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 #menSIssues #progressiveMasculinity #TheGoodMenProject

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 #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

From Barefoot Confirmation to President of Iceland’s Humanist Association

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/04

Arndís Anna Kristínardóttir Gunnarsdóttir is President of Siðmennt, the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association. Raised in a nonreligious Lutheran household, she embraced Christianity as a child—memorizing Bible verses and undergoing barefoot confirmation at 14—before questioning faith amid her father’s Pentecostal turn. A lawyer, she advised Siðmennt and delivered its secular parliamentary alternative. Elected president on March 1 after a two-candidate race, she served as an MP (2021–2024), championing church-state separation, transparency, constitutional review, and humanist principles. Gunnarsdóttir’s path to the presidency of Siðmennt was a gradual one.

Born to nonpracticing Lutheran parents, she embraced Christian faith as a child—memorizing Bible verses and choosing barefoot confirmation at 14—and later became unsettled by her father’s association with the Pentecostal Church, which emphasized fear of the devil. This prompted years of questioning until she concluded morality need not derive from religion. As a lawyer, she advised Siðmennt from 2013 and presented its secular alternative before Parliament. Running as a two-candidate contest, she was elected president on March 1 and has overseen membership growth even as Iceland’s national church declines. In Parliament (2021–2024) representing the Pirate Party, Gunnarsdóttir championed the separation of church and state, transparency, privacy rights, and the creation of an independent constitutional advisory council. She criticized the government’s choice of a church-affiliated crematorium over a secular proposal, highlighting institutional bias, and seeks interfaith cooperation to uphold shared humanist values.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your current title?

Arndís Anna Kristínardóttir Gunnarsdóttir: Gunnarsdóttir: I am the President of Siðmennt, the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association.

Jacobsen: How did you become involved in the humanist and ethical movement in Iceland? And how long have you been its President?

Gunnarsdóttir: To be honest, I cannot pinpoint a specific moment when I became involved in humanism. It happened gradually over time. I was raised in a non-religious household, which is quite typical in Iceland. Like many Icelanders, we were registered in the National Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, but we did not actively practice religion. As a child, though, I was pretty religious. I attended Christian summer camps, considered myself devout, and had a traditional Lutheran confirmation at the age of 14. I chose to go barefoot for the ceremony, which, for me, held symbolic meaning — a personal expression of sincerity or humility. However, I am not entirely sure why I felt that way at the time.

Jacobsen: What did that mean to you?

Gunnarsdóttir: It meant going through the confirmation without shoes or socks. It was a symbolic gesture. At the time, I viewed it as a form of personal devotion or a serious commitment to the ritual. I was the kind of child who wanted to do things properly. I even memorized and quoted Bible verses. Not excessively, but I took it seriously. I was a straight-A student, very well-behaved. I had a strong desire to be perfect, and my religious behaviour was part of that mindset. Looking back, I believe I was genuinely religious as a child. But my shift toward humanism began when my father became involved with the Pentecostal Church in Iceland. That was a confusing period for me. Although I still considered myself Christian, the Pentecostal focus was unsettling. They spoke more about the devil than about God. It seemed like they saw the devil everywhere. Much of what I experienced in that environment felt wrong or disturbing to me — it conflicted with what I believed Christianity should be. It led to a period of confusion and reflection. For a time, I distanced myself from religion entirely because I needed to rethink everything.

And I started saying things like, “I don’t believe in God if God is so judgmental,” etc. I began to doubt — very seriously. At first, I still believed in God but rejected the religious doctrines and interpretations I was encountering. Slowly, gradually, over time, that changed. This is why I cannot pinpoint the exact moment I became a humanist or decided to join Siðmennt. It was a process that spanned many years.

As a child, I always wanted to help people. My dream job when I was little was to become a Christian missionary in Africa. The funny thing is that, as an adult, I ended up working for the Red Cross , supporting refugees and asylum seekers.

My dream is still to go to areas experiencing humanitarian crises to try and help. I now see it from a different perspective. I would say I am mostly healed from what you might call the white saviour syndrome. But I have not abandoned that part of myself from childhood — the part that wants to help, that wants to bring and promote humanity.

At some point, I realized that I did not need religion to do that. I do not need religion to act ethically. That realization is what brought me to humanism.

Humanist values are grounded in the idea that our principles and ethics do not come from divine sources — they come from our shared humanity. That understanding made me more active in Siðmennt.

I never held a formal position in the organization before becoming President. However, I have given legal advice to Siðmennt over the years and have been involved in various ways. In 2013, for example, I gave a speech at the beginning of Parliament’s annual session.

In Iceland, a traditional church service is held before the first session of the parliament. But for several decades now, Siðmennt has offered a secular alternative . At this gathering, a speaker provides hopefully wise and meaningful words, followed by a lunch. I was honoured to give that speech in 2013.

So, I have been indirectly involved with Siðmennt for a long time.

I also served as a Member of Parliament in Iceland from 2021 to 2024. During that time, I actively supported and promoted the goals of Siðmennt and the broader humanist movement, including advocating for the separation of church and state.

For example, there is currently a need for a new crematorium in Iceland. Due to our small population, there is only one existing crematorium. A private association came forward with funding and plans to create a secular crematorium.

Unfortunately, I received news today that the new Minister of Justice has signed an agreement with Reykjavík Cemeteries, which are affiliated with the national church.

Technically, Siðmennt has a representative on the board overseeing this, and it is supposed to be interreligious. But in reality, about 80 percent of the representatives are affiliated with the state church. So it is still far from being truly neutral or inclusive.

Jacobsen: So, in Iceland, the state church means the Lutheran Church?

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes, it is the Lutheran Protestant Church of Iceland. They used to have around 80–90 percent of the population, but now they are just above 50 percent. Despite the global trend of conservative resurgence — including here in Iceland — the national church continues to lose members.

Meanwhile, our membership continues to grow. The rate of change has slowed, but the trend remains the same: fewer members for the state church, more for us.

I never had any personal ambition or goal to become President of Humanists Iceland. The idea was proposed to me by friends who had been more active within the humanist community. That was because Inga had decided not to run again.

So there was a need for a new candidate, and I was encouraged to step forward. I first heard the suggestion around a year ago. By November, they began pushing me to consider it more seriously, and I decided to run in February.

It all happened quite fast. The election was held on March 1, and I was elected President. There were three candidates initially. One of them withdrew his candidacy at the end of his speech , which was a bit unusual. He completed his candidate speech and then announced he was withdrawing.

So, in the end, it was just the two of us. Interestingly, the withdrawn candidate still received a few votes — maybe just one.

Jacobsen: Are candidates allowed to vote?

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes, they are. But I do not think he voted for himself since he had already withdrawn. Then again, who knows? In any case, I won. And here I am.

Jacobsen: When you attend major events like this one, is this your first?

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes. A Nordic conference took place earlier this year.

Jacobsen: Were you involved around the time of the 2019 Reykjavík conference?

Gunnarsdóttir: No. I was in France at the time, working on my PhD.

Jacobsen: How did that go?

Gunnarsdóttir: I did not finish it.

Jacobsen: COVID?

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes, COVID. I was supposed to travel to the U.S. for the final stage of my research. I mentioned this earlier — I was doing a comparative study on the development of freedom of religion as a legal concept in Europe and the United States.

The final part of my research involved work in the U.S., but I had never been there before. I had planned a research stay, but travel was not allowed due to the pandemic.

So I returned to Iceland and later ran for Parliament. After being elected, I abandoned the PhD.

Jacobsen: Three points on Parliament. First — Is the Althing the oldest Parliament in Europe?

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes.

Jacobsen: Second — Did it have to be restarted after a period of inactivity?

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes. I do not remember the exact dates, but you can look them up.

Jacobsen: Third point — the party you represented was the Pirate Party?

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes.

Jacobsen: The Pirate Party exists in different countries under the same name.

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes.

Jacobsen: So it may mean the same thing — or it may not.

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes.

Jacobsen: What does the Pirate Party stand for in Iceland?

Gunnarsdóttir: In Iceland? That is a good question. I love it. Due to the confusion surrounding the name. Of course, the name originally comes from the idea of “piracy.” The Pirate Party movement was founded by computer enthusiasts who were concerned that politics were not keeping up with technological developments and the evolution of information technology.

The movement had a lot to do with access to information, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and the right to privacy — the balance between those principles.

But it evolved. In Iceland, the party began with those ideals. People often mistakenly think it is about getting free movies and music. But what attracted me to the movement was not the tech side — I do not have a background in IT. I am a lawyer.

What drew me in was that when you start talking about freedom of expression, access to information, transparency, the fight against corruption, and the right to privacy, you are talking about fundamental rights.

In Iceland, those concerns directly intersect with human rights and constitutional issues — topics that unfortunately do not receive enough political attention.

These are areas where politics have lagged, partly because the public is not aware of how these issues affect them.

For example, one bill that the Pirate Party has presented year after year — though we have always been in the opposition, so it has never passed — is about constitutional review of parliamentary legislation.

Currently, there is no formal constitutional review process in place. That fact is shocking to most people. One reason there is so little concern is that people assume such a review already exists.

They cannot imagine that Parliament would pass laws without checking them against the Constitution. But that is the situation. That is the reality.

So we proposed the creation of a constitutional council that would be independent from Parliament — nonpartisan and separate from politics — that would provide advisory opinions. It would always remain advisory. For example, at the request of a certain number of members of Parliament, the council could review a bill and offer an opinion on its constitutionality.

There are many possible ways to structure the process. Still, the idea is to have a mechanism for constitutional review — something we currently lack. Unfortunately, there has been little interest in this proposal.

People often ask, “How is this related to the Pirate Party?” It is — because it concerns fundamental rights and freedoms, which are at the core of the Pirate Party’s mission. That is the meaning of the movement. And I think that is how most people in Iceland now understand the Pirate Party — because they have seen what we fight for.

We fight for transparency. We are known for that. We have often gained public attention for our relentless efforts to expose corruption in Iceland.

For example, we published a report — this is quite telling. You can see the difference between how conservatives and we, in the Pirate Party, understand transparency and privacy.

I can compare four cases in Iceland where sensitive information was made public — two involving the Pirates and two involving conservatives. And there is an apparent difference between them.

Jacobsen: Do you see the Pirate Party as a kind of Robin Hood party — stealing from the rich and giving to the poor?

Gunnarsdóttir: Well, for instance, in one case that people call a “leak,” we just published the report — it was not a leak at all. We posted it on our website. It was a report about how specific state-owned properties were handled after the 2008 economic collapse. The report had never been made public , so we made it public.

That is what we do. Another report we were accused of leaking did not come from us. But we did not mind people thinking it did, because it was a critical report.

It was leaked two days before its scheduled release. The report concerned the sale of a state-owned bank, and numerous questions arose regarding that transaction.

The report came from the National Audit Office — I was trying to remember the name earlier.

Jacobsen: Finances, accounting, financial statements… audit?

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes, the National Audit Office. The report was leaked to the media two days before its official release, and we were blamed for it. We never claimed responsibility, but we also said we did not see anything wrong with it.

The reason the authorities delayed its publication was to control the narrative before the public had access to it. It was actually in the public interest for it to be seen earlier.

The leaks we are blamed for — rightly or wrongly — are always about information relevant to the public, about matters of state.

By contrast, leaks associated with the Independence Party have involved private information — personal data about individuals — intended to discredit or stigmatize them.

In one case, the target was an asylum seeker. So you can see the contrast: they try to say it is the same — ”Oh, you’releaking information too” — but we are leaking public-interest information about state operations. They are leaking private data about vulnerable people.

But they do not seem to understand the difference.

This is what we are known for, and many people understand what the Pirates stand for.

That said, one of the reasons we failed to gain any parliamentary seats in the last election is the growing polarization in society.

The Left-Greens lost voters to the Socialist Party, and the Social Democrats have become stronger. We are moving toward two large political blocs, instead of the many smaller parties that characterized earlier parliaments.

Even though ten parties still ran in the last election, this is the current trend.

So that is the Pirate Party in Iceland — more or less.

Jacobsen: How do you see Iceland’s style of humanism as a reflection of the more global movement? Everyone shares roughly the same values, but they tend to rank or prioritize them differently. Another way to look at it is that when youshine a light through the prism of humanism, the character and colouring of it shift depending on the culture , and even the individual. So, how would you describe the Icelandic version of humanism?

Gunnarsdóttir: That’s a fascinating question, mainly because we are seeing some worrying developments lately. Still, I believe humanism is a significant part of our national identity.

Generally, Icelanders do not identify as religious. Even when people say, “We are a Christian nation,” what they usually mean by that is not literal Christianity — they mean values we associate with humanism: equality, justice, and human rights for all.

Those are the values for which we are known. We have built a reputation for gender equality and queer rights — those are the areas where we’ve been seen as progressive.

But that image is changing somewhat.

So, when people say things like, “Immigrants are threatening our values,” I respond, “No , they are not. You are, by saying that.”

The threat comes not from immigrants but from those of us who fail to uphold, share, and practise our values. Instead of modelling and teaching them, we violate them ourselves.

For example, by passing legislation that limits the rights of refugees — such as removing their ability to appeal decisions — we are actively taking away procedural protections from vulnerable people.

This is very new in Iceland. And it is entirely at odds with our core identity as a society committed to equality.

Jacobsen: Does the attitude toward immigration differ by group? About 8% of your population is Polish, 1% is Lithuanian, and then there’s a mix of others who make up 1% or less each.

Gunnarsdóttir: Is there a difference in how they’re treated? Or is the sentiment more uniform? It hasn’t changed drastically in recent years.

By far, the largest foreign population in Iceland is Polish, and they are relatively well accepted.

The issue has more to do with political rhetoric and how those in power frame the conversation.

For example, the number of refugees in Iceland is still extremely small , statistically negligible. It’s something like 0-point-something percent. There is no significant influx.

Still, if 400 refugees arrive, people act as if Iceland is about to sink into the ocean — yet when 10,000 people come from the European Economic Area (EEA), no one says a word.

The numbers have not increased dramatically in general. The only real spike came in connection with the war in Ukraine.

That was a few years ago now — time passes quickly.

We also had a noticeable group come from Venezuela, which was a trend across Europe.

But even then, the numbers were small — just a few hundred people. And we knew it was a temporary situation.

Despite this, one of the most significant turning points in public discourse came when our Foreign Minister posted something on Facebook…

That moment marked a U-turn in Icelandic political discourse. At the time, Palestinian refugees were protesting outside Parliament.

There’s a small park in front of the Alþingi — it is where protests regularly take place. If you want to demonstrate, that is the designated area.

They had set up a single tent, with authorization from the city. Inside the tent, they stated they would remain there until they were granted family reunification with loved ones still in danger in Gaza.

These were people who had already received approval for family reunification, but had no safe or viable means for their relatives to leave Gaza.

Other countries, including some Nordic states, were utilizing their diplomatic channels to facilitate evacuations. Iceland, however, refused to do so.

At the time, the Foreign Minister — who was also the chair of the conservative Independence Party — posted on Facebook that the tent was “obnoxious” and “horrible” to see in front of such a “respectable institution.”

Jacobsen: To clarify — factually — it was not a tent encampment, but a single tent?

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes, just one tent. You could probably fit 20 people inside. But no one was sleeping there. People were sitting, gathering, and talking.

You could pass by and have coffee with them. It was relatively peaceful — almost like a small festival.

Jacobsen: Were there any noise complaints?

Gunnarsdóttir: Not.

Jacobsen: Any complaints of violence or harassment?

Gunnarsdóttir: Not initially. But after the Foreign Minister’s Facebook post — after he called it obnoxious — harassment began. People started targeting those in the tent.

Jacobsen: Just to be clear, was the harassment coming from Icelanders or other recently arrived individuals?

Gunnarsdóttir: It came from Icelanders. The Foreign Minister’s rhetoric stirred something. And the most serious part was at the end of his post — he tried to claim he was addressing two unrelated issues in one article — but he wrote that Iceland also needs to “start getting serious about organized crime.”

Jacobsen: When I was doing fieldwork in Iceland, I was there for about three weeks. It took about a week before I saw even one homeless person. I did not see any others during that time. That individual may have been a beggar rather than homeless. From what I observed, Iceland is quite comfortable.

Gunnarsdóttir: Very comfortable.

Jacobsen: In general. So, how did the public receive the minister’s remarks?

Gunnarsdóttir: There was much backlash. There was much anger. However, I would also say it permitted people who already held those views to speak openly.

It completely shifted the discourse. It increased polarization in a single day. Suddenly, it became socially acceptable to say that asylum seekers are a problem — either they are taking our jobs or draining public benefits. And it is like, okay, which is it? Are they working or not working?

People started claiming that their religion is dangerous. Everything changed almost overnight. And now it is common to hear someone say, “I have no problem with foreigners — it is just asylum seekers and refugees who are here to exploit our social system.”

People feel entitled to talk this way because someone in power has given them a signal. “He must know what he’s talking about,” they assume. But he didn’t even say any of that directly. He just said, “This tent is ugly,” and added something about organized crime.

Jacobsen: Role models and examples matter. Representation matters. 

Gunnarsdóttir: Let me ask you — how many women in hijab did you see during your stay?

Jacobsen: In Iceland?

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes. How long did it take? Did you see one on your first day?

Jacobsen: I think I saw one.

Gunnarsdóttir: Exactly.

Jacobsen: It doesn’t stand out.

Gunnarsdóttir: We don’t have a visible increase in diversity on the streets, unlike many other countries. The number of visibly different people is still minimal. We only have the rhetoric — there is no demographic basis for the moral panic.

This rhetoric is the only reason public opinion has changed.

Jacobsen: For the record, how does Lutheranism in Iceland distinguish itself from other Christian denominations? Anddoes religion get invoked in political discourse during moments like these?

It doesn’t have to be about immigration necessarily — just anything that could be seen as contradicting humanist values: equality, fair treatment, dignity, compassion.

Let’s set aside sophisticated legal frameworks, such as democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, for a moment.

Gunnarsdóttir: Well, right now we have two openly populist parties in Parliament — one of them is even part of the governing coalition. They talk about Islam as a threat to our values, and so on. That narrative is very present.

But the number of Muslims in Iceland is minimal — their population is growing, but only by one or two people per year. I don’t have the exact figures, but it’s not very important.

We do not even have one Muslim representative in Parliament. So, how exactly is Islam threatening our values or institutions? It is not. The threat is coming from within — from the political rhetoric and actions of people already in power.

Jacobsen: There’s a North American saying — you might have heard it: “The hate is coming from inside the house.”

And I think Iceland is a perfect example , because we had nothing external driving this. In Iceland, you’re free to speak out, so why the shift in rhetoric? In many countries, people are unable to discuss such issues.

So, we’ve seen pluralistic ignorance: everyone assumes things are fine, while underneath, they’re not.

Gunnarsdóttir: Exactly. It’s like the underreporting of domestic violence — what’s happening in Iceland now feels similar. We’re witnessing changes I never thought possible.

Jacobsen: Can you give specific examples?

Gunnarsdóttir: Take the language around asylum seekers and refugees — that hateful rhetoric would have been unthinkable in Iceland until recently.

Then there’s the legal changes. In March 2023, Parliament passed legislation that — in effect — cuts access to housing and healthcare for rejected asylum seekers 30 days after their application is denied. Previously, they had continued access to basic services while appeals or post-decision reviews were underway.

What’s baffling is why this was necessary. Iceland has had very few severe crime cases involving asylum seekers — perhaps one high-profile violent incident, where non-refoulement meant they couldn’t be deported. So instead, authorities removed international protection status — but still couldn’t deport the person — and then assigned a lower-tier permit with no rights. It’s a punitive measure with no apparent benefit.

What’s driving this? It stems from a desire to apply stricter standards selectively and protect privileges domestically.

Jacobsen: And this measure passed with broad political support?

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes — all major parties, including the Social Democrats, the Progressive Party, and the Center Party, supported it. That’s a significant shift for parties traditionally seen as liberal or rights-respecting.

Now there’s talk of establishing a detention center near the airport for deportations — something Iceland has never had. Why does Iceland need it? It’s a small island country with a population of ~400,000 people. Where would deportees go? It all feels unnecessary and harsh.

And it is not like the situation is not challenging. But they want to build a camp — and they are even planning to place children there. This is despite UNICEF, Save the Children, the Red Cross, and all the major humanitarian organizations in Iceland being in protest. And they are being ignored.

Five years ago, I would have said, “That will never happen.” I would have thought that UNICEF would oppose it, and there would be pushback; at the very least, they would keep children out of it. But no.

Jacobsen: Are these reactionary or more populist parties? Are the leaders mostly men?

Gunnarsdóttir: No. One is a man, and one is a woman. One of them is actually in government , and she’s a woman.

Jacobsen: Are there slurs or epithets in Icelandic that are used when this rhetoric is employed?

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes.

Jacobsen: What are they — or at least, what are their translations?

Gunnarsdóttir: Well, the most extreme one is “Iceland for Icelanders.” That is the harshest. But most won’t say it openly. Instead, they use coded language. They say things like, “We’re fine with immigrants, as long as they’re better than everyone else.” You’re expected to be perfect — to do everything right — to earn even basic shelter.

You have to work, support your family, speak the language fluently after two weeks — you know, all these impossible expectations.

I don’t recall a specific slogan at the moment. Still, it’s the same as what you hear everywhere: “Foreigners get everything for free, and we can’t even take care of our elderly or disabled.” It is a familiar pattern.

So anyway, the phrases we hear a lot now are like: “I’m not against immigrants, but these asylum seekers and refugees…”And then they go on to say they are leeching off the welfare system, bringing in religion that does not belong here, or that they are criminals.

And none of that is backed up by data. There is absolutely nothing — even slightly — that supports those statements. For example, the refugees we received from Venezuela have higher employment participation rates than Icelanders in the same demographic group.

Gunnarsdóttir: They’re the same age, same background — apart from nationality. And yet, a higher percentage of Venezuelans are employed than Icelanders in the same position. But that changed nothing. The government still wanted to get rid of the Venezuelans.

Jacobsen: Why?

Gunnarsdóttir: And they are not even Muslim. That’s the thing. You cannot blame this on anti-Muslim sentiment in that case. And yes, of course, there are a few complex cases — families who struggle to adjust, who face challenges with integration. But those are the exceptions.

Still, people seize on those few exceptions and treat them as if they were representative of the whole. The conservative newspaper here , Morgunblaðið, “The Morning Paper,” runs stories almost daily about these cases.

Jacobsen: How do you spell that?

Gunnarsdóttir: It’s a long word — Morgunblaðið. But the website is short: mbl. Is. It’s very well-known, and many people in Reykjavík still subscribe to it. They claim to be neutral, but they are not. They constantly report on “security issues” in neighbourhoods with high immigrant populations. The narrative is always the same: teenagers are violent, families are not cooperating with schools, etc.

And yes, there may be two or three families experiencing these issues—families who do not attend parent-teacher meetings or are struggling with their children’s education. But it only takes one of those stories, and suddenly people generalize. They start thinking all refugees are like that, all immigrant communities are like that.

It’s tough to combat. Because the statistics do not support these claims, they say the opposite. However, it’s no longer about statistics or facts. And that’s what makes this whole situation anti-humanist.

People no longer care about evidence or human dignity. They are concerned with fear, control, and exclusion.

Jacobsen: What parts of Iceland would you say are most committed to humanist values?  Ideologically, all of Iceland considers itself a humanist nation. The core of our national identity has long emphasized equality, human rights, and fundamental freedoms for everyone. That’s how we see ourselves — and it’s how the world has come to see us. So yes, people care about that image. But the tragedy is: we’re slowly destroying that reputation — from the inside.

Jacobsen: What is your vision for Siðmennt moving forward?

Gunnarsdóttir: What I promised to do as President — and what I want to do, and what I think is most important now — is to create interreligious cooperation. We need to work together to uphold our shared values.

For example — and you asked this earlier, but I did not answer it — regarding how the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the national church of Iceland, is perceived, how do they differ from other Christian denominations here?

They are very progressive. The Bishop of Iceland is a woman, Agnes M. Sigurðardóttir. And her successor, or coadjutor bishop-elect, has a transgender child. Indeed, it is evident that the church leadership embodies progressive values.

Jacobsen: That’s raising the platform.

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes — raising the platform, raising the body, as it were.

So, I would say the national church is progressive. For example, we’ve seen news about youth — mainly teenagers around confirmation age — going to church more often.

Jacobsen: And the confirmation age is 14?

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes — 13, 14, 15 years old. They’re attending church again, which wasn’t fashionable two years ago. Now, it seems to have become a trend. We’re not sure where it’s coming from. Some people are concerned that it might be coming from social media influencers, like Andrew Tate or others.

But honestly, if that is the case, I would say I’m relieved they’re going to the state church. Because there, they’ll receive a very different message — one grounded in equality and compassion.

I sing in a church choir myself , which is a little ironic, I suppose.

Jacobsen: What is the name of the choir?

Gunnarsdóttir: Kór Hallgrímskirkju. It’s the choir of Hallgrímskirkja — the large church in central Reykjavík.

Jacobsen: What’s the English translation?

Gunnarsdóttir: Hallgrímur was one of our national heroes. He was a poet — Hallgrímur Pétursson. He did not recite his poems, but he wrote a great deal of deeply emotional and spiritual poetry that is still cherished today. The church is named after him.

And yes, it’s one of the most respected choirs in Iceland, and I sing soprano there.

Jacobsen: Are there many sopranos?

Gunnarsdóttir: Not as many as you’d think. You always need fewer of them than people imagine.

Jacobsen: When I was in choir, we were always short on basses — but they were thrilled to have me. I was thinking the same when you mentioned it earlier — that’s my space. We perform pieces like Mozart’s Requiem and similar classical works.

Gunnarsdóttir: That’s actually why I joined the choir. I love classical music, and much of it is religious , Christian in particular. But I do not mind that. It’s deeply emotional. Spiritual music is often the most beautiful and moving. Honestly, it’s one of the most rewarding aspects of religion.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Gunnarsdóttir: When I ran for President of the Humanist Association of Iceland, I worried they might have a problem with me singing in a church choir. But I think they understood.

Jacobsen: George Carlin once said that the only good part of religion is the music. And Nietzsche had that quote — Without music, life would be a mistake. I agree with a lot, but they had their flaws. I interviewed Kelly Carlin — George Carlin’s daughter — years ago, when she published her memoir. We talked about his parenting. He was a very absent father, and his drug issues were overwhelming at times. So his public image did not quite match the private reality. AndNietzsche… well, he was a troubled person, to say the least.

Gunnarsdóttir: And I have many friends who are musicians. One of them told me, “I can’t write good music if I’m mentally okay. That’s the problem.” He said, “I’m seeing a psychologist, and now that I’m doing well, everything I write is boring. There’s no spark.”

It all comes from strong emotions. But even so, you should be able to create when you’re well. Speaking for myself, I didn’t sing in a choir for a couple of years during the COVID pandemic, and I just felt like I was withering. I was like a flower without sunlight. I didn’t want to get out of bed.

So, I joined another choir. I’ve been in choirs since I was a kid — I have to sing. Like you’ve seen here, I go to karaoke all the time. It’s my form of meditation.

Jacobsen: What’s your favourite karaoke song?

Gunnarsdóttir: That depends on the crowd — whether I’m singing in Iceland or abroad. But if I had to pick one right now… I mean, my go-to song these days is Burn from Hamilton.

Jacobsen: Great choice.

Gunnarsdóttir: Thank you. It depends on the mood. Sometimes I sing for myself; sometimes I sing for the crowd. Those are very different choices. Some songs are satisfying to perform — others are better for listening. But Burn… I relate to it deeply. I feel like I become Eliza when I sing it.

The story behind it is compelling. Hamilton, of course, is about Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Eliza Hamilton, his wife, sings the song Burn.

There are numerous written historical sources from that era, especially those about Alexander, as he wrote extensively. Letters, essays, speeches — volumes of material. But when it comes to Eliza’s reaction to a particular scandal — his affair — there’s absolutely nothing. Not a single letter, not a single line. Historians have searched, and the prevailing theory is that she destroyed all the correspondence about it.

So in the song, she says: “I’m burning the letters. I’m burning the memories. Let future historians wonder how Eliza reacted.”

It’s so emotionally rich. First, she sings about how their love made the world feel like it was burning — and then she takes that metaphor and turns it into an act of defiance, burning his legacy of betrayal. It’s devastating and beautiful.

Gunnarsdóttir: And then at the end of the song, she says, “I hope that you burn.” She’s furious — but it is such a decisive moment. The music is incredible. It’s beautiful.

I admire the work of Lin-Manuel Miranda, the writer of Hamilton and other musicals.

Jacobsen: Although Hamilton has been criticized, right? There are some problematic elements.

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes, of course. It’s very problematic. It’s about the founding of the United States, and it casts nearly the entire group of Founding Fathers using actors of colour. I think only two characters are portrayed by white actors. While that was a deliberate artistic decision — and it does something quite powerful in terms of representation — it still glosses over some very uncomfortable historical truths.

Jacobsen: Including issues of age and slavery?

Gunnarsdóttir: It’s still the story of the United States — founded on colonialism, slavery, and exclusion. You could say it’s a kind of historical revisionism. And yet, I still like it. I appreciate the music, the emotion. It’s moving, even with its flaws.

Jacobsen: Do you find, when interacting with people around the world — especially in humanist circles — that there’s sometimes a sense of over-intellectualization? Like, a fixation on clarity and precise language that ends up feeling sterile? Like a Styrofoam cup: perfectly formed, but lacking the vitality and passion of a karaoke song or a choral piece?

Gunnarsdóttir: I would not quite put it that way. But I see what you mean. I think this tension is always there — we humans are both simple and complex. Our ideologies are the same — simple and complex at once. You will always have groups that obsess over the details, and you will always see that it’s the bigger picture that reaches people.

So, I don’t know. It’s about context. There’s a time and place for everything. And sometimes, emotional resonance—through music or story—reaches farther than precision ever can.

For example, I also really liked The Greatest Showman, even though it’s about a highly problematic figure: P.T. Barnum, the man who invented the circus and early versions of the modern zoo. In the beginning, he used disabled people and others seen as “different” to create a spectacle , clearly exploitative.

But in the film, he’s portrayed as this heroic figure who gave marginalized people opportunities. And maybe, at that time, it felt that way for some. I don’t know.

However, it isn’t very easy. The story is sanitized, emotional, and inspiring — but the reality behind it is much messier. It’s like many “progressive” portrayals: they’re uplifting, but they risk simplifying ethical debates in ways that’re too simplistic.

Jacobsen: It reminds me of specific secular or philosophical conversations , especially about equality. Someone might say, “It was revolutionary to promote equality in the first century or the seventh century,” and the response is always: “Yes , for the first century. But we’re not in the first century anymore.” That’s the tension. It’s like freezing an ethical stance in time, then wrapping it in transcendental language. It feels noble , but it also avoids the real challenge of evolving ethics. And that tension — it’s everywhere.

Gunnarsdóttir: But I think just the fact that these musicals generate discussion is a good thing. The fact that we’re willing to talk about them — that we have open debate around Hamilton or The Greatest Showman — that’s useful. That’s what matters.

The ability to reflect and think critically — that’s at the core of humanism. It’s central to everything: our ability to examine, question, and grow. So yes, maybe there are people who are more fanatical or uncompromising in their critiques than I am — but I respect that too.

Jacobsen: What did your time in Parliament teach you , especially in a country where religion is broadly in decline, and gender equality is achieved mainly in some sectors, though still lagging in others? We could also discuss the Nordic paradox if you’d like. But specifically, from 2021 to 2024, what was the most important takeaway for you?

Gunnarsdóttir: The most crucial lesson — personally and ideologically — was this: all the people elected to Parliament in Iceland, at least in my experience, are there because they genuinely want to improve society.

That was a big realization. They may have different visions of what “better” looks like, but they are not there for selfish reasons , not for personal gain or corruption. Before I entered Parliament, I lived in my social bubble. I think, subconsciously, I believed that the so-called “bad guys” were only there to serve their interests. However, I no longer hold that belief.

Iceland may be different from other countries, of course . Still, for me, this belief became very strong: that all of them, regardless of party, are trying to build a better future.

And what surprised me most is that I made friends across ideological lines — people my social circle would probably despise. However, we became friends because we shared a fundamental value: a desire to improve society. We disagree on how to get there, or on what a good society looks like.

But that shared intention is powerful. It helped me understand others more deeply — and that, in turn, made it easier to communicate my values and goals. Because if you cannot understand someone else’s perspective, it is almost impossible to explain your own in a way that resonates.

Jacobsen: So empathy became a bridge.

Gunnarsdóttir: Exactly. That was the most important lesson: to understand where people are coming from.

Jacobsen: Why? Why do they hold these opinions — some of them so unreasonable?

Gunnarsdóttir: I know. And at first, it felt like wandering through a forest of hidden trolls. But you’re right to ask.

What was fascinating to me was realizing that just as I may find them unethical, they think I — and people like me on the left — are unethical. They see us as disloyal.

For them, loyalty is a core moral value. It’s important to us, too, but we tend to place justice and equality even higher. For instance, when we expose wrongdoing within our political circles, they perceive it as immoral. They view it as a betrayal.

Jacobsen: That’s a very revealing difference in ethical hierarchy.

Gunnarsdóttir: That, in my opinion, is one reason why the left is so often fractured — we value truth and justice over loyalty. Meanwhile, conservatives prioritize loyalty above nearly all else. It’s right there in the root of the word: conserve— to preserve, to remain loyal to what is.

Jacobsen: It’s almost like a political expression of filial piety.

Gunnarsdóttir: I wasn’t sure what that meant when I first heard it, but yes — family loyalty. That’s a perfect analogy.

These same people-the ones with views I disagree with-they are also the ones who ask, “Why aren’t these refugees staying home and rebuilding their own countries?” And it’s not only about rejecting foreigners. Partly, yes, they don’t want them here. However, their ethical framework also states that if their own country were in crisis, they would stay. They would fight. They would endure. They would never abandon it.

So, when someone leaves their country and seeks refuge here, it’s seen as a betrayal of duty and national loyalty. That’s why it feels unethical to them.

When I understood that — when I grasped how their priorities are arranged — it changed everything. I realized that we have different moral frameworks. We’re not speaking the same ethical language.

Jacobsen: That’s a significant shift in perception.

Gunnarsdóttir: It was. And it made me rethink the way I was raised, too. I mean, growing up, my mother—she’s a leftist—would sometimes talk about conservatives in really dehumanizing terms. She described them almost as monsters, animals. And I took that in.

But now I see that they’re not monsters. They may be behaving in ways I find monstrous — especially when rejecting vulnerable people — but they believe they’re doing the right thing. That understanding has helped me connect with others. And I think that connection is crucial.

It’s the only way to bridge divides — by seeing others not as evil but as coming from a different starting point, once we find that shared ground, we can build dialogue.

For example, I’ll say to them: “You believe that for society to be just, peaceful, and stable, we need clear rules that apply to everyone. You believe in the rule of law because it brings order.” And they’ll say, “Yes.”

And from there I say, “Then don’t you also believe that everyone should have the opportunity to correct a wrong decision? That everyone should have the right to seek justice?” And often, they agree. That’s the kind of bridge we need.

Of course. Okay — maybe we can talk about that instead. Instead of saying, “Oh, just feel sorry for those poor immigrants,” — which they will not relate to, because that’s not their core concern — we can talk about how we want our society to function. That’s where we find agreement.

This is how you make progress, even when you fundamentally disagree on other issues. And we’ve lost sight of that. I think we’ve lost sight of the importance of finding common ground. People are no longer interested in it.

It’s become so polarized that now, if you show even understanding of someone else’s perspective, it’s seen as agreement. And that, in turn, brings consequences — social consequences, professional ones. People fear showing empathy because it may be interpreted as betrayal.

Jacobsen: It becomes a kind of moral absolutism: either you agree with me, or you’re the enemy. But there’s an analytical difference between saying, “I understand you,” and “I agree with you.”

Gunnarsdóttir: Yes. And we need to find where we agree, because there are layers to all of our opinions. If we can identify one of those layers where there is alignment, then maybe we can work from there.

That doesn’t mean we’ll always reach a perfect conclusion or a solution that makes everyone happy. That’s not realistic. But simply acknowledging that we have more in common than we often admit — that’s something. And it matters.

Jacobsen: Absolutely, any final comments?

Gunnarsdóttir: Not really. I think in the end, we are all humanists — wherever we come from and wherever we go. We need to realize that. I believe in everybody’s humanity.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Arndis.

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 State of Nail Health Research and Remedies

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/02

Dr. Viktoryia Kazlouskaya, MD, PhD, is a dermatologist with 20 years of skincare, cosmetic procedures, and dermatological research expertise. She specializes in evidence-based treatments, including sunscreen, retinol, and antioxidants, while addressing conditions of acne, rosacea, and aging skin. Passionate about patient education, she emphasizes the importance of lifestyle, diet, and personalized care. Dr. Kazlouskaya is also experienced in advanced therapies such as exosomes, microneedling, and lasers, making her a trusted authority in modern dermatology. She addresses common concerns such as nail biting, trauma, fungal infections, and tumours, including melanomas that are often misdiagnosed. She explains that diet, chronic conditions, and seasonal changes can impact nail growth. Advances in dermatology, such as injectable treatments for psoriasis, improve nail health. Ethical considerations in cosmetic procedures, including plastic surgery trends like Brazilian butt lifts, are explored. The conversation concludes with plans for a future discussion on skin rejuvenation, Botox, and ethical concerns surrounding aesthetic treatments and psychological motivations.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re with Dr. Viktoryia Kazlouskaya. We previously discussed hair, and now we will discuss nails. So, overall, how can you differentiate between healthy and unhealthy nails?

Dr. Viktoryia Kazlouskaya: That’s a good starting point. It’s quite simple—just by looking at the nails. Healthy nails are not brittle; they are pink, smooth, relatively thick, and strong. That’s the general appearance of a healthy nail.

Jacobsen: What about people who bite their nails? They have unhealthy habits. What issues arise in terms of those behaviours? These aren’t just lifestyle habits; they seem more like behavioural tics.

Kazlouskaya: Yes, it’s quite common to see. There are a few specific changes associated with habitual trauma. One example is nail biting, where patients typically develop uneven ridges and thinner edges on the nails. Another habit is when individuals constantly traumatize one nail with another finger.

In such cases, you may see a midline deformity in the nail. This well-known condition, “habit-tic deformity,” is quite common. Sometimes, patients don’t even realize they are doing it. However, during an examination, you might observe them engaging in repetitive movements, continuously traumatizing their nails without noticing.

Jacobsen: What health risks are associated with nail-biting, picking, or repeated nail surface or root trauma?

Kazlouskaya: The first thing that comes to mind is infection. While the overall health risks aren’t usually severe, these habits can impact one’s self-presentation. For example, constantly biting your nails in a professional setting may create a negative impression. Additionally, there is a risk of bacterial infections. Although rare, bacteria can enter through damaged nail beds, leading to potential infections.

Jacobsen: Let’s say you want to help someone stop this behaviour. How can you help them break the habit?

Kazlouskaya: It isn’t easy. It can be quite challenging if a person is consciously willing to change the habit. Psychological conditions like depression or anxiety don’t always cause nail-biting; it can simply be a habitual behaviour. Changing this habit requires effort and awareness. Interestingly, there are even devices designed to help. For example, some bracelets detect movement and send signals to alert people when they start engaging in the behaviour.

You can program this device for different behaviors—pulling your hair, biting your nails, touching your face, or squeezing pimples. When it detects these actions, it gives you a small vibration, allowing you to redirect your behaviour consciously. It’s like a prisoner’s ankle bracelet, but instead of a shock, it helps deter bad habits.

Jacobsen: What about, for instance, dental technology, braces now can be pretty sleek, and you have to look a little harder to notice them. They can be more invisible and subtle when done well. Back in the day, people wore headgear. So, what are some of the gimmicky treatments that have been used in the past, which have had questionable efficacy in preventing these behaviors or supposedly improving nail health?

Kazlouskaya: I don’t know if I’m familiar with those gimmicky things. Nails don’t get as much attention as skin and hair. I don’t know of any weird treatments for nails from the past. 

Jacobsen: Something that comes to mind is the longest-standing method as a type of coating you apply to the nails. It hardens and has a bad taste, discouraging biting. But that’s not a gimmick—it probably works for some people.

Kazlouskaya: It’s more like an old-fashioned remedy. If you ask grandmothers, they might suggest applying something sour to help someone break the habit of biting their nails. However, that would not work for an adult. This habit is so common that I’ve even seen it among my colleagues—physicians who constantly bite their nails.

Jacobsen: Are physicians usually anxious because of their long hours?

Kazlouskaya: I looked into this habit thoroughly, and it’s not necessarily connected to anxiety or depression, as I mentioned before. It can be purely habitual—people do it unconsciously without it being driven by stress. For example, picking behaviour can be driven by anxiety. There’s an urge and then relief after picking. But nail-biting is more of a routine behaviour.

No, no deep underlying psychological mechanism causes it—it simply becomes a habit. The key to stopping is recognizing and then consciously working to overcome it.

Jacobsen: Now, what about dietary habits? How do good and bad dietary choices affect nail health?

Kazlouskaya: Well, nails are made of keratin, so protein intake is the number one dietary factor to consider. You can track aspects of your health by looking at your nails. For example, nails can show signs of chronic anemia—low iron. Some nail changes can also indicate liver or kidney disease, so nutrition is definitely important. Protein is the most important nutrient for nail health, followed by iron.

Jacobsen: How do people maintain healthier nails in terms of stimulating growth? Pop culture often says that filing or trimming your nails stimulates growth and helps keep them even and rounded. Is that true?

Kazlouskaya: No, I don’t think filing or cutting nails makes them grow faster. Nail growth depends on whether your body is in balance. Younger people tend to grow nails faster, and fingernails grow more quickly than toenails. Growth can also be affected by factors like the season and diet. Many elements determine how fast nails grow.

Jacobsen: Why does the season affect nail growth? I’ve never heard that before.

Kazlouskaya: Generally, we have more vitamins and healthier habits during certain seasons. But in the summer, you can sometimes see slightly faster nail plate growth. I’d have to look up the exact scientific explanation for that.

Jacobsen: Outside of keratin, are there specific vitamin imbalances that you can notice in the nails? You mentioned kidney and liver disease as potential indicators.

Kazlouskaya: Yes, there are certain signs. One example is the little white spots on the nails as they grow. These don’t go away until the nail grows out, which suggests the issue originates at the nail matrix.

When examining the nail, you must look at different parts, including the cuticle, because it provides important clues about overall health. Changes in the cuticle can sometimes indicate serious conditions, such as autoimmune diseases like lupus. For example, under a microscope, you might see pronounced blood vessels in the cuticle, a telltale sign of an autoimmune condition.

Vitamin and nutrient deficiencies don’t always have distinct signs on the nails, but brittle, dull, or rough nails could indicate a deficiency. We typically conduct a range of tests to evaluate these possibilities.

Jacobsen: What things are catastrophic to nail health? I’m sure certain genetic conditions exist where people don’t grow nails. Still, I’m thinking more about lifestyle-related damage—situations where someone has harmed their nails so severely that they stop growing altogether.

Kazlouskaya: Yes, trauma can cause permanent nail damage. If someone experiences a severe injury—like a fall, a deep cut, or having something heavy fall on their finger or toe—they can damage the nail matrix, where the nail grows from. If the nail matrix is permanently damaged, the nail might never grow back normally. Unfortunately, in these cases, not much can be done.

In most cases of trauma, the nail might separate completely from the nail bed but will eventually grow back to normal. The outcome depends on the severity of the injury.

Jacobsen: Let’s say someone drops a hammer on their toe, causing blood vessels to burst and creating a lot of pressure and pain. What’s the appropriate response?

Kazlouskaya: That’s painful and sometimes requires medical attention. If there’s a hematoma (a collection of blood) under the nail, it may need to be drained to relieve the pressure.

A dark discoloration under the nail can look alarming, and some people even mistake it for melanoma, a type of skin cancer that can occur under the nail. Because of this, I often see patients who come in to check if their darkened nails are serious.

KIn most cases, the dark discoloration under the nail is just blood. You wait for the nail to grow out. On the toes, this can take up to a year because, as we discussed earlier, nails do not grow as quickly as you might want—especially toenails, which take many months to regenerate fully.

Jacobsen: What do people come to your office for the most when it comes to nails? What is the most common concern?

Kazlouskaya: The most common issue is fungal infections, which are very prevalent. After age 50, about one in three or four people will have a fungal infection on their toenails. It can be not easy to treat, especially if it is advanced, which is always challenging.

Another common issue is trauma or changes in the nails due to chronic conditions or deficiencies. Many people misdiagnose themselves with a fungal infection when, in reality, the changes are caused by another underlying issue. Beyond that, there are also tumours under the nails.

Many malignant and benign tumours can grow under the nail, and this is a whole subspecialty in dermatology. Some dermatologists focus exclusively on treating nails because diagnosing and treating nail-related conditions can be complex. Surgery on the nail is especially challenging because it can lead to permanent trauma to the nail plate.

Last year, I had about five relatively young patients with malignant tumours under their nails. Their nail deformities had been misdiagnosed as fungal infections for a long time, but multiple tests kept coming back negative. Eventually, I had to remove the nail plate and biopsy the tumour underneath. In some cases, it turned out to be malignant.

These are the major concerns: blunt trauma, deformities, unhealthy habits, poor overall health, fungal infections, and cancer. Melanoma and tumours in the nails are significant issues, and one thing that many people are not aware of is how unusual the location seems for skin cancer.

Jacobsen: That’s something I wasn’t aware of either. It is such an unusual spot for melanoma.

Kazlouskaya: Yes, but acral melanomas—melanomas that appear on the hands, feet, and nails—are more common in African American patients. A well-known example is Bob Marley, who died from melanoma that started on his toe.

The problem is that these melanomas are often misdiagnosed for a long time. People assume it is just trauma, a darkened nail, or a fungal infection. In general, African American populations are underserved in healthcare, meaning they don’t always see a physician as early as they should, which leads to worse outcomes.

Additionally, surgery on these melanomas is quite difficult, presenting another challenge. However, apart from melanomas, we also see squamous cell cancers on the nails. One factor that may contribute to an increased risk of these cancers is UV exposure from gel manicures.

We are not yet 100% certain about how significant this risk is, but it is a concern. If you go for a manicure every two or three weeks, you are exposing yourself to higher levels of UV light, which is known to cause cancer. This could be a contributing factor.

Another issue is HPV-related warts. Chronic warts around the nails can sometimes lead to certain types of cancer. So, major concerns, such as warts, fungal infections, and tumours, are among the most significant problems we deal with regarding nails.

Jacobsen: What new technologies might be available for special cases or are already in limited use? So, for instance, with hair, once rare technologies—like hair plugs—are now common. We also have a better understanding of the causes of hair loss. What about nails? Are there certain treatments or technologies that are rarely used now but show promise and could become more widely adopted?

Hypothetically, let’s say someone has uneven nail beds because they constantly pick at their nails. Could there be a technology that smooths out the surface they’ve deformed over time?

Kazlouskaya: Well, in the nail industry, there are a lot of new techniques for manicures, but that’s a question for a nail technician rather than a dermatologist.

However, in terms of medical treatments and new technologies, treating nail conditions has historically been challenging—especially when nails are affected by chronic conditions like psoriasis or eczema. In the past, we had very limited options to address nail changes caused by these conditions.

Fortunately, we have many medications that, while they may not completely cure these diseases, can significantly improve the appearance of the nails. For example, new injectable medications for psoriasis can help restore normal nail appearance, a major advancement in dermatology. We can now offer patients treatments that allow them to be free of these nail-related changes, which is a big step forward.

Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, Dr. Kazlouskaya.

Kazlouskaya: 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

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 State of Nail Health Research and Remedies

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/02

 Dr. Viktoryia Kazlouskaya, MD, PhD, is a dermatologist with 20 years of skincare, cosmetic procedures, and dermatological research expertise. She specializes in evidence-based treatments, including sunscreen, retinol, and antioxidants, while addressing conditions of acne, rosacea, and aging skin. Passionate about patient education, she emphasizes the importance of lifestyle, diet, and personalized care. Dr. Kazlouskaya is also experienced in advanced therapies such as exosomes, microneedling, and lasers, making her a trusted authority in modern dermatology. She addresses common concerns such as nail biting, trauma, fungal infections, and tumours, including melanomas that are often misdiagnosed. She explains that diet, chronic conditions, and seasonal changes can impact nail growth. Advances in dermatology, such as injectable treatments for psoriasis, improve nail health. Ethical considerations in cosmetic procedures, including plastic surgery trends like Brazilian butt lifts, are explored. The conversation concludes with plans for a future discussion on skin rejuvenation, Botox, and ethical concerns surrounding aesthetic treatments and psychological motivations.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re with Dr. Viktoryia Kazlouskaya. We previously discussed hair, and now we will discuss nails. So, overall, how can you differentiate between healthy and unhealthy nails?

Dr. Viktoryia Kazlouskaya: That’s a good starting point. It’s quite simple—just by looking at the nails. Healthy nails are not brittle; they are pink, smooth, relatively thick, and strong. That’s the general appearance of a healthy nail.

Jacobsen: What about people who bite their nails? They have unhealthy habits. What issues arise in terms of those behaviours? These aren’t just lifestyle habits; they seem more like behavioural tics.

Kazlouskaya: Yes, it’s quite common to see. There are a few specific changes associated with habitual trauma. One example is nail biting, where patients typically develop uneven ridges and thinner edges on the nails. Another habit is when individuals constantly traumatize one nail with another finger.

In such cases, you may see a midline deformity in the nail. This well-known condition, “habit-tic deformity,” is quite common. Sometimes, patients don’t even realize they are doing it. However, during an examination, you might observe them engaging in repetitive movements, continuously traumatizing their nails without noticing.

Jacobsen: What health risks are associated with nail-biting, picking, or repeated nail surface or root trauma?

Kazlouskaya: The first thing that comes to mind is infection. While the overall health risks aren’t usually severe, these habits can impact one’s self-presentation. For example, constantly biting your nails in a professional setting may create a negative impression. Additionally, there is a risk of bacterial infections. Although rare, bacteria can enter through damaged nail beds, leading to potential infections.

Jacobsen: Let’s say you want to help someone stop this behaviour. How can you help them break the habit?

Kazlouskaya: It isn’t easy. It can be quite challenging if a person is consciously willing to change the habit. Psychological conditions like depression or anxiety don’t always cause nail-biting; it can simply be a habitual behaviour. Changing this habit requires effort and awareness. Interestingly, there are even devices designed to help. For example, some bracelets detect movement and send signals to alert people when they start engaging in the behaviour.

You can program this device for different behaviors—pulling your hair, biting your nails, touching your face, or squeezing pimples. When it detects these actions, it gives you a small vibration, allowing you to redirect your behaviour consciously. It’s like a prisoner’s ankle bracelet, but instead of a shock, it helps deter bad habits.

Jacobsen: What about, for instance, dental technology, braces now can be pretty sleek, and you have to look a little harder to notice them. They can be more invisible and subtle when done well. Back in the day, people wore headgear. So, what are some of the gimmicky treatments that have been used in the past, which have had questionable efficacy in preventing these behaviors or supposedly improving nail health?

Kazlouskaya: I don’t know if I’m familiar with those gimmicky things. Nails don’t get as much attention as skin and hair. I don’t know of any weird treatments for nails from the past. 

Jacobsen: Something that comes to mind is the longest-standing method as a type of coating you apply to the nails. It hardens and has a bad taste, discouraging biting. But that’s not a gimmick—it probably works for some people.

Kazlouskaya: It’s more like an old-fashioned remedy. If you ask grandmothers, they might suggest applying something sour to help someone break the habit of biting their nails. However, that would not work for an adult. This habit is so common that I’ve even seen it among my colleagues—physicians who constantly bite their nails.

Jacobsen: Are physicians usually anxious because of their long hours?

Kazlouskaya: I looked into this habit thoroughly, and it’s not necessarily connected to anxiety or depression, as I mentioned before. It can be purely habitual—people do it unconsciously without it being driven by stress. For example, picking behaviour can be driven by anxiety. There’s an urge and then relief after picking. But nail-biting is more of a routine behaviour.

No, no deep underlying psychological mechanism causes it—it simply becomes a habit. The key to stopping is recognizing and then consciously working to overcome it.

Jacobsen: Now, what about dietary habits? How do good and bad dietary choices affect nail health?

Kazlouskaya: Well, nails are made of keratin, so protein intake is the number one dietary factor to consider. You can track aspects of your health by looking at your nails. For example, nails can show signs of chronic anemia—low iron. Some nail changes can also indicate liver or kidney disease, so nutrition is definitely important. Protein is the most important nutrient for nail health, followed by iron.

Jacobsen: How do people maintain healthier nails in terms of stimulating growth? Pop culture often says that filing or trimming your nails stimulates growth and helps keep them even and rounded. Is that true?

Kazlouskaya: No, I don’t think filing or cutting nails makes them grow faster. Nail growth depends on whether your body is in balance. Younger people tend to grow nails faster, and fingernails grow more quickly than toenails. Growth can also be affected by factors like the season and diet. Many elements determine how fast nails grow.

Jacobsen: Why does the season affect nail growth? I’ve never heard that before.

Kazlouskaya: Generally, we have more vitamins and healthier habits during certain seasons. But in the summer, you can sometimes see slightly faster nail plate growth. I’d have to look up the exact scientific explanation for that.

Jacobsen: Outside of keratin, are there specific vitamin imbalances that you can notice in the nails? You mentioned kidney and liver disease as potential indicators.

Kazlouskaya: Yes, there are certain signs. One example is the little white spots on the nails as they grow. These don’t go away until the nail grows out, which suggests the issue originates at the nail matrix.

When examining the nail, you must look at different parts, including the cuticle, because it provides important clues about overall health. Changes in the cuticle can sometimes indicate serious conditions, such as autoimmune diseases like lupus. For example, under a microscope, you might see pronounced blood vessels in the cuticle, a telltale sign of an autoimmune condition.

Vitamin and nutrient deficiencies don’t always have distinct signs on the nails, but brittle, dull, or rough nails could indicate a deficiency. We typically conduct a range of tests to evaluate these possibilities.

Jacobsen: What things are catastrophic to nail health? I’m sure certain genetic conditions exist where people don’t grow nails. Still, I’m thinking more about lifestyle-related damage—situations where someone has harmed their nails so severely that they stop growing altogether.

Kazlouskaya: Yes, trauma can cause permanent nail damage. If someone experiences a severe injury—like a fall, a deep cut, or having something heavy fall on their finger or toe—they can damage the nail matrix, where the nail grows from. If the nail matrix is permanently damaged, the nail might never grow back normally. Unfortunately, in these cases, not much can be done.

In most cases of trauma, the nail might separate completely from the nail bed but will eventually grow back to normal. The outcome depends on the severity of the injury.

Jacobsen: Let’s say someone drops a hammer on their toe, causing blood vessels to burst and creating a lot of pressure and pain. What’s the appropriate response?

Kazlouskaya: That’s painful and sometimes requires medical attention. If there’s a hematoma (a collection of blood) under the nail, it may need to be drained to relieve the pressure.

A dark discoloration under the nail can look alarming, and some people even mistake it for melanoma, a type of skin cancer that can occur under the nail. Because of this, I often see patients who come in to check if their darkened nails are serious.

KIn most cases, the dark discoloration under the nail is just blood. You wait for the nail to grow out. On the toes, this can take up to a year because, as we discussed earlier, nails do not grow as quickly as you might want—especially toenails, which take many months to regenerate fully.

Jacobsen: What do people come to your office for the most when it comes to nails? What is the most common concern?

Kazlouskaya: The most common issue is fungal infections, which are very prevalent. After age 50, about one in three or four people will have a fungal infection on their toenails. It can be not easy to treat, especially if it is advanced, which is always challenging.

Another common issue is trauma or changes in the nails due to chronic conditions or deficiencies. Many people misdiagnose themselves with a fungal infection when, in reality, the changes are caused by another underlying issue. Beyond that, there are also tumours under the nails.

Many malignant and benign tumours can grow under the nail, and this is a whole subspecialty in dermatology. Some dermatologists focus exclusively on treating nails because diagnosing and treating nail-related conditions can be complex. Surgery on the nail is especially challenging because it can lead to permanent trauma to the nail plate.

Last year, I had about five relatively young patients with malignant tumours under their nails. Their nail deformities had been misdiagnosed as fungal infections for a long time, but multiple tests kept coming back negative. Eventually, I had to remove the nail plate and biopsy the tumour underneath. In some cases, it turned out to be malignant.

These are the major concerns: blunt trauma, deformities, unhealthy habits, poor overall health, fungal infections, and cancer. Melanoma and tumours in the nails are significant issues, and one thing that many people are not aware of is how unusual the location seems for skin cancer.

Jacobsen: That’s something I wasn’t aware of either. It is such an unusual spot for melanoma.

Kazlouskaya: Yes, but acral melanomas—melanomas that appear on the hands, feet, and nails—are more common in African American patients. A well-known example is Bob Marley, who died from melanoma that started on his toe.

The problem is that these melanomas are often misdiagnosed for a long time. People assume it is just trauma, a darkened nail, or a fungal infection. In general, African American populations are underserved in healthcare, meaning they don’t always see a physician as early as they should, which leads to worse outcomes.

Additionally, surgery on these melanomas is quite difficult, presenting another challenge. However, apart from melanomas, we also see squamous cell cancers on the nails. One factor that may contribute to an increased risk of these cancers is UV exposure from gel manicures.

We are not yet 100% certain about how significant this risk is, but it is a concern. If you go for a manicure every two or three weeks, you are exposing yourself to higher levels of UV light, which is known to cause cancer. This could be a contributing factor.

Another issue is HPV-related warts. Chronic warts around the nails can sometimes lead to certain types of cancer. So, major concerns, such as warts, fungal infections, and tumours, are among the most significant problems we deal with regarding nails.

Jacobsen: What new technologies might be available for special cases or are already in limited use? So, for instance, with hair, once rare technologies—like hair plugs—are now common. We also have a better understanding of the causes of hair loss. What about nails? Are there certain treatments or technologies that are rarely used now but show promise and could become more widely adopted?

Hypothetically, let’s say someone has uneven nail beds because they constantly pick at their nails. Could there be a technology that smooths out the surface they’ve deformed over time?

Kazlouskaya: Well, in the nail industry, there are a lot of new techniques for manicures, but that’s a question for a nail technician rather than a dermatologist.

However, in terms of medical treatments and new technologies, treating nail conditions has historically been challenging—especially when nails are affected by chronic conditions like psoriasis or eczema. In the past, we had very limited options to address nail changes caused by these conditions.

Fortunately, we have many medications that, while they may not completely cure these diseases, can significantly improve the appearance of the nails. For example, new injectable medications for psoriasis can help restore normal nail appearance, a major advancement in dermatology. We can now offer patients treatments that allow them to be free of these nail-related changes, which is a big step forward.

Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, Dr. Kazlouskaya.

Kazlouskaya: 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

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 #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