know. It is still the standard offer. It is culturally familiar.
However, more than 50% of Luxembourg’s population identifies as non-religious. In that case, they should have access to funeral services that reflect their values — services that cater to their own needs and convictions.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time. Have a good day.
Reuter: You are welcome. Bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #lifestyle #menSIssues #movies #music #progressiveMasculinity #technology #TheGoodMenProject #travel
-
The Luxembourgish Humanist Conference Reflection
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/31
Bob Reuter shared his reflections on the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and the International Humanist Conference held in Luxembourg, highlighting a warm, collegial atmosphere and emotional moments, such as Mubarak Bala’s attendance. He praised the dynamic “inspiring practices” format and emphasized the importance of striking a balance between local and international contributions. Challenges such as funding for global collaboration and inclusion of diverse communities were discussed. Reuter advocated for practical humanist services, like non-religious weddings and funerals, to better reflect non-religious values. He also emphasized the importance of emotional connection, leadership accountability, and fostering solidarity, suggesting ideas such as humanist couchsurfing to strengthen community ties across borders.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your main takeaways from the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and the International Humanist Conference you hosted in Luxembourg?
Bob Reuter: A feeling of bliss is the first thing that comes to mind. I found the entire weekend — from Friday to Sunday — to be exceptionally warm and friendly. It was truly remarkable to see so many people gathered together. Everything went well. Aside from a few minor hiccups, the event ran very smoothly.
Jacobsen: What kind of hiccups?
Reuter: Just a minor one — Andrew Copson did not receive a lunch that accommodated his dietary requirements. It was a minor oversight, likely unnoticed by most attendees, but it stood out to me. I try to be very attentive to the well-being of participants, especially those in key roles.
Jacobsen: Like Sideshow Bob stepping on a rake — it hits you in the face, even if you saw it coming. There is even a whole episode devoted to that gag. What were some highlights from the speakers? What stood out to you? What feedback did you hear from attendees?
Reuter: I will start with the first keynote speaker — someone I know personally. He was relieved that his talk went smoothly, that his English was clear enough, and that he stayed within the time limit. During the break, he received many thoughtful and friendly questions. As academics, we are used to conferences where questions sometimes aim to show off. However, the atmosphere here was much more collegial. Attendees asked questions out of genuine interest. It created a space focused on sharing ideas and learning, where people gained new perspectives on topics they may not have been familiar with before.
Regarding the sessions on “inspiring practices,” many attendees praised the format. Each speaker had ten minutes, which made the sessions feel dynamic and engaging. If one speaker was less engaging for you, it was only a short wait until the next — potentially more inspiring — presentation. This approach worked well because people’s interests are personal, and the short format helped sustain engagement across a wide range of topics.
Jacobsen: Would it be helpful to have a semi-academic format, such as poster presentations, where attendees could present their ideas in a less formal setting?
Reuter: Potentially, yes. At the 2023 World Humanist Congress in Copenhagen, for instance, a poster session was held. That event was larger, with parallel sessions on various themes. I attended one focused on humanist services, particularly in youth work. Those talks were significantly longer than ten minutes.
It was very appropriate for those presentations to be much longer because you want to dig deeply into an established practice. You want to learn how they do it, what their foundational principles are, and also what observed effects they have had.
It is tough to convey all of that in just ten minutes. Consider showing a video of an activity, such as a ceremony, youth camp, or similar event. Therefore, the ten-minute quick talks, followed by a roundtable, are not necessarily the ideal format.
However, if you only have one day, it is a good way to provide people with a wide range of input without making it too long or overwhelming. I remained alert and excited throughout the day. However, as an organizer, you have that adrenaline running through your system, wondering: will everything be okay? Will we stay on schedule? Will we make it to the restaurant? Will people like the food? Will the music work?
So, yes. For other participants, the day might have felt long because the amount of input was quite intense.
Jacobsen: Do you think humanist organizations, if they were to host a similar event in the future, and let us say they are mid-sized or even small but highly motivated to host, should leverage their specific strengths within the context of the conference?
Reuter: It’s always a good recommendation to lean on your strengths. However, it is challenging to pinpoint exactly what those strengths are, as they can vary significantly.
In my case, one of my strengths in this context was that about half of the presentations came from people based in Luxembourg. As a small country, we know everyone and have quick access to many interesting individuals. I could have invited even more people involved in public science communication because I know many in that field.
However, I also did not want the conference to be overly local. I wanted a balance between local contributors and international experiences. In other contexts, strengths could be entirely different.
In much larger countries, one of the strengths might be access to internationally well-known figures. In Luxembourg, we do not have many internationally famous personalities — that is a challenge.
When I look at what Humanists UK did during the pandemic with their online seminars, they featured some famous people — individuals you would recognize from television or prominent YouTube channels. They could host them and draw in a large audience simply because people wanted to hear from someone well-known.
That is something we struggle with in Luxembourg. Mainly, when catering to a more Luxembourgish audience, well, “No one is a prophet in their town,” to use that phrase. In Luxembourg, you often know the locally famous figures personally, and you are also aware of their shortcomings. So it is harder to place them on a pedestal.
Even though, as a humanist, I do not believe anyone should be put on a pedestal — we are all human and should be treated as such. Still, there is this effect where people who have achieved something gain attention and admiration. When someone is internationally famous, it is easier for the public to overlook their flaws or not even consider them. That distance creates a kind of allure.
Jacobsen: On that note, there was a massive boost to the humanist movement when it gained momentum alongside the New Atheist movement. However, that movement has fragmented and declined in terms of its core following.
What should humanists lean on now — whether it is around a personality or alignment with another movement — to maintain relevance or momentum on specific issues? How can we ensure that the humanist life stance remains responsive and relevant to the context?
Reuter: One thing I heard during the weekend event is that many people want to develop intercontinental collaborations and stay connected, doing things together across borders. We already have the European Forum within Humanists International, where we collaborate regularly.
We’ve had a lot of online meetings — that’s just how it unfolded. We recently had our first in-person meeting. I think it will be beneficial to have more of those in the future. These intracontinental meetings are feasible due to the ease and speed of travel nowadays.
However, especially when you want to collaborate and secure funding — particularly from sources other than our own organization or umbrella organization — that is where people tend to struggle. With Erasmus+, organizations in different countries can jointly submit a proposal, but it has to be organizations from European countries. I know the Romanians did that with colleagues from Malta and another country. You need at least three countries, and then it becomes viable. However, imagine you want to do something with an organization in Nigeria — there is no international funding scheme currently available to support that.
So yes, it is something people aspire to, but there are fundamental limitations. I do not have answers, I recognize the gap.
Jacobsen: The international case is tricky. For instance, the Norwegians do receive significant governmental or federal funding for identifying as a humanist organization and having a large membership. Additionally, a substantial portion of the public — whether tacitly or explicitly — identifies as humanist, making it a very welcoming environment for them at this point. Another issue, however, is that they cannot use that government funding internationally.
Reuter: They are not supposed to — exactly. The same applies to our Belgian colleagues. They do receive public funding, which is quite substantial compared to others, but it must be used within the country.
Jacobsen: One way to utilize those funds in an international context is to invite people — scholars, fellows, or organizers.
Reuter: Yes, that is a possibility. You can frame it as continuous professional development for young people, which it genuinely is.
Jacobsen: It benefits them, and they gain international European experience in a humanist context. That could be valuable. It does not require a significant amount of funding. For example, a buddy system could be helpful: their flight is paid for, but they stay with a colleague or a host family — someone from that country who is willing to support them. That would reduce costs if that is a concern.
Reuter: Yes, and that reminds me of an idea I heard in Glasgow a few years ago at another International Humanist Conference. It was the concept of staying over at a fellow humanist’s home.
The idea, proposed by someone at the time, was that religious communities already do this — they rely on mutual solidarity. You essentially trust someone you do not know personally. You trust a stranger simply because you share the same religious faith, which is unusual, but that’s what people often do. There is a certain built-in credibility, or credit, that you are granted in advance. Only if you prove unworthy of that credit does it disappear.
So, humanist couchsurfing — I think that is a nice idea. Many of us travel internationally as humanists, often without funding from an organization or employer. So this kind of network could be a valuable initiative.
It could also be a great way to connect with people internationally and show that we are a community with a sense of solidarity.
Because having a network that offers reciprocal support — where being part of the community means not just giving but also receiving — is powerful.
Jacobsen: What were some moments that stood out for you during the conference?
Reuter: Honestly, the fact that Mubarak Bala was with us — that was incredibly emotional. We had been celebrating his release and donating money to support him, even though most of us had never met him. That kind of altruistic concern for another human being, based solely on shared values, was profoundly moving.
I remember thinking how lucky I am. I can be the president of an association of Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics in Luxembourg and speak out publicly without really fearing for my safety. I do not believe my life is in danger because of my humanist identity — at least, so far, I have not felt that way.
Meanwhile, in another country, just saying something that would be considered mundane here — like criticizing religion or the Prophet — can lead to imprisonment or worse. Perhaps that is because the religious communities in Europe have undergone a kind of moderation. I guess 200 years ago, saying such things here might have gotten you killed, too.
So yes, imagining that expressing your beliefs could be dangerous — it is almost unimaginable. And then hearing Mubarak speak, talking with him on Sunday evening after everything quieted down — that was powerful.
Listening to him describe what it felt like to be imprisoned, the uncertainty, not knowing if or when he would be released — it was chilling. And then, hearing how elements of his religious upbringing still linger with him, even in terms of how he feels he should dress, that struck me.
There are moments when he breaks free from that influence, and he questions: Why shouldn’t I dress how I like? I may enjoy dressing that way. Moreover, I can separate it from its religious or cultural significance and make it my own.
Another very emotional moment for me was when Leo spoke about Andrew’s achievements. I had not realized it was under Andrew’s leadership that Humanists International became a much more diverse organization.
To me, that diversity now feels natural. It is like — yes, this is how it should be. Moreover, to some extent, you could say, well, it is still not enough.
I have seen it from behind the scenes — the delegates from Uganda were not present because they did not receive their visas. Europe, and Luxembourg as part of the Schengen Area, did not allow them in.
They were not there. So, it is still not the safe and inclusive space that it should be. However, we have rules, regulations, and bylaws stating that people must run this association from different continents and regions of the world. That now seems natural — but apparently, it was not always the case. So yes, it is still a challenge. Moreover, we also struggle with diversity here in Luxembourg.
We do not have 50% women on our board, and we do not have 50% of our overall membership represented by women. Moreover, it is not because we do not want that — I am not entirely sure why that is the case. I think it is worth analyzing.
Also, in terms of our membership, we are not fully reaching or engaging with the internationally diverse population living in Luxembourg. Around 50% of people living in Luxembourg do not have a Luxembourgish passport. We fail to engage with some of them. Part of it may be due to prejudice — we may assume specific communities are more religious than they are. So we may think: “This will not interest them, because they are just religious — end of story.”
However, is that the case? Probably not. So then — why not try? In that sense, there is something to be learned from this international organization — lessons that can be applied to local organizations in highly diverse countries.
Jacobsen: A good observation is that, in many cases, when you look at religious populations within a given country — especially newer ones — they are often minority groups demographically. However, when those communities have been around for 20 or 30 years, a new generation has emerged.
That generation tends to be much less religious on average than their parents. They also tend to adopt many local cultural customs as part of adapting their belief systems. Moreover, about one-third of those kids tend to leave religion altogether.
Therefore, the self and identity are not static. Culture is fluid. Moreover, people are, too. It is not as though those things are fixed forever. Moreover, in terms of the gifting to Andrew, what did you think of the enormous number of gifts? At least three scarves, if I recall.
Reuter: Yes. I found it comical. It almost looked like a religious ritual. However, I took it as an opportunity to think: “No, this is just a human way of giving something from one’s culture or community to someone as a symbol.” It says, “We consider you one of us.”
If people associate that with religion or religious traditions, so be it. However, I think we are always in a space where we do things — and also observe and critique what we are doing — yet we do it anyway. Because, why not?
Jacobsen: It is also — I mean — we are not dry. You know? This is not a science conference. However, science plays a part in it.
Reuter: Exactly, I appreciated the fact that humanism is also about emotions.
Jacobsen: That is a huge comfort, yes. I think many people see it as a way of looking at — or at least approaching — the world, not just intellectually. There is a great deal of comfort in it. I remember Leo; when he was speaking with Andrew, he used the word ‘longing‘.
He said he was “longing” for these moments — seeing people from all over the world come together. Moreover, I think that is a widespread sentiment. It is always there. This is one of my favourite times of the year — attending a big international humanist conference. What was your funniest moment?
Reuter: That is interesting. I do not know. I do not think the event was funny — I would not call it humourless — but there is no specific moment that stands out to me as the most amusing.
Jacobsen: I found the banter over dinner — just little things like that — hilarious—the random conversations. One of my funniest moments was actually with Mubarak. I did several interviews with him. Moreover, when we spoke, he said I was the last person (or among the very last) he talked to before the police took him.
We were doing an “Ask Mubarak” series for a now-defunct publication, Canadian Atheist. The session right before — the one I was about to send him — had a subtitle that included: How bad can it get? I attended the conference, but I couldn’t find our seating area.
I was unable to find the conference room at the time. I had been travelling, so I went to the bathroom. As I turned, I saw a man wearing a small hat — someone I recognized. Moreover, I said, “Are you Mubarak Bala?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Hi, I am Scott.”
Then he said, “Oh… what?”
Then he told me, “Come with me.”
He took me through the back entrance — through the red slider, where you would usually need the ticker tape or badge access. We went under and through, using the back route into the conference room. And so the first person I ran into at the conference was Mubarak Bala. Stuff like that — circumstantial happenstance, funny.
What else? We had a first for Humanists International this year. We had the first VP-P woman duo in the history of Humanists International.
That will be very fruitful and interesting, as you will gain a completely different approach and perspective on specific topics that may have been overlooked for a while. I am very excited to see how that develops over the next few years.
Reuter: Yes, true. Even though we should not expect too much from women in leadership to change the world just because they are women. The structure of the world is not necessarily conducive to change, particularly when it comes to dismantling patriarchy.
Jacobsen: A big help will be that the strengths of Ross and Maggie will come through. Maggie, in particular, is — I think — a quintessentially American phenomenon. She has much energy.
Reuter: That may be one moment I found funny. When she spoke before she was elected, I had the impression, “This is a politician speaking.”
And I mean that in a good way. She is very eloquent. She knows how to address a crowd. She knows how to engage both emotionally and intellectually. So, yes — I thought, “Wow”.
But, in our community, we have an ambivalent relationship with the allure of power. Because, yes, like Karl Popper, the Austrian philosopher, we think we should give power to those who do not want it. Because those who excel in leadership are often at risk of being seduced by the power that comes with it. I believe it is essential to have safeguards in place — mechanisms to ensure that the people we elect into power do not accumulate too much power.
This is precisely what we are seeing now in the United States — with someone who appears extremely egocentric, or even narcissistic, or however you might describe it. I am not trying to diagnose anyone from a distance — that is always dangerous — but from what I observe, they seem to love being in charge. They love using that power to their advantage.
There is now sufficient evidence to support this case. That is truly dangerous. Because people in leadership should care about others, that is how democracy should function. We should also be able to remove leaders — peacefully, through democratic means — without resorting to violence.
I mean, voting — one aspect that people often take as fundamental to democracy is the idea of majority rule. However, I do not think that is the most crucial part. What matters more to me is that we can remove our leaders without needing to kill them, because we can change our minds about who we want to lead us.
And not just about the person, but also about the government’s ideas and the policies they promote. We can say, “Okay, we were wrong — let us change it.”
Jacobsen: Right, we do that quite well. It is not always easy, but we manage it better overall than many. I like the idea of elections as a “mini revolution.” You know — so we do not have to behead Marie Antoinette to move forward.
Reuter: Yes, true.
Jacobsen: What is next for the Luxembourgish Humanists?
Reuter: One thing we have been working on, in parallel to organizing conferences, is setting up humanist services, particularly through the European Humanist Services Network.
For instance, we have been working on the EU wedding standard and implementing it, including providing training. On Monday, just after the conference, we had a meeting with people from Flanders, Belgium, who will provide training for our celebrants. That way, we can get things going and offer practical humanist outreach by providing services to the broader community.
This can help us become known for something positive, rather than being known as the group that opposes religion and fights against religious privilege (which, of course, we will continue doing as long as it is necessary).
The next big area is developing services for humanist funerals. We have been working on a new brochure. In 2019, we published a small booklet on baby-naming or newborn welcoming ceremonies — how to conduct them in a humanist and non-religious manner, your rights, and the possibilities available.
It was not meant to be a recipe book but rather an encouragement to empower people to do something on their own, in their own way.
We are now attempting to create a similar publication, focusing on death and funerals. Because when you have a newborn or are planning a wedding, you typically have more time to prepare. There is no urgency. However, with funerals, it is different. Things must happen within days.
Moreover, we still see that many people default to contacting a priest and having a religious funeral, because that is what people know. It is still the standard offer. It is culturally familiar.
However, more than 50% of Luxembourg’s population identifies as non-religious. In that case, they should have access to funeral services that reflect their values — services that cater to their own needs and convictions.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time. Have a good day.
Reuter: You are welcome. Bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #lifestyle #menSIssues #movies #music #progressiveMasculinity #technology #TheGoodMenProject #travel
-
Prof. Gordon Guyatt – Pioneer of Evidence-Based Medicine and the GRADE Framework
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/31
Professor Gordon Guyatt is a Canadian physician, health researcher, and Distinguished Professor at McMaster University, widely recognized as the pioneer of evidence-based medicine (EBM). He coined the term “evidence-based medicine” in 1991, fundamentally transforming how clinicians worldwide evaluate research and make patient care decisions. Guyatt has authored or co-authored thousands of influential papers and is among the most cited health scientists globally. He has also led the development of the GRADE framework for grading evidence and guidelines. His leadership, mentorship, and prolific contributions have profoundly shaped modern clinical epidemiology and guideline development, cementing his legacy in global health research.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, last time we talked, you had received the Henry G. Friesen International Prize in Health Research. You gave a lecture as part of that recognition. Could you describe the content of that lecture and the feedback you received?
Professor Gordon Guyatt: It has turned out to be a series of eight lectures because — as far as I know — this is a unique Canadian award that requires the laureate to travel across the country and deliver the Friesen Lecture at multiple Canadian medical schools. So far, I have done it at McMaster, Waterloo, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Edmonton.
In a little while, I will be giving my eighth and final Lecture in Vancouver. It has been an enjoyable experience — I have met people in each city. As I have delivered the lecture multiple times, I have refined it to be more interactive, which the audience consistently appreciates. Overall, it has been a fun and enriching experience.
Jacobsen: Now, when you look at the current generation of medical students — as a related question — how has their training changed compared to when you were a student, especially about epidemiology and evidence-based medicine?
Guyatt: Well, there have been some significant changes. When I was in training, residents typically worked one night in three. After being on call overnight, you would often stay until 5 p.m. or later the following day. That would be unheard of now. Today, work-hour restrictions are much tighter, and training is organized more around shift work.
Another significant change is the structure of attending service. Earlier in my career, when I was in clinical service, I would be on for a whole month at a time. Then, it was reduced to two weeks. Now, for many services, attending physicians are scheduled for just one week at a time. This is not ideal for continuity of patient care — you barely get to know the house staff before either they or you rotate off the service.
I sound like a dinosaur, but back then, it was different. This shorter time commitment does not foster the same level of continuity or, arguably, the same level of dedication to patient care. Whether that change comes from the trainees themselves or the system is a matter of debate. Still, the system certainly does not encourage the same depth of commitment.
Those are some of the significant structural changes. If you look specifically at evidence-based medicine, today’s students have no sense of what the world was like before EBM.
Jacobsen: For context, before EBM, clinical decisions were often made based on expert consensus — what some have jokingly called the “GOBSAT” approach (Good Old Boys Sat Around the Table).
Guyatt: Nowadays, students do not necessarily know or care much about the development of evidence-based medicine (EBM) or guideline standards. Still, they fully expect recommendations to be grounded in evidence. They might not dig deeply into the evidence themselves, but they rely on guidelines and assume they are evidence-based. I once gave a talk to a group of medical students in Toronto — virtually — and the first question at the end was, “How did you get interested in EBM?”— as if it had always existed! No kidding.
Jacobsen: I love that. I love that so much. You are one of the most cited people in Canadian academic history. When you go down the field, how does that feel? “Also — as an aside — what is your name?” I could understand if they asked me that, but not you! They are completely ahistorical.
Guyatt: Yes, I get that a lot in interviews.
Jacobsen: And it is not just in epidemiology — it is true across disciplines. Pick any field. This has been facilitated by social media and the Internet, providing you with immediate access to vast amounts of information. Still, it is all presented in an achronological manner. So, it is a net of information, which ideally gets filtered into usable knowledge — but there is no sense of timeline. That is part of it. From a media or sociological standpoint, it is fascinating.
It is such a reflection of how the world has changed. I have asked this before, but giving the lecture for the award is different from receiving the award itself. The second part, where you are now travelling and delivering this series of lectures — how does it feel to be at this stage of your career, being called upon to do this national lecture circuit and seeing the process from this vantage point?
Guyatt: Well, I feel like I am cashing in on all the work I have done over the years. I am, by citation count, the most cited Canadian health scientist, and evidence-based medicine has become something to which everyone must at least pay lip service. People know that I helped get it started, so they think of me as a legend.
So, wherever I go, people say, “Oh, it is such an honour to be talking with you.” But back in the early days, it was not always like that! When I first started promoting EBM, the reception was far from universally warm. I might have told you this story before, but once, in the States, I visited a department where they did not like being told that they had missed the boat.
Our message was: “You were trained in a particular way, and you think you have expertise, but real expertise means knowing how to assess the evidence — and you were not taught that.” Unsurprisingly, a lot of the senior experts did not appreciate hearing this.
There was one bright young immunologist in that department who did not take kindly to it. I met with him and a couple of residents. Typically, in those sessions, the expert asks a question to the junior resident. The senior resident finally offers the answer.
Well, this fellow asked the junior resident, then the senior resident, and if they did not get it, he asked me. I never knew the answer — not once. Zero. He was trying to embarrass me, but it did not bother me at all.
And the next time I ran into him — purely by chance while walking around the campus — I said, “Hey! Thanks for that educational session you invited me to!” Learned a lot. It was a great session. Anyway, the guy did a double-take because he thought he had delivered a major put-down, and it did not bother me in the slightest — which he did not expect! Anyway, that is just one story of the hostility that sometimes arose — understandably, in a way — because you are telling people, “Sorry, you missed the boat,” and that is not pleasant to hear.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gordon.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Prof. Gordon Guyatt – Pioneer of Evidence-Based Medicine and the GRADE Framework
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/31
Professor Gordon Guyatt is a Canadian physician, health researcher, and Distinguished Professor at McMaster University, widely recognized as the pioneer of evidence-based medicine (EBM). He coined the term “evidence-based medicine” in 1991, fundamentally transforming how clinicians worldwide evaluate research and make patient care decisions. Guyatt has authored or co-authored thousands of influential papers and is among the most cited health scientists globally. He has also led the development of the GRADE framework for grading evidence and guidelines. His leadership, mentorship, and prolific contributions have profoundly shaped modern clinical epidemiology and guideline development, cementing his legacy in global health research.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, last time we talked, you had received the Henry G. Friesen International Prize in Health Research. You gave a lecture as part of that recognition. Could you describe the content of that lecture and the feedback you received?
Professor Gordon Guyatt: It has turned out to be a series of eight lectures because — as far as I know — this is a unique Canadian award that requires the laureate to travel across the country and deliver the Friesen Lecture at multiple Canadian medical schools. So far, I have done it at McMaster, Waterloo, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Edmonton.
In a little while, I will be giving my eighth and final Lecture in Vancouver. It has been an enjoyable experience — I have met people in each city. As I have delivered the lecture multiple times, I have refined it to be more interactive, which the audience consistently appreciates. Overall, it has been a fun and enriching experience.
Jacobsen: Now, when you look at the current generation of medical students — as a related question — how has their training changed compared to when you were a student, especially about epidemiology and evidence-based medicine?
Guyatt: Well, there have been some significant changes. When I was in training, residents typically worked one night in three. After being on call overnight, you would often stay until 5 p.m. or later the following day. That would be unheard of now. Today, work-hour restrictions are much tighter, and training is organized more around shift work.
Another significant change is the structure of attending service. Earlier in my career, when I was in clinical service, I would be on for a whole month at a time. Then, it was reduced to two weeks. Now, for many services, attending physicians are scheduled for just one week at a time. This is not ideal for continuity of patient care — you barely get to know the house staff before either they or you rotate off the service.
I sound like a dinosaur, but back then, it was different. This shorter time commitment does not foster the same level of continuity or, arguably, the same level of dedication to patient care. Whether that change comes from the trainees themselves or the system is a matter of debate. Still, the system certainly does not encourage the same depth of commitment.
Those are some of the significant structural changes. If you look specifically at evidence-based medicine, today’s students have no sense of what the world was like before EBM.
Jacobsen: For context, before EBM, clinical decisions were often made based on expert consensus — what some have jokingly called the “GOBSAT” approach (Good Old Boys Sat Around the Table).
Guyatt: Nowadays, students do not necessarily know or care much about the development of evidence-based medicine (EBM) or guideline standards. Still, they fully expect recommendations to be grounded in evidence. They might not dig deeply into the evidence themselves, but they rely on guidelines and assume they are evidence-based. I once gave a talk to a group of medical students in Toronto — virtually — and the first question at the end was, “How did you get interested in EBM?”— as if it had always existed! No kidding.
Jacobsen: I love that. I love that so much. You are one of the most cited people in Canadian academic history. When you go down the field, how does that feel? “Also — as an aside — what is your name?” I could understand if they asked me that, but not you! They are completely ahistorical.
Guyatt: Yes, I get that a lot in interviews.
Jacobsen: And it is not just in epidemiology — it is true across disciplines. Pick any field. This has been facilitated by social media and the Internet, providing you with immediate access to vast amounts of information. Still, it is all presented in an achronological manner. So, it is a net of information, which ideally gets filtered into usable knowledge — but there is no sense of timeline. That is part of it. From a media or sociological standpoint, it is fascinating.
It is such a reflection of how the world has changed. I have asked this before, but giving the lecture for the award is different from receiving the award itself. The second part, where you are now travelling and delivering this series of lectures — how does it feel to be at this stage of your career, being called upon to do this national lecture circuit and seeing the process from this vantage point?
Guyatt: Well, I feel like I am cashing in on all the work I have done over the years. I am, by citation count, the most cited Canadian health scientist, and evidence-based medicine has become something to which everyone must at least pay lip service. People know that I helped get it started, so they think of me as a legend.
So, wherever I go, people say, “Oh, it is such an honour to be talking with you.” But back in the early days, it was not always like that! When I first started promoting EBM, the reception was far from universally warm. I might have told you this story before, but once, in the States, I visited a department where they did not like being told that they had missed the boat.
Our message was: “You were trained in a particular way, and you think you have expertise, but real expertise means knowing how to assess the evidence — and you were not taught that.” Unsurprisingly, a lot of the senior experts did not appreciate hearing this.
There was one bright young immunologist in that department who did not take kindly to it. I met with him and a couple of residents. Typically, in those sessions, the expert asks a question to the junior resident. The senior resident finally offers the answer.
Well, this fellow asked the junior resident, then the senior resident, and if they did not get it, he asked me. I never knew the answer — not once. Zero. He was trying to embarrass me, but it did not bother me at all.
And the next time I ran into him — purely by chance while walking around the campus — I said, “Hey! Thanks for that educational session you invited me to!” Learned a lot. It was a great session. Anyway, the guy did a double-take because he thought he had delivered a major put-down, and it did not bother me in the slightest — which he did not expect! Anyway, that is just one story of the hostility that sometimes arose — understandably, in a way — because you are telling people, “Sorry, you missed the boat,” and that is not pleasant to hear.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gordon.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Prof. Gordon Guyatt – Pioneer of Evidence-Based Medicine and the GRADE Framework
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/31
Professor Gordon Guyatt is a Canadian physician, health researcher, and Distinguished Professor at McMaster University, widely recognized as the pioneer of evidence-based medicine (EBM). He coined the term “evidence-based medicine” in 1991, fundamentally transforming how clinicians worldwide evaluate research and make patient care decisions. Guyatt has authored or co-authored thousands of influential papers and is among the most cited health scientists globally. He has also led the development of the GRADE framework for grading evidence and guidelines. His leadership, mentorship, and prolific contributions have profoundly shaped modern clinical epidemiology and guideline development, cementing his legacy in global health research.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, last time we talked, you had received the Henry G. Friesen International Prize in Health Research. You gave a lecture as part of that recognition. Could you describe the content of that lecture and the feedback you received?
Professor Gordon Guyatt: It has turned out to be a series of eight lectures because — as far as I know — this is a unique Canadian award that requires the laureate to travel across the country and deliver the Friesen Lecture at multiple Canadian medical schools. So far, I have done it at McMaster, Waterloo, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Edmonton.
In a little while, I will be giving my eighth and final Lecture in Vancouver. It has been an enjoyable experience — I have met people in each city. As I have delivered the lecture multiple times, I have refined it to be more interactive, which the audience consistently appreciates. Overall, it has been a fun and enriching experience.
Jacobsen: Now, when you look at the current generation of medical students — as a related question — how has their training changed compared to when you were a student, especially about epidemiology and evidence-based medicine?
Guyatt: Well, there have been some significant changes. When I was in training, residents typically worked one night in three. After being on call overnight, you would often stay until 5 p.m. or later the following day. That would be unheard of now. Today, work-hour restrictions are much tighter, and training is organized more around shift work.
Another significant change is the structure of attending service. Earlier in my career, when I was in clinical service, I would be on for a whole month at a time. Then, it was reduced to two weeks. Now, for many services, attending physicians are scheduled for just one week at a time. This is not ideal for continuity of patient care — you barely get to know the house staff before either they or you rotate off the service.
I sound like a dinosaur, but back then, it was different. This shorter time commitment does not foster the same level of continuity or, arguably, the same level of dedication to patient care. Whether that change comes from the trainees themselves or the system is a matter of debate. Still, the system certainly does not encourage the same depth of commitment.
Those are some of the significant structural changes. If you look specifically at evidence-based medicine, today’s students have no sense of what the world was like before EBM.
Jacobsen: For context, before EBM, clinical decisions were often made based on expert consensus — what some have jokingly called the “GOBSAT” approach (Good Old Boys Sat Around the Table).
Guyatt: Nowadays, students do not necessarily know or care much about the development of evidence-based medicine (EBM) or guideline standards. Still, they fully expect recommendations to be grounded in evidence. They might not dig deeply into the evidence themselves, but they rely on guidelines and assume they are evidence-based. I once gave a talk to a group of medical students in Toronto — virtually — and the first question at the end was, “How did you get interested in EBM?”— as if it had always existed! No kidding.
Jacobsen: I love that. I love that so much. You are one of the most cited people in Canadian academic history. When you go down the field, how does that feel? “Also — as an aside — what is your name?” I could understand if they asked me that, but not you! They are completely ahistorical.
Guyatt: Yes, I get that a lot in interviews.
Jacobsen: And it is not just in epidemiology — it is true across disciplines. Pick any field. This has been facilitated by social media and the Internet, providing you with immediate access to vast amounts of information. Still, it is all presented in an achronological manner. So, it is a net of information, which ideally gets filtered into usable knowledge — but there is no sense of timeline. That is part of it. From a media or sociological standpoint, it is fascinating.
It is such a reflection of how the world has changed. I have asked this before, but giving the lecture for the award is different from receiving the award itself. The second part, where you are now travelling and delivering this series of lectures — how does it feel to be at this stage of your career, being called upon to do this national lecture circuit and seeing the process from this vantage point?
Guyatt: Well, I feel like I am cashing in on all the work I have done over the years. I am, by citation count, the most cited Canadian health scientist, and evidence-based medicine has become something to which everyone must at least pay lip service. People know that I helped get it started, so they think of me as a legend.
So, wherever I go, people say, “Oh, it is such an honour to be talking with you.” But back in the early days, it was not always like that! When I first started promoting EBM, the reception was far from universally warm. I might have told you this story before, but once, in the States, I visited a department where they did not like being told that they had missed the boat.
Our message was: “You were trained in a particular way, and you think you have expertise, but real expertise means knowing how to assess the evidence — and you were not taught that.” Unsurprisingly, a lot of the senior experts did not appreciate hearing this.
There was one bright young immunologist in that department who did not take kindly to it. I met with him and a couple of residents. Typically, in those sessions, the expert asks a question to the junior resident. The senior resident finally offers the answer.
Well, this fellow asked the junior resident, then the senior resident, and if they did not get it, he asked me. I never knew the answer — not once. Zero. He was trying to embarrass me, but it did not bother me at all.
And the next time I ran into him — purely by chance while walking around the campus — I said, “Hey! Thanks for that educational session you invited me to!” Learned a lot. It was a great session. Anyway, the guy did a double-take because he thought he had delivered a major put-down, and it did not bother me in the slightest — which he did not expect! Anyway, that is just one story of the hostility that sometimes arose — understandably, in a way — because you are telling people, “Sorry, you missed the boat,” and that is not pleasant to hear.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gordon.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Prof. Gordon Guyatt – Pioneer of Evidence-Based Medicine and the GRADE Framework
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/31
Professor Gordon Guyatt is a Canadian physician, health researcher, and Distinguished Professor at McMaster University, widely recognized as the pioneer of evidence-based medicine (EBM). He coined the term “evidence-based medicine” in 1991, fundamentally transforming how clinicians worldwide evaluate research and make patient care decisions. Guyatt has authored or co-authored thousands of influential papers and is among the most cited health scientists globally. He has also led the development of the GRADE framework for grading evidence and guidelines. His leadership, mentorship, and prolific contributions have profoundly shaped modern clinical epidemiology and guideline development, cementing his legacy in global health research.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, last time we talked, you had received the Henry G. Friesen International Prize in Health Research. You gave a lecture as part of that recognition. Could you describe the content of that lecture and the feedback you received?
Professor Gordon Guyatt: It has turned out to be a series of eight lectures because — as far as I know — this is a unique Canadian award that requires the laureate to travel across the country and deliver the Friesen Lecture at multiple Canadian medical schools. So far, I have done it at McMaster, Waterloo, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Edmonton.
In a little while, I will be giving my eighth and final Lecture in Vancouver. It has been an enjoyable experience — I have met people in each city. As I have delivered the lecture multiple times, I have refined it to be more interactive, which the audience consistently appreciates. Overall, it has been a fun and enriching experience.
Jacobsen: Now, when you look at the current generation of medical students — as a related question — how has their training changed compared to when you were a student, especially about epidemiology and evidence-based medicine?
Guyatt: Well, there have been some significant changes. When I was in training, residents typically worked one night in three. After being on call overnight, you would often stay until 5 p.m. or later the following day. That would be unheard of now. Today, work-hour restrictions are much tighter, and training is organized more around shift work.
Another significant change is the structure of attending service. Earlier in my career, when I was in clinical service, I would be on for a whole month at a time. Then, it was reduced to two weeks. Now, for many services, attending physicians are scheduled for just one week at a time. This is not ideal for continuity of patient care — you barely get to know the house staff before either they or you rotate off the service.
I sound like a dinosaur, but back then, it was different. This shorter time commitment does not foster the same level of continuity or, arguably, the same level of dedication to patient care. Whether that change comes from the trainees themselves or the system is a matter of debate. Still, the system certainly does not encourage the same depth of commitment.
Those are some of the significant structural changes. If you look specifically at evidence-based medicine, today’s students have no sense of what the world was like before EBM.
Jacobsen: For context, before EBM, clinical decisions were often made based on expert consensus — what some have jokingly called the “GOBSAT” approach (Good Old Boys Sat Around the Table).
Guyatt: Nowadays, students do not necessarily know or care much about the development of evidence-based medicine (EBM) or guideline standards. Still, they fully expect recommendations to be grounded in evidence. They might not dig deeply into the evidence themselves, but they rely on guidelines and assume they are evidence-based. I once gave a talk to a group of medical students in Toronto — virtually — and the first question at the end was, “How did you get interested in EBM?”— as if it had always existed! No kidding.
Jacobsen: I love that. I love that so much. You are one of the most cited people in Canadian academic history. When you go down the field, how does that feel? “Also — as an aside — what is your name?” I could understand if they asked me that, but not you! They are completely ahistorical.
Guyatt: Yes, I get that a lot in interviews.
Jacobsen: And it is not just in epidemiology — it is true across disciplines. Pick any field. This has been facilitated by social media and the Internet, providing you with immediate access to vast amounts of information. Still, it is all presented in an achronological manner. So, it is a net of information, which ideally gets filtered into usable knowledge — but there is no sense of timeline. That is part of it. From a media or sociological standpoint, it is fascinating.
It is such a reflection of how the world has changed. I have asked this before, but giving the lecture for the award is different from receiving the award itself. The second part, where you are now travelling and delivering this series of lectures — how does it feel to be at this stage of your career, being called upon to do this national lecture circuit and seeing the process from this vantage point?
Guyatt: Well, I feel like I am cashing in on all the work I have done over the years. I am, by citation count, the most cited Canadian health scientist, and evidence-based medicine has become something to which everyone must at least pay lip service. People know that I helped get it started, so they think of me as a legend.
So, wherever I go, people say, “Oh, it is such an honour to be talking with you.” But back in the early days, it was not always like that! When I first started promoting EBM, the reception was far from universally warm. I might have told you this story before, but once, in the States, I visited a department where they did not like being told that they had missed the boat.
Our message was: “You were trained in a particular way, and you think you have expertise, but real expertise means knowing how to assess the evidence — and you were not taught that.” Unsurprisingly, a lot of the senior experts did not appreciate hearing this.
There was one bright young immunologist in that department who did not take kindly to it. I met with him and a couple of residents. Typically, in those sessions, the expert asks a question to the junior resident. The senior resident finally offers the answer.
Well, this fellow asked the junior resident, then the senior resident, and if they did not get it, he asked me. I never knew the answer — not once. Zero. He was trying to embarrass me, but it did not bother me at all.
And the next time I ran into him — purely by chance while walking around the campus — I said, “Hey! Thanks for that educational session you invited me to!” Learned a lot. It was a great session. Anyway, the guy did a double-take because he thought he had delivered a major put-down, and it did not bother me in the slightest — which he did not expect! Anyway, that is just one story of the hostility that sometimes arose — understandably, in a way — because you are telling people, “Sorry, you missed the boat,” and that is not pleasant to hear.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gordon.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
From Refugee to Tech Founder: Revolutionize Safe Co-Living
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/30
Kal Merhi, founder of iROOMit, turned his lived experience of displacement and housing instability into a thriving AI-powered roommate-matching platform. With limited formal education and no government funding, Merhi bootstrapped iROOMit to address the affordability crisis in urban housing. The platform integrates ID verification, scam prevention, and secure rent transactions, growing from 1,200 to over 7,000 users monthly. With ambitious global expansion plans, Merhi envisions co-living as a long-term housing solution. His mission is not just technological but personal: to create safe, accessible spaces for those struggling to find a place to call home.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today we’re here with Kal Merhi, founder of iROOMit, an AI-powered roommate matching platform designed to make co-living safer, smarter, and more accessible. His story defies the typical tech founder narrative — he arrived in North America with only a sixth-grade education, limited English, and a history of housing insecurity. Cal rebuilt his life from the ground up, bootstrapping the development of iROOMit. The platform integrates identity verification, scam detection, background checks, lease agreements, and rent payments into a single trusted solution — all critical components when you’re looking for a safe and secure place to live. With over 5,000 new users joining each month, Cal’s mission is rooted in safety, intuition, and connection. He uses technology to empower people seeking housing stability — the kind he once lacked. Your journey to founding iROOMit is anything but typical. What’s the story behind the challenges and life experiences that led you to create this platform?
Kal Merhi: Yes, of course. Because of my upbringing, the idea for iROOMit — the concept of roommate living and co-living — was always in the back of my mind. I’ve always believed that everyone deserves a place to call home. It doesn’t matter if it’s 200 or 300 square feet — if you have a place to sleep and feel safe, that’s home. I lived through civil war and displacement in Lebanon, so I know what it means to be a refugee, even within your own country. That experience gave me a deep appreciation for having stable housing. From early on, I wanted to create something that could offer that kind of support to others — something meaningful, something global. I’ve always been entrepreneurial. I’ve only worked for someone else for about a year or two. The rest of the time, I’ve launched businesses, built them, sold them, and moved on.
The idea for iROOMit came during the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially, I worked on a platform for people to buy and rent homes without needing a real estate agent. But midway through that project, I pivoted. I realized the real need, especially with housing costs rising globally, was in affordable co-living. That’s when I launched iROOMit: a platform focused on helping people find roommates and shared rentals, using AI and innovative technology to match users based on lifestyle compatibility and safety.
We finalized the technology in 2022 and spent that year testing it in the market. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive — even more than we expected. So, we officially launched in 2023. The growth from 2022 to 2023 was exponential, and 2024 saw even more momentum. In 2025, what we’re experiencing has exceeded all our early expectations. We’ve built something the market didn’t offer but desperately needed — a safe, secure, and intuitive platform for finding housing. Yes, people need homes and want to save money, but trust is everything in today’s digital world. Scams, fraud, and misinformation are everywhere — and we set out to change that.
So, we created that safe zone for our community. When people come in looking to rent or they have a place they want to rent out to someone else, it helps them save money, create space, and offer someone else a safe and easy experience. We built that environment intentionally, and the results have been phenomenal.
Jacobsen: Now, when you turned your personal experience with housing instability into a tech platform focused on safety and smart co-living, what was some of the early feedback like? How did input during the beta phases help shape the platform to better meet the needs of people in those situations?
Merhi: Yes, that’s a good question. Initially, when we launched, we listened very carefully to users. I don’t think of them as just users — I call them community members. Even if I’ve never met them, I care deeply about them. So, we made it easy for people to contact us via email or direct message. They gave us feedback on what needed improvement and what they found challenging. The number one issue — and I keep repeating this — is scams. People would connect with others and later discover the listings were fake or unverified. So, together with my business partner David, our CTO, we built an AI system designed to detect and remove scams and unverified listings. We wanted people to feel safe and secure when connecting with others. We focused heavily on that from the very start because we couldn’t scale without safety. If users lose trust in our platform, the whole model collapses. That’s something we noticed with other platforms — they have many scam complaints. You can read the reviews, send emails, and speak with people who’ve had bad experiences. We didn’t want to make that mistake. So, we tackled the problem right at the beginning — not after 100,000 or 200,000 listings. We grew the platform with safety built into its core. As we expand, we’re constantly evolving and improving. The feedback we get is excellent. On the Google Play Store and Apple App Store, our app is rated 4.6. I think that’s solid. Sure, there’s some criticism, but the positive outweighs the negative. Overall, the impact of our technology has been phenomenal.
Jacobsen: Now you’re at 5,000 new users every month. How has that growth trajectory developed over time? Looking back six months or a year, what were your monthly active user additions? And based on that trend, what does the projection look like for the year ahead?
Merhi: Sure, yes. I’ll start with 2022 — our trial year, so I won’t count that. I’ll begin with when people started paying for monthly, weekly, 60-day, and 90-day subscriptions. In 2023, we were getting around 1,200 to 1,300 new users monthly. In 2024, we doubled that.
As I speak with you, we’re hitting 6,000 to 7,000 new users per month. That’s a growth rate of approximately 200% to 300% year-over-year. In 2025, we’re experiencing around a 20% increase month-over-month compared to last year. The growth is exponential, and there is demand. We’re expanding our reach across North America and into the UK. For example, we’re now entering smaller towns and cities, not just focusing on major metropolitan areas. There’s a significant need there, too. From 2023 to 2024, our growth was about 200%, and in 2025, we anticipate hitting 300%.
By the end of 2026 or early 2027, we’ll be reaching 20,000 new users per month. I’ve developed a three-year expansion plan covering 2025, 2026, and 2027. By the end of 2027, we will be fully launched in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. We’re launching in Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, and Dubai in the UAE this spring. By the end of summer or early fall, we expect to enter Western Europe. I aim to reach 100,000 monthly users by the end of 2026 or early 2027.
Jacobsen: Congratulations on those numbers and projections. Now, where is there room for improvement? In a realistic sense — not just theoretical ideals — what next steps or provisions would make the application more robust? And what does this rapid growth say about the rental and housing market for people today?
Merhi: Yes. So, looking at the current housing situation, it’s becoming increasingly complex — not for everyone, but for a high percentage of individuals — to rent on their own. It’s simply out of reach financially. We’ve seen this in our 24/7 data monitoring and internal analysis. If someone wants to live in an urban area, it’s tough. Moving to rural or suburban areas might mean lower rent, but then comes the commuting issue, especially in places where transit options like buses or trains are limited or nonexistent. Renting solo has become extremely difficult for the next generation. For many, the only real option to move out of their parents’ homes — out of basements or shared family spaces — is to choose co-living or roommate arrangements. The last time I checked, about a month ago, the global market cap for roommate living was around $250 billion. By 2027 or 2028, projections suggest it will reach $300 billion. The main reasons are high living costs, unaffordable rents, and stagnant wages. Over the next 10 to 15 years, co-living and roommate-style housing will become the new norm — the new lifestyle. There’s no way around it. This is not just in Canada or the U.S. I’ve spoken to people worldwide; the answer is the same. There’s a significant shortage of affordable housing. So, the market is moving in our direction — the wind is at our back. For individuals looking for a place through our platform, we’ve made the process so easy that we’ve tested and confirmed you can rent a place, whether inside or outside your city, within 15 to 20 minutes, and do so securely.
Because we have all the necessary security elements in place, your money is safe, and your deposit is secure as well. Improvements come from listening to individuals, and, just as importantly, individuals following our guidelines. For example, if someone wants to list a room, we ask them to upload a clear, high-quality photo. This makes people feel more comfortable, and they are more likely to trust listings that appear verified. We offer verification through a partnership with Stripe. There is a small verification fee, but it gives users a trust advantage within the app. We also offer flexible pricing tiers for listings, so people can choose options that fit their budget and life situation. The ongoing improvement of our platform is a hand-in-hand process: listening to our community, tracking advancements in technology, and implementing those developments to make the experience easier and more secure for everyone.
Jacobsen: For those who have experienced housing instability — as you have — this is a vital human aspect of the conversation. What is the feeling, emotionally, when you do not have that stable grounding in life that comes from having a place you can truly call home?
Merhi: Yes… No, no, no — it isn’t enjoyable. It’s as if you’re completely exposed. There’s no protection, no foundation. When you do not have a home, it creates a deep sense of homelessness-not just physically, but emotionally, too. When someone says, “I don’t have a home,” it is a harsh truth. It cuts into daily life. No matter what job you do — whether in construction, a restaurant, anything — at the end of the day, people want to go home and relax, even just for a few hours. But it’s not a good feeling when you don’t have that. Not at all. How can I describe it? It’s like a tiny leaf caught in a storm — the wind takes you wherever it wants. You’re not grounded. You don’t have a place to say, “I belong here.” Yes, it’s sad. But that’s the reality, and I’m just saying it. That’s how it feels.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Kal.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
From Refugee to Tech Founder: Revolutionize Safe Co-Living
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/30
Kal Merhi, founder of iROOMit, turned his lived experience of displacement and housing instability into a thriving AI-powered roommate-matching platform. With limited formal education and no government funding, Merhi bootstrapped iROOMit to address the affordability crisis in urban housing. The platform integrates ID verification, scam prevention, and secure rent transactions, growing from 1,200 to over 7,000 users monthly. With ambitious global expansion plans, Merhi envisions co-living as a long-term housing solution. His mission is not just technological but personal: to create safe, accessible spaces for those struggling to find a place to call home.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today we’re here with Kal Merhi, founder of iROOMit, an AI-powered roommate matching platform designed to make co-living safer, smarter, and more accessible. His story defies the typical tech founder narrative — he arrived in North America with only a sixth-grade education, limited English, and a history of housing insecurity. Cal rebuilt his life from the ground up, bootstrapping the development of iROOMit. The platform integrates identity verification, scam detection, background checks, lease agreements, and rent payments into a single trusted solution — all critical components when you’re looking for a safe and secure place to live. With over 5,000 new users joining each month, Cal’s mission is rooted in safety, intuition, and connection. He uses technology to empower people seeking housing stability — the kind he once lacked. Your journey to founding iROOMit is anything but typical. What’s the story behind the challenges and life experiences that led you to create this platform?
Kal Merhi: Yes, of course. Because of my upbringing, the idea for iROOMit — the concept of roommate living and co-living — was always in the back of my mind. I’ve always believed that everyone deserves a place to call home. It doesn’t matter if it’s 200 or 300 square feet — if you have a place to sleep and feel safe, that’s home. I lived through civil war and displacement in Lebanon, so I know what it means to be a refugee, even within your own country. That experience gave me a deep appreciation for having stable housing. From early on, I wanted to create something that could offer that kind of support to others — something meaningful, something global. I’ve always been entrepreneurial. I’ve only worked for someone else for about a year or two. The rest of the time, I’ve launched businesses, built them, sold them, and moved on.
The idea for iROOMit came during the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially, I worked on a platform for people to buy and rent homes without needing a real estate agent. But midway through that project, I pivoted. I realized the real need, especially with housing costs rising globally, was in affordable co-living. That’s when I launched iROOMit: a platform focused on helping people find roommates and shared rentals, using AI and innovative technology to match users based on lifestyle compatibility and safety.
We finalized the technology in 2022 and spent that year testing it in the market. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive — even more than we expected. So, we officially launched in 2023. The growth from 2022 to 2023 was exponential, and 2024 saw even more momentum. In 2025, what we’re experiencing has exceeded all our early expectations. We’ve built something the market didn’t offer but desperately needed — a safe, secure, and intuitive platform for finding housing. Yes, people need homes and want to save money, but trust is everything in today’s digital world. Scams, fraud, and misinformation are everywhere — and we set out to change that.
So, we created that safe zone for our community. When people come in looking to rent or they have a place they want to rent out to someone else, it helps them save money, create space, and offer someone else a safe and easy experience. We built that environment intentionally, and the results have been phenomenal.
Jacobsen: Now, when you turned your personal experience with housing instability into a tech platform focused on safety and smart co-living, what was some of the early feedback like? How did input during the beta phases help shape the platform to better meet the needs of people in those situations?
Merhi: Yes, that’s a good question. Initially, when we launched, we listened very carefully to users. I don’t think of them as just users — I call them community members. Even if I’ve never met them, I care deeply about them. So, we made it easy for people to contact us via email or direct message. They gave us feedback on what needed improvement and what they found challenging. The number one issue — and I keep repeating this — is scams. People would connect with others and later discover the listings were fake or unverified. So, together with my business partner David, our CTO, we built an AI system designed to detect and remove scams and unverified listings. We wanted people to feel safe and secure when connecting with others. We focused heavily on that from the very start because we couldn’t scale without safety. If users lose trust in our platform, the whole model collapses. That’s something we noticed with other platforms — they have many scam complaints. You can read the reviews, send emails, and speak with people who’ve had bad experiences. We didn’t want to make that mistake. So, we tackled the problem right at the beginning — not after 100,000 or 200,000 listings. We grew the platform with safety built into its core. As we expand, we’re constantly evolving and improving. The feedback we get is excellent. On the Google Play Store and Apple App Store, our app is rated 4.6. I think that’s solid. Sure, there’s some criticism, but the positive outweighs the negative. Overall, the impact of our technology has been phenomenal.
Jacobsen: Now you’re at 5,000 new users every month. How has that growth trajectory developed over time? Looking back six months or a year, what were your monthly active user additions? And based on that trend, what does the projection look like for the year ahead?
Merhi: Sure, yes. I’ll start with 2022 — our trial year, so I won’t count that. I’ll begin with when people started paying for monthly, weekly, 60-day, and 90-day subscriptions. In 2023, we were getting around 1,200 to 1,300 new users monthly. In 2024, we doubled that.
As I speak with you, we’re hitting 6,000 to 7,000 new users per month. That’s a growth rate of approximately 200% to 300% year-over-year. In 2025, we’re experiencing around a 20% increase month-over-month compared to last year. The growth is exponential, and there is demand. We’re expanding our reach across North America and into the UK. For example, we’re now entering smaller towns and cities, not just focusing on major metropolitan areas. There’s a significant need there, too. From 2023 to 2024, our growth was about 200%, and in 2025, we anticipate hitting 300%.
By the end of 2026 or early 2027, we’ll be reaching 20,000 new users per month. I’ve developed a three-year expansion plan covering 2025, 2026, and 2027. By the end of 2027, we will be fully launched in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. We’re launching in Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, and Dubai in the UAE this spring. By the end of summer or early fall, we expect to enter Western Europe. I aim to reach 100,000 monthly users by the end of 2026 or early 2027.
Jacobsen: Congratulations on those numbers and projections. Now, where is there room for improvement? In a realistic sense — not just theoretical ideals — what next steps or provisions would make the application more robust? And what does this rapid growth say about the rental and housing market for people today?
Merhi: Yes. So, looking at the current housing situation, it’s becoming increasingly complex — not for everyone, but for a high percentage of individuals — to rent on their own. It’s simply out of reach financially. We’ve seen this in our 24/7 data monitoring and internal analysis. If someone wants to live in an urban area, it’s tough. Moving to rural or suburban areas might mean lower rent, but then comes the commuting issue, especially in places where transit options like buses or trains are limited or nonexistent. Renting solo has become extremely difficult for the next generation. For many, the only real option to move out of their parents’ homes — out of basements or shared family spaces — is to choose co-living or roommate arrangements. The last time I checked, about a month ago, the global market cap for roommate living was around $250 billion. By 2027 or 2028, projections suggest it will reach $300 billion. The main reasons are high living costs, unaffordable rents, and stagnant wages. Over the next 10 to 15 years, co-living and roommate-style housing will become the new norm — the new lifestyle. There’s no way around it. This is not just in Canada or the U.S. I’ve spoken to people worldwide; the answer is the same. There’s a significant shortage of affordable housing. So, the market is moving in our direction — the wind is at our back. For individuals looking for a place through our platform, we’ve made the process so easy that we’ve tested and confirmed you can rent a place, whether inside or outside your city, within 15 to 20 minutes, and do so securely.
Because we have all the necessary security elements in place, your money is safe, and your deposit is secure as well. Improvements come from listening to individuals, and, just as importantly, individuals following our guidelines. For example, if someone wants to list a room, we ask them to upload a clear, high-quality photo. This makes people feel more comfortable, and they are more likely to trust listings that appear verified. We offer verification through a partnership with Stripe. There is a small verification fee, but it gives users a trust advantage within the app. We also offer flexible pricing tiers for listings, so people can choose options that fit their budget and life situation. The ongoing improvement of our platform is a hand-in-hand process: listening to our community, tracking advancements in technology, and implementing those developments to make the experience easier and more secure for everyone.
Jacobsen: For those who have experienced housing instability — as you have — this is a vital human aspect of the conversation. What is the feeling, emotionally, when you do not have that stable grounding in life that comes from having a place you can truly call home?
Merhi: Yes… No, no, no — it isn’t enjoyable. It’s as if you’re completely exposed. There’s no protection, no foundation. When you do not have a home, it creates a deep sense of homelessness-not just physically, but emotionally, too. When someone says, “I don’t have a home,” it is a harsh truth. It cuts into daily life. No matter what job you do — whether in construction, a restaurant, anything — at the end of the day, people want to go home and relax, even just for a few hours. But it’s not a good feeling when you don’t have that. Not at all. How can I describe it? It’s like a tiny leaf caught in a storm — the wind takes you wherever it wants. You’re not grounded. You don’t have a place to say, “I belong here.” Yes, it’s sad. But that’s the reality, and I’m just saying it. That’s how it feels.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Kal.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
From Refugee to Tech Founder: Revolutionize Safe Co-Living
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/30
Kal Merhi, founder of iROOMit, turned his lived experience of displacement and housing instability into a thriving AI-powered roommate-matching platform. With limited formal education and no government funding, Merhi bootstrapped iROOMit to address the affordability crisis in urban housing. The platform integrates ID verification, scam prevention, and secure rent transactions, growing from 1,200 to over 7,000 users monthly. With ambitious global expansion plans, Merhi envisions co-living as a long-term housing solution. His mission is not just technological but personal: to create safe, accessible spaces for those struggling to find a place to call home.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today we’re here with Kal Merhi, founder of iROOMit, an AI-powered roommate matching platform designed to make co-living safer, smarter, and more accessible. His story defies the typical tech founder narrative — he arrived in North America with only a sixth-grade education, limited English, and a history of housing insecurity. Cal rebuilt his life from the ground up, bootstrapping the development of iROOMit. The platform integrates identity verification, scam detection, background checks, lease agreements, and rent payments into a single trusted solution — all critical components when you’re looking for a safe and secure place to live. With over 5,000 new users joining each month, Cal’s mission is rooted in safety, intuition, and connection. He uses technology to empower people seeking housing stability — the kind he once lacked. Your journey to founding iROOMit is anything but typical. What’s the story behind the challenges and life experiences that led you to create this platform?
Kal Merhi: Yes, of course. Because of my upbringing, the idea for iROOMit — the concept of roommate living and co-living — was always in the back of my mind. I’ve always believed that everyone deserves a place to call home. It doesn’t matter if it’s 200 or 300 square feet — if you have a place to sleep and feel safe, that’s home. I lived through civil war and displacement in Lebanon, so I know what it means to be a refugee, even within your own country. That experience gave me a deep appreciation for having stable housing. From early on, I wanted to create something that could offer that kind of support to others — something meaningful, something global. I’ve always been entrepreneurial. I’ve only worked for someone else for about a year or two. The rest of the time, I’ve launched businesses, built them, sold them, and moved on.
The idea for iROOMit came during the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially, I worked on a platform for people to buy and rent homes without needing a real estate agent. But midway through that project, I pivoted. I realized the real need, especially with housing costs rising globally, was in affordable co-living. That’s when I launched iROOMit: a platform focused on helping people find roommates and shared rentals, using AI and innovative technology to match users based on lifestyle compatibility and safety.
We finalized the technology in 2022 and spent that year testing it in the market. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive — even more than we expected. So, we officially launched in 2023. The growth from 2022 to 2023 was exponential, and 2024 saw even more momentum. In 2025, what we’re experiencing has exceeded all our early expectations. We’ve built something the market didn’t offer but desperately needed — a safe, secure, and intuitive platform for finding housing. Yes, people need homes and want to save money, but trust is everything in today’s digital world. Scams, fraud, and misinformation are everywhere — and we set out to change that.
So, we created that safe zone for our community. When people come in looking to rent or they have a place they want to rent out to someone else, it helps them save money, create space, and offer someone else a safe and easy experience. We built that environment intentionally, and the results have been phenomenal.
Jacobsen: Now, when you turned your personal experience with housing instability into a tech platform focused on safety and smart co-living, what was some of the early feedback like? How did input during the beta phases help shape the platform to better meet the needs of people in those situations?
Merhi: Yes, that’s a good question. Initially, when we launched, we listened very carefully to users. I don’t think of them as just users — I call them community members. Even if I’ve never met them, I care deeply about them. So, we made it easy for people to contact us via email or direct message. They gave us feedback on what needed improvement and what they found challenging. The number one issue — and I keep repeating this — is scams. People would connect with others and later discover the listings were fake or unverified. So, together with my business partner David, our CTO, we built an AI system designed to detect and remove scams and unverified listings. We wanted people to feel safe and secure when connecting with others. We focused heavily on that from the very start because we couldn’t scale without safety. If users lose trust in our platform, the whole model collapses. That’s something we noticed with other platforms — they have many scam complaints. You can read the reviews, send emails, and speak with people who’ve had bad experiences. We didn’t want to make that mistake. So, we tackled the problem right at the beginning — not after 100,000 or 200,000 listings. We grew the platform with safety built into its core. As we expand, we’re constantly evolving and improving. The feedback we get is excellent. On the Google Play Store and Apple App Store, our app is rated 4.6. I think that’s solid. Sure, there’s some criticism, but the positive outweighs the negative. Overall, the impact of our technology has been phenomenal.
Jacobsen: Now you’re at 5,000 new users every month. How has that growth trajectory developed over time? Looking back six months or a year, what were your monthly active user additions? And based on that trend, what does the projection look like for the year ahead?
Merhi: Sure, yes. I’ll start with 2022 — our trial year, so I won’t count that. I’ll begin with when people started paying for monthly, weekly, 60-day, and 90-day subscriptions. In 2023, we were getting around 1,200 to 1,300 new users monthly. In 2024, we doubled that.
As I speak with you, we’re hitting 6,000 to 7,000 new users per month. That’s a growth rate of approximately 200% to 300% year-over-year. In 2025, we’re experiencing around a 20% increase month-over-month compared to last year. The growth is exponential, and there is demand. We’re expanding our reach across North America and into the UK. For example, we’re now entering smaller towns and cities, not just focusing on major metropolitan areas. There’s a significant need there, too. From 2023 to 2024, our growth was about 200%, and in 2025, we anticipate hitting 300%.
By the end of 2026 or early 2027, we’ll be reaching 20,000 new users per month. I’ve developed a three-year expansion plan covering 2025, 2026, and 2027. By the end of 2027, we will be fully launched in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. We’re launching in Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, and Dubai in the UAE this spring. By the end of summer or early fall, we expect to enter Western Europe. I aim to reach 100,000 monthly users by the end of 2026 or early 2027.
Jacobsen: Congratulations on those numbers and projections. Now, where is there room for improvement? In a realistic sense — not just theoretical ideals — what next steps or provisions would make the application more robust? And what does this rapid growth say about the rental and housing market for people today?
Merhi: Yes. So, looking at the current housing situation, it’s becoming increasingly complex — not for everyone, but for a high percentage of individuals — to rent on their own. It’s simply out of reach financially. We’ve seen this in our 24/7 data monitoring and internal analysis. If someone wants to live in an urban area, it’s tough. Moving to rural or suburban areas might mean lower rent, but then comes the commuting issue, especially in places where transit options like buses or trains are limited or nonexistent. Renting solo has become extremely difficult for the next generation. For many, the only real option to move out of their parents’ homes — out of basements or shared family spaces — is to choose co-living or roommate arrangements. The last time I checked, about a month ago, the global market cap for roommate living was around $250 billion. By 2027 or 2028, projections suggest it will reach $300 billion. The main reasons are high living costs, unaffordable rents, and stagnant wages. Over the next 10 to 15 years, co-living and roommate-style housing will become the new norm — the new lifestyle. There’s no way around it. This is not just in Canada or the U.S. I’ve spoken to people worldwide; the answer is the same. There’s a significant shortage of affordable housing. So, the market is moving in our direction — the wind is at our back. For individuals looking for a place through our platform, we’ve made the process so easy that we’ve tested and confirmed you can rent a place, whether inside or outside your city, within 15 to 20 minutes, and do so securely.
Because we have all the necessary security elements in place, your money is safe, and your deposit is secure as well. Improvements come from listening to individuals, and, just as importantly, individuals following our guidelines. For example, if someone wants to list a room, we ask them to upload a clear, high-quality photo. This makes people feel more comfortable, and they are more likely to trust listings that appear verified. We offer verification through a partnership with Stripe. There is a small verification fee, but it gives users a trust advantage within the app. We also offer flexible pricing tiers for listings, so people can choose options that fit their budget and life situation. The ongoing improvement of our platform is a hand-in-hand process: listening to our community, tracking advancements in technology, and implementing those developments to make the experience easier and more secure for everyone.
Jacobsen: For those who have experienced housing instability — as you have — this is a vital human aspect of the conversation. What is the feeling, emotionally, when you do not have that stable grounding in life that comes from having a place you can truly call home?
Merhi: Yes… No, no, no — it isn’t enjoyable. It’s as if you’re completely exposed. There’s no protection, no foundation. When you do not have a home, it creates a deep sense of homelessness-not just physically, but emotionally, too. When someone says, “I don’t have a home,” it is a harsh truth. It cuts into daily life. No matter what job you do — whether in construction, a restaurant, anything — at the end of the day, people want to go home and relax, even just for a few hours. But it’s not a good feeling when you don’t have that. Not at all. How can I describe it? It’s like a tiny leaf caught in a storm — the wind takes you wherever it wants. You’re not grounded. You don’t have a place to say, “I belong here.” Yes, it’s sad. But that’s the reality, and I’m just saying it. That’s how it feels.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Kal.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
From Refugee to Tech Founder: Revolutionize Safe Co-Living
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/30
Kal Merhi, founder of iROOMit, turned his lived experience of displacement and housing instability into a thriving AI-powered roommate-matching platform. With limited formal education and no government funding, Merhi bootstrapped iROOMit to address the affordability crisis in urban housing. The platform integrates ID verification, scam prevention, and secure rent transactions, growing from 1,200 to over 7,000 users monthly. With ambitious global expansion plans, Merhi envisions co-living as a long-term housing solution. His mission is not just technological but personal: to create safe, accessible spaces for those struggling to find a place to call home.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today we’re here with Kal Merhi, founder of iROOMit, an AI-powered roommate matching platform designed to make co-living safer, smarter, and more accessible. His story defies the typical tech founder narrative — he arrived in North America with only a sixth-grade education, limited English, and a history of housing insecurity. Cal rebuilt his life from the ground up, bootstrapping the development of iROOMit. The platform integrates identity verification, scam detection, background checks, lease agreements, and rent payments into a single trusted solution — all critical components when you’re looking for a safe and secure place to live. With over 5,000 new users joining each month, Cal’s mission is rooted in safety, intuition, and connection. He uses technology to empower people seeking housing stability — the kind he once lacked. Your journey to founding iROOMit is anything but typical. What’s the story behind the challenges and life experiences that led you to create this platform?
Kal Merhi: Yes, of course. Because of my upbringing, the idea for iROOMit — the concept of roommate living and co-living — was always in the back of my mind. I’ve always believed that everyone deserves a place to call home. It doesn’t matter if it’s 200 or 300 square feet — if you have a place to sleep and feel safe, that’s home. I lived through civil war and displacement in Lebanon, so I know what it means to be a refugee, even within your own country. That experience gave me a deep appreciation for having stable housing. From early on, I wanted to create something that could offer that kind of support to others — something meaningful, something global. I’ve always been entrepreneurial. I’ve only worked for someone else for about a year or two. The rest of the time, I’ve launched businesses, built them, sold them, and moved on.
The idea for iROOMit came during the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially, I worked on a platform for people to buy and rent homes without needing a real estate agent. But midway through that project, I pivoted. I realized the real need, especially with housing costs rising globally, was in affordable co-living. That’s when I launched iROOMit: a platform focused on helping people find roommates and shared rentals, using AI and innovative technology to match users based on lifestyle compatibility and safety.
We finalized the technology in 2022 and spent that year testing it in the market. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive — even more than we expected. So, we officially launched in 2023. The growth from 2022 to 2023 was exponential, and 2024 saw even more momentum. In 2025, what we’re experiencing has exceeded all our early expectations. We’ve built something the market didn’t offer but desperately needed — a safe, secure, and intuitive platform for finding housing. Yes, people need homes and want to save money, but trust is everything in today’s digital world. Scams, fraud, and misinformation are everywhere — and we set out to change that.
So, we created that safe zone for our community. When people come in looking to rent or they have a place they want to rent out to someone else, it helps them save money, create space, and offer someone else a safe and easy experience. We built that environment intentionally, and the results have been phenomenal.
Jacobsen: Now, when you turned your personal experience with housing instability into a tech platform focused on safety and smart co-living, what was some of the early feedback like? How did input during the beta phases help shape the platform to better meet the needs of people in those situations?
Merhi: Yes, that’s a good question. Initially, when we launched, we listened very carefully to users. I don’t think of them as just users — I call them community members. Even if I’ve never met them, I care deeply about them. So, we made it easy for people to contact us via email or direct message. They gave us feedback on what needed improvement and what they found challenging. The number one issue — and I keep repeating this — is scams. People would connect with others and later discover the listings were fake or unverified. So, together with my business partner David, our CTO, we built an AI system designed to detect and remove scams and unverified listings. We wanted people to feel safe and secure when connecting with others. We focused heavily on that from the very start because we couldn’t scale without safety. If users lose trust in our platform, the whole model collapses. That’s something we noticed with other platforms — they have many scam complaints. You can read the reviews, send emails, and speak with people who’ve had bad experiences. We didn’t want to make that mistake. So, we tackled the problem right at the beginning — not after 100,000 or 200,000 listings. We grew the platform with safety built into its core. As we expand, we’re constantly evolving and improving. The feedback we get is excellent. On the Google Play Store and Apple App Store, our app is rated 4.6. I think that’s solid. Sure, there’s some criticism, but the positive outweighs the negative. Overall, the impact of our technology has been phenomenal.
Jacobsen: Now you’re at 5,000 new users every month. How has that growth trajectory developed over time? Looking back six months or a year, what were your monthly active user additions? And based on that trend, what does the projection look like for the year ahead?
Merhi: Sure, yes. I’ll start with 2022 — our trial year, so I won’t count that. I’ll begin with when people started paying for monthly, weekly, 60-day, and 90-day subscriptions. In 2023, we were getting around 1,200 to 1,300 new users monthly. In 2024, we doubled that.
As I speak with you, we’re hitting 6,000 to 7,000 new users per month. That’s a growth rate of approximately 200% to 300% year-over-year. In 2025, we’re experiencing around a 20% increase month-over-month compared to last year. The growth is exponential, and there is demand. We’re expanding our reach across North America and into the UK. For example, we’re now entering smaller towns and cities, not just focusing on major metropolitan areas. There’s a significant need there, too. From 2023 to 2024, our growth was about 200%, and in 2025, we anticipate hitting 300%.
By the end of 2026 or early 2027, we’ll be reaching 20,000 new users per month. I’ve developed a three-year expansion plan covering 2025, 2026, and 2027. By the end of 2027, we will be fully launched in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. We’re launching in Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, and Dubai in the UAE this spring. By the end of summer or early fall, we expect to enter Western Europe. I aim to reach 100,000 monthly users by the end of 2026 or early 2027.
Jacobsen: Congratulations on those numbers and projections. Now, where is there room for improvement? In a realistic sense — not just theoretical ideals — what next steps or provisions would make the application more robust? And what does this rapid growth say about the rental and housing market for people today?
Merhi: Yes. So, looking at the current housing situation, it’s becoming increasingly complex — not for everyone, but for a high percentage of individuals — to rent on their own. It’s simply out of reach financially. We’ve seen this in our 24/7 data monitoring and internal analysis. If someone wants to live in an urban area, it’s tough. Moving to rural or suburban areas might mean lower rent, but then comes the commuting issue, especially in places where transit options like buses or trains are limited or nonexistent. Renting solo has become extremely difficult for the next generation. For many, the only real option to move out of their parents’ homes — out of basements or shared family spaces — is to choose co-living or roommate arrangements. The last time I checked, about a month ago, the global market cap for roommate living was around $250 billion. By 2027 or 2028, projections suggest it will reach $300 billion. The main reasons are high living costs, unaffordable rents, and stagnant wages. Over the next 10 to 15 years, co-living and roommate-style housing will become the new norm — the new lifestyle. There’s no way around it. This is not just in Canada or the U.S. I’ve spoken to people worldwide; the answer is the same. There’s a significant shortage of affordable housing. So, the market is moving in our direction — the wind is at our back. For individuals looking for a place through our platform, we’ve made the process so easy that we’ve tested and confirmed you can rent a place, whether inside or outside your city, within 15 to 20 minutes, and do so securely.
Because we have all the necessary security elements in place, your money is safe, and your deposit is secure as well. Improvements come from listening to individuals, and, just as importantly, individuals following our guidelines. For example, if someone wants to list a room, we ask them to upload a clear, high-quality photo. This makes people feel more comfortable, and they are more likely to trust listings that appear verified. We offer verification through a partnership with Stripe. There is a small verification fee, but it gives users a trust advantage within the app. We also offer flexible pricing tiers for listings, so people can choose options that fit their budget and life situation. The ongoing improvement of our platform is a hand-in-hand process: listening to our community, tracking advancements in technology, and implementing those developments to make the experience easier and more secure for everyone.
Jacobsen: For those who have experienced housing instability — as you have — this is a vital human aspect of the conversation. What is the feeling, emotionally, when you do not have that stable grounding in life that comes from having a place you can truly call home?
Merhi: Yes… No, no, no — it isn’t enjoyable. It’s as if you’re completely exposed. There’s no protection, no foundation. When you do not have a home, it creates a deep sense of homelessness-not just physically, but emotionally, too. When someone says, “I don’t have a home,” it is a harsh truth. It cuts into daily life. No matter what job you do — whether in construction, a restaurant, anything — at the end of the day, people want to go home and relax, even just for a few hours. But it’s not a good feeling when you don’t have that. Not at all. How can I describe it? It’s like a tiny leaf caught in a storm — the wind takes you wherever it wants. You’re not grounded. You don’t have a place to say, “I belong here.” Yes, it’s sad. But that’s the reality, and I’m just saying it. That’s how it feels.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Kal.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
NACDD and HALT Are Revolutionizing Chronic Disease Prevention
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/28
John W. Robitscher, CEO of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), discusses the organization’s mission to prevent chronic disease through partnerships, community programs, and innovative tools like the HALT (Health And Lifestyle Training) app. Working closely with the CDC, NACDD helps implement evidence-based strategies nationwide, promoting healthy lifestyles and reducing risk factors such as poor diet and inactivity. Robitscher emphasizes the need for cross-sector collaboration, culturally tailored interventions, and empowering individuals through education and technology. Despite challenges, he believes widespread lifestyle change is possible with commitment, proper tools, and support from both public and private sectors.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are with John W. Robitscher. He serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), providing strategic leadership to advance its chronic disease prevention and health promotion mission.
Since joining NACDD in February 2005, he has overseen the acquisition of over $450 million in funding for chronic disease prevention and health programs across all 50 states and U.S. territories. With over thirty years of experience managing nonprofit organizations, Robitscher has expanded NACDD’s reach, supporting a network of over 7,000 public health professionals worldwide.
So, how is NACDD advancing early detection methods for chronic diseases like diabetes, and what emerging technologies are helping support these efforts?
John Robitscher: We’re proud to partner strongly with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), especially with the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The CDC has a long history of developing preventive medicine guidelines, going back fifty, sixty, even eighty years.
It works because the NIH (National Institutes of Health) does the medical research, and then the CDC implements that research through practical programming. They rely on national partners like NACDD to help bring those evidence-based programs into communities.
We support state and territorial health departments by directly interacting with local communities in every U.S. state and territory. Thus, we act as a bridge, helping push these proven programs to where they are needed.
Some programs include diabetes prevention, heart disease and stroke prevention, hypertension prevention, and more. One exciting innovation we’ve developed is a lifestyle management course called HALT, which stands for Health And Lifestyle Training. We can discuss it later, but it is a cutting-edge digital mobile application tool that helps people manage and treat their chronic conditions.
Jacobsen: What are some good examples of cross-sector partnerships? I was interviewing a medical professional recently, and we discussed how no single discipline can effectively tackle something as complex as cancer. Cross-disciplinary collaboration is key. Is it similar in chronic disease prevention?
Robitscher: Absolutely. What we know is that the significant risk factors for chronic diseases like heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, early-onset arthritis, and even dementia—those risk factors are often the same.
They include physical inactivity, poor nutrition, unhealthy body weight, and tobacco use. So promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and smoking cessation addresses multiple chronic conditions simultaneously.
The CDC runs a program called Active People, Healthy Nation, which aims to get 27 million Americans to exercise at least 150 minutes weekly by 2027. That’s a realistic and vital goal.
We work across sectors—education, transportation, housing, private industry, and government—to support better access to physical activity, promote healthier diets (including fresh fruits and vegetables), and reduce tobacco use. All of these are essential components in reducing the leading causes of death and disability in the U.S.
Jacobsen: What are the biggest challenges in chronic disease prevention over the next year?
Robitscher: The biggest challenge is that people do not want to exercise. They do not want to eat healthily. People want to eat what they want, when they want, and we live in a society that celebrates individual choice. We support that independence, of course, but we must also be realistic.
You have to focus on it. Losing weight is hard in this country and anywhere. There is so much delicious food on the market that is not good for you.
Our Health and Lifestyle Training (HALT) program is so important. It is evidence-based and is currently being implemented in 17 states. I have used it myself for a year. I lost 30 pounds and have managed to keep most of the weight off. But it is a challenge. I have to work out regularly to maintain it.
Still, if we can give people the tools, resources, and education—if they can track their movement and food intake—then we can deliver real impact. It is about improving health outcomes and quality of life.
The goal is not just to live longer. Yes, longevity matters, but so does the quality of those years. People in their 70s and 80s who use wheelchairs or live in nursing homes because of preventable falls. That is not what most people want.
We want people to remain physically and mentally active as they age. Achieving that takes work from all of us. But it is possible, and we are committed to helping people lead longer, healthier, more balanced lives.
Jacobsen: How does NACDD utilize its data to inform programs and measure the impact of chronic disease prevention? And I do not necessarily mean something as coarse as “I weighed X. Hooray.”
Robitscher: The CDC—and we—use particular metrics. In the past, the CDC has developed stringent guidelines and deliverables for grantees to meet. These are not just about weight loss. They include measurable reductions in chronic disease rates, improved access to clean water and healthy food, and better medical services and devices.
There are many indicators: healthy weight, nutrition, physical activity, smoking cessation, and even broader community-level measures. When combined, these contribute to a healthier nation.
That is the foundation on which we begin. We do not rely on just one metric. It is about understanding how these components work together to improve public health outcomes.
So a lot of what we do involves looking at all the data. We review scientific research, of course, but we also consider anecdotal data, like information from Google or Amazon about consumer behaviours, purchasing trends, and search patterns. We also evaluate environmental factors like air quality, food quality, and the location of recent natural disasters and how they impact specific populations.
We use all of that to develop a plan tailored to the community. There’s no point in launching a program that the target population will not follow. Programs must be culturally appropriate and aligned with the specific needs and values of the communities we serve.
We take this very seriously. We co-design programs with input from patients, community leaders, and public health professionals. One of our key roles at NACDD is being a convener—we bring together people from across sectors within a community, facilitate discussion, and collaboratively decide what will work locally.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Populations vary, with different cultures, dialects, and lived experiences. For example, our HALT program is available in English and Spanish and is culturally adapted for Native American communities in the Great Plains region.
We constantly strive to develop solutions that genuinely meet the needs of each community. That is not easy. You cannot just release a shiny new app or generic program and expect everyone to engage. You have to meet people where they are. That is our philosophy.
Jacobsen: What are the primary objectives of the Solving Health Care Challenges webinar? This will likely come out after the webinar, but could you repeat the key takeaways?
Robitscher: The webinar’s core message is to reject the idea that one program can fit everyone. That doesn’t work. We must meet people where they are.
We have to address populations at the macro and micro levels. On a population level, yes, we design programs to address broad needs. But ultimately, chronic disease prevention and management come down to individual decisions. A person must choose the life they want to live and commit to making meaningful changes. That is how we help them live longer, better lives.
Jacobsen: Are you engaged with policymakers or legislators through NACDD to support these types of chronic disease prevention and management programs?
Robitscher: We do not lobby, per se.
We meet with policymakers primarily to educate them on the opportunities available within their states. Often, legislators do not know what programs are working well in their jurisdiction, or even what initiatives are currently active.
At NACDD, we maintain a database called State Success Stories, where we showcase programs nationwide that effectively prevent chronic diseases and promote population health. Much of our work is leveraged. The federal government often provides seed funding, but private industry and businesses frequently match or exceed that investment.
One great example is our Walkability Action Institute. I just returned from Anchorage, Alaska, where we conducted a walk audit with the community to assess and improve walkability. These efforts aim to make communities more livable, ensure access to healthy food, and create safe environments for walking and biking.
That program is a strong public-private collaboration. For every federal dollar invested in the walkability program, the private sector contributes approximately $177. Through this initiative, we have brought millions of dollars to local communities. Private businesses have built walking paths, biking trails, and community fitness infrastructure. They have brought people together around the goal of healthier living.
That is what NACDD does—we serve as a conduit, bringing diverse stakeholders together.
Jacobsen: How do you transform engagement into chronic disease management? You can deliver excellent resources, run webinars, build programs, and raise $450 million—but at scale, the population-level impact depends on people becoming invested enough to take action. How do you get them actually to make that change?
Robitscher: I am glad you asked that. It is a great question, and it ties directly into our HALT application. This is a digital tool that can be found on every American’s smartphone.
We are currently proposing it to the MAHA Group because lifestyle management is something this administration is ready to prioritize. Secretary Kennedy and President Trump—regardless of party lines—are among the first national leaders in recent memory to talk openly about chronic disease prevention. We are excited to support them.
We would love to see HALT in the hands of every American. With this app, people can track their food intake, physical activity, and weight and even sync up with a blood pressure monitor. These are critical indicators of a healthy lifestyle.
We have to control our health. Again, the only way to do that is hard work. But if we give people the right tools, we can help them succeed.
It is physical. It is about being physically active daily and watching and tracking what you eat. But all of that depends on education.
We expect people to make significant lifestyle changes, but often, we do not explain why. In reality, physicians only spend about five to seven minutes with each patient. That is not enough time for meaningful behaviour change education.
So, we need a tool that empowers the person, not just the patient. You may not be a patient yet, but you can still take action to improve your life.
We believe lifestyle change management is critical—it may be the most vital initiative this country has ever embarked on. Can we help people manage their lifestyles effectively enough to live longer, happier, more fulfilling lives?
We believe we can. But it will take hard work.
People think they can download an app and just have it on their phone, which will make them healthier. It will not. The app must be paired with education, and you must commit. You have to put in the effort.
But the good news is—it is doable. I am a living example of that. I lost 30 pounds using the HALT app. I believe we can change the lives of millions of Americans and make them much better than they are today.
Jacobsen: Excellent. John, thank you for your time and expertise. It was nice to meet you.
Robitscher: Yes. You had good questions. I enjoyed it too.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
NACDD and HALT Are Revolutionizing Chronic Disease Prevention
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/28
John W. Robitscher, CEO of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), discusses the organization’s mission to prevent chronic disease through partnerships, community programs, and innovative tools like the HALT (Health And Lifestyle Training) app. Working closely with the CDC, NACDD helps implement evidence-based strategies nationwide, promoting healthy lifestyles and reducing risk factors such as poor diet and inactivity. Robitscher emphasizes the need for cross-sector collaboration, culturally tailored interventions, and empowering individuals through education and technology. Despite challenges, he believes widespread lifestyle change is possible with commitment, proper tools, and support from both public and private sectors.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are with John W. Robitscher. He serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), providing strategic leadership to advance its chronic disease prevention and health promotion mission.
Since joining NACDD in February 2005, he has overseen the acquisition of over $450 million in funding for chronic disease prevention and health programs across all 50 states and U.S. territories. With over thirty years of experience managing nonprofit organizations, Robitscher has expanded NACDD’s reach, supporting a network of over 7,000 public health professionals worldwide.
So, how is NACDD advancing early detection methods for chronic diseases like diabetes, and what emerging technologies are helping support these efforts?
John Robitscher: We’re proud to partner strongly with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), especially with the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The CDC has a long history of developing preventive medicine guidelines, going back fifty, sixty, even eighty years.
It works because the NIH (National Institutes of Health) does the medical research, and then the CDC implements that research through practical programming. They rely on national partners like NACDD to help bring those evidence-based programs into communities.
We support state and territorial health departments by directly interacting with local communities in every U.S. state and territory. Thus, we act as a bridge, helping push these proven programs to where they are needed.
Some programs include diabetes prevention, heart disease and stroke prevention, hypertension prevention, and more. One exciting innovation we’ve developed is a lifestyle management course called HALT, which stands for Health And Lifestyle Training. We can discuss it later, but it is a cutting-edge digital mobile application tool that helps people manage and treat their chronic conditions.
Jacobsen: What are some good examples of cross-sector partnerships? I was interviewing a medical professional recently, and we discussed how no single discipline can effectively tackle something as complex as cancer. Cross-disciplinary collaboration is key. Is it similar in chronic disease prevention?
Robitscher: Absolutely. What we know is that the significant risk factors for chronic diseases like heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, early-onset arthritis, and even dementia—those risk factors are often the same.
They include physical inactivity, poor nutrition, unhealthy body weight, and tobacco use. So promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and smoking cessation addresses multiple chronic conditions simultaneously.
The CDC runs a program called Active People, Healthy Nation, which aims to get 27 million Americans to exercise at least 150 minutes weekly by 2027. That’s a realistic and vital goal.
We work across sectors—education, transportation, housing, private industry, and government—to support better access to physical activity, promote healthier diets (including fresh fruits and vegetables), and reduce tobacco use. All of these are essential components in reducing the leading causes of death and disability in the U.S.
Jacobsen: What are the biggest challenges in chronic disease prevention over the next year?
Robitscher: The biggest challenge is that people do not want to exercise. They do not want to eat healthily. People want to eat what they want, when they want, and we live in a society that celebrates individual choice. We support that independence, of course, but we must also be realistic.
You have to focus on it. Losing weight is hard in this country and anywhere. There is so much delicious food on the market that is not good for you.
Our Health and Lifestyle Training (HALT) program is so important. It is evidence-based and is currently being implemented in 17 states. I have used it myself for a year. I lost 30 pounds and have managed to keep most of the weight off. But it is a challenge. I have to work out regularly to maintain it.
Still, if we can give people the tools, resources, and education—if they can track their movement and food intake—then we can deliver real impact. It is about improving health outcomes and quality of life.
The goal is not just to live longer. Yes, longevity matters, but so does the quality of those years. People in their 70s and 80s who use wheelchairs or live in nursing homes because of preventable falls. That is not what most people want.
We want people to remain physically and mentally active as they age. Achieving that takes work from all of us. But it is possible, and we are committed to helping people lead longer, healthier, more balanced lives.
Jacobsen: How does NACDD utilize its data to inform programs and measure the impact of chronic disease prevention? And I do not necessarily mean something as coarse as “I weighed X. Hooray.”
Robitscher: The CDC—and we—use particular metrics. In the past, the CDC has developed stringent guidelines and deliverables for grantees to meet. These are not just about weight loss. They include measurable reductions in chronic disease rates, improved access to clean water and healthy food, and better medical services and devices.
There are many indicators: healthy weight, nutrition, physical activity, smoking cessation, and even broader community-level measures. When combined, these contribute to a healthier nation.
That is the foundation on which we begin. We do not rely on just one metric. It is about understanding how these components work together to improve public health outcomes.
So a lot of what we do involves looking at all the data. We review scientific research, of course, but we also consider anecdotal data, like information from Google or Amazon about consumer behaviours, purchasing trends, and search patterns. We also evaluate environmental factors like air quality, food quality, and the location of recent natural disasters and how they impact specific populations.
We use all of that to develop a plan tailored to the community. There’s no point in launching a program that the target population will not follow. Programs must be culturally appropriate and aligned with the specific needs and values of the communities we serve.
We take this very seriously. We co-design programs with input from patients, community leaders, and public health professionals. One of our key roles at NACDD is being a convener—we bring together people from across sectors within a community, facilitate discussion, and collaboratively decide what will work locally.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Populations vary, with different cultures, dialects, and lived experiences. For example, our HALT program is available in English and Spanish and is culturally adapted for Native American communities in the Great Plains region.
We constantly strive to develop solutions that genuinely meet the needs of each community. That is not easy. You cannot just release a shiny new app or generic program and expect everyone to engage. You have to meet people where they are. That is our philosophy.
Jacobsen: What are the primary objectives of the Solving Health Care Challenges webinar? This will likely come out after the webinar, but could you repeat the key takeaways?
Robitscher: The webinar’s core message is to reject the idea that one program can fit everyone. That doesn’t work. We must meet people where they are.
We have to address populations at the macro and micro levels. On a population level, yes, we design programs to address broad needs. But ultimately, chronic disease prevention and management come down to individual decisions. A person must choose the life they want to live and commit to making meaningful changes. That is how we help them live longer, better lives.
Jacobsen: Are you engaged with policymakers or legislators through NACDD to support these types of chronic disease prevention and management programs?
Robitscher: We do not lobby, per se.
We meet with policymakers primarily to educate them on the opportunities available within their states. Often, legislators do not know what programs are working well in their jurisdiction, or even what initiatives are currently active.
At NACDD, we maintain a database called State Success Stories, where we showcase programs nationwide that effectively prevent chronic diseases and promote population health. Much of our work is leveraged. The federal government often provides seed funding, but private industry and businesses frequently match or exceed that investment.
One great example is our Walkability Action Institute. I just returned from Anchorage, Alaska, where we conducted a walk audit with the community to assess and improve walkability. These efforts aim to make communities more livable, ensure access to healthy food, and create safe environments for walking and biking.
That program is a strong public-private collaboration. For every federal dollar invested in the walkability program, the private sector contributes approximately $177. Through this initiative, we have brought millions of dollars to local communities. Private businesses have built walking paths, biking trails, and community fitness infrastructure. They have brought people together around the goal of healthier living.
That is what NACDD does—we serve as a conduit, bringing diverse stakeholders together.
Jacobsen: How do you transform engagement into chronic disease management? You can deliver excellent resources, run webinars, build programs, and raise $450 million—but at scale, the population-level impact depends on people becoming invested enough to take action. How do you get them actually to make that change?
Robitscher: I am glad you asked that. It is a great question, and it ties directly into our HALT application. This is a digital tool that can be found on every American’s smartphone.
We are currently proposing it to the MAHA Group because lifestyle management is something this administration is ready to prioritize. Secretary Kennedy and President Trump—regardless of party lines—are among the first national leaders in recent memory to talk openly about chronic disease prevention. We are excited to support them.
We would love to see HALT in the hands of every American. With this app, people can track their food intake, physical activity, and weight and even sync up with a blood pressure monitor. These are critical indicators of a healthy lifestyle.
We have to control our health. Again, the only way to do that is hard work. But if we give people the right tools, we can help them succeed.
It is physical. It is about being physically active daily and watching and tracking what you eat. But all of that depends on education.
We expect people to make significant lifestyle changes, but often, we do not explain why. In reality, physicians only spend about five to seven minutes with each patient. That is not enough time for meaningful behaviour change education.
So, we need a tool that empowers the person, not just the patient. You may not be a patient yet, but you can still take action to improve your life.
We believe lifestyle change management is critical—it may be the most vital initiative this country has ever embarked on. Can we help people manage their lifestyles effectively enough to live longer, happier, more fulfilling lives?
We believe we can. But it will take hard work.
People think they can download an app and just have it on their phone, which will make them healthier. It will not. The app must be paired with education, and you must commit. You have to put in the effort.
But the good news is—it is doable. I am a living example of that. I lost 30 pounds using the HALT app. I believe we can change the lives of millions of Americans and make them much better than they are today.
Jacobsen: Excellent. John, thank you for your time and expertise. It was nice to meet you.
Robitscher: Yes. You had good questions. I enjoyed it too.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
NACDD and HALT Are Revolutionizing Chronic Disease Prevention
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/28
John W. Robitscher, CEO of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), discusses the organization’s mission to prevent chronic disease through partnerships, community programs, and innovative tools like the HALT (Health And Lifestyle Training) app. Working closely with the CDC, NACDD helps implement evidence-based strategies nationwide, promoting healthy lifestyles and reducing risk factors such as poor diet and inactivity. Robitscher emphasizes the need for cross-sector collaboration, culturally tailored interventions, and empowering individuals through education and technology. Despite challenges, he believes widespread lifestyle change is possible with commitment, proper tools, and support from both public and private sectors.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are with John W. Robitscher. He serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), providing strategic leadership to advance its chronic disease prevention and health promotion mission.
Since joining NACDD in February 2005, he has overseen the acquisition of over $450 million in funding for chronic disease prevention and health programs across all 50 states and U.S. territories. With over thirty years of experience managing nonprofit organizations, Robitscher has expanded NACDD’s reach, supporting a network of over 7,000 public health professionals worldwide.
So, how is NACDD advancing early detection methods for chronic diseases like diabetes, and what emerging technologies are helping support these efforts?
John Robitscher: We’re proud to partner strongly with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), especially with the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The CDC has a long history of developing preventive medicine guidelines, going back fifty, sixty, even eighty years.
It works because the NIH (National Institutes of Health) does the medical research, and then the CDC implements that research through practical programming. They rely on national partners like NACDD to help bring those evidence-based programs into communities.
We support state and territorial health departments by directly interacting with local communities in every U.S. state and territory. Thus, we act as a bridge, helping push these proven programs to where they are needed.
Some programs include diabetes prevention, heart disease and stroke prevention, hypertension prevention, and more. One exciting innovation we’ve developed is a lifestyle management course called HALT, which stands for Health And Lifestyle Training. We can discuss it later, but it is a cutting-edge digital mobile application tool that helps people manage and treat their chronic conditions.
Jacobsen: What are some good examples of cross-sector partnerships? I was interviewing a medical professional recently, and we discussed how no single discipline can effectively tackle something as complex as cancer. Cross-disciplinary collaboration is key. Is it similar in chronic disease prevention?
Robitscher: Absolutely. What we know is that the significant risk factors for chronic diseases like heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, early-onset arthritis, and even dementia—those risk factors are often the same.
They include physical inactivity, poor nutrition, unhealthy body weight, and tobacco use. So promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and smoking cessation addresses multiple chronic conditions simultaneously.
The CDC runs a program called Active People, Healthy Nation, which aims to get 27 million Americans to exercise at least 150 minutes weekly by 2027. That’s a realistic and vital goal.
We work across sectors—education, transportation, housing, private industry, and government—to support better access to physical activity, promote healthier diets (including fresh fruits and vegetables), and reduce tobacco use. All of these are essential components in reducing the leading causes of death and disability in the U.S.
Jacobsen: What are the biggest challenges in chronic disease prevention over the next year?
Robitscher: The biggest challenge is that people do not want to exercise. They do not want to eat healthily. People want to eat what they want, when they want, and we live in a society that celebrates individual choice. We support that independence, of course, but we must also be realistic.
You have to focus on it. Losing weight is hard in this country and anywhere. There is so much delicious food on the market that is not good for you.
Our Health and Lifestyle Training (HALT) program is so important. It is evidence-based and is currently being implemented in 17 states. I have used it myself for a year. I lost 30 pounds and have managed to keep most of the weight off. But it is a challenge. I have to work out regularly to maintain it.
Still, if we can give people the tools, resources, and education—if they can track their movement and food intake—then we can deliver real impact. It is about improving health outcomes and quality of life.
The goal is not just to live longer. Yes, longevity matters, but so does the quality of those years. People in their 70s and 80s who use wheelchairs or live in nursing homes because of preventable falls. That is not what most people want.
We want people to remain physically and mentally active as they age. Achieving that takes work from all of us. But it is possible, and we are committed to helping people lead longer, healthier, more balanced lives.
Jacobsen: How does NACDD utilize its data to inform programs and measure the impact of chronic disease prevention? And I do not necessarily mean something as coarse as “I weighed X. Hooray.”
Robitscher: The CDC—and we—use particular metrics. In the past, the CDC has developed stringent guidelines and deliverables for grantees to meet. These are not just about weight loss. They include measurable reductions in chronic disease rates, improved access to clean water and healthy food, and better medical services and devices.
There are many indicators: healthy weight, nutrition, physical activity, smoking cessation, and even broader community-level measures. When combined, these contribute to a healthier nation.
That is the foundation on which we begin. We do not rely on just one metric. It is about understanding how these components work together to improve public health outcomes.
So a lot of what we do involves looking at all the data. We review scientific research, of course, but we also consider anecdotal data, like information from Google or Amazon about consumer behaviours, purchasing trends, and search patterns. We also evaluate environmental factors like air quality, food quality, and the location of recent natural disasters and how they impact specific populations.
We use all of that to develop a plan tailored to the community. There’s no point in launching a program that the target population will not follow. Programs must be culturally appropriate and aligned with the specific needs and values of the communities we serve.
We take this very seriously. We co-design programs with input from patients, community leaders, and public health professionals. One of our key roles at NACDD is being a convener—we bring together people from across sectors within a community, facilitate discussion, and collaboratively decide what will work locally.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Populations vary, with different cultures, dialects, and lived experiences. For example, our HALT program is available in English and Spanish and is culturally adapted for Native American communities in the Great Plains region.
We constantly strive to develop solutions that genuinely meet the needs of each community. That is not easy. You cannot just release a shiny new app or generic program and expect everyone to engage. You have to meet people where they are. That is our philosophy.
Jacobsen: What are the primary objectives of the Solving Health Care Challenges webinar? This will likely come out after the webinar, but could you repeat the key takeaways?
Robitscher: The webinar’s core message is to reject the idea that one program can fit everyone. That doesn’t work. We must meet people where they are.
We have to address populations at the macro and micro levels. On a population level, yes, we design programs to address broad needs. But ultimately, chronic disease prevention and management come down to individual decisions. A person must choose the life they want to live and commit to making meaningful changes. That is how we help them live longer, better lives.
Jacobsen: Are you engaged with policymakers or legislators through NACDD to support these types of chronic disease prevention and management programs?
Robitscher: We do not lobby, per se.
We meet with policymakers primarily to educate them on the opportunities available within their states. Often, legislators do not know what programs are working well in their jurisdiction, or even what initiatives are currently active.
At NACDD, we maintain a database called State Success Stories, where we showcase programs nationwide that effectively prevent chronic diseases and promote population health. Much of our work is leveraged. The federal government often provides seed funding, but private industry and businesses frequently match or exceed that investment.
One great example is our Walkability Action Institute. I just returned from Anchorage, Alaska, where we conducted a walk audit with the community to assess and improve walkability. These efforts aim to make communities more livable, ensure access to healthy food, and create safe environments for walking and biking.
That program is a strong public-private collaboration. For every federal dollar invested in the walkability program, the private sector contributes approximately $177. Through this initiative, we have brought millions of dollars to local communities. Private businesses have built walking paths, biking trails, and community fitness infrastructure. They have brought people together around the goal of healthier living.
That is what NACDD does—we serve as a conduit, bringing diverse stakeholders together.
Jacobsen: How do you transform engagement into chronic disease management? You can deliver excellent resources, run webinars, build programs, and raise $450 million—but at scale, the population-level impact depends on people becoming invested enough to take action. How do you get them actually to make that change?
Robitscher: I am glad you asked that. It is a great question, and it ties directly into our HALT application. This is a digital tool that can be found on every American’s smartphone.
We are currently proposing it to the MAHA Group because lifestyle management is something this administration is ready to prioritize. Secretary Kennedy and President Trump—regardless of party lines—are among the first national leaders in recent memory to talk openly about chronic disease prevention. We are excited to support them.
We would love to see HALT in the hands of every American. With this app, people can track their food intake, physical activity, and weight and even sync up with a blood pressure monitor. These are critical indicators of a healthy lifestyle.
We have to control our health. Again, the only way to do that is hard work. But if we give people the right tools, we can help them succeed.
It is physical. It is about being physically active daily and watching and tracking what you eat. But all of that depends on education.
We expect people to make significant lifestyle changes, but often, we do not explain why. In reality, physicians only spend about five to seven minutes with each patient. That is not enough time for meaningful behaviour change education.
So, we need a tool that empowers the person, not just the patient. You may not be a patient yet, but you can still take action to improve your life.
We believe lifestyle change management is critical—it may be the most vital initiative this country has ever embarked on. Can we help people manage their lifestyles effectively enough to live longer, happier, more fulfilling lives?
We believe we can. But it will take hard work.
People think they can download an app and just have it on their phone, which will make them healthier. It will not. The app must be paired with education, and you must commit. You have to put in the effort.
But the good news is—it is doable. I am a living example of that. I lost 30 pounds using the HALT app. I believe we can change the lives of millions of Americans and make them much better than they are today.
Jacobsen: Excellent. John, thank you for your time and expertise. It was nice to meet you.
Robitscher: Yes. You had good questions. I enjoyed it too.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
NACDD and HALT Are Revolutionizing Chronic Disease Prevention
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/28
John W. Robitscher, CEO of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), discusses the organization’s mission to prevent chronic disease through partnerships, community programs, and innovative tools like the HALT (Health And Lifestyle Training) app. Working closely with the CDC, NACDD helps implement evidence-based strategies nationwide, promoting healthy lifestyles and reducing risk factors such as poor diet and inactivity. Robitscher emphasizes the need for cross-sector collaboration, culturally tailored interventions, and empowering individuals through education and technology. Despite challenges, he believes widespread lifestyle change is possible with commitment, proper tools, and support from both public and private sectors.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are with John W. Robitscher. He serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), providing strategic leadership to advance its chronic disease prevention and health promotion mission.
Since joining NACDD in February 2005, he has overseen the acquisition of over $450 million in funding for chronic disease prevention and health programs across all 50 states and U.S. territories. With over thirty years of experience managing nonprofit organizations, Robitscher has expanded NACDD’s reach, supporting a network of over 7,000 public health professionals worldwide.
So, how is NACDD advancing early detection methods for chronic diseases like diabetes, and what emerging technologies are helping support these efforts?
John Robitscher: We’re proud to partner strongly with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), especially with the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The CDC has a long history of developing preventive medicine guidelines, going back fifty, sixty, even eighty years.
It works because the NIH (National Institutes of Health) does the medical research, and then the CDC implements that research through practical programming. They rely on national partners like NACDD to help bring those evidence-based programs into communities.
We support state and territorial health departments by directly interacting with local communities in every U.S. state and territory. Thus, we act as a bridge, helping push these proven programs to where they are needed.
Some programs include diabetes prevention, heart disease and stroke prevention, hypertension prevention, and more. One exciting innovation we’ve developed is a lifestyle management course called HALT, which stands for Health And Lifestyle Training. We can discuss it later, but it is a cutting-edge digital mobile application tool that helps people manage and treat their chronic conditions.
Jacobsen: What are some good examples of cross-sector partnerships? I was interviewing a medical professional recently, and we discussed how no single discipline can effectively tackle something as complex as cancer. Cross-disciplinary collaboration is key. Is it similar in chronic disease prevention?
Robitscher: Absolutely. What we know is that the significant risk factors for chronic diseases like heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, early-onset arthritis, and even dementia—those risk factors are often the same.
They include physical inactivity, poor nutrition, unhealthy body weight, and tobacco use. So promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and smoking cessation addresses multiple chronic conditions simultaneously.
The CDC runs a program called Active People, Healthy Nation, which aims to get 27 million Americans to exercise at least 150 minutes weekly by 2027. That’s a realistic and vital goal.
We work across sectors—education, transportation, housing, private industry, and government—to support better access to physical activity, promote healthier diets (including fresh fruits and vegetables), and reduce tobacco use. All of these are essential components in reducing the leading causes of death and disability in the U.S.
Jacobsen: What are the biggest challenges in chronic disease prevention over the next year?
Robitscher: The biggest challenge is that people do not want to exercise. They do not want to eat healthily. People want to eat what they want, when they want, and we live in a society that celebrates individual choice. We support that independence, of course, but we must also be realistic.
You have to focus on it. Losing weight is hard in this country and anywhere. There is so much delicious food on the market that is not good for you.
Our Health and Lifestyle Training (HALT) program is so important. It is evidence-based and is currently being implemented in 17 states. I have used it myself for a year. I lost 30 pounds and have managed to keep most of the weight off. But it is a challenge. I have to work out regularly to maintain it.
Still, if we can give people the tools, resources, and education—if they can track their movement and food intake—then we can deliver real impact. It is about improving health outcomes and quality of life.
The goal is not just to live longer. Yes, longevity matters, but so does the quality of those years. People in their 70s and 80s who use wheelchairs or live in nursing homes because of preventable falls. That is not what most people want.
We want people to remain physically and mentally active as they age. Achieving that takes work from all of us. But it is possible, and we are committed to helping people lead longer, healthier, more balanced lives.
Jacobsen: How does NACDD utilize its data to inform programs and measure the impact of chronic disease prevention? And I do not necessarily mean something as coarse as “I weighed X. Hooray.”
Robitscher: The CDC—and we—use particular metrics. In the past, the CDC has developed stringent guidelines and deliverables for grantees to meet. These are not just about weight loss. They include measurable reductions in chronic disease rates, improved access to clean water and healthy food, and better medical services and devices.
There are many indicators: healthy weight, nutrition, physical activity, smoking cessation, and even broader community-level measures. When combined, these contribute to a healthier nation.
That is the foundation on which we begin. We do not rely on just one metric. It is about understanding how these components work together to improve public health outcomes.
So a lot of what we do involves looking at all the data. We review scientific research, of course, but we also consider anecdotal data, like information from Google or Amazon about consumer behaviours, purchasing trends, and search patterns. We also evaluate environmental factors like air quality, food quality, and the location of recent natural disasters and how they impact specific populations.
We use all of that to develop a plan tailored to the community. There’s no point in launching a program that the target population will not follow. Programs must be culturally appropriate and aligned with the specific needs and values of the communities we serve.
We take this very seriously. We co-design programs with input from patients, community leaders, and public health professionals. One of our key roles at NACDD is being a convener—we bring together people from across sectors within a community, facilitate discussion, and collaboratively decide what will work locally.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Populations vary, with different cultures, dialects, and lived experiences. For example, our HALT program is available in English and Spanish and is culturally adapted for Native American communities in the Great Plains region.
We constantly strive to develop solutions that genuinely meet the needs of each community. That is not easy. You cannot just release a shiny new app or generic program and expect everyone to engage. You have to meet people where they are. That is our philosophy.
Jacobsen: What are the primary objectives of the Solving Health Care Challenges webinar? This will likely come out after the webinar, but could you repeat the key takeaways?
Robitscher: The webinar’s core message is to reject the idea that one program can fit everyone. That doesn’t work. We must meet people where they are.
We have to address populations at the macro and micro levels. On a population level, yes, we design programs to address broad needs. But ultimately, chronic disease prevention and management come down to individual decisions. A person must choose the life they want to live and commit to making meaningful changes. That is how we help them live longer, better lives.
Jacobsen: Are you engaged with policymakers or legislators through NACDD to support these types of chronic disease prevention and management programs?
Robitscher: We do not lobby, per se.
We meet with policymakers primarily to educate them on the opportunities available within their states. Often, legislators do not know what programs are working well in their jurisdiction, or even what initiatives are currently active.
At NACDD, we maintain a database called State Success Stories, where we showcase programs nationwide that effectively prevent chronic diseases and promote population health. Much of our work is leveraged. The federal government often provides seed funding, but private industry and businesses frequently match or exceed that investment.
One great example is our Walkability Action Institute. I just returned from Anchorage, Alaska, where we conducted a walk audit with the community to assess and improve walkability. These efforts aim to make communities more livable, ensure access to healthy food, and create safe environments for walking and biking.
That program is a strong public-private collaboration. For every federal dollar invested in the walkability program, the private sector contributes approximately $177. Through this initiative, we have brought millions of dollars to local communities. Private businesses have built walking paths, biking trails, and community fitness infrastructure. They have brought people together around the goal of healthier living.
That is what NACDD does—we serve as a conduit, bringing diverse stakeholders together.
Jacobsen: How do you transform engagement into chronic disease management? You can deliver excellent resources, run webinars, build programs, and raise $450 million—but at scale, the population-level impact depends on people becoming invested enough to take action. How do you get them actually to make that change?
Robitscher: I am glad you asked that. It is a great question, and it ties directly into our HALT application. This is a digital tool that can be found on every American’s smartphone.
We are currently proposing it to the MAHA Group because lifestyle management is something this administration is ready to prioritize. Secretary Kennedy and President Trump—regardless of party lines—are among the first national leaders in recent memory to talk openly about chronic disease prevention. We are excited to support them.
We would love to see HALT in the hands of every American. With this app, people can track their food intake, physical activity, and weight and even sync up with a blood pressure monitor. These are critical indicators of a healthy lifestyle.
We have to control our health. Again, the only way to do that is hard work. But if we give people the right tools, we can help them succeed.
It is physical. It is about being physically active daily and watching and tracking what you eat. But all of that depends on education.
We expect people to make significant lifestyle changes, but often, we do not explain why. In reality, physicians only spend about five to seven minutes with each patient. That is not enough time for meaningful behaviour change education.
So, we need a tool that empowers the person, not just the patient. You may not be a patient yet, but you can still take action to improve your life.
We believe lifestyle change management is critical—it may be the most vital initiative this country has ever embarked on. Can we help people manage their lifestyles effectively enough to live longer, happier, more fulfilling lives?
We believe we can. But it will take hard work.
People think they can download an app and just have it on their phone, which will make them healthier. It will not. The app must be paired with education, and you must commit. You have to put in the effort.
But the good news is—it is doable. I am a living example of that. I lost 30 pounds using the HALT app. I believe we can change the lives of millions of Americans and make them much better than they are today.
Jacobsen: Excellent. John, thank you for your time and expertise. It was nice to meet you.
Robitscher: Yes. You had good questions. I enjoyed it too.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Legal Assistance in Dying (MAID) in Canada: Legal Framework
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/28
Legal Framework & Definitions, Vulnerable Populations
On February 15, 2023, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying reported on five mandated issues: advance requests, access to MAID for mature minors, access to MAID for those whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder, the state of palliative care, and the protection of people living with disabilities. A considerable amount of misinformation has circulated in the public sphere and media and Dying With Dignity Canada (DWDC) would like to set out some clear facts surrounding MAID, the strict criteria and safeguards that govern its use, and aspects of its proposed expansion.
DWDC, “Myths and Facts: Medical assistance in dying (MAID) in Canada”
Medical assistance in dying (MAID) is a process that allows someone who is found eligible to be able to receive assistance from a medical practitioner in ending their life. The federal Criminal Code of Canada permits this to take place only under very specific circumstances and rules. Anyone requesting this service must meet specific eligibility criteria to receive medical assistance in dying. Any medical practitioner who administers an assisted death to someone must satisfy certain safeguards first.
Only medical practitioners are permitted to conduct assessments and to provide medical assistance in dying. This can be a physician or a nurse practitioner, where provinces and territories allow.
Government of Canada, “Medical assistance in dying: Overview”
The next thing I want to speak about is whether the vulnerable need protection. Again, this has been tried in court with both the Carter case and Truchon case. There is no evidence that vulnerable people are at risk for MAID. [Ed. Minor evidence suggests otherwise, now, but small and select, see AP News.] In fact, if you look at the actual people who are receiving MAID, they are typically white, well educated and well off. You could easily argue that the marginalized communities are disadvantaged because they’re not accessing MAID. In the Truchon case, Justice Baudouin equally found that the disadvantaged are not being taken advantage of and you must do each case at a time.
Dr. Derryck Smith, “Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying”
Death is a sensitive topic. It is a different question from the origin of life, the evolution of organisms, the speciation of species, and the point when life begins for human beings. We’re dealing with a live person who can make, ideally, informed decisions about a profound moment in life: its end. For those who know those who have tried to take their life, the sensitivity is multiplied over social relations. Rational foundations for care in finality are important, though. A lot of smart humanists have thought deeply about this topic.
Humanists can be stereotyped–as a whole without exception–supporting medical assistance in dying (MAID) at the expense of palliative care. MAID as a way to reduce healthcare burden (of the old, the sick, the disabled), and dangerous as a “social contagion.” Atheist humanists get the worst of it, because of the major prejudices felt and only recently researched in an academic context.
The lattermost, as a piece of falsehood, emerges with relative frequency. These will be case examples for this article. These cases critiquing the imperfection of MAID have a sensibility akin to creationist critiques of evolution with God of the Gaps arguments. God of the Gaps arguments point to absences or uncertainties in scientific knowledge and then assert divine intervention. It is a form of magical thinking. Critique evolution superficially without proposing a workable alternative; what is the evidence-based alternative with greater efficacy than MAID, where MAID is merely one option? This challenges the trade-off myth. There will be failures in any system. Is this more efficacious than the system not existing? Stuff like that.
Debunking Common Myths
Canada has an organization devoted to these issues, DWDC. I found and took a statement about the spread of misinformation about MAID by DWDC seriously. DWDC noted myths about:
- “advocating to kill infants with disabilities”
- “mature minors will be eligible for medical assistance in dying (MAID) in March 2027”
- “opening the door for suicidal children and teenagers to access an assisted death”
- “eligibility of mature minors is being considered without adequate protections in place and without consultation or consent from parents or guardians”
- “clinicians inappropriately recommending MAID to patients who are not eligible or as an alternative to treatment”
- “vulnerable populations being eligible for MAID because they are suffering from inadequate social supports, including housing”
- “Canada is systematically targeting and ‘killing’ the poor, disabled, and marginalized instead of giving them the proper supports they need to live.”
Social Contagion Concerns
DWDC identified a few more. However, this sets a foundation for knowledge about misinformation’s ubiquity dispensed flippantly by both left and right alike. This has political debate content. The fundamental issue is humane treatment. That shouldn’t be political. Upon doing a first search on social contagion, the source of some misinformation was made by right-wing conservative groups. The idea being, thus: “Physician-assisted suicide is social contagion.”
Social contagion research on suicide seems to rely on fear of copycats: a good fear. The substantive enquiry: Is the evidence proportional to support this assertion, or is the general assertion of social contagion of suicide equivalent to medical contexts, including MAID? Health Canada’s 2022 MAID monitoring report analyzed suicide rates. The 2022 study found no significant increase in suicide rates following MAID legalization in 2016. This differs compared to patterns after high-profile celebrity suicides. The American Psychological Association’s 2014 review (Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 140) links media sensationalism to copycat suicides. In other words, MAID’s regulated approach mitigates the standard effects seen in social contagion risks. Health Canada did the study. The American Psychological Association 2014 found the same for copycat behaviours and media exposure, not due to structured medical processes.
Palliative Care vs. MAID
According to DWDC and the Government of Canada, MAID has multiple safeguards in place, as stipulated at the outset. General suicides exclusive to MAID do not have safeguards in place. Of those two, to the original question, what is the evidence-based alternative with greater efficacy than MAID, where MAID is merely one option? Which is to say, in either case, conditions for palliative care exist equivalently, while MAID is in place versus not.
Exceptional (Super‑Minority) Cases
What about the exclusionary cases? That one does not wish to happen at all. A super-minority of unfortunate cases as exceptions to the principles of MAID. “Canadians with nonterminal conditions sought assisted dying for social reasons” described social conditions under which some MAID cases continued with “unmet social need.” Health Canada’s Fifth Annual Report (2023) report showed less than 2% of the 13,241 assisted deaths by individuals involving psychosocial factors as primary motivators.
We should all strive to help those with unmet social needs, who may fall under this category. These commentaries point to inefficiencies in safeguards, particularly in super-minority specific cases, not the principle. This is the relevance of God of the Gaps arguments with creationism against evolution.
To identify gaps is to identify gaps in MAID-specific cases and, thus, in the general population too, the bodies found in general populations, probably, result in less dignified and compassionate deaths. We should emphasize palliative care and other care more to balance the ratio of provisions for Canadian citizens. The Special Joint Committee’s 2023 report found that 3 in 10 Canadians can access high-quality palliative care. Rural areas and Indigenous communities are underserved. Ontario integration of palliative consultations with MAID assessments reduced requests by 15%. This synergy shows promise; it’s not either-or. This is to say, again, that the principle stands while exclusive super-minority cases require more work. Critics do a service here, up to and including robust, systemic, integrated alternatives.
Social contagion merely applies to the unregulated and unsafe cases of suicide, as in a double-barrel shotgun after a woman in a depressive fit after a breakup. It is different than a considered, regulated, informed choice about suicide with the assistance of a qualified professional in most of the other cases. MAID supports something more akin to the latter than the former. We should have expanded social programs for those who need them, more robust MAID mechanisms, and condemnation of stereotypes about MAID that harm people who need them. Expanding social programs may incorporate guaranteed housing subsidies.
Conscience, Faith, and Coercion
MAID is the main option available for those who need it. If an individual believes in a divine being, and does not want to become enmeshed in humanist or other ideology around their decision or their end of life, they should be permitted to make that choice, according to their conscience and faith. Similarly, those who do not share that notion, in which human beings do not ultimately own their life, a god does, should be permitted their conscience-based free choice too. If someone is being coerced, this would fail the principle and the spirit of the MAID options permitted in Canada.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Legal Assistance in Dying (MAID) in Canada: Legal Framework
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/28
Legal Framework & Definitions, Vulnerable Populations
On February 15, 2023, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying reported on five mandated issues: advance requests, access to MAID for mature minors, access to MAID for those whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder, the state of palliative care, and the protection of people living with disabilities. A considerable amount of misinformation has circulated in the public sphere and media and Dying With Dignity Canada (DWDC) would like to set out some clear facts surrounding MAID, the strict criteria and safeguards that govern its use, and aspects of its proposed expansion.
DWDC, “Myths and Facts: Medical assistance in dying (MAID) in Canada”
Medical assistance in dying (MAID) is a process that allows someone who is found eligible to be able to receive assistance from a medical practitioner in ending their life. The federal Criminal Code of Canada permits this to take place only under very specific circumstances and rules. Anyone requesting this service must meet specific eligibility criteria to receive medical assistance in dying. Any medical practitioner who administers an assisted death to someone must satisfy certain safeguards first.
Only medical practitioners are permitted to conduct assessments and to provide medical assistance in dying. This can be a physician or a nurse practitioner, where provinces and territories allow.
Government of Canada, “Medical assistance in dying: Overview”
The next thing I want to speak about is whether the vulnerable need protection. Again, this has been tried in court with both the Carter case and Truchon case. There is no evidence that vulnerable people are at risk for MAID. [Ed. Minor evidence suggests otherwise, now, but small and select, see AP News.] In fact, if you look at the actual people who are receiving MAID, they are typically white, well educated and well off. You could easily argue that the marginalized communities are disadvantaged because they’re not accessing MAID. In the Truchon case, Justice Baudouin equally found that the disadvantaged are not being taken advantage of and you must do each case at a time.
Dr. Derryck Smith, “Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying”
Death is a sensitive topic. It is a different question from the origin of life, the evolution of organisms, the speciation of species, and the point when life begins for human beings. We’re dealing with a live person who can make, ideally, informed decisions about a profound moment in life: its end. For those who know those who have tried to take their life, the sensitivity is multiplied over social relations. Rational foundations for care in finality are important, though. A lot of smart humanists have thought deeply about this topic.
Humanists can be stereotyped–as a whole without exception–supporting medical assistance in dying (MAID) at the expense of palliative care. MAID as a way to reduce healthcare burden (of the old, the sick, the disabled), and dangerous as a “social contagion.” Atheist humanists get the worst of it, because of the major prejudices felt and only recently researched in an academic context.
The lattermost, as a piece of falsehood, emerges with relative frequency. These will be case examples for this article. These cases critiquing the imperfection of MAID have a sensibility akin to creationist critiques of evolution with God of the Gaps arguments. God of the Gaps arguments point to absences or uncertainties in scientific knowledge and then assert divine intervention. It is a form of magical thinking. Critique evolution superficially without proposing a workable alternative; what is the evidence-based alternative with greater efficacy than MAID, where MAID is merely one option? This challenges the trade-off myth. There will be failures in any system. Is this more efficacious than the system not existing? Stuff like that.
Debunking Common Myths
Canada has an organization devoted to these issues, DWDC. I found and took a statement about the spread of misinformation about MAID by DWDC seriously. DWDC noted myths about:
- “advocating to kill infants with disabilities”
- “mature minors will be eligible for medical assistance in dying (MAID) in March 2027”
- “opening the door for suicidal children and teenagers to access an assisted death”
- “eligibility of mature minors is being considered without adequate protections in place and without consultation or consent from parents or guardians”
- “clinicians inappropriately recommending MAID to patients who are not eligible or as an alternative to treatment”
- “vulnerable populations being eligible for MAID because they are suffering from inadequate social supports, including housing”
- “Canada is systematically targeting and ‘killing’ the poor, disabled, and marginalized instead of giving them the proper supports they need to live.”
Social Contagion Concerns
DWDC identified a few more. However, this sets a foundation for knowledge about misinformation’s ubiquity dispensed flippantly by both left and right alike. This has political debate content. The fundamental issue is humane treatment. That shouldn’t be political. Upon doing a first search on social contagion, the source of some misinformation was made by right-wing conservative groups. The idea being, thus: “Physician-assisted suicide is social contagion.”
Social contagion research on suicide seems to rely on fear of copycats: a good fear. The substantive enquiry: Is the evidence proportional to support this assertion, or is the general assertion of social contagion of suicide equivalent to medical contexts, including MAID? Health Canada’s 2022 MAID monitoring report analyzed suicide rates. The 2022 study found no significant increase in suicide rates following MAID legalization in 2016. This differs compared to patterns after high-profile celebrity suicides. The American Psychological Association’s 2014 review (Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 140) links media sensationalism to copycat suicides. In other words, MAID’s regulated approach mitigates the standard effects seen in social contagion risks. Health Canada did the study. The American Psychological Association 2014 found the same for copycat behaviours and media exposure, not due to structured medical processes.
Palliative Care vs. MAID
According to DWDC and the Government of Canada, MAID has multiple safeguards in place, as stipulated at the outset. General suicides exclusive to MAID do not have safeguards in place. Of those two, to the original question, what is the evidence-based alternative with greater efficacy than MAID, where MAID is merely one option? Which is to say, in either case, conditions for palliative care exist equivalently, while MAID is in place versus not.
Exceptional (Super‑Minority) Cases
What about the exclusionary cases? That one does not wish to happen at all. A super-minority of unfortunate cases as exceptions to the principles of MAID. “Canadians with nonterminal conditions sought assisted dying for social reasons” described social conditions under which some MAID cases continued with “unmet social need.” Health Canada’s Fifth Annual Report (2023) report showed less than 2% of the 13,241 assisted deaths by individuals involving psychosocial factors as primary motivators.
We should all strive to help those with unmet social needs, who may fall under this category. These commentaries point to inefficiencies in safeguards, particularly in super-minority specific cases, not the principle. This is the relevance of God of the Gaps arguments with creationism against evolution.
To identify gaps is to identify gaps in MAID-specific cases and, thus, in the general population too, the bodies found in general populations, probably, result in less dignified and compassionate deaths. We should emphasize palliative care and other care more to balance the ratio of provisions for Canadian citizens. The Special Joint Committee’s 2023 report found that 3 in 10 Canadians can access high-quality palliative care. Rural areas and Indigenous communities are underserved. Ontario integration of palliative consultations with MAID assessments reduced requests by 15%. This synergy shows promise; it’s not either-or. This is to say, again, that the principle stands while exclusive super-minority cases require more work. Critics do a service here, up to and including robust, systemic, integrated alternatives.
Social contagion merely applies to the unregulated and unsafe cases of suicide, as in a double-barrel shotgun after a woman in a depressive fit after a breakup. It is different than a considered, regulated, informed choice about suicide with the assistance of a qualified professional in most of the other cases. MAID supports something more akin to the latter than the former. We should have expanded social programs for those who need them, more robust MAID mechanisms, and condemnation of stereotypes about MAID that harm people who need them. Expanding social programs may incorporate guaranteed housing subsidies.
Conscience, Faith, and Coercion
MAID is the main option available for those who need it. If an individual believes in a divine being, and does not want to become enmeshed in humanist or other ideology around their decision or their end of life, they should be permitted to make that choice, according to their conscience and faith. Similarly, those who do not share that notion, in which human beings do not ultimately own their life, a god does, should be permitted their conscience-based free choice too. If someone is being coerced, this would fail the principle and the spirit of the MAID options permitted in Canada.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Legal Assistance in Dying (MAID) in Canada: Legal Framework
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/28
Legal Framework & Definitions, Vulnerable Populations
On February 15, 2023, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying reported on five mandated issues: advance requests, access to MAID for mature minors, access to MAID for those whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder, the state of palliative care, and the protection of people living with disabilities. A considerable amount of misinformation has circulated in the public sphere and media and Dying With Dignity Canada (DWDC) would like to set out some clear facts surrounding MAID, the strict criteria and safeguards that govern its use, and aspects of its proposed expansion.
DWDC, “Myths and Facts: Medical assistance in dying (MAID) in Canada”
Medical assistance in dying (MAID) is a process that allows someone who is found eligible to be able to receive assistance from a medical practitioner in ending their life. The federal Criminal Code of Canada permits this to take place only under very specific circumstances and rules. Anyone requesting this service must meet specific eligibility criteria to receive medical assistance in dying. Any medical practitioner who administers an assisted death to someone must satisfy certain safeguards first.
Only medical practitioners are permitted to conduct assessments and to provide medical assistance in dying. This can be a physician or a nurse practitioner, where provinces and territories allow.
Government of Canada, “Medical assistance in dying: Overview”
The next thing I want to speak about is whether the vulnerable need protection. Again, this has been tried in court with both the Carter case and Truchon case. There is no evidence that vulnerable people are at risk for MAID. [Ed. Minor evidence suggests otherwise, now, but small and select, see AP News.] In fact, if you look at the actual people who are receiving MAID, they are typically white, well educated and well off. You could easily argue that the marginalized communities are disadvantaged because they’re not accessing MAID. In the Truchon case, Justice Baudouin equally found that the disadvantaged are not being taken advantage of and you must do each case at a time.
Dr. Derryck Smith, “Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying”
Death is a sensitive topic. It is a different question from the origin of life, the evolution of organisms, the speciation of species, and the point when life begins for human beings. We’re dealing with a live person who can make, ideally, informed decisions about a profound moment in life: its end. For those who know those who have tried to take their life, the sensitivity is multiplied over social relations. Rational foundations for care in finality are important, though. A lot of smart humanists have thought deeply about this topic.
Humanists can be stereotyped–as a whole without exception–supporting medical assistance in dying (MAID) at the expense of palliative care. MAID as a way to reduce healthcare burden (of the old, the sick, the disabled), and dangerous as a “social contagion.” Atheist humanists get the worst of it, because of the major prejudices felt and only recently researched in an academic context.
The lattermost, as a piece of falsehood, emerges with relative frequency. These will be case examples for this article. These cases critiquing the imperfection of MAID have a sensibility akin to creationist critiques of evolution with God of the Gaps arguments. God of the Gaps arguments point to absences or uncertainties in scientific knowledge and then assert divine intervention. It is a form of magical thinking. Critique evolution superficially without proposing a workable alternative; what is the evidence-based alternative with greater efficacy than MAID, where MAID is merely one option? This challenges the trade-off myth. There will be failures in any system. Is this more efficacious than the system not existing? Stuff like that.
Debunking Common Myths
Canada has an organization devoted to these issues, DWDC. I found and took a statement about the spread of misinformation about MAID by DWDC seriously. DWDC noted myths about:
- “advocating to kill infants with disabilities”
- “mature minors will be eligible for medical assistance in dying (MAID) in March 2027”
- “opening the door for suicidal children and teenagers to access an assisted death”
- “eligibility of mature minors is being considered without adequate protections in place and without consultation or consent from parents or guardians”
- “clinicians inappropriately recommending MAID to patients who are not eligible or as an alternative to treatment”
- “vulnerable populations being eligible for MAID because they are suffering from inadequate social supports, including housing”
- “Canada is systematically targeting and ‘killing’ the poor, disabled, and marginalized instead of giving them the proper supports they need to live.”
Social Contagion Concerns
DWDC identified a few more. However, this sets a foundation for knowledge about misinformation’s ubiquity dispensed flippantly by both left and right alike. This has political debate content. The fundamental issue is humane treatment. That shouldn’t be political. Upon doing a first search on social contagion, the source of some misinformation was made by right-wing conservative groups. The idea being, thus: “Physician-assisted suicide is social contagion.”
Social contagion research on suicide seems to rely on fear of copycats: a good fear. The substantive enquiry: Is the evidence proportional to support this assertion, or is the general assertion of social contagion of suicide equivalent to medical contexts, including MAID? Health Canada’s 2022 MAID monitoring report analyzed suicide rates. The 2022 study found no significant increase in suicide rates following MAID legalization in 2016. This differs compared to patterns after high-profile celebrity suicides. The American Psychological Association’s 2014 review (Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 140) links media sensationalism to copycat suicides. In other words, MAID’s regulated approach mitigates the standard effects seen in social contagion risks. Health Canada did the study. The American Psychological Association 2014 found the same for copycat behaviours and media exposure, not due to structured medical processes.
Palliative Care vs. MAID
According to DWDC and the Government of Canada, MAID has multiple safeguards in place, as stipulated at the outset. General suicides exclusive to MAID do not have safeguards in place. Of those two, to the original question, what is the evidence-based alternative with greater efficacy than MAID, where MAID is merely one option? Which is to say, in either case, conditions for palliative care exist equivalently, while MAID is in place versus not.
Exceptional (Super‑Minority) Cases
What about the exclusionary cases? That one does not wish to happen at all. A super-minority of unfortunate cases as exceptions to the principles of MAID. “Canadians with nonterminal conditions sought assisted dying for social reasons” described social conditions under which some MAID cases continued with “unmet social need.” Health Canada’s Fifth Annual Report (2023) report showed less than 2% of the 13,241 assisted deaths by individuals involving psychosocial factors as primary motivators.
We should all strive to help those with unmet social needs, who may fall under this category. These commentaries point to inefficiencies in safeguards, particularly in super-minority specific cases, not the principle. This is the relevance of God of the Gaps arguments with creationism against evolution.
To identify gaps is to identify gaps in MAID-specific cases and, thus, in the general population too, the bodies found in general populations, probably, result in less dignified and compassionate deaths. We should emphasize palliative care and other care more to balance the ratio of provisions for Canadian citizens. The Special Joint Committee’s 2023 report found that 3 in 10 Canadians can access high-quality palliative care. Rural areas and Indigenous communities are underserved. Ontario integration of palliative consultations with MAID assessments reduced requests by 15%. This synergy shows promise; it’s not either-or. This is to say, again, that the principle stands while exclusive super-minority cases require more work. Critics do a service here, up to and including robust, systemic, integrated alternatives.
Social contagion merely applies to the unregulated and unsafe cases of suicide, as in a double-barrel shotgun after a woman in a depressive fit after a breakup. It is different than a considered, regulated, informed choice about suicide with the assistance of a qualified professional in most of the other cases. MAID supports something more akin to the latter than the former. We should have expanded social programs for those who need them, more robust MAID mechanisms, and condemnation of stereotypes about MAID that harm people who need them. Expanding social programs may incorporate guaranteed housing subsidies.
Conscience, Faith, and Coercion
MAID is the main option available for those who need it. If an individual believes in a divine being, and does not want to become enmeshed in humanist or other ideology around their decision or their end of life, they should be permitted to make that choice, according to their conscience and faith. Similarly, those who do not share that notion, in which human beings do not ultimately own their life, a god does, should be permitted their conscience-based free choice too. If someone is being coerced, this would fail the principle and the spirit of the MAID options permitted in Canada.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
Legal Assistance in Dying (MAID) in Canada: Legal Framework
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/28
Legal Framework & Definitions, Vulnerable Populations
On February 15, 2023, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying reported on five mandated issues: advance requests, access to MAID for mature minors, access to MAID for those whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder, the state of palliative care, and the protection of people living with disabilities. A considerable amount of misinformation has circulated in the public sphere and media and Dying With Dignity Canada (DWDC) would like to set out some clear facts surrounding MAID, the strict criteria and safeguards that govern its use, and aspects of its proposed expansion.
DWDC, “Myths and Facts: Medical assistance in dying (MAID) in Canada”
Medical assistance in dying (MAID) is a process that allows someone who is found eligible to be able to receive assistance from a medical practitioner in ending their life. The federal Criminal Code of Canada permits this to take place only under very specific circumstances and rules. Anyone requesting this service must meet specific eligibility criteria to receive medical assistance in dying. Any medical practitioner who administers an assisted death to someone must satisfy certain safeguards first.
Only medical practitioners are permitted to conduct assessments and to provide medical assistance in dying. This can be a physician or a nurse practitioner, where provinces and territories allow.
Government of Canada, “Medical assistance in dying: Overview”
The next thing I want to speak about is whether the vulnerable need protection. Again, this has been tried in court with both the Carter case and Truchon case. There is no evidence that vulnerable people are at risk for MAID. [Ed. Minor evidence suggests otherwise, now, but small and select, see AP News.] In fact, if you look at the actual people who are receiving MAID, they are typically white, well educated and well off. You could easily argue that the marginalized communities are disadvantaged because they’re not accessing MAID. In the Truchon case, Justice Baudouin equally found that the disadvantaged are not being taken advantage of and you must do each case at a time.
Dr. Derryck Smith, “Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying”
Death is a sensitive topic. It is a different question from the origin of life, the evolution of organisms, the speciation of species, and the point when life begins for human beings. We’re dealing with a live person who can make, ideally, informed decisions about a profound moment in life: its end. For those who know those who have tried to take their life, the sensitivity is multiplied over social relations. Rational foundations for care in finality are important, though. A lot of smart humanists have thought deeply about this topic.
Humanists can be stereotyped–as a whole without exception–supporting medical assistance in dying (MAID) at the expense of palliative care. MAID as a way to reduce healthcare burden (of the old, the sick, the disabled), and dangerous as a “social contagion.” Atheist humanists get the worst of it, because of the major prejudices felt and only recently researched in an academic context.
The lattermost, as a piece of falsehood, emerges with relative frequency. These will be case examples for this article. These cases critiquing the imperfection of MAID have a sensibility akin to creationist critiques of evolution with God of the Gaps arguments. God of the Gaps arguments point to absences or uncertainties in scientific knowledge and then assert divine intervention. It is a form of magical thinking. Critique evolution superficially without proposing a workable alternative; what is the evidence-based alternative with greater efficacy than MAID, where MAID is merely one option? This challenges the trade-off myth. There will be failures in any system. Is this more efficacious than the system not existing? Stuff like that.
Debunking Common Myths
Canada has an organization devoted to these issues, DWDC. I found and took a statement about the spread of misinformation about MAID by DWDC seriously. DWDC noted myths about:
- “advocating to kill infants with disabilities”
- “mature minors will be eligible for medical assistance in dying (MAID) in March 2027”
- “opening the door for suicidal children and teenagers to access an assisted death”
- “eligibility of mature minors is being considered without adequate protections in place and without consultation or consent from parents or guardians”
- “clinicians inappropriately recommending MAID to patients who are not eligible or as an alternative to treatment”
- “vulnerable populations being eligible for MAID because they are suffering from inadequate social supports, including housing”
- “Canada is systematically targeting and ‘killing’ the poor, disabled, and marginalized instead of giving them the proper supports they need to live.”
Social Contagion Concerns
DWDC identified a few more. However, this sets a foundation for knowledge about misinformation’s ubiquity dispensed flippantly by both left and right alike. This has political debate content. The fundamental issue is humane treatment. That shouldn’t be political. Upon doing a first search on social contagion, the source of some misinformation was made by right-wing conservative groups. The idea being, thus: “Physician-assisted suicide is social contagion.”
Social contagion research on suicide seems to rely on fear of copycats: a good fear. The substantive enquiry: Is the evidence proportional to support this assertion, or is the general assertion of social contagion of suicide equivalent to medical contexts, including MAID? Health Canada’s 2022 MAID monitoring report analyzed suicide rates. The 2022 study found no significant increase in suicide rates following MAID legalization in 2016. This differs compared to patterns after high-profile celebrity suicides. The American Psychological Association’s 2014 review (Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 140) links media sensationalism to copycat suicides. In other words, MAID’s regulated approach mitigates the standard effects seen in social contagion risks. Health Canada did the study. The American Psychological Association 2014 found the same for copycat behaviours and media exposure, not due to structured medical processes.
Palliative Care vs. MAID
According to DWDC and the Government of Canada, MAID has multiple safeguards in place, as stipulated at the outset. General suicides exclusive to MAID do not have safeguards in place. Of those two, to the original question, what is the evidence-based alternative with greater efficacy than MAID, where MAID is merely one option? Which is to say, in either case, conditions for palliative care exist equivalently, while MAID is in place versus not.
Exceptional (Super‑Minority) Cases
What about the exclusionary cases? That one does not wish to happen at all. A super-minority of unfortunate cases as exceptions to the principles of MAID. “Canadians with nonterminal conditions sought assisted dying for social reasons” described social conditions under which some MAID cases continued with “unmet social need.” Health Canada’s Fifth Annual Report (2023) report showed less than 2% of the 13,241 assisted deaths by individuals involving psychosocial factors as primary motivators.
We should all strive to help those with unmet social needs, who may fall under this category. These commentaries point to inefficiencies in safeguards, particularly in super-minority specific cases, not the principle. This is the relevance of God of the Gaps arguments with creationism against evolution.
To identify gaps is to identify gaps in MAID-specific cases and, thus, in the general population too, the bodies found in general populations, probably, result in less dignified and compassionate deaths. We should emphasize palliative care and other care more to balance the ratio of provisions for Canadian citizens. The Special Joint Committee’s 2023 report found that 3 in 10 Canadians can access high-quality palliative care. Rural areas and Indigenous communities are underserved. Ontario integration of palliative consultations with MAID assessments reduced requests by 15%. This synergy shows promise; it’s not either-or. This is to say, again, that the principle stands while exclusive super-minority cases require more work. Critics do a service here, up to and including robust, systemic, integrated alternatives.
Social contagion merely applies to the unregulated and unsafe cases of suicide, as in a double-barrel shotgun after a woman in a depressive fit after a breakup. It is different than a considered, regulated, informed choice about suicide with the assistance of a qualified professional in most of the other cases. MAID supports something more akin to the latter than the former. We should have expanded social programs for those who need them, more robust MAID mechanisms, and condemnation of stereotypes about MAID that harm people who need them. Expanding social programs may incorporate guaranteed housing subsidies.
Conscience, Faith, and Coercion
MAID is the main option available for those who need it. If an individual believes in a divine being, and does not want to become enmeshed in humanist or other ideology around their decision or their end of life, they should be permitted to make that choice, according to their conscience and faith. Similarly, those who do not share that notion, in which human beings do not ultimately own their life, a god does, should be permitted their conscience-based free choice too. If someone is being coerced, this would fail the principle and the spirit of the MAID options permitted in Canada.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
NACDD and HALT Are Revolutionizing Chronic Disease Prevention
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/28
John W. Robitscher, CEO of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), discusses the organization’s mission to prevent chronic disease through partnerships, community programs, and innovative tools like the HALT (Health And Lifestyle Training) app. Working closely with the CDC, NACDD helps implement evidence-based strategies nationwide, promoting healthy lifestyles and reducing risk factors such as poor diet and inactivity. Robitscher emphasizes the need for cross-sector collaboration, culturally tailored interventions, and empowering individuals through education and technology. Despite challenges, he believes widespread lifestyle change is possible with commitment, proper tools, and support from both public and private sectors.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are with John W. Robitscher. He serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), providing strategic leadership to advance its chronic disease prevention and health promotion mission.
Since joining NACDD in February 2005, he has overseen the acquisition of over $450 million in funding for chronic disease prevention and health programs across all 50 states and U.S. territories. With over thirty years of experience managing nonprofit organizations, Robitscher has expanded NACDD’s reach, supporting a network of over 7,000 public health professionals worldwide.
So, how is NACDD advancing early detection methods for chronic diseases like diabetes, and what emerging technologies are helping support these efforts?
John Robitscher: We’re proud to partner strongly with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), especially with the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The CDC has a long history of developing preventive medicine guidelines, going back fifty, sixty, even eighty years.
It works because the NIH (National Institutes of Health) does the medical research, and then the CDC implements that research through practical programming. They rely on national partners like NACDD to help bring those evidence-based programs into communities.
We support state and territorial health departments by directly interacting with local communities in every U.S. state and territory. Thus, we act as a bridge, helping push these proven programs to where they are needed.
Some programs include diabetes prevention, heart disease and stroke prevention, hypertension prevention, and more. One exciting innovation we’ve developed is a lifestyle management course called HALT, which stands for Health And Lifestyle Training. We can discuss it later, but it is a cutting-edge digital mobile application tool that helps people manage and treat their chronic conditions.
Jacobsen: What are some good examples of cross-sector partnerships? I was interviewing a medical professional recently, and we discussed how no single discipline can effectively tackle something as complex as cancer. Cross-disciplinary collaboration is key. Is it similar in chronic disease prevention?
Robitscher: Absolutely. What we know is that the significant risk factors for chronic diseases like heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, early-onset arthritis, and even dementia—those risk factors are often the same.
They include physical inactivity, poor nutrition, unhealthy body weight, and tobacco use. So promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and smoking cessation addresses multiple chronic conditions simultaneously.
The CDC runs a program called Active People, Healthy Nation, which aims to get 27 million Americans to exercise at least 150 minutes weekly by 2027. That’s a realistic and vital goal.
We work across sectors—education, transportation, housing, private industry, and government—to support better access to physical activity, promote healthier diets (including fresh fruits and vegetables), and reduce tobacco use. All of these are essential components in reducing the leading causes of death and disability in the U.S.
Jacobsen: What are the biggest challenges in chronic disease prevention over the next year?
Robitscher: The biggest challenge is that people do not want to exercise. They do not want to eat healthily. People want to eat what they want, when they want, and we live in a society that celebrates individual choice. We support that independence, of course, but we must also be realistic.
You have to focus on it. Losing weight is hard in this country and anywhere. There is so much delicious food on the market that is not good for you.
Our Health and Lifestyle Training (HALT) program is so important. It is evidence-based and is currently being implemented in 17 states. I have used it myself for a year. I lost 30 pounds and have managed to keep most of the weight off. But it is a challenge. I have to work out regularly to maintain it.
Still, if we can give people the tools, resources, and education—if they can track their movement and food intake—then we can deliver real impact. It is about improving health outcomes and quality of life.
The goal is not just to live longer. Yes, longevity matters, but so does the quality of those years. People in their 70s and 80s who use wheelchairs or live in nursing homes because of preventable falls. That is not what most people want.
We want people to remain physically and mentally active as they age. Achieving that takes work from all of us. But it is possible, and we are committed to helping people lead longer, healthier, more balanced lives.
Jacobsen: How does NACDD utilize its data to inform programs and measure the impact of chronic disease prevention? And I do not necessarily mean something as coarse as “I weighed X. Hooray.”
Robitscher: The CDC—and we—use particular metrics. In the past, the CDC has developed stringent guidelines and deliverables for grantees to meet. These are not just about weight loss. They include measurable reductions in chronic disease rates, improved access to clean water and healthy food, and better medical services and devices.
There are many indicators: healthy weight, nutrition, physical activity, smoking cessation, and even broader community-level measures. When combined, these contribute to a healthier nation.
That is the foundation on which we begin. We do not rely on just one metric. It is about understanding how these components work together to improve public health outcomes.
So a lot of what we do involves looking at all the data. We review scientific research, of course, but we also consider anecdotal data, like information from Google or Amazon about consumer behaviours, purchasing trends, and search patterns. We also evaluate environmental factors like air quality, food quality, and the location of recent natural disasters and how they impact specific populations.
We use all of that to develop a plan tailored to the community. There’s no point in launching a program that the target population will not follow. Programs must be culturally appropriate and aligned with the specific needs and values of the communities we serve.
We take this very seriously. We co-design programs with input from patients, community leaders, and public health professionals. One of our key roles at NACDD is being a convener—we bring together people from across sectors within a community, facilitate discussion, and collaboratively decide what will work locally.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Populations vary, with different cultures, dialects, and lived experiences. For example, our HALT program is available in English and Spanish and is culturally adapted for Native American communities in the Great Plains region.
We constantly strive to develop solutions that genuinely meet the needs of each community. That is not easy. You cannot just release a shiny new app or generic program and expect everyone to engage. You have to meet people where they are. That is our philosophy.
Jacobsen: What are the primary objectives of the Solving Health Care Challenges webinar? This will likely come out after the webinar, but could you repeat the key takeaways?
Robitscher: The webinar’s core message is to reject the idea that one program can fit everyone. That doesn’t work. We must meet people where they are.
We have to address populations at the macro and micro levels. On a population level, yes, we design programs to address broad needs. But ultimately, chronic disease prevention and management come down to individual decisions. A person must choose the life they want to live and commit to making meaningful changes. That is how we help them live longer, better lives.
Jacobsen: Are you engaged with policymakers or legislators through NACDD to support these types of chronic disease prevention and management programs?
Robitscher: We do not lobby, per se.
We meet with policymakers primarily to educate them on the opportunities available within their states. Often, legislators do not know what programs are working well in their jurisdiction, or even what initiatives are currently active.
At NACDD, we maintain a database called State Success Stories, where we showcase programs nationwide that effectively prevent chronic diseases and promote population health. Much of our work is leveraged. The federal government often provides seed funding, but private industry and businesses frequently match or exceed that investment.
One great example is our Walkability Action Institute. I just returned from Anchorage, Alaska, where we conducted a walk audit with the community to assess and improve walkability. These efforts aim to make communities more livable, ensure access to healthy food, and create safe environments for walking and biking.
That program is a strong public-private collaboration. For every federal dollar invested in the walkability program, the private sector contributes approximately $177. Through this initiative, we have brought millions of dollars to local communities. Private businesses have built walking paths, biking trails, and community fitness infrastructure. They have brought people together around the goal of healthier living.
That is what NACDD does—we serve as a conduit, bringing diverse stakeholders together.
Jacobsen: How do you transform engagement into chronic disease management? You can deliver excellent resources, run webinars, build programs, and raise $450 million—but at scale, the population-level impact depends on people becoming invested enough to take action. How do you get them actually to make that change?
Robitscher: I am glad you asked that. It is a great question, and it ties directly into our HALT application. This is a digital tool that can be found on every American’s smartphone.
We are currently proposing it to the MAHA Group because lifestyle management is something this administration is ready to prioritize. Secretary Kennedy and President Trump—regardless of party lines—are among the first national leaders in recent memory to talk openly about chronic disease prevention. We are excited to support them.
We would love to see HALT in the hands of every American. With this app, people can track their food intake, physical activity, and weight and even sync up with a blood pressure monitor. These are critical indicators of a healthy lifestyle.
We have to control our health. Again, the only way to do that is hard work. But if we give people the right tools, we can help them succeed.
It is physical. It is about being physically active daily and watching and tracking what you eat. But all of that depends on education.
We expect people to make significant lifestyle changes, but often, we do not explain why. In reality, physicians only spend about five to seven minutes with each patient. That is not enough time for meaningful behaviour change education.
So, we need a tool that empowers the person, not just the patient. You may not be a patient yet, but you can still take action to improve your life.
We believe lifestyle change management is critical—it may be the most vital initiative this country has ever embarked on. Can we help people manage their lifestyles effectively enough to live longer, happier, more fulfilling lives?
We believe we can. But it will take hard work.
People think they can download an app and just have it on their phone, which will make them healthier. It will not. The app must be paired with education, and you must commit. You have to put in the effort.
But the good news is—it is doable. I am a living example of that. I lost 30 pounds using the HALT app. I believe we can change the lives of millions of Americans and make them much better than they are today.
Jacobsen: Excellent. John, thank you for your time and expertise. It was nice to meet you.
Robitscher: Yes. You had good questions. I enjoyed it too.
Jacobsen: Thank you again. Take care.
Robitscher: You too. Bye-bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
NACDD and HALT Are Revolutionizing Chronic Disease Prevention
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/28
John W. Robitscher, CEO of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), discusses the organization’s mission to prevent chronic disease through partnerships, community programs, and innovative tools like the HALT (Health And Lifestyle Training) app. Working closely with the CDC, NACDD helps implement evidence-based strategies nationwide, promoting healthy lifestyles and reducing risk factors such as poor diet and inactivity. Robitscher emphasizes the need for cross-sector collaboration, culturally tailored interventions, and empowering individuals through education and technology. Despite challenges, he believes widespread lifestyle change is possible with commitment, proper tools, and support from both public and private sectors.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are with John W. Robitscher. He serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), providing strategic leadership to advance its chronic disease prevention and health promotion mission.
Since joining NACDD in February 2005, he has overseen the acquisition of over $450 million in funding for chronic disease prevention and health programs across all 50 states and U.S. territories. With over thirty years of experience managing nonprofit organizations, Robitscher has expanded NACDD’s reach, supporting a network of over 7,000 public health professionals worldwide.
So, how is NACDD advancing early detection methods for chronic diseases like diabetes, and what emerging technologies are helping support these efforts?
John Robitscher: We’re proud to partner strongly with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), especially with the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The CDC has a long history of developing preventive medicine guidelines, going back fifty, sixty, even eighty years.
It works because the NIH (National Institutes of Health) does the medical research, and then the CDC implements that research through practical programming. They rely on national partners like NACDD to help bring those evidence-based programs into communities.
We support state and territorial health departments by directly interacting with local communities in every U.S. state and territory. Thus, we act as a bridge, helping push these proven programs to where they are needed.
Some programs include diabetes prevention, heart disease and stroke prevention, hypertension prevention, and more. One exciting innovation we’ve developed is a lifestyle management course called HALT, which stands for Health And Lifestyle Training. We can discuss it later, but it is a cutting-edge digital mobile application tool that helps people manage and treat their chronic conditions.
Jacobsen: What are some good examples of cross-sector partnerships? I was interviewing a medical professional recently, and we discussed how no single discipline can effectively tackle something as complex as cancer. Cross-disciplinary collaboration is key. Is it similar in chronic disease prevention?
Robitscher: Absolutely. What we know is that the significant risk factors for chronic diseases like heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, early-onset arthritis, and even dementia—those risk factors are often the same.
They include physical inactivity, poor nutrition, unhealthy body weight, and tobacco use. So promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and smoking cessation addresses multiple chronic conditions simultaneously.
The CDC runs a program called Active People, Healthy Nation, which aims to get 27 million Americans to exercise at least 150 minutes weekly by 2027. That’s a realistic and vital goal.
We work across sectors—education, transportation, housing, private industry, and government—to support better access to physical activity, promote healthier diets (including fresh fruits and vegetables), and reduce tobacco use. All of these are essential components in reducing the leading causes of death and disability in the U.S.
Jacobsen: What are the biggest challenges in chronic disease prevention over the next year?
Robitscher: The biggest challenge is that people do not want to exercise. They do not want to eat healthily. People want to eat what they want, when they want, and we live in a society that celebrates individual choice. We support that independence, of course, but we must also be realistic.
You have to focus on it. Losing weight is hard in this country and anywhere. There is so much delicious food on the market that is not good for you.
Our Health and Lifestyle Training (HALT) program is so important. It is evidence-based and is currently being implemented in 17 states. I have used it myself for a year. I lost 30 pounds and have managed to keep most of the weight off. But it is a challenge. I have to work out regularly to maintain it.
Still, if we can give people the tools, resources, and education—if they can track their movement and food intake—then we can deliver real impact. It is about improving health outcomes and quality of life.
The goal is not just to live longer. Yes, longevity matters, but so does the quality of those years. People in their 70s and 80s who use wheelchairs or live in nursing homes because of preventable falls. That is not what most people want.
We want people to remain physically and mentally active as they age. Achieving that takes work from all of us. But it is possible, and we are committed to helping people lead longer, healthier, more balanced lives.
Jacobsen: How does NACDD utilize its data to inform programs and measure the impact of chronic disease prevention? And I do not necessarily mean something as coarse as “I weighed X. Hooray.”
Robitscher: The CDC—and we—use particular metrics. In the past, the CDC has developed stringent guidelines and deliverables for grantees to meet. These are not just about weight loss. They include measurable reductions in chronic disease rates, improved access to clean water and healthy food, and better medical services and devices.
There are many indicators: healthy weight, nutrition, physical activity, smoking cessation, and even broader community-level measures. When combined, these contribute to a healthier nation.
That is the foundation on which we begin. We do not rely on just one metric. It is about understanding how these components work together to improve public health outcomes.
So a lot of what we do involves looking at all the data. We review scientific research, of course, but we also consider anecdotal data, like information from Google or Amazon about consumer behaviours, purchasing trends, and search patterns. We also evaluate environmental factors like air quality, food quality, and the location of recent natural disasters and how they impact specific populations.
We use all of that to develop a plan tailored to the community. There’s no point in launching a program that the target population will not follow. Programs must be culturally appropriate and aligned with the specific needs and values of the communities we serve.
We take this very seriously. We co-design programs with input from patients, community leaders, and public health professionals. One of our key roles at NACDD is being a convener—we bring together people from across sectors within a community, facilitate discussion, and collaboratively decide what will work locally.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Populations vary, with different cultures, dialects, and lived experiences. For example, our HALT program is available in English and Spanish and is culturally adapted for Native American communities in the Great Plains region.
We constantly strive to develop solutions that genuinely meet the needs of each community. That is not easy. You cannot just release a shiny new app or generic program and expect everyone to engage. You have to meet people where they are. That is our philosophy.
Jacobsen: What are the primary objectives of the Solving Health Care Challenges webinar? This will likely come out after the webinar, but could you repeat the key takeaways?
Robitscher: The webinar’s core message is to reject the idea that one program can fit everyone. That doesn’t work. We must meet people where they are.
We have to address populations at the macro and micro levels. On a population level, yes, we design programs to address broad needs. But ultimately, chronic disease prevention and management come down to individual decisions. A person must choose the life they want to live and commit to making meaningful changes. That is how we help them live longer, better lives.
Jacobsen: Are you engaged with policymakers or legislators through NACDD to support these types of chronic disease prevention and management programs?
Robitscher: We do not lobby, per se.
We meet with policymakers primarily to educate them on the opportunities available within their states. Often, legislators do not know what programs are working well in their jurisdiction, or even what initiatives are currently active.
At NACDD, we maintain a database called State Success Stories, where we showcase programs nationwide that effectively prevent chronic diseases and promote population health. Much of our work is leveraged. The federal government often provides seed funding, but private industry and businesses frequently match or exceed that investment.
One great example is our Walkability Action Institute. I just returned from Anchorage, Alaska, where we conducted a walk audit with the community to assess and improve walkability. These efforts aim to make communities more livable, ensure access to healthy food, and create safe environments for walking and biking.
That program is a strong public-private collaboration. For every federal dollar invested in the walkability program, the private sector contributes approximately $177. Through this initiative, we have brought millions of dollars to local communities. Private businesses have built walking paths, biking trails, and community fitness infrastructure. They have brought people together around the goal of healthier living.
That is what NACDD does—we serve as a conduit, bringing diverse stakeholders together.
Jacobsen: How do you transform engagement into chronic disease management? You can deliver excellent resources, run webinars, build programs, and raise $450 million—but at scale, the population-level impact depends on people becoming invested enough to take action. How do you get them actually to make that change?
Robitscher: I am glad you asked that. It is a great question, and it ties directly into our HALT application. This is a digital tool that can be found on every American’s smartphone.
We are currently proposing it to the MAHA Group because lifestyle management is something this administration is ready to prioritize. Secretary Kennedy and President Trump—regardless of party lines—are among the first national leaders in recent memory to talk openly about chronic disease prevention. We are excited to support them.
We would love to see HALT in the hands of every American. With this app, people can track their food intake, physical activity, and weight and even sync up with a blood pressure monitor. These are critical indicators of a healthy lifestyle.
We have to control our health. Again, the only way to do that is hard work. But if we give people the right tools, we can help them succeed.
It is physical. It is about being physically active daily and watching and tracking what you eat. But all of that depends on education.
We expect people to make significant lifestyle changes, but often, we do not explain why. In reality, physicians only spend about five to seven minutes with each patient. That is not enough time for meaningful behaviour change education.
So, we need a tool that empowers the person, not just the patient. You may not be a patient yet, but you can still take action to improve your life.
We believe lifestyle change management is critical—it may be the most vital initiative this country has ever embarked on. Can we help people manage their lifestyles effectively enough to live longer, happier, more fulfilling lives?
We believe we can. But it will take hard work.
People think they can download an app and just have it on their phone, which will make them healthier. It will not. The app must be paired with education, and you must commit. You have to put in the effort.
But the good news is—it is doable. I am a living example of that. I lost 30 pounds using the HALT app. I believe we can change the lives of millions of Americans and make them much better than they are today.
Jacobsen: Excellent. John, thank you for your time and expertise. It was nice to meet you.
Robitscher: Yes. You had good questions. I enjoyed it too.
Jacobsen: Thank you again. Take care.
Robitscher: You too. Bye-bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
NACDD and HALT Are Revolutionizing Chronic Disease Prevention
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/28
John W. Robitscher, CEO of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), discusses the organization’s mission to prevent chronic disease through partnerships, community programs, and innovative tools like the HALT (Health And Lifestyle Training) app. Working closely with the CDC, NACDD helps implement evidence-based strategies nationwide, promoting healthy lifestyles and reducing risk factors such as poor diet and inactivity. Robitscher emphasizes the need for cross-sector collaboration, culturally tailored interventions, and empowering individuals through education and technology. Despite challenges, he believes widespread lifestyle change is possible with commitment, proper tools, and support from both public and private sectors.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are with John W. Robitscher. He serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), providing strategic leadership to advance its chronic disease prevention and health promotion mission.
Since joining NACDD in February 2005, he has overseen the acquisition of over $450 million in funding for chronic disease prevention and health programs across all 50 states and U.S. territories. With over thirty years of experience managing nonprofit organizations, Robitscher has expanded NACDD’s reach, supporting a network of over 7,000 public health professionals worldwide.
So, how is NACDD advancing early detection methods for chronic diseases like diabetes, and what emerging technologies are helping support these efforts?
John Robitscher: We’re proud to partner strongly with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), especially with the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The CDC has a long history of developing preventive medicine guidelines, going back fifty, sixty, even eighty years.
It works because the NIH (National Institutes of Health) does the medical research, and then the CDC implements that research through practical programming. They rely on national partners like NACDD to help bring those evidence-based programs into communities.
We support state and territorial health departments by directly interacting with local communities in every U.S. state and territory. Thus, we act as a bridge, helping push these proven programs to where they are needed.
Some programs include diabetes prevention, heart disease and stroke prevention, hypertension prevention, and more. One exciting innovation we’ve developed is a lifestyle management course called HALT, which stands for Health And Lifestyle Training. We can discuss it later, but it is a cutting-edge digital mobile application tool that helps people manage and treat their chronic conditions.
Jacobsen: What are some good examples of cross-sector partnerships? I was interviewing a medical professional recently, and we discussed how no single discipline can effectively tackle something as complex as cancer. Cross-disciplinary collaboration is key. Is it similar in chronic disease prevention?
Robitscher: Absolutely. What we know is that the significant risk factors for chronic diseases like heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, early-onset arthritis, and even dementia—those risk factors are often the same.
They include physical inactivity, poor nutrition, unhealthy body weight, and tobacco use. So promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and smoking cessation addresses multiple chronic conditions simultaneously.
The CDC runs a program called Active People, Healthy Nation, which aims to get 27 million Americans to exercise at least 150 minutes weekly by 2027. That’s a realistic and vital goal.
We work across sectors—education, transportation, housing, private industry, and government—to support better access to physical activity, promote healthier diets (including fresh fruits and vegetables), and reduce tobacco use. All of these are essential components in reducing the leading causes of death and disability in the U.S.
Jacobsen: What are the biggest challenges in chronic disease prevention over the next year?
Robitscher: The biggest challenge is that people do not want to exercise. They do not want to eat healthily. People want to eat what they want, when they want, and we live in a society that celebrates individual choice. We support that independence, of course, but we must also be realistic.
You have to focus on it. Losing weight is hard in this country and anywhere. There is so much delicious food on the market that is not good for you.
Our Health and Lifestyle Training (HALT) program is so important. It is evidence-based and is currently being implemented in 17 states. I have used it myself for a year. I lost 30 pounds and have managed to keep most of the weight off. But it is a challenge. I have to work out regularly to maintain it.
Still, if we can give people the tools, resources, and education—if they can track their movement and food intake—then we can deliver real impact. It is about improving health outcomes and quality of life.
The goal is not just to live longer. Yes, longevity matters, but so does the quality of those years. People in their 70s and 80s who use wheelchairs or live in nursing homes because of preventable falls. That is not what most people want.
We want people to remain physically and mentally active as they age. Achieving that takes work from all of us. But it is possible, and we are committed to helping people lead longer, healthier, more balanced lives.
Jacobsen: How does NACDD utilize its data to inform programs and measure the impact of chronic disease prevention? And I do not necessarily mean something as coarse as “I weighed X. Hooray.”
Robitscher: The CDC—and we—use particular metrics. In the past, the CDC has developed stringent guidelines and deliverables for grantees to meet. These are not just about weight loss. They include measurable reductions in chronic disease rates, improved access to clean water and healthy food, and better medical services and devices.
There are many indicators: healthy weight, nutrition, physical activity, smoking cessation, and even broader community-level measures. When combined, these contribute to a healthier nation.
That is the foundation on which we begin. We do not rely on just one metric. It is about understanding how these components work together to improve public health outcomes.
So a lot of what we do involves looking at all the data. We review scientific research, of course, but we also consider anecdotal data, like information from Google or Amazon about consumer behaviours, purchasing trends, and search patterns. We also evaluate environmental factors like air quality, food quality, and the location of recent natural disasters and how they impact specific populations.
We use all of that to develop a plan tailored to the community. There’s no point in launching a program that the target population will not follow. Programs must be culturally appropriate and aligned with the specific needs and values of the communities we serve.
We take this very seriously. We co-design programs with input from patients, community leaders, and public health professionals. One of our key roles at NACDD is being a convener—we bring together people from across sectors within a community, facilitate discussion, and collaboratively decide what will work locally.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Populations vary, with different cultures, dialects, and lived experiences. For example, our HALT program is available in English and Spanish and is culturally adapted for Native American communities in the Great Plains region.
We constantly strive to develop solutions that genuinely meet the needs of each community. That is not easy. You cannot just release a shiny new app or generic program and expect everyone to engage. You have to meet people where they are. That is our philosophy.
Jacobsen: What are the primary objectives of the Solving Health Care Challenges webinar? This will likely come out after the webinar, but could you repeat the key takeaways?
Robitscher: The webinar’s core message is to reject the idea that one program can fit everyone. That doesn’t work. We must meet people where they are.
We have to address populations at the macro and micro levels. On a population level, yes, we design programs to address broad needs. But ultimately, chronic disease prevention and management come down to individual decisions. A person must choose the life they want to live and commit to making meaningful changes. That is how we help them live longer, better lives.
Jacobsen: Are you engaged with policymakers or legislators through NACDD to support these types of chronic disease prevention and management programs?
Robitscher: We do not lobby, per se.
We meet with policymakers primarily to educate them on the opportunities available within their states. Often, legislators do not know what programs are working well in their jurisdiction, or even what initiatives are currently active.
At NACDD, we maintain a database called State Success Stories, where we showcase programs nationwide that effectively prevent chronic diseases and promote population health. Much of our work is leveraged. The federal government often provides seed funding, but private industry and businesses frequently match or exceed that investment.
One great example is our Walkability Action Institute. I just returned from Anchorage, Alaska, where we conducted a walk audit with the community to assess and improve walkability. These efforts aim to make communities more livable, ensure access to healthy food, and create safe environments for walking and biking.
That program is a strong public-private collaboration. For every federal dollar invested in the walkability program, the private sector contributes approximately $177. Through this initiative, we have brought millions of dollars to local communities. Private businesses have built walking paths, biking trails, and community fitness infrastructure. They have brought people together around the goal of healthier living.
That is what NACDD does—we serve as a conduit, bringing diverse stakeholders together.
Jacobsen: How do you transform engagement into chronic disease management? You can deliver excellent resources, run webinars, build programs, and raise $450 million—but at scale, the population-level impact depends on people becoming invested enough to take action. How do you get them actually to make that change?
Robitscher: I am glad you asked that. It is a great question, and it ties directly into our HALT application. This is a digital tool that can be found on every American’s smartphone.
We are currently proposing it to the MAHA Group because lifestyle management is something this administration is ready to prioritize. Secretary Kennedy and President Trump—regardless of party lines—are among the first national leaders in recent memory to talk openly about chronic disease prevention. We are excited to support them.
We would love to see HALT in the hands of every American. With this app, people can track their food intake, physical activity, and weight and even sync up with a blood pressure monitor. These are critical indicators of a healthy lifestyle.
We have to control our health. Again, the only way to do that is hard work. But if we give people the right tools, we can help them succeed.
It is physical. It is about being physically active daily and watching and tracking what you eat. But all of that depends on education.
We expect people to make significant lifestyle changes, but often, we do not explain why. In reality, physicians only spend about five to seven minutes with each patient. That is not enough time for meaningful behaviour change education.
So, we need a tool that empowers the person, not just the patient. You may not be a patient yet, but you can still take action to improve your life.
We believe lifestyle change management is critical—it may be the most vital initiative this country has ever embarked on. Can we help people manage their lifestyles effectively enough to live longer, happier, more fulfilling lives?
We believe we can. But it will take hard work.
People think they can download an app and just have it on their phone, which will make them healthier. It will not. The app must be paired with education, and you must commit. You have to put in the effort.
But the good news is—it is doable. I am a living example of that. I lost 30 pounds using the HALT app. I believe we can change the lives of millions of Americans and make them much better than they are today.
Jacobsen: Excellent. John, thank you for your time and expertise. It was nice to meet you.
Robitscher: Yes. You had good questions. I enjoyed it too.
Jacobsen: Thank you again. Take care.
Robitscher: You too. Bye-bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject
-
NACDD and HALT Are Revolutionizing Chronic Disease Prevention
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/28
John W. Robitscher, CEO of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), discusses the organization’s mission to prevent chronic disease through partnerships, community programs, and innovative tools like the HALT (Health And Lifestyle Training) app. Working closely with the CDC, NACDD helps implement evidence-based strategies nationwide, promoting healthy lifestyles and reducing risk factors such as poor diet and inactivity. Robitscher emphasizes the need for cross-sector collaboration, culturally tailored interventions, and empowering individuals through education and technology. Despite challenges, he believes widespread lifestyle change is possible with commitment, proper tools, and support from both public and private sectors.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are with John W. Robitscher. He serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), providing strategic leadership to advance its chronic disease prevention and health promotion mission.
Since joining NACDD in February 2005, he has overseen the acquisition of over $450 million in funding for chronic disease prevention and health programs across all 50 states and U.S. territories. With over thirty years of experience managing nonprofit organizations, Robitscher has expanded NACDD’s reach, supporting a network of over 7,000 public health professionals worldwide.
So, how is NACDD advancing early detection methods for chronic diseases like diabetes, and what emerging technologies are helping support these efforts?
John Robitscher: We’re proud to partner strongly with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), especially with the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The CDC has a long history of developing preventive medicine guidelines, going back fifty, sixty, even eighty years.
It works because the NIH (National Institutes of Health) does the medical research, and then the CDC implements that research through practical programming. They rely on national partners like NACDD to help bring those evidence-based programs into communities.
We support state and territorial health departments by directly interacting with local communities in every U.S. state and territory. Thus, we act as a bridge, helping push these proven programs to where they are needed.
Some programs include diabetes prevention, heart disease and stroke prevention, hypertension prevention, and more. One exciting innovation we’ve developed is a lifestyle management course called HALT, which stands for Health And Lifestyle Training. We can discuss it later, but it is a cutting-edge digital mobile application tool that helps people manage and treat their chronic conditions.
Jacobsen: What are some good examples of cross-sector partnerships? I was interviewing a medical professional recently, and we discussed how no single discipline can effectively tackle something as complex as cancer. Cross-disciplinary collaboration is key. Is it similar in chronic disease prevention?
Robitscher: Absolutely. What we know is that the significant risk factors for chronic diseases like heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, early-onset arthritis, and even dementia—those risk factors are often the same.
They include physical inactivity, poor nutrition, unhealthy body weight, and tobacco use. So promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and smoking cessation addresses multiple chronic conditions simultaneously.
The CDC runs a program called Active People, Healthy Nation, which aims to get 27 million Americans to exercise at least 150 minutes weekly by 2027. That’s a realistic and vital goal.
We work across sectors—education, transportation, housing, private industry, and government—to support better access to physical activity, promote healthier diets (including fresh fruits and vegetables), and reduce tobacco use. All of these are essential components in reducing the leading causes of death and disability in the U.S.
Jacobsen: What are the biggest challenges in chronic disease prevention over the next year?
Robitscher: The biggest challenge is that people do not want to exercise. They do not want to eat healthily. People want to eat what they want, when they want, and we live in a society that celebrates individual choice. We support that independence, of course, but we must also be realistic.
You have to focus on it. Losing weight is hard in this country and anywhere. There is so much delicious food on the market that is not good for you.
Our Health and Lifestyle Training (HALT) program is so important. It is evidence-based and is currently being implemented in 17 states. I have used it myself for a year. I lost 30 pounds and have managed to keep most of the weight off. But it is a challenge. I have to work out regularly to maintain it.
Still, if we can give people the tools, resources, and education—if they can track their movement and food intake—then we can deliver real impact. It is about improving health outcomes and quality of life.
The goal is not just to live longer. Yes, longevity matters, but so does the quality of those years. People in their 70s and 80s who use wheelchairs or live in nursing homes because of preventable falls. That is not what most people want.
We want people to remain physically and mentally active as they age. Achieving that takes work from all of us. But it is possible, and we are committed to helping people lead longer, healthier, more balanced lives.
Jacobsen: How does NACDD utilize its data to inform programs and measure the impact of chronic disease prevention? And I do not necessarily mean something as coarse as “I weighed X. Hooray.”
Robitscher: The CDC—and we—use particular metrics. In the past, the CDC has developed stringent guidelines and deliverables for grantees to meet. These are not just about weight loss. They include measurable reductions in chronic disease rates, improved access to clean water and healthy food, and better medical services and devices.
There are many indicators: healthy weight, nutrition, physical activity, smoking cessation, and even broader community-level measures. When combined, these contribute to a healthier nation.
That is the foundation on which we begin. We do not rely on just one metric. It is about understanding how these components work together to improve public health outcomes.
So a lot of what we do involves looking at all the data. We review scientific research, of course, but we also consider anecdotal data, like information from Google or Amazon about consumer behaviours, purchasing trends, and search patterns. We also evaluate environmental factors like air quality, food quality, and the location of recent natural disasters and how they impact specific populations.
We use all of that to develop a plan tailored to the community. There’s no point in launching a program that the target population will not follow. Programs must be culturally appropriate and aligned with the specific needs and values of the communities we serve.
We take this very seriously. We co-design programs with input from patients, community leaders, and public health professionals. One of our key roles at NACDD is being a convener—we bring together people from across sectors within a community, facilitate discussion, and collaboratively decide what will work locally.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Populations vary, with different cultures, dialects, and lived experiences. For example, our HALT program is available in English and Spanish and is culturally adapted for Native American communities in the Great Plains region.
We constantly strive to develop solutions that genuinely meet the needs of each community. That is not easy. You cannot just release a shiny new app or generic program and expect everyone to engage. You have to meet people where they are. That is our philosophy.
Jacobsen: What are the primary objectives of the Solving Health Care Challenges webinar? This will likely come out after the webinar, but could you repeat the key takeaways?
Robitscher: The webinar’s core message is to reject the idea that one program can fit everyone. That doesn’t work. We must meet people where they are.
We have to address populations at the macro and micro levels. On a population level, yes, we design programs to address broad needs. But ultimately, chronic disease prevention and management come down to individual decisions. A person must choose the life they want to live and commit to making meaningful changes. That is how we help them live longer, better lives.
Jacobsen: Are you engaged with policymakers or legislators through NACDD to support these types of chronic disease prevention and management programs?
Robitscher: We do not lobby, per se.
We meet with policymakers primarily to educate them on the opportunities available within their states. Often, legislators do not know what programs are working well in their jurisdiction, or even what initiatives are currently active.
At NACDD, we maintain a database called State Success Stories, where we showcase programs nationwide that effectively prevent chronic diseases and promote population health. Much of our work is leveraged. The federal government often provides seed funding, but private industry and businesses frequently match or exceed that investment.
One great example is our Walkability Action Institute. I just returned from Anchorage, Alaska, where we conducted a walk audit with the community to assess and improve walkability. These efforts aim to make communities more livable, ensure access to healthy food, and create safe environments for walking and biking.
That program is a strong public-private collaboration. For every federal dollar invested in the walkability program, the private sector contributes approximately $177. Through this initiative, we have brought millions of dollars to local communities. Private businesses have built walking paths, biking trails, and community fitness infrastructure. They have brought people together around the goal of healthier living.
That is what NACDD does—we serve as a conduit, bringing diverse stakeholders together.
Jacobsen: How do you transform engagement into chronic disease management? You can deliver excellent resources, run webinars, build programs, and raise $450 million—but at scale, the population-level impact depends on people becoming invested enough to take action. How do you get them actually to make that change?
Robitscher: I am glad you asked that. It is a great question, and it ties directly into our HALT application. This is a digital tool that can be found on every American’s smartphone.
We are currently proposing it to the MAHA Group because lifestyle management is something this administration is ready to prioritize. Secretary Kennedy and President Trump—regardless of party lines—are among the first national leaders in recent memory to talk openly about chronic disease prevention. We are excited to support them.
We would love to see HALT in the hands of every American. With this app, people can track their food intake, physical activity, and weight and even sync up with a blood pressure monitor. These are critical indicators of a healthy lifestyle.
We have to control our health. Again, the only way to do that is hard work. But if we give people the right tools, we can help them succeed.
It is physical. It is about being physically active daily and watching and tracking what you eat. But all of that depends on education.
We expect people to make significant lifestyle changes, but often, we do not explain why. In reality, physicians only spend about five to seven minutes with each patient. That is not enough time for meaningful behaviour change education.
So, we need a tool that empowers the person, not just the patient. You may not be a patient yet, but you can still take action to improve your life.
We believe lifestyle change management is critical—it may be the most vital initiative this country has ever embarked on. Can we help people manage their lifestyles effectively enough to live longer, happier, more fulfilling lives?
We believe we can. But it will take hard work.
People think they can download an app and just have it on their phone, which will make them healthier. It will not. The app must be paired with education, and you must commit. You have to put in the effort.
But the good news is—it is doable. I am a living example of that. I lost 30 pounds using the HALT app. I believe we can change the lives of millions of Americans and make them much better than they are today.
Jacobsen: Excellent. John, thank you for your time and expertise. It was nice to meet you.
Robitscher: Yes. You had good questions. I enjoyed it too.
Jacobsen: Thank you again. Take care.
Robitscher: You too. Bye-bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ethicalMen #genderEquality #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject