Hoodoo Gurus Order One Nation To Stop Using Their Music https://www.noise11.com/news/hoodoo-gurus-order-one-nation-to-stop-using-their-music-20260127 #copyright #music #moralrights #auslaw #auspol
#copyright
Fourth Circuit reverses decision in Blackbeard case, YouTubers sue Snap over AI training, and South Carolina muralist wins maximum damages.
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2026/01/27/3-count-water-tank-mural/
I want to make some high quality instructional videos about the low-tech off-grid stuff I'm doing and share them freely on my website. However, I feel sick about the idea of a low-effort goon uploading them to YouTube, ads being displayed over my work, and both of them profiting from it. I will not register with YouTube and file arduous appeals and fight with YouTube about it. Are there any watermarking tools that will ensure YouTube always rejects my videos automatically?
Stealing Isn’t Innovation! #Copyright
Stealing Isn’t Innovation!
Spotify and major labels sue Anna's Archive; Aylo wins default judgment against adult pirate network; creators launch campaign against AI theft.
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2026/01/26/3-count-12-9-trillion/
How Emma Hathorn Navigates Modern Dating: Age Gaps, Cultural Sensitivity, and Intentional Love
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/24
Emma Hathorn is a Dating Expert at Seeking.com, specializing in online dating, luxury relationships, and modern dating trends. She offers insights on age-gap dynamics, dating safety, and emotional connection. Frequently featured in major media outlets, she helps singles navigate relationships with clarity, confidence, and elevated standards. She discusses modern dating, exploring cultural sensitivity, emotional intent, and shifting social expectations. Hathorn shares a Zora Neale Hurston quote to illustrate love’s adaptability, emphasizing self-awareness, mutual respect, and meaningful connection over superficial judgments, despite changing norms around age, gender roles, and long-term commitment.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your favourite dating quote?
Emma Hathorn: I do have a quote. It’s not specifically about dating—it’s about love in general—but I think it applies.
Jacobsen: Who defines what makes a good date? Is it the person with long-term goals who spends two hours getting ready, or the person who shows up casually? What quote would you say characterizes a good first date for someone genuinely looking for love?
Hathorn: The quote is broader, but here it is: Zora Neale Hurston once wrote, “Love is like the sea. It’s a moving thing, but still and all, it takes its shape from every shore it meets.” It changes with every new shore.
Jacobsen: That’s a poetic and insightful quote.
Hathorn: I love Zora. I think it’s important to approach dating knowing that not every experience will lead to something long-term, but each person brings something valuable. You’re meant to learn something from every connection.
Jacobsen: What about dates where there seems to be nothing to learn?
Hathorn: Don’t go on those. You shouldn’t. You have to know what you’re looking for and what you want. You need to be intentional before even agreeing to meet.
Jacobsen: How do you make the date planning and screening process culturally appropriate? Japan is very different from South Africa, which is different from Canada or Iceland.
Hathorn: That’s so true. You have to be open-minded, make sure there’s mutual respect, and that you can communicate clearly beforehand. Cultural sensitivity starts before the first date—it’s about curiosity and consideration.
Someone has to be able to speak at least some of the language the other person speaks—otherwise, the conversation will be limited. But I think that also comes in the pre-planning. Make sure you have a good rapport over text, have a quick phone call, and see if there’s a spark—something that makes you want to talk to them more.
Culturally, dating across backgrounds can be really challenging, but it’s also incredibly rewarding if you approach it with humility. You’ll never know everything, but you can learn a lot. You’ll likely walk away with more than you brought to the experience.
Jacobsen: Why are some people so risk-averse that they do not even try to go on a date—even if they want to? They see some bad news story or binge a British crime drama and say, “You know what? No.”
Hathorn: Well, fortune favors the bold. People tend to be more successful when they step outside their comfort zone. That said, I have mixed views about staying in one’s comfort zone. I do not think there is much value in being deeply uncomfortable in a dating scenario—unless it’s part of natural growth. Some personalities throw themselves into new situations without fear, and I think that’s admirable.
Jacobsen: Like docu-comedies such as Jackass—they’re built around that idea.
Hathorn: Then you have people who just do not want to leave the house—it happens. Online dating can really help in that case. If someone has anxiety around dating, they can start building rapport online. Share hobbies, have conversations—it makes meeting in person much less intimidating. You also arrive with shared interests and conversation topics—you’re more prepared.
Jacobsen: Often there are sensationalized, Daily Mail-style headlines about dating. It gets attention because dating is something almost everyone does. Everyone has been on a bad date. Most people have had average or good dates. But the media loves overblown stories. I say this as a journalist—there’s often a press motive here.
We see headlines like “Two-thirds of men under 30 aren’t dating,” or something to that effect. The data may be technically accurate, but it’s often framed in a way that fuels panic. Some women date women more frequently now, so that shifts the dating pool. Similarly, men may be dating men. Among younger adults, the gender split in dating is complex.
Could the loosening of age-based screening criteria be part of the story? Are we seeing a change that is being misinterpreted or overhyped in the media just to drive clicks?
Hathorn: Absolutely. That leads to the broader age gap conversation. People today are much more flexible about age than they were in the past—especially women, who are more open to dating older men.
It’s becoming less about the number and more about the individual and the connection. Expanding your criteria—whether that’s age, culture, or anything else—can only help. If you’re genuinely interested in meeting people, welcoming diversity is a really positive mindset to have.
I’ve noticed that people are going on fewer dates, but they’re approaching them more seriously. I think many are tired of frivolity in dating. There’s a lot of disillusionment, especially from swipe culture. People are exhausted—it’s become so shallow and appearance-based. It’s a quick judgment: “No, not for me.”
It’s depressing. The process becomes about instant gratification—getting swiped on gives you a small serotonin hit. But I think more people are now turning away from that and trying to find something meaningful, something beyond feeding the algorithm.
Jacobsen: Is the issue internal, like within the dating rituals or age gap dynamics? Or is it more about the person—something more fundamental than age?
Hathorn: I think there’s definitely social pressure to date within your own age group. That judgment disproportionately falls on women. For example, if a woman dates someone 30 years older, people react harshly without considering the actual connection between the individuals.
We overlook the fact that someone at 25 might have lived in several countries and accumulated a wealth of experience. They may have more in common with an older partner who’s done similar things over a longer timeline.
Jacobsen: Right—like the children of diplomats or ambassadors.
Hathorn: Exactly. They’ve lived all over the world, and when they choose to date someone older, it often makes sense based on shared experiences.
Jacobsen: When it comes to mating, dating, or having children, that’s one realm. But marriage—historically and even today—has often functioned as an economic arrangement. For centuries, and particularly for women, marriage was tied to being considered property. That’s still true in some parts of the world. In earlier periods, property didn’t just mean land or goods—it extended to people. Over time, subjectivity became recognized—eventually tied to voting rights and personal agency.
Fundamentally, marriage has always had an economic and social dimension. It was, and often still is, about structuring social strata. In British society, for instance, marriage has long carried that function. In India, it may be framed more cosmically or karmically, especially under the caste system. But regardless of how it’s expressed—spiritual or secular—the economic base is often still there.
Jacobsen: I think what we are seeing is that as the economic system changes—definitions of “breadwinner” and what qualifies as a job—social structures like marriage and family are evolving too. Our genetics have not changed, but the framework around us has. As the frame changes, the arrangements shift accordingly.
It is different from declaring a crisis, like “the crisis of men” or “the crisis of single women.” That kind of language exaggerates things. How do you see people adapting their perspectives as the very definition of marriage and the family unit shifts along with these economic and social changes?
Hathorn: Yes, absolutely. There is much more equality now. From the context of Seeking, we often talk about hypergamy, which has historical roots in India. Traditionally, it referred to marrying up in social or economic status, often gendered.
What’s interesting today is that gender is being taken out of that model. A hypergamous relationship in a modern sense is about both partners bringing different strengths and supporting each other—emotionally, economically, intellectually.
The shift in social and economic roles—especially between men and women—has created opportunities for people to connect in ways that go far beyond economics. One partner might be the breadwinner while the other contributes emotional stability, creative energy, or household organization.
Jacobsen: Or even seasonally—it could shift over time.
Hathorn: That kind of flexibility is important. One might provide financially while the other offers emotional grounding, curiosity, and new ideas. It becomes a dynamic balance.
This shift allows people to explore healthier, more equitable relationship dynamics. In the past, gender roles were rigid—men worked outside, women stayed at home. Now, we see relationships forming between whole human beings rather than rigid gendered archetypes. That gives me some hope for the future.
Jacobsen: Are people thinking about these dynamics even before a first date? It seems like there’s a lot of weight attached to the experience—almost to the point that it creates anxiety. Do you think people bring this psychological burden into first dates, making it harder to connect authentically in the moment?
Hathorn: I think it’s something people carry with them, but ideally, it should remain in the background—not dominate the date. We are all conscious of our place within the broader social dynamic. Women especially have always been attuned to this, not just in passing but as a constant awareness.
However, there’s also freedom in that awareness. You’re entering a date as a full person—not necessarily looking for someone to financially support you, but for someone who complements you emotionally. That sense of balance and mutual support is key. Still, it depends on the couple. Each dynamic is unique, and what works for one may not work for another.
This isn’t something we should overthink during a date. You need to go in with a free spirit and an open mind—just see who you’re meeting. People are complex.
That said, I do think most people have this kind of background consideration, even if they’re not fully conscious of it: What do I bring to the table? What do I hope my partner brings? It’s healthy to acknowledge that.
It also helps to know yourself well—what you want long term, and even just what you want out of the date itself. Being deeply self-aware usually leads to a better experience.
Jacobsen: How should people negotiate the place, time, and location of a first date?
Hathorn: That should be straightforward—just based on mutual preferences. What do you enjoy doing? Where do you like to go? Everyone has their favorite spots. It’s something worth discussing beforehand: What’s your ideal date? Where do you like to go?
Jacobsen: Let’s try that out.
Hathorn: Exactly! It’s a fun conversation starter. Ask: What would be your dream date? Then work from there. You want to avoid awkward or unpleasant places, and you want to make sure the person you’re inviting is going to have a great time.
Jacobsen: That’s a whole other topic—just bad dates.
Hathorn: Yes, exactly.
Jacobsen: Like something out of a reality TV show.
Hathorn: Right—dragging someone around a shopping mall or to an anime convention on day one.
Jacobsen: Japan might love that.
Hathorn: Personally, I’d love that—but still!
Jacobsen: Do you find there are any cross-cultural “nos”? Things that generally do not go over well on a first date—either in a specific culture or broadly?
Hathorn: I can only speak from personal experience—Japan and South Africa, since I’ve lived in both.
Jacobsen: That’s actually a good range: one largely homogeneous, the other more diverse.
Hathorn: In Japan, for instance, you need to be more polite than you might expect. You cannot be too forward in public—it’s just not done. You really have to be hyper-aware of the cultural context, especially when you’re outside your own culture. Be respectful and polite—“when in Rome,” as they say. Try to take the cues.
It helps to learn a little beforehand. You’re going to miss small cultural cues—that’s inevitable—but it’s better to mess up with genuine intent than not to care at all. Sometimes, those little mistakes can even become a great conversation point: “Oh, you’re not supposed to do that here.”
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: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
The Widdowson Case: Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Institutional Censorship in Canadian Universities
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/23
Academic freedom includes… Freedom to express one’s opinion about the institution, its administration, and the system in which one works… Freedom from institutional censorship…
Post-secondary educational institutions serve the common good of society through searching for, and disseminating, knowledge and understanding and through fostering independent thinking and expression in academic staff and students… These ends cannot be achieved without academic freedom.
All academic staff must have the right to fulfil their functions without reprisal or repression by the institution, the state, or any other source… contracts which are silent on the matter of academic freedom do not entitle the employer to breach or threaten in any way the academic freedom of academic staff…
Academic staff must not be hindered or impeded in exercising their civil rights as individuals, including the right to contribute to social change through free expression of opinion on matters of public interest. Academic staff must not suffer any institutional penalties because of the exercise of such rights.
Canadian Association of University Teachers, “Academic Freedom: CAUT Policy Statement” (April 20, 2025)
Dr. Frances Widdowson earned an Honours BA and MA in political science from the University of Victoria and a PhD in political science from York University. She worked as a policy analyst in the Northwest Territories. She developed an interest in Indigenous culture in Canada and what she called Canada’s “Indigenous industry.”
Academic Tenure and the Rise of a Controversial Voice
She joined the Mount Royal University Department of Economics, Justice and Policy Studies in 2008, earning tenure in 2011. She taught courses in political science and comparative politics with focus on policy analysis. Her case represents a broader clash between evolving institutional norms of conduct tied to equity and academic freedom.
As with many universalist claimed values, the praxis is the real test, because these values clash in real life. The balance of values is tested in real-life cases, sometimes individual persons. The focus will be Dr. Widdowson and the case at Mount Royal University.
With a career as a policy analyst and tenured professor at Mount Royal University (c. 2011), Dr. Widdowson was critical of “woke” movements and Indigenous policy. She provided open critiques of Indigenous research paradigms. The most notable period was 2018. A Twitter (now X) dialogue, heated debate. This led to harassment complaints.
In February, 2018, she publicly questioned traditional Indigenous research methods at Mount Royal University. She made the argument: certain approaches prioritized funding over community needs. This drew strong criticism. Some labelled Dr. Widdowson with the epithet “racist.” Columnist Barbara Kay defended Dr. Widdowson as an academic challenging accepted narratives about residential schools. Kay framed the critiques as probing rather than hateful.
The Twitter War and Institutional Fallout
Dr. Widdowson engaged in heated exchanges with colleagues during 2020. Mount Royal University labelled this the “Twitter War.” Public disputes ranged from aspects of the Black Lives matter movement, e.g., Black Lives Matter “destroyed MRU,” to more. In July, 2021, Dr. Widdowson filed a harassment complaint against a colleague’s tweets. In November, 2021, an investigation claimed the complaint was “malicious, frivolous, vexatious, and made in bad faith.” At the same time, Mount Royal University’s probe concluded Dr. Widdowson’s tweets constituted harassment. Mount Royal University dismissed Dr. Widdowson on December 20, 2021.
Mount Royal University President Tim Rahilly signed the termination letter for Dr. Widdowson. Nine satirical tweets and one complaint were cited as grounds for the violation of harassment and conduct codes. On that afternoon, after delivering an exam, Dr. Widdowson was requested by human resources. She was informed. Her employment was terminated effective immediately (then). She recalls the experience as procedurally opaque and distressing.
Arbitration, Aftermath, and the Future of Academic Freedom
Dr. Widdowson received a termination letter. 30 hearing days occurred over ten months between January 27th, 2023 and November, 2023. Eventually, it was 30 hearing days with 25 witnesses. These hearings scrutinized fairness of procedures, i.e., collective agreement compliance as well as the basis for dismissal, i.e., academic expression versus policy violations.
Arbitrator David Phillip Jones ruled on July 2, 2024: Widdowson’s tweets warranted discipline (“just cause”), while the firing was “disproportionate to her actions.” No compelling evidence was found that the conduct posed an irreparable threat to the academic environment. A letter of reprimand was substituted for the two-week suspension, but reinstatement was deemed non-viable because of the significant breakdown in professional relationships. A monetary remedy was awarded in lieu of reinstatement. Dr. Widdowson has expressed satisfaction at acknowledgement of wrongful dismissal. She continues to challenge aspects of the harassment findings and continues in advocacy for academic freedom.
Some might see the wrongful dismissal as evidence of tenure as not immunizing from consequences for harassing behaviour. Others may contend the dismissal represents a threat to contentious topic debate and dialogue, even heated. Dr. Widdowson has given lectures on “woke-ism.” She continues to appeal for reinstatement and persists in litigation.
The case study in academic freedom is ongoing.
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: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Emma Hathorn on First Date Red Flags, Authenticity, and Why Gen Z Is Redefining Modern Dating
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/23
Emma Hathorn is a Dating Expert at Seeking.com, specializing in online dating, luxury relationships, and modern dating trends. She offers insights on age-gap dynamics, dating safety, and emotional connection. Frequently featured in major media outlets, she helps singles navigate relationships with clarity, confidence, and elevated standards. She emphasizes authenticity, intentional dating, and early communication, discussing red flags, boundary-setting, first-date cues, and the evolving priorities of Gen Z daters as they navigate meaningful, value-driven connections.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your first sign that a first date is going well—or going badly?
Emma Hathorn: When you lose track of time. Everything flows naturally, and you are not stuck in your head or overanalyzing. It just feels easy. You are not thinking about what to say or how you look. That ease is a great sign. That is what a good conversation feels like. You stop checking the time or worrying about posture or manners. You are just comfortable.
Jacobsen: What typically signals that a date is going wrong?
Hathorn: When the conversation becomes unbalanced. One person overshares or dominates while the other listens. It is tough when someone dives into personal issues too soon. That intensity creates discomfort and imbalance.
Jacobsen: What is it like to be on the receiving end of that?
Hathorn: You feel stuck, unsure how to respond. You are polite while someone unloads their life story, and it is too much responsibility, too fast.
Jacobsen: Do certain traits make people more likely to struggle with setting boundaries when that happens?
Hathorn: Yes. At Seeking, we stress the importance of vetting someone first. A chat or video call before a meeting helps. With online dating, you do not know someone until you talk. Asking the right questions upfront helps avoid those boundary issues. Once you know what you are looking for, you can often spot red flags early—from their profile or first messages. Many uncomfortable situations can be avoided with early caution.
Jacobsen: So, it is wise to stay cautious, even if most people are decent.
Hathorn: Absolutely. The worst-case scenario we usually see is just awkwardness—when you are not on the same wavelength. At Seeking, we emphasize aligning values and knowing what you want going in. Intentional dating is a significant trend. People value their time and solitude more, and they are comfortable not dating unless it feels genuinely worthwhile.
So, when someone chooses to go on a date now, it is often very deliberate—focused on who the person is and what kind of connection they are looking for. It does not even have to be romantic. A meaningful conversation can be worth it all by itself.
Jacobsen: What is a clear sign someone is being inauthentic—like they are not even in touch with themselves?
Hathorn: When the stories feel overblown—like they are trying too hard. Sure, some wild stories are true. However, when someone claims they started ten companies, went bungee jumping, and climbed Everest all in the same week—it feels performative.
Jacobsen: They started the companies while bungee jumping.
Hathorn: [Laughing] And if it is true—great. However, it often feels like a show rather than a genuine connection.
Jacobsen: Signing contracts midair.
Hathorn: Yes! However, inauthenticity is a tricky issue. It can be both hard and easy to read. You sense something is off.
Jacobsen: Is it a major turnoff?
Hathorn: Definitely—and it should be. An authentic person does not need validation from a date. They come in already knowing their value.
Jacobsen: Inauthenticity kills attraction.
Hathorn: Yes.
Jacobsen: Authenticity guarantees you know whether the real you are attracted to the other person. Some people are authentically unpleasant. That may only appeal to a few—but at least it is honest. If someone is faking it, you sense the tension behind the smile. It is like, “Why are you gritting your teeth while smiling?”
Hathorn: When people are authentic, you can quickly tell if there is chemistry—or not. And that matters. Everyone is busy, so when someone shows up as themselves, you immediately know if there is something there or not. You can decide not to see each other again—but at least it was real.
Jacobsen: How do you prepare for a first date? Stereotypically, guys might shower and shave. Women might spend two hours on makeup, hair, and picking the right outfit.
Hathorn: Yes—women do.
Jacobsen: Just the right outfit.
Hathorn: Absolutely. Women put in serious effort. Moreover, honestly, this often leads to another conversation—about who pays the bill.
Jacobsen: That is part two: “How to finish the first date.”
Hathorn: [Laughing] Seriously, though—I have yet to meet a woman who does not do the hair, makeup, nails, everything.
Jacobsen: Why is it such an event? Usually, with gendered traits, there is some overlap—even if the curves are distinct. However, this one seems distinctly divided. Why do you think that is?
Hathorn: Women invest so much time—and men often do not.
Jacobsen: Or they prepare in very different ways.
Hathorn: It is the anticipation. The idea that you might meet someone—is exciting. Despite the narrative that everyone’s independent—and many are—it is still thrilling to think about finding a partner.
That initial rush builds up in the days leading up to the date. Moreover, beyond romance, it is simply lovely to show up for someone to put in the effort. This extends beyond gender—it also applies to queer relationships. Looking your best and making the effort feels good, especially since people go out less than they used to. So it becomes a little occasion.
Jacobsen: What about a date between two women—where both are looking for a connection, maybe some fun, a little wine and chocolate?
Hathorn: Great question. Women tend to put in more effort. I have dated women, and both parties have put in much effort. It felt equal. Honestly, it was refreshing.
Jacobsen: Was it a better experience?
Hathorn: Not necessarily. Most of my dating was in Tokyo, and I found that both men and women showed up well-prepared. Maybe that stereotype—that men shave and go—needs to change. Some men put in real effort, even if not in grooming. They may contribute in other ways—such as sending an Uber or ensuring things go smoothly. That effort matters, too. In queer relationships between women, there tends to be a greater balance in terms of effort.
Jacobsen: There is another angle. Some women do not want a guy who looks too polished. If he is plucking his eyebrows, highlighting his hair, and looking overly groomed—it might be a turn off. Not a red flag, just a turnoff.
Hathorn: Right.
Jacobsen: They want their guy a little scruffy.
Hathorn: Maybe “curated scruffy.”
Jacobsen: Exactly! So, where is the line between curated scruff and the real thing, or even authenticity?
Hathorn: It is primarily aesthetic. Scruffy can mean facial hair or style—not necessarily a scruffy personality.
Jacobsen: That is true. I have worked in construction, restaurants, and a horse farm—some guys work with their hands and are dirty as hell but still have manners.
Hathorn: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: They may not be clean day to day, but they respect you, and they know how to show it. That takes skill. Honestly, if your exterior is rough, it can even distract you—but some still know how to show up with grace.
Hathorn: And maybe that is super authentic—just showing up as yourself. There is another side to it, however. You could say, “Just come as you are.” However, at the same time—it is still a date. If you are genuinely excited and enjoy getting ready, you should show that to your partner. It reflects something you value and may want in the relationship. It comes down to knowing what you want. Do you see yourself going to lovely places with this person? What kind of future do you imagine?
Jacobsen: That kind of future-oriented thinking—do you think it is gendered? The prep, the anticipation—does that reflect a different mindset across genders?
Hathorn: Possibly.
Jacobsen: That leads to something else. We have new terms for old things—”friends with benefits,” “one-night stands.” When people talk to you before a date or when you guide them on how to “do the date right,” is it about encouraging clarity? Are there consistent patterns depending on whether they are looking for something short-term or long-term?
Hathorn: Yes. Those are very different conversations. The key is knowing what you are showing up for. It is hard to help someone who does not understand why they are even going on a date. There is more intentionality now, especially among Gen Z. Many are not interested in casual dating. If they go on a date, it is with someone they could genuinely imagine seeing again.
Jacobsen: That seems like a significant shift away from hookup culture.
Hathorn: Definitely. People are doing a lot more talking online before they meet in person. Things are more coordinated. They show up already knowing, “This is what I am looking for.” Moreover, if that does not align with the other person, no problem—but at least it is clear.
That kind of honesty early on might seem intense for a first date, but it saves time. Asking, “Are we good together? Is there attraction? Are our goals aligned?”—that avoids confusion later.
Jacobsen: I feel like that kind of directness is common for people in their 30s and 40s.
Hathorn: Yes.
Jacobsen: Get to the point. But what about people in their early 20s? Is it different for them?
Hathorn: Surprisingly, no. Gen Z is straightforward. They know what they want, and they will tell you. They are not wasting time. It is refreshing.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time today, Emma.
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: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Cultural Integrity Without Supernaturalism: Eru Hiko-Tahuri on Being a Māori Atheist in a Post-Christian New Zealand
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/23
Part 5 of 5
Eru Hiko-Tahuri, a Māori creative and author of Māori Boy Atheist, explores his journey from religious upbringing to secular humanism. Hiko-Tahuri discusses cultural tensions as a Māori atheist, advocating for respectful integration of Māori values like manaakitanga and whanaungatanga within secular contexts. Hiko-Tahuri reflects on secular life as a Māori creative in a post-Christian Aotearoa. He shares experiences balancing cultural heritage with nonbelief, writing secular karakia, creating inclusive art, and challenging assumptions around Indigenous identity, civic rituals, and institutionalized spirituality in Māori public life.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, when you begin mapping the geography of Māori secularism—as a relatively new concept—are there any aspects of traditional Māori governance that could be considered appropriately secular? That is, are there spaces where ritual or spiritual practices are distinctly set apart or is everything more or less integrated?
Eru Hiko-Tahuri: So, in most traditional Māori contexts, everything tends to be intertwined—spiritual, social, political, and cultural dimensions are not separated in the Western sense. In that way, Māori culture is similar to many traditional religious cultures, where secularism, as we understand it in liberal democracies, was never really a category.
Jacobsen: Now, tapu—the concept of sacredness or restriction in Māori culture—retains significant cultural power. But from a secular Māori perspective, like yours, tapu can be understood metaphorically rather than metaphysically. It functions symbolically to mark respect, boundaries, or social norms rather than indicating belief in the supernatural. What does that mean in practical terms?
Hiko-Tahuri: Take karakia, for example—these are often translated as prayers or incantations. I don’t perform them myself. But in spaces where karakia are expected—such as ceremonial openings or public gatherings—I’ve written secular alternatives, essentially nonreligious invocations. I cannot authentically engage in the religious or supernatural aspects, but I can offer something meaningful and culturally respectful that fits the moment. That’s how I bridge the gap: by replacing the supernatural element with a secular expression that still honours the cultural context.
Jacobsen: This reminds me of the situation in Canada. Canada is a federal state divided into municipalities, provinces, and territories, and then the national government, which is functionally similar to the U.S. structure of counties, states, and federal governance. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City) that opening municipal council meetings with prayer violated the state’s duty of religious neutrality. It effectively made official prayers at government meetings unconstitutional.
Following that decision, organizations like the British Columbia Humanist Association began investigating compliance across municipalities. Despite the ruling, they found that many local governments continued to include prayer in official meetings. In response, the Association sent letters to these municipalities pointing out the legal ruling, sharing data, and urging them to comply with the law by removing religious observances from public sessions. This kind of advocacy led to meaningful change in some regions.
So, when I consider your experience, I think of it in that light. You’re not opposing cultural participation or public service; instead, you’re drawing a line where religious practices—like prayer—are included in civic spaces where they may no longer be appropriate, especially in pluralistic or post-colonial contexts. Countries like Aotearoa, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United States, and South Africa all fall under the category of “post-colonial” states grappling with how to reconcile Indigenous traditions, secular governance, and religious pluralism.
So, let us return to the historical backdrop. Christian missionary efforts primarily drove colonization in Aotearoa, New Zealand. I understand that many of those involved were of European heritage—like my own. When people refer to “post-colonial” in this context, they often mean a phase following that religious and political imposition—perhaps even envisioning a society in a reconciled, pluralistic state where Indigenous and settler cultures have negotiated a new equilibrium. Would you say that is accurate?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, that is broadly correct. Among post-colonial nations, I would say Aotearoa, New Zealand, has gone further than many in terms of acknowledging and integrating Māori language, culture, and perspectives into public life. You can see the effects of that on things like the census data. As of the most recent census, about 53% of New Zealanders identified as having no religion. That makes New Zealand a post-Christian country, at least in terms of demographic majority. Christianity is now a minority belief, which shifts the dynamics.
Jacobsen: And how does that shift affect your everyday life, particularly as someone who identifies as an atheist and a humanist? Does it allow you to live more comfortably and authentically?
Hiko-Tahuri: Absolutely. As I mentioned earlier, overt religiosity is a bit unusual here. People who are very religious are more of a minority now—and may be looked at as slightly outside the norm. The country itself is pretty secular. Yes, we still have prayers at the beginning of some public meetings, but those are more about tradition than belief in most cases. There are calls to remove such practices, and I support that. However, overall, New Zealand has a very relaxed and liberal society. People do not care what others believe or do not believe. There is a strong cultural inclination toward individual freedom and tolerance, so we rarely see heated debates or conflicts over religion here.
Jacobsen: Tell me more about your podcast, Heretical. Is it still running, and where can people find it?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, it is back. I originally launched it some time ago but had to pause due to other commitments. I have now restarted it. The first season includes 10 episodes, where I read my book chapter by chapter. The book is free—I never wrote it to make money; I wrote it to tell a story. That story forms the basis of the podcast. I have also added another episode where I talk about a strange encounter I had with what I would describe as a cult-like group who tried to recruit me. That experience was eye-opening and worth sharing. There will be more episodes in the future. I plan to delve into some of the more common arguments for theism—things like the cosmological argument—and explore why I do not find them convincing. These kinds of discussions are not often had within our community, so I think it is essential to create space for them.
Jacobsen: What about your music and your airbrush art? Do elements of secularism or humanism show up in those creative outlets?
Hiko-Tahuri: Not so much in my music, no. It is more of a personal expression, and I keep it separate from my secular identity. But everything I create reflects my worldview in some way, even if not explicitly.
I have been playing in the same band with friends for about 25 years now. We only get together to play once every five years or so these days, but we are just a bunch of old mates who enjoy making music together. I played my first gig when I was 14 years old for a country music club here in New Zealand. I got pulled into country music because there really were not many other musical options in the small town I grew up in.
Music has always been part of my life, but I have never chased fame or done it for recognition. I do it because I love it. The same goes for painting. I have created a few pieces where I’ve expressed thoughts on some of the more absurd or troubling beliefs in the Bible. For example, there is that passage—1 Timothy 2:12, I think—that says women should remain silent and not teach. I did a painting responding to that. I also painted a Celtic cross overlaid with Māori designs to symbolize how religion, especially Christianity, colonized us just as much as the English did. I have sold or given away some of those pieces, but really, art is something I do for personal fulfillment rather than profit.
Jacobsen: How do emerging networks like Māori atheist and freethinker communities offer space for collective doubt or help individuals express personal doubts within a shared context?
Hiko-Tahuri: That is a good question. I do not know if that is even the aim of the group I joined. It is not my group—I just found it and joined. For me, it was more about discovering that there were other people out there who think like me and also look like me. That alone was meaningful. We have not tried to turn it into a collective movement. Māori atheism is still in its infancy. Until I wrote my book, I had not encountered any serious discussion about it, at least not that I could find. That group did exist beforehand, but I stumbled upon it afterward.
So, right now, most of the Māori atheists I see are solo actors. We speak up when we feel like it, but there is no organized collective activism or shared identity. We are in such an early stage of development as a community that it has not yet coalesced into anything more structured or strategic.
Jacobsen: Since we last spoke, have you had any recent thoughts on the protocols and principles of Indigenous declarations?
Hiko-Tahuri: No, I have not looked into it lately. I know that the New Zealand government initially chose not to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, though it eventually endorsed it in 2010. But beyond that, I have not followed recent developments very closely.
Jacobsen: I have not had a chance to read into some of those areas, but I would like to. What about the precise etiquette and civic customs—honouring those customs that come from the subculture while not reciting the prayers? What is the balance being struck there?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yeah, I think that is one of the most challenging parts—figuring out what you can do respectfully while maintaining personal integrity. If we are talking, for instance, about pōwhiri—that is, the formal welcome ceremony—part of that involves speech-making. And during those speeches, spiritual language is often invoked. It is hard to categorize it strictly as religious, but it carries spiritual overtones.
Navigating is a challenge because there is a specific formula for constructing those speeches within our culture. They follow a traditional structure that includes spiritual references—things I do not believe in. So, I often have to rework those parts, recreating the tone and form without the religious or supernatural elements. It is difficult and takes much careful thought. That is probably the main struggle for Māori atheists who speak the language and actively participate in cultural life. We are trying to maintain the integrity of our heritage while adapting it to a secular worldview.
Jacobsen: Have you ever had an experience—either due to your ethnic background or lack of belief—where someone got confrontational with you? The proverbial finger-wagging, shouting match? I cannot imagine that happening much to a Kiwi.
Hiko-Tahuri: No, we are generally not that confrontational in New Zealand. And there are a couple of practical reasons, too. Because of how I look—my physical presence—people usually do not get up in my face. I am around six feet tall, and I guess I have a face that might be intimidating. So, people do not tend to push those boundaries. I am not aggressive or threatening at all, but sometimes, just my appearance is enough to make people think twice.
Jacobsen: That reminds me—there was a story out of the U.S. involving Eminem. I think gang members were extorting him—either the Crips or the Bloods. But apparently, there was a Samoan-American gang so feared that even the Crips were hesitant around them. Eminem hired them for protection, and they ended up defending him and collaborating on music. I believe they even put out an album together.
It was a pretty wild story. It shows how much physical presence and group identity can shape interactions—whether in music, culture, or personal safety. It is funny how those dynamics play out in so many different places.
Hiko-Tahuri: It can be imposing. I am five-eleven, but I am not baby-faced. Still, I have heard of incidents where Māori women in New Zealand—especially those who wear moko kauae, the traditional tattoo—get hassled often.
Jacobsen:How so?
Hiko-Tahuri: By members of the public, saying things like, “You shouldn’t be here,” or “You look intimidating,” or “You shouldn’t be in this park.” One of these incidents happened just last year in a local park. A woman was told she could not be there when someone’s kids were around, as if she was somehow threatening—just for wearing the moko kauae. These things do happen, particularly to women. I have noticed that it never happens to me. Maybe that has something to do with physical presence or perceived threat, but yes—it is a pattern. That does happen, and fairly often.
Jacobsen: I am out of the questions, too. So, am I missing anything? What do you think?
Hiko-Tahuri: I do not think so. I cannot think of anything else at the moment. That was a solid session.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much for today.
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, that sounds great. Thank you very much.
Jacobsen: All right. Take care.
Hiko-Tahuri: You too. 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: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Radical Feminist Perspectives on Pornography: An In-Depth Conversation with Dr. Gail Dines
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/18
Part 2 of 2
Dr. Gail Dines is the Founder and CEO of Culture Reframed and Professor Emerita of Sociology and Women’s Studies at Wheelock College, Boston. With over 30 years of research on the pornography industry, she is recognized globally as a leading expert on how pornography shapes society, culture, and sexuality. Dr. Dines has served as a consultant to governmental agencies in the U.S. and internationally, including the UK, Norway, Iceland, and Canada. In 2016 she founded Culture Reframed, where she continues to champion education around the harms of pornography. Dr. Dines is also the co-editor of the best-selling textbook Gender, Race and Class in Media and the author of Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, which has been translated into five languages and adapted into a documentary film. Her work has been featured in major media outlets, including ABC, CNN, BBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, Time, The Guardian, and Vogue. Dr. Dines is a regular guest on television and radio and is prominently featured in documentaries such as The Price of Pleasure and The Strength to Resist.
Dines explores the profound societal harms of pornography. She discusses the rare internal disagreements within radical feminism, the contrast with moralist objections, and how pornography erodes healthy sexuality, consent, and gender equality. Dines argues pornography acts as a distorted form of sex education and a driver of sexual violence, dehumanization, and disconnection. Drawing on extensive research and her book Pornland, she advocates for porn-resilient education and a public reckoning with how adult inaction leaves youth vulnerable to exploitation, addiction, and long-term psychological harm.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: A question comes to mind. We’ve discussed liberal feminism versus radical feminism in framing the issue. But within radical feminist discourse, are there any internal objections or disagreements on this critical view of pornography?
Dr. Gail Dines: Radical feminism tends to agree widely on this topic. Are you asking about internal conflicts?
Jacobsen: Yes, specifically within radical feminism.
Dines: Any disagreements are quite minor, mostly around how to define the issue or how to address it. But there’s a strong, unified belief within radical feminism that pornography is violence against women, both in its production and consumption. We have major arguments with liberal feminists, Marxist feminists, and socialist feminists. We don’t tend to have many internal debates about pornography within radical feminism. However, we do have disagreements on other topics.
Jacobsen: There may be surface-level critiques from traditionalist, conservative, or religious groups that object to pornography on moral grounds, often based on a transcendentalist or ethical view of sin. Yet, they seem to reach a similar conclusion as you do…
Dines: Yes, but the conclusions, although they may appear similar, are quite different. Right-wing moralists are often concerned with what pornography does to the family, particularly how it affects men. They argue that it may cause men to stray or damage family cohesion. Radical feminists, on the other hand, have a critique of the family as the place where women are most at risk, as we know from the evidence. We are concerned with the harm to women, children, and society in general, but our stance is not based on moralism.
We refer to this as a harm-based issue, not a morality-based issue. That’s not to say some right-wing organizations don’t adopt some of our arguments—they do—but the core driving force behind our opposition to pornography is different. They oppose it from a moral perspective; we oppose it because of the real harm it inflicts on individuals and society.
Jacobsen: What would a healthy societal view of sexuality and sex education look like?
Dines: Much of what we’ve built on Culture Reframed is what that should look like, to be honest. By the way, all our programs are free. You do have to sign up, but it’s entirely free. A healthy view of sexuality begins with the individual owning their sexuality. It evolves naturally as a person grows. Of course, it’s rooted in equality, consent, non-violence, and genuine connection and intimacy.
This doesn’t mean that sex is only for marriage or long-term relationships but that there is some level of connection and intimacy involved. That’s what makes sex meaningful in the end. If you don’t know the person you’re having sex with, as is often the pornography case, it quickly becomes boring. That’s why pornographers constantly escalate the content—more violence, more extreme acts—because standard sex gets boring for viewers users become desensitized.
If you were to film regular people having sex, most of the time, it would be so dull that you’d fall asleep watching it. The fun and excitement come from actually having sex, not watching it. So, for pornography to hold viewers’ interest, they have to keep ramping up the adrenaline through more intense and bizarre acts.
Jacobsen: Is part of the core issue the dehumanization and depersonalization that comes with pornography? It seems like there’s a disconnection—people go to their computers, consume pornography, and then return to their regular lives as if nothing happened. It’s like their day becomes fragmented and disjointed.
Dines: Absolutely. That’s a great point. There have been studies done on this. One interesting study showed two groups of men: one group watched a regular National Geographic movie, while the other watched pornography. Afterward, they were asked to interview a female candidate for a job, and the chairs were on rollers. The men who had watched pornography kept rolling their chairs closer and closer to the woman. They also found that these men couldn’t remember the woman’s words.
This kind of behaviour shows how pornography impacts boys and men’s perception of others, particularly women, and how it disrupts their ability to interact meaningfully in real-life situations.
They were too busy checking her out. So you’re right. When you think about it, much pornography is consumed at work. Then you leave that cruel world where men are depicted as having every right to women’s bodies and go back to working in a world with women where you don’t have those rights. It’s interesting because we have the Me Too movement on the one hand, which is crucial for explaining what’s going on. On the other hand, pornography is working against everything the Me Too movement is trying to say about consent and women’s bodily integrity. Even men’s bodily integrity is compromised in pornography—nobody has bodily integrity.
In pornography, the body is there to be used in any way possible to heighten sexual arousal, usually involving high levels of violence. I haven’t seen many films where this wasn’t the case.
Jacobsen: We’ve already covered building porn resilience in children, or at least how important it is. How far do gender inequality and sexual violence reflect each other in women’s rights movements, particularly within the frame of pornography?
Dines: Let me make sure I understand. You’re asking about the relationship between gender inequality and sexual violence and how this plays out in the context of movements like Me Too, correct?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Dines: I addressed some of this earlier when I talked about equality in other areas of life and how pornography undermines it. Gender inequality and sexual violence are deeply intertwined. If there were no gender inequality, sexual violence would be unthinkable. Sexual violence is typically used to destroy and control women and to show power and dominance. That’s why we must call it “sexual violence”—because it weaponizes sex against women.
Without gender inequality, this kind of violence wouldn’t even be conceivable. It’s built into the very structure of gender inequality, and in turn, it perpetuates and exacerbates that inequality. It’s a vicious cycle. Gender inequality fuels sexual violence, and sexual violence deepens gender inequality.
Jacobsen: Just to be mindful of that, then. We talked about the psychological impact earlier. What are the similar psychological impacts on boys and girls, rather than the differences?
Dines: Similarities around what, specifically?
Jacobsen: In terms of pornography consumption and its impacts.
Dines: We know very little about girls. There aren’t many studies at all on girls’ exposure to pornography, and, as in many areas, girls and women are often under-researched. One of the few studies by Chyng Sun, Jennifer Johnson, Anna Bridges, and Matt Ezzell does show a few things. Some girls and women go to porn not to masturbate but to see what boys and men are doing, so they can reproduce that behaviour.
They also found that girls and women who become addicted to pornography, similar to men, lose interest in real-world sex, preferring pornography. They become isolated and depressed. So, if they do go down the route of addiction, the impact is quite similar to that on men, except they don’t become violent.
Jacobsen: What are the key points of feminist and anti-pornography activism, particularly in your book Pornland, intersecting with issues of gender, sexuality, and human rights?
Dines: That’s what the whole book is about. Pornland was written to explain the modern-day pornography industry in the age of the internet. People were talking about pornography as if the internet hadn’t happened. I take a radical feminist perspective, using research to back up the claims and focus on how pornography undermines women’s human rights.
There are chapters addressing racism, showing how women of colour are especially targeted, both for their race and gender. I also discuss how mainstream sites are increasingly making use of images of young looking women—sometimes they could be children, it’s hard to tell. So, they might be underage or made to look underage.
The main argument is that we live in a world that is completely inundated and infested with pornography. As a sociologist, I’m interested in the sociological impact. I borrow from psychological literature but focus on the macro level. How is pornography not just shifting gender norms but cementing the worst aspects of them? It hasn’t invented misogyny, but it has given it a new twist and continues to reinforce it across various institutions.
Jacobsen: Gail, any final thoughts or feelings based on our conversation today?
Dines: We’ve buried our heads in the sand for too long. For people who weren’t born into the internet age, it’s hard to understand just how much pornography is shaping young people. There’s been a massive dereliction of duty on the part of adults in helping kids navigate this world they’ve been thrown into, often left to sink or swim on their own—and many are sinking. The kids I talk to feel overwhelmed by pornography, and studies back this up. Many wish there were far less of it because they recognize the negative effect it has on their sexuality, their connections, and their relationships.
So, it’s time we step up and take responsibility as adults.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gail.
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: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Pornography’s Impact on Youth, Consent, and Culture: An Interview with Dr. Gail Dines
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/17
Part 1 of 2
Dr. Gail Dines is the Founder and CEO of Culture Reframed and Professor Emerita of Sociology and Women’s Studies at Wheelock College, Boston. With over 30 years of research on the pornography industry, she is recognized globally as a leading expert on how pornography shapes society, culture, and sexuality. Dr. Dines has served as a consultant to governmental agencies in the U.S. and internationally, including the UK, Norway, Iceland, and Canada. In 2016 she founded Culture Reframed, where she continues to champion education around the harms of pornography. Dr. Dines is also the co-editor of the best-selling textbook Gender, Race and Class in Media and the author of Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, which has been translated into five languages and adapted into a documentary film. Her work has been featured in major media outlets, including ABC, CNN, BBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, Time, The Guardian, and Vogue. Dr. Dines is a regular guest on television and radio and is prominently featured in documentaries such as The Price of Pleasure and The Strength to Resist.
Dines outlines over 40 years of research linking pornography to sexual aggression, violence against women, and the erosion of healthy relationships. Dines contrasts radical and liberal feminist perspectives, critiques the porn industry’s exploitative tactics, and highlights how pornography serves as inadequate sex education for youth. She argues for porn-resilient education and supports survivors navigating trauma. Dines warns that mainstream pornography normalizes misogyny, racism, and coercion, undermining consent and equality at every societal level.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Professor Gail Dines, also founder of Culture Reframed. My first question, Gail: what is the connection between pornography and violence against women?
Professor Gail Dines: We have over 40 years of empirical research from different disciplines that show that boys and men who consume pornography are more likely to engage in sexually aggressive behaviour, more likely to accept rape myths, more likely to develop harmful sexual attitudes toward women, and may experience increased anxiety, depression, and reduced empathy for victims of sexual violence. This happens because they are repeatedly exposed to depictions of sexual violence and objectification. Most mainstream internet pornography today is hardcore—it’s cruel, brutal, and dehumanizing toward women.
As men and boys watch and become aroused by it, they internalize the ideologies embedded in these images. A key point about pornography is that it portrays women as always consenting, no matter how degrading or violent the act is. This gives the impression that women enjoy being mistreated, which is often far from the truth, as they may be coerced or paid to act in these scenes. This reinforces the harmful idea that it is acceptable to dehumanize and abuse women. We have substantial peer-reviewed research from fields such as psychology, sociology, and media studies that corroborates these findings.
Jacobsen: What research links pornography to sexual aggression?
Dines: Regarding the research linking pornography to sexual aggression, our website, culturereframed.org, offers fact sheets. One in particular, titled “Understanding The Harms of Pornography,” lists many studies. Additionally, our academic library contains over 500 peer-reviewed articles on this topic. Scholars such as Paul Wright, Chyng Sun, and Jennifer Johnson have contributed important work. The strength of social science research is not in isolated studies but in the coherent pattern that emerges when we review a large body of work. The research shows a clear correlation between pornography consumption and violence against women.
Jacobsen: How does hypersexualized media align with human rights violations, particularly about youth?
Dines: Hypersexualized media, even content that isn’t classified as pornography, and pornography itself can be viewed as violations of civil rights because they infringe on young people’s ability to construct their sexuality. The multi-billion-dollar media and pornography industries are shaping the sexual attitudes and behaviours of young people worldwide, which strips them of their autonomy in this area. These industries commodify and monetize sexuality, taking control away from individuals and turning it into a product.
Young people deserve the opportunity to develop a sexuality that is meaningful to them, not one dictated by the interests of pornographers seeking profit. Additionally, there are significant human rights violations against women in pornography. The treatment many women endure in the production of hardcore pornography can be likened to torture, violating international human rights conventions. If the same acts were done to any other group, they would likely be recognized as torture. That’s how extreme much of mainstream pornography has become.
Jacobsen: What are the social and health consequences of pornography consumption?
Dines: Basically, pornography is shifting how we think about women, men, sex, relationships, connection, and consent—all of these issues. What you see in society is that when pornography becomes the “wallpaper” of your life, as it does for young people today, it becomes the main form of sex education. This shifts the norms and values of the culture, and it’s happening internationally. This is not a local problem. Any child with a device connected to the internet is being fed a steady diet of misogyny and racism—there’s an incredible amount of racism in pornography—and the idea that men and boys have a right to ownership of women’s bodies, regardless of what women want. There’s also the notion that women’s bodies exist to be commodified and used however men wish. This sets up women and girls to be victims of male violence. Meanwhile, we are trying to build a world of equality between men and women.
Pornography shreds that possibility—not only in terms of sex but also in employment, the legal system, and more. It sends the message that women exist only to be penetrated, and often in the most vile and cruel ways possible. So, pornography undermines women’s rights across multiple levels and within multiple institutions.
Jacobsen: You raised an interesting point about the nature of consent. What is the framework of consent in pornographic imagery and in the industry itself?
Dines: First, let’s start with the imagery because the industry is slightly different. In the images, she consents to everything. The one word you rarely hear in pornography is “no.” It’s rare. If you go onto Pornhub or YouTube, where most men and boys consume pornography, you won’t hear “no.” Now, there are some rape porn sites where the woman says “no,” but those are at the far end of the spectrum. I study mainstream pornography, such as what’s on Pornhub. In terms of consent, we never know if a woman truly consents; this is where the industry comes in. While they might sign a consent form, we don’t know under what conditions it was signed.
Also, pornography is where racism, sexism, capitalism, and colonialism intersect. The poorer a woman is, the more likely she will be a woman of colour with fewer resources, and the more likely she is to end up in the porn industry. These are not Ivy League graduates lining up to do this. These are women who have had few choices. When you have limited options in life, especially due to economic hardship, you cannot freely argue that consent is fully informed or voluntary.
Jacobsen: For those able to exit the industry, what are the ways they manage to do so, and what are the psychological and emotional impacts, as well as the physical effects?
Dines: It’s extremely hard for women to leave pornography. First of all, we know that women in pornography experience the same levels of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as prostituted women. Many of them are also under pimp control. The psychological, emotional, and physical tolls are severe, making it difficult for them to leave the industry.
And also, where are you going to go? Especially in pornography, where your image is everywhere, women who have been in the industry, even if they get out, live in constant fear that their employers, children, and partners will find their images or even their next-door neighbours. The issue becomes extremely difficult. You never really escape pornography once you’ve been part of it. Even if you leave the industry, you’re never fully out of it because your image remains online. It can take many years to recover emotionally and physically.
Many women endure severe physical harm—STIs and injuries to the anus, vagina, and mouth due to the hardcore nature of the acts. What’s interesting is that, in the case of prostitution and trafficking, there are many survivor-led groups helping women exit the industry. This support isn’t as prevalent for women in pornography, and the reason is that these women feel so exposed. They feel vulnerable even after leaving the industry because their images remain there.
Remember, an image on Pornhub can go viral, spreading across all the porn sites, so you never know who has seen it. You never know if the person you meet has seen it, which creates a constant feeling of vulnerability.
Jacobsen: You made an important distinction between liberal feminism and radical feminism. Can you clarify that distinction about pornography?
Dines: Yes. The critical distinction is in the ideological framing. Radical feminists were among the first to highlight the violence of pornography—both in terms of the harm to women in the industry and the impact on women in the society. Radical feminism grew out of a focus on violence against women. Over time, they recognized that pornography is part of that violence.
Liberal feminism, on the other hand, tends to be more neoliberal, emphasizing individualism. The argument often centers around the idea that “she chose it,” that it’s about sexual agency. But what we know about these women is that this is not a true sexual agency. If anything, it strips them of their sexual agency and does the same to all women. Women often look at pornography to see what they should be doing for the men who consume it. Radical feminists are anti-pornography because they see both its production and consumption as a major form of violence against women, and they understand that it contributes to real-world violence as well.
Jacobsen: What are the tactics of the pornography industry, and how are they similar to those of the tobacco industry?
Dines: The pornography industry employs tactics similar to the tobacco industry, such as bringing in pseudo-academics to argue that there’s no harm, framing research in ways that downplay the issues, and lobbying. The pornography industry has a powerful lobbying arm, much like the tobacco industry did. They know the harm their product causes, but they’re not interested in liberating women from harm—they’re in it to make money.
And so, all predatory industries will do whatever it takes to make money, irrespective of the incredible social impact it will have. The United States is known for not having as strong a FACTED (Family Life and Sexual Health Education) program as Canada. However, Canada, at its best, still has its gaps.
Jacobsen: So, how does pornography act, as you mentioned earlier, as a filler for sex education and a particularly poor one for young people, and potentially for older people who missed it?
Dines: Let’s focus on younger people. Developing an interest in sex, is a natural part of development, often starting from puberty But because we don’t have good sex education—even in U.S. states that are required to provide it—the content is outdated and doesn’t speak to the reality that kids live in today. So where are kids going to turn when they have access to devices and a vast amount of free pornography? Pornography fills that gap, but poorly.
What is needed, and what Culture Reframed provides, is a porn-critical sex education curriculum. If you visit our website, we have a program for high school teachers (and some middle school teachers), which includes PowerPoints and detailed instructions on how to teach it. We don’t show pornography, obviously, but we focus on building porn-resilient young people. Unfortunately, in many cases, sex education isn’t prioritized, and many sex ed teachers aren’t even specialized in the subject.
They might be math or physical education teachers, told a month before, “You’re teaching sex ed.” We frequently hear from people who are unprepared and have no idea where to start. Interestingly, studies show that students immediately pick up on this lack of expertise. Research indicates that students are aware that their sex ed teachers don’t know how to teach the subject, don’t want to do it, and aren’t addressing issues relevant to their lives. As a result, sex education has effectively been handed over to pornographers.
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: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Healing Parent–Adult Child Relationships: Kan Yan on Reframing, Responsibility, and Emotional Growth
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/16
Kan Yan, host of Parents Reimagined, about how adult children can heal, reframe, and redefine relationships with their parents. A Harvard-trained lawyer and former McKinsey consultant, Yan shares insights on intergenerational trauma, cultural identity, and emotional maturity—particularly within immigrant and Asian American families. He emphasizes shifting from an “adult–child” to an “adult-adult” relationship, the role of self-empathy in conflict resolution, and the uneven emotional capacities between parents and children. The conversation explores psychological development, cultural framing, and the importance of embracing past experiences to foster honest and respectful connections.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today we’re here with Kan Yan. He is the host of Parents Reimagined, a podcast that shares authentic stories of healing and transformation in parent–adult-child relationships. Kan is a Harvard-trained lawyer and a former McKinsey consultant. He speaks and writes on topics including family estrangement, intergenerational trauma, and Asian American identity.
Based in Berkeley, California, Kan explores how immigrant families navigate cultural identity, boundaries, and reconciliation—particularly within the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community. His work uplifts voices centred on reparenting, breaking cycles of fear and shame, and fostering connection without bypassing pain. Through Parents Reimagined, he offers practical tools for rebuilding relationships grounded in truth, accountability, and emotional healing. So what tends to make people feel most supported by their parents—and what can break that feeling of support?
Kan Yan: Supported. Are you talking about children or adults?
Jacobsen: Adult children.
Yan: Adult children. Wow, I might say that’s not quite the right question—because by the time you’re asking it, a lot has already happened that determines whether or not someone feels supported. So I’d say, in general, there are maybe two phases.
Whether someone feels supported often depends on how their childhood went. For example, based on your story, if I were in your position, I might have some resentments or grievances toward my dad. And it can be tough to feel supported by someone toward whom you have unresolved resentment or pain.
That’s one phase of the relationship.
In my work with adult children, we focus on moving through those resentments and reaching a place of acceptance. That way, we can build an adult-adult relationship where I no longer expect my parent to have been the parents I needed as a child. Instead, I accept them for who they are now—with appropriate boundaries to ensure my needs are respected—and I explore what might still be possible in the relationship.
That might involve seeking support from them if they can provide it. And it might not.
Jacobsen: Now, in terms of a lot that has already happened in childhood—such that an adult child is asking this kind of question—what are some key signs that things went wrong earlier in life? What are the flipside indicators? That is when things have gone well enough in childhood. I believe there’s this concept of the “good enough” parent—so if things were generally healthy, the question still arises, but not from a place of trauma or deeply fractured relationships.
Yan: Yes, that’s a tough question because it assumes there’s some objective answer. And maybe there isn’t. There might only be a probabilistic one.
But I would say when it comes to “good enough,” it’s subjective, based on the child’s inner world as well. Like, I interview people who had terrible—what you might call objectively terrible—physically abusive, emotionally abusive childhoods. And, you know, they’ve managed to come through to the other side pretty well.
Other kids had relatively pleasant childhoods—free of any obvious abuse, maybe some emotional absence or something like that—and yet they end up struggling with mental health issues that get projected onto the parents. So it’s not as clear-cut as, “If you turn these knobs in childhood, you get a perfectly well-adjusted kid on the other side.”
I had another thought, but I lost it. Let’s take a moment to track. I think maybe what matters more—because what I take away from your question is, “If I’m an adult child, what are the conditions that allow me to be well-adjusted enough to have a healthy relationship with my parent?” Is that kind of the sense of the question?
Jacobsen: That’s fair.
Yan: In a way, in my work, I find that if you had an abusive, damaging, traumatic childhood, it’s harder to get to the place of having a healthy relationship with your parent. It’s not impossible—it’s just harder.
And like I said before, because it’s subjective, just because you had a relatively pleasant childhood doesn’t mean it’s necessarily easy to get to that place either. However, I would say that what is common is that getting to that place tends to require shifting from an adult–child dynamic to an adult-adult dynamic.
And part of that shift relates to what I mentioned earlier—accepting the childhood you had. And then, from there, relating from, “Okay, this is who you are. I’m not holding any resentment against you for the way you were—or are. I’m just relating to you as you are today. And from here, what’s possible?”
Jacobsen: What does being close to a parent mean to you?
Yan: [Laughing] I’m giving you a lot of “it depends” answers because it’s complex.
Jacobsen: [Laughing] Sure. Yes, I’m asking for single answers on the very, very complex subject matter.
Yan: This is a question about human development. What’s possible in terms of closeness between any two people—not just a child and a parent—depends on their development.
Let’s say, psychologically—that’s one way to phrase it—as human beings. The closeness between two five-year-olds is different from that between two thirteen-year-olds or two fifty-year-olds.
And some people finish their development at earlier or later stages in their lives. So, there’s not one definition of what closeness is. And it’s not dependent on age. Once you become an adult, it depends on whether you have the conditions and circumstances that allow you to develop into further stages of maturity as a person.
And then the capacity for closeness is dependent upon the level of maturation you reach as a person.
The same is true with a child and a parent.
Jacobsen: So, a lot of this is rooted in a sense of perspective and framing. An individual who may have gone through a very unpleasant upbringing—by some objective metric—might end up mentally healthier than someone who went through something like the opposite. It depends, in part, on how each person frames their experience. That internal framing has a huge impact on how the experience is translated into their state of mind and mental health later on. So, how flexible is an individual’s framing of these early life circumstances as we develop in our formative years?
Yan: Now you’re asking just about the deepest question you can ask about the essence of being human. Not only am I not qualified to answer it definitively, but there may not be an answer.
The way you answer that question reflects your entire philosophy of what it means to be a human being. The spectrum goes all the way from a kind of fatalism—“I don’t control anything; it’s all just particles moving by physics”—to an existentialist view: “I’m choosing the narrative I hold about reality, and that choice frames the possibility set of my life.”
Jacobsen: How does that latter category not become dissociation?
Yan: Well, I think they’re quite different.
Having an existential philosophical frame for life is a conscious choice about how you make sense of reality. Dissociation, to me, happens at a nervous system level—it’s about one’s relationship to the body, to sensation, and the alignment (or misalignment) between mind and body.
You can be disembodied or dissociated, regardless of your philosophy. A person could be dissociated while holding any philosophy, even an existentialist philosophy
Jacobsen: What are the cultural constructions around all this? To use the broad stereotypes: America is highly individualistic; other cultures are stereotypically collectivistic. How do those different cultural frames—which people may not have much control over—impact the ebb and flow of family relationships and their capacity to reframe of their experiences of existentialism to “I have infinite free will”?
Yan: And I’m going to choose not to answer that question exactly as asked. But I’ll answer something I think is related. The question becomes: how does culture influence the dynamics between adult children and their parents? And what’s possible in terms of connection or repair within that cultural context? I mean, we’re getting very heady here. I mean, the frame of reference
The way we even think about what matters is shaped by culture. So if we’re thinking on an individual level—like, even the very frame of asking this question about an adult child and a parent and what their relationship is like—that’s already a kind of individualistically framed question, right? We’re not asking, “What is the harmonious nature of the family unit as a whole, or how does that unit function within society?”
That might be a different question. But within the individualistic frame, culture still matters. And we can revisit the concept of developmental stages. How developed a society is—economically, for example—influences the capacity of its individuals to focus on their personal development.
If I’m trying to figure out how to feed myself and my family, my psychological development is likely to be lower than if I have the time and resources to read, reflect, and pursue personal growth. This issue often arises in my work with immigrants. A lot of immigrant parents, especially those from the developing world, didn’t have the time or privilege to reflect deeply on these matters. Their focus was on survival.
And so the gulf between them and their children—especially children who grow up in more developed places like the United States—can be quite wide. That gap tends to be wider than if those parents had also grown up in the U.S., for example. And again, that goes back to developmental differences.
Jacobsen: We can reduce the headiness a bit—we’ll turn that dial down a little. People get in fights. They yell. They scream. They swear. They slur. They blush in anger. These sorts of things. They get exasperated.They lose their words in frustration. They perspirate. All sorts of things happen.
So let’s say there’s a heated argument between an adult child and an adult parent—let’s say within an American, middle-income household–whatever it is in Berkeley.
What are effective methods for cooling things down, bridging the gap of misunderstanding, and rebuilding trust and connection? In other words, how do we “judo” these moments—turning conflict into opportunities for trust-building and deeper connection?
Yan: There are three key points to consider here.
One is that, especially for the adult child, if you carry a lot of lingering resentment toward your parent, a conflict may feel more intense than it is. You might be perceiving your parent through a wounded lens, where everything they say lands as an insult or an attack—even if a third-party observer wouldn’t see it that way. Therefore, developing metacognition and self-awareness in those moments is crucial.
Second, there’s actual skill involved in having a heated conversation. There’s a whole body of work around this. One of my favourites is Nonviolent Communication—that’s a method I’ve trained in. It teaches people how to express themselves clearly while also deeply listening to others. That’s a really important tool.
And third: capacity. And this ties back to the developmental issue. Not everyone has the same emotional capacity in a given moment—or in general—to regulate themselves, stay connected, and have productive conflict. So, part of the work is understanding and honouring the capacity of everyone involved.
Whoever has more capacity to engage in a heated conversation holds more responsibility. It’s very tempting—especially for the adult child—to think, Well, you’re my parent, so you should show up with more maturity, take responsibility, apologize, and handle this better.
However, if the parent has a lower developmental capacity than the adult child, they cannot. Or even if they can, it’s much harder for them than it would be for you—someone who has had more capacity, opportunity, and personal development in this area.
So part of reaching an adult-adult relationship is acknowledging, Hey, we’re both adults, but that doesn’t mean we’re equal. And whoever has more capacity necessarily holds more responsibility—especially if we’re going to have a harmonious, nourishing conversation that addresses friction between us.
Jacobsen: For Nonviolent Communication, what is a good tactic for recentering so you can have an accurate assessment?
Yan: Yeah, sure. In NVC, that’s called self-empathy. If I’m dysregulated, how do I support myself to become more regulated? That’s the essence of self-empathy.
And it depends on the person. For some people, taking space alone to reground. For others, it might involve using a somatic technique—like tapping, if you’re familiar with Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
Some people might need to process with someone else—that could be a friend, a therapist, or a coach. There isn’t one single way. But in the context of NVC, we call that self-empathy: How do I give myself the emotional nutrients I need to get grounded again and more?
Jacobsen: Do you have any favourite quotes about parent and adult-child relationships?
Yan: The Ram Dass quote is, “If you think you’re enlightened, go spend a week with your parents.”
Jacobsen: [Laughing] I should end with Ram Dass and Tim Leary—that’d be fun. I think, in the long view, their philosophies won out—at least in California. Thank you very much for your time today. It’s always fun talking to people who know what the hell they’re talking about.
Yan: Thanks, Scott. Take care. 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: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Healing Generational Trauma Through Family Constellation Therapy: A Conversation with Blanka Molnar
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/16
Blanka Molnar is a Houston-based holistic therapist and certified family constellation® practitioner. As the founder of Awarenest and a conscious parenting coach, Molnar explores multigenerational trauma, emotional regulation, and the challenges of parent-child relationships across cultures. Drawing from personal experience and professional expertise, she discusses how inherited trauma can shape behaviour, why boundaries are vital, and how family constellation® therapy helps uncover and heal generational wounds. Molnar emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility, self-awareness, and culturally sensitive approaches in fostering inner healing, especially for families navigating complex emotional dynamics.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Blanka Molnar. She’s a Houston-based therapist, certified family constellation® practitioner, and the founder of Awarenest. As a conscious parenting coach, she specializes in helping families heal multigenerational trauma and support neurodivergent children through systemic constellation® work, meditation, and practical tools. Her work empowers parents to foster emotional intelligence, intentional parenting, and inner healing, with a focus on ADHD, emotional regulation, and spirited children.
Blanka offers transformative coaching that combines mindfulness with developmental and somatic insights. An immigrant mother and small business owner, she advocates for gentle, conscious parenting and supports multicultural families in navigating complex emotional dynamics with compassion and clarity. Thank you for joining me today. So, what are some of the common reasons a once-close parent-child bond becomes strained in adulthood?
Blanka Molnar: Good question. Each of us must forge our path. Sometimes, that journey requires distance from our family—whether physical or emotional—to find our voice and identity truly.
As I often say, I love stories and fairy tales where the hero must leave home, face their dragons, and walk alone through the unknown. This metaphor holds meaning in both my personal and professional life.
I left my home country, Hungary, and was the first in my family to graduate with a degree in economics. But after working in the corporate world, I decided to leave that behind. I moved to the United States to work as an au pair, caring for children and, in many ways, starting over. It was part of a larger journey—to heal not only personal wounds but also inherited trauma.
These weren’t just family patterns. I grew up in Hungary, which, although never officially part of the USSR, was a satellite state of the Soviet Union under communist rule until the late 1980s. I was five years old when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989—a pivotal moment in the collapse of Eastern Bloc communism. The legacy of that era included scarcity, generational pain, and a deep cultural imprint of survival and silence.
I believed that walking my path independently, even if it meant being alone for a time, would help me heal. And it did. I spent years doing deep personal work—what I call “peeling the onion,” layer by layer, filter by filter—until I could rediscover who I truly was underneath inherited stories.
I never entirely cut ties with my family, but I did put an ocean between us. That distance—the Pacific, in this case—gave me the space I needed. The nine-hour time difference made regular communication less frequent, which allowed me to focus inward and process deeply.
Now, when I visit or we talk, I’m coming from a more grounded and authentic place. I’m not speaking from anger or old pain. I’ve processed much of that. Through the practice of family constellation®, I’ve been able to see my family from a new perspective and gain a deeper understanding of their struggles. This work has helped me offer compassion—not only to clients but also to my parents.
I’ve cried, I’ve laughed, I’ve processed years of pain and joy. And today, I feel more whole. My parents still know how to push my buttons—many of us experience that—but the triggers are fewer. I no longer react the way I once did. That’s the gift of doing the inner work.
Jacobsen: So this is, long story short, that you sometimes need much healing—even if you believe your childhood was amazing and your parents stayed together. You still have to find your inner strength. When your parents are either too perfect or far from ideal, it cannot be easy to develop that strength in their presence. Sometimes, you have to step away—to abandon them, in a sense—so you can eventually return to the relationship from a more authentic and grounded part of yourself. What about unresolved childhood dynamics and their impact on the multigenerational child-parent relationship? That’s the concept of multigenerational trauma.
Molnar: Yes, this is a more nontraditional way of understanding human development, and it comes from my experience with family constellation® therapy.
Sometimes, when a child’s behaviour or attitude suddenly changes—especially over a short period—it may signal that an unresolved trauma or emotional wound has been activated. This trauma may not even originate from their own life. It can be something inherited from generations past—what we call transgenerational or multigenerational trauma.
For example, you might inherit trauma from your great-grandmother—something she experienced that was never spoken about or processed. That trauma can remain dormant for decades, only to be triggered when you reach a certain age or life milestone. Let’s say you turn 35, and something traumatic happened to an ancestor at the same age. Or you’re trying to start a family and struggling with fertility, and that activates emotional patterns passed down through seven generations. Family constellation® work can trace these patterns back up to seven generations.
It can also show up in everyday experiences—such as starting a new job and suddenly feeling like your buttons are being pushed in unexpected ways. Beneath that reaction, there may be a deeper, inherited wound at play. The challenge is that we rarely have detailed knowledge about what happened five or seven generations ago. If we’re lucky, we may know a bit about our great-grandparents—but rarely beyond that.
That’s where healing through holistic approaches, such as family constellation® work, becomes powerful. It gets to the root. And when parents begin to heal those hidden wounds, their children often begin to heal too—because the emotional legacy is no longer being unconsciously passed on.
Jacobsen: When a parent feels hurt, rejected, or confused because their adult child has withdrawn, how can the parent respond without criticism or defensiveness?
Molnar: That’s a tough one. I’m a parent myself, and I’ve also done that to my parents. So I’m right in the middle—I know both sides. It’s not easy.
In an ideal world surrounded by self-aware and emotionally conscious parents, we would not take it personally. But real life is more complicated. Still, I believe this: we’re all here to bring our lessons, and sometimes we need distance to teach them.
If it resonates with you, consider that we bring experiences or karmic patterns from past lives. Even if you don’t believe in past lives, you can see that each person comes into this life with specific lessons to learn. So, when a child withdraws, it is often not about the parent at all. It is about the child finding their way and resolving their inner journey.
The best response a parent can give is patience, presence, and a willingness to stay open—without assuming blame or trying to fix it. That allows for reconnection to occur in a more genuine and healing manner.
Yes, maybe how the parents raised the child contributed to the dynamic—but it is not entirely their fault. As parents, we often try to fix our children or take responsibility for them. Sometimes, the reverse happens—children end up taking responsibility for their parents.
But what we have to recognize, especially when we’re talking about adult children, is that each person must take responsibility for themselves. You cannot fix your child. You cannot live their life for them.
So, in an ideal situation—where you can step back—you recognize that this is not about you. It is about them. You can say, “Hey, I love you unconditionally for who you are, even when you make mistakes. But I will take a step back. If you fall, I will be here to catch you. But I respect your choices, your decisions, and your life.”
That is the greatest gift you can offer them. And it is also one of the most painful because it is so much easier to try to fix someone or fix a situation than to step back and say, “You know what? I trust your strength. I trust that you can handle this.”
Jacobsen: What about communication strategies—something positive, affirming, assertive—to allow for honest dialogue, without offence, about how a child may be feeling and how a parent may be feeling in those situations?
Molnar: As a parent, you can express yourself honestly. You can say, “Yes, this hurts me. Your choices right now are painful for me.” You can acknowledge that. Say, “I’m your parent. I raised you. We went through so much together.”
But again, if your child pulling away doesn’t trigger something unresolved in you—like an abandonment wound or a loss of identity, especially in single-parent homes—it is easier to communicate from a grounded, centred place.
This does not mean suppressing your feelings. It means not adding emotional intensity that clouds understanding. You can say, “Yes, this hurts, but I want to understand you.” One thing I often suggest to my clients is saying, “I need time.”
You do not need to respond, ideally in the moment. You can say, “I need to process this. I may need to meditate on it. I may need to journal. Right now, I’m in pain, and I don’t want to speak or act from this place of pain. But give me a few days, and let’s come back to this conversation.”
Pausing and asking for time is one of the healthiest communication tools—especially when emotions are high.
Jacobsen: And what about children setting boundaries? It doesn’t necessarily have to be across the Pacific Ocean.
Molnar: [Laughing] Yes, funny enough, I learned that it does not always work. You can put a whole ocean between you, and your emotional baggage will still come with you.
In my case, I recreated the same emotional dynamics across the ocean—. The same issues came up. I tried to escape them, but it didn’t work. That’s when I realized that healing must come from within.
So, yes—setting boundaries with parents can be difficult, especially depending on their and the children’s personalities . But it is necessary. Boundaries are not about cutting people off; they are about creating the space you need to grow. It’s about respecting yourselves and others. And eventually, that can strengthen the relationship.
That’s why I see so many clients who say, “No, I’ve completely cut my parents out of my life—and I don’t want to go back.” And if that’s how you feel right now, I understand. But I don’t typically recommend that to my clients. Whether we’re conscious of it or not, we receive energetic support, strength, and psychological grounding from our parents—even when the relationship is strained or complicated.
When you completely shut them out of your life, it can feel like trying to fly a jet without its engines. If you cut off your mother, it’s like flying with one engine down. If you cut off your father, the other one is gone. You’re trying to spread your wings and soar but without foundational support.
So, instead of full disconnection, I encourage people to seek support—through therapy, holistic healing, journaling, or any modality that resonates. But also suggest to, ask yourself your why. That why will carry you through difficult moments. Why do you want to create distance? Why do you feel the need to fly to the other side of the world? Why are you putting emotional space between you and your parents? What are you trying to heal?
And you can communicate that. You can say, “I love you—or I’m not sure how I feel right now—but I need healing. This isn’t about you. This is something I need to do for myself.”
That is a more constructive way to express your boundaries. It avoids blame or finger-pointing. You’re not saying, “Because of you, I’m like this,” or, “You’re responsible for how I grew up.” Instead, you’re stepping into adult responsibility and saying, “This is my decision. Right now, I need space. That might mean I do not call you for a while. It might mean I move to Asia, rent a little scooter, and go on a personal journey to rediscover my voice.”
You can always return to the message: “This is about me. This is for my healing, my peace of mind, my future.”
Jacobsen: What are some everyday situations that North Americans face in their family dynamics—especially points of tension? And does that differ from what you experienced growing up in Hungary?
Molnar: Yes and no. When I was born, Hungary was experiencing financial instability. And my family, like many others, was also struggling financially. So there was a sense of limitation—not just economically, but emotionally and culturally. What Americans had access to in the 1970s and 1980s—choices, variety, mobility—we didn’t.
You had different brands of soda and different types of jeans. We had one pair of jeans. When my father was finally allowed to travel to Austria and brought back gummy bears or other sweets, it was a huge event. That was expensive. It was rare. And it was tied to a sense of scarcity.
So yes, the values we grew up with were different—shaped by restriction and survival. We were raised with a mindset of limitation. But what I see in the U.S. now—especially among younger generations—is a different kind of challenge.
It’s not a matter of scarcity but a generational reckoning. Many young people feel that something in the previous generations did not work, and they are determined to change it. There’s a collective sense of, “This ends with us.” That’s something I see echoed across cultures now—Hungarian, American, and elsewhere. The language is different, but the need to break cycles and create something healthier is universal.
You can even see it reflected in popular media—new movies, new series—with titles like It Ends with Us. There’s a growing awareness that generational cycles of pain—especially abuse, narcissistic dynamics, and unhealthy parenting patterns—must stop.
A few pain points I see repeatedly include narcissistic personalities, entitlement, and overprotection. There’s a helicopter-style parenting approach where children are highly protected and provided for, which on the surface seems loving—and it is—but it can have unintended consequences. Children may struggle to find their voice to develop independence and resilience, especially when they’ve never had to navigate life without constant parental oversight.
So yes, there are overlapping issues globally—trauma, control, disconnection—but the specifics can differ based on the country’s economic and cultural context.
Jacobsen: Typically, do cultural dynamics place more strain on family relationships than individual personalities and interactions? For example, someone growing up in the Democratic Republic of the Congo might experience the influence of poverty more directly than someone in the United States. But in both cases, could the individual parent-child relationship still be the primary factor in emotional strain, regardless of the broader context?
Molnar: Again, I’d say both. Culture and individual dynamics are deeply intertwined.
From my experience growing up in Hungary and now living and working in the United States, I’ve seen how culture influences parenting. The U.S. is an individualistic country. That’s a vast cultural difference. It shows up in how we raise children. In times of crisis—like hurricanes or other disasters—Americans come together. But day-to-day life? It’s very much finding your way, being self-sufficient, and standing out.
Parents here often feel pressure to push their children to excel very early. Kids are enrolled in piano and swimming lessons at the age of two. By age four, they’re expected to be preparing for their SATs! [Laughing] It is intense. Such a culture fosters high expectations and competitiveness.
By contrast, many Asian cultures, for example, are more community-oriented and place stronger emphasis on respect for elders and family roles. In Hungary, we were raised with a very different mindset—one shaped by historical suppression and economic instability.
But even within each culture, family inheritance plays a considerable role. What trauma did the family carry? Were they descended from enslaved people, refugees, or those living in systemic poverty? Did their family endure war or genocide? These things shape us, even if they happened generations ago.
And we can’t talk about culture without acknowledging historical trauma. Hungary has been under occupation and suppression repeatedly—under the Ottomans, then as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, then under Soviet rule. These layers of control left deep cultural scars. It’s no surprise that finding one’s voice and asserting autonomy remains difficult for many Hungarians.
The U.S. has its parallel legacy—slavery, Indigenous genocide, war, systemic racism. World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War—these events profoundly shaped families and cultural norms here. Those inherited traumas are still present, even if not openly acknowledged.
So, while culture lays the foundation, individual family systems—how those broader patterns get passed down—ultimately shape the parent-child dynamic. Healing happens when we address both.
Jacobsen: When you work with a client, at what point do you find responsible termination of the client-therapist relationship is appropriate? In other words, what are some deep signals that a person is sufficiently recentered and ready to go forward into their life independently—that they have the tools and are good to go?
Molnar: That’s a great question. In most cases, the decision is in the hands of the client. They determine how many sessions they need and when they feel they have completed them.
Family constellation® work is not a traditional form of therapy. It’s not like being in therapy for four years and attending sessions weekly or biweekly. Sometimes, it’s a one-time experience. A client might come in and say, “I have this specific issue, and I want to resolve it.” And after one session, they feel a fundamental shift and say, “I’m fine now.” That’s valid.
When that happens, I usually follow up with them—checking in two to three weeks later to see how they’re integrating the experience.
Other clients come in with a series of interconnected issues—let’s say abuse, cancer or war-related trauma. Because those types of traumas can stem from both sides of the family, and it’s often layered, one session won’t be enough. In those cases, clients might commit to four, five, or six sessions. And each time, we go deeper.
But we can only go as deep as the soul allows in any given session. Sometimes, something needs to settle or heal over the following weeks before we can move to the next layer of the onion. So, the pacing is very intuitive and client-led.
I always tell them, “If you feel called to continue, reach out. If you want to go deeper into a specific topic, I’m here.” But ultimately, they know. They feel that more work is needed.
And yes, there have been cases where a client completed six sessions and then disappeared—ghosted, as people say. That’s okay, too. It’s not like traditional therapy because it works at the root level. Some people get what they came for and move on. I never push.
For others, they come back when they’re ready to work on another layer—whether it’s relationships, financial patterns, or self-worth. The family constellation® opens that door, and they decide whether or not to walk through it again.
Jacobsen: What therapeutic method, when dealing with family dynamics, has the most evidence behind it? Of course, there are established, authoritative models—modalities that are backed by research and applied based on the practitioner’s training and the client’s needs. But across the board, what tends to be effective for most family contexts?
Molnar: That depends heavily on the person—their personality, their openness, and their life circumstances.
Traditional therapy, including cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), is still the most widely used and researched. It’s also the most accessible—it’s covered by insurance, which makes a significant difference for many people. Finances play a substantial role in determining the type of therapy someone chooses.
Family constellation®, on the other hand, is less known in the U.S. It originated in Germany and is much more popular in parts of Europe and South America. Many people here have never heard of it.
I’ll be honest—I’m not familiar with every therapy model out there, and I don’t try to pretend otherwise. I don’t like to claim that one method is objectively better than another. It depends on what works for you.
I tried several modalities. For me, the family constellation® resonated with my soul. It took me down to the roots of my issues and then helped lift me back up. I spent two and a half years in traditional therapy, but I always felt like I was scratching the surface when it came to family dynamics.
That’s why I emphasize finding what works for you. What brings clarity, emotional release, and integration? That’s what matters most.
Jacobsen: When it comes to background checks—not in terms of criminal history but in terms of credentials and qualifications—what should someone do before starting therapy? How can they make sure the therapist is appropriate and adequately trained and that the treatment offered is legitimate?
Molnar: I always recommend doing some research. Check reviews if you can—Google reviews, therapist directories, or, if you’re going through insurance, look at their provider network. Many platforms also offer client feedback and credentials.
But beyond reviews, I highly recommend having a conversation with the therapist before starting sessions. That initial conversation is key. You need to feel aligned with the therapist’s energy, values, and communication style. Therapy is a profoundly personal journey, and if the connection doesn’t feel right from the start, the work won’t be as practical as it could be.
Jacobsen: Right, no need to go too deep into ethics codes or licensure requirements—most laypeople need to confirm credentials and have a sense of whether the person is trustworthy and professional.
Molnar: That’s usually enough for most people to make an informed choice.
Jacobsen: What’s one of your favourite quotes related to family therapy?
Molnar: One that changed my life is from Carl Jung: “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life, and you will call it fate.”
That’s how I see family constellation® work. You’re living on autopilot until you bring those invisible family bonds and inherited issues into the light. Once you do, you can finally choose your path with awareness.
Jacobsen: A classic therapist move—Jung, Frankl, Nietzsche! [Laughing]
Molnar: Always! [Laughing] It’s true, though—we all go back to them for a reason.
Jacobsen: I’m out of questions, Blanka. Thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise—it was a pleasure to meet you.
Molnar: Thank you, Scott. It was lovely to be here and to have this conversation. I appreciate the platform.
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: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Secular Māori Voices and Global Indigenous Rights: Eru Hiko-Tahuri on Inclusion, Identity, and Reform
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/16
Part 4 of 5
Eru Hiko-Tahuri, a Māori creative and author of Māori Boy Atheist, explores his journey from religious upbringing to secular humanism. Hiko-Tahuri discusses cultural tensions as a Māori atheist, advocating for respectful integration of Māori values like manaakitanga and whanaungatanga within secular contexts. Hiko-Tahuri critiques the invisibility of secular Māori voices in leadership and policy. While spiritual leaders dominate Indigenous representation, Hiko-Tahuri calls for inclusive frameworks honoring non-religious Māori. Drawing from international instruments and personal advocacy, he urges reform in mental health care, cultural practices, and national recognition of secular Indigenous identities.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The international community has increasingly formalized support for Indigenous peoples through declarations, conventions, and covenants. Some of the most notable include:
- The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted in 2007.
- International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1989).
- The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) includes Indigenous peoples under legal definitions of racial protection.
These instruments serve as essential frameworks for recognizing Indigenous communities’ cultural, environmental, political, and spiritual rights.
Additional international instruments support Indigenous rights, which are not often discussed but are incredibly important.
- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) — Article 1 affirms the right to self-determination for all peoples, including Indigenous communities.
- The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (also 1966) contains articles addressing equality, cultural rights, and the right to participate in social and economic development, which directly apply to Indigenous peoples.
- The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) — Article 30 affirms the right of Indigenous children to enjoy their culture, religion, and language.
- The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) — General Recommendation 39 specifically addresses Indigenous women and girls.
- The Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious, and Linguistic Minorities (1992) — Affirms collective minority rights, including Indigenous identities.
And there are several region-specific instruments:
- The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul Charter, 1981) — Article 22 recognizes the right to development, including for Indigenous peoples.
- The American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (ADRIP, 2016) — Establishes principles for self-identification, cultural preservation, and public participation.
- UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) — Recognizes and protects the cultural expressions of Indigenous communities.
- The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), Article 8(j), mandates respecting and preserving Indigenous knowledge, innovations, and practices related to conservation and sustainable biodiversity.
So, this is not “nothing.” There’s a body of international law supporting Indigenous rights. Of course, the tension always lies between what is declared and what is implemented. That’s where the evidence and accountability need to come in. From your perspective—within the Māori context—do you see any of these declarations, covenants, or charters shaping Māori–New Zealand relations?
Eru Hiko-Tahuri: To be completely honest, I’ve only ever heard of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). That’s the only one that ever comes up in public conversation or news here. All the others? I haven’t heard of them.
Jacobsen: That’s insightful. If we take secular humanism as a life stance grounded in an empirical moral philosophy that adapts its ethics based on new evidence, do you think Māori secular humanists could lead in implementing or advocating for some of these international declarations?
Hiko-Tahuri: I would like to say yes—but I worry. Like I said before, in our Māori communities, the people who wear collars—the religious leaders—get the leadership roles. People like me, who don’t wear a collar, are less likely to be listened to.
So, Indigenous secular humanists—are not currently in a position of influence when it comes to policy or leadership. And that’s something I think about a lot.
Jacobsen: That’s a critical and complex conversation. It reminds me of my last in-depth interview with David Cook, Maheengun, who has an Anishinaabe background in Canada. He identified as a traditional knowledge keeper—but importantly, was a knowledge keeper. There’s nuance in how Indigenous knowledge and leadership structures function and interact with humanist and secular frameworks. In the North American Indigenous context, the term for that is that you do not have a collar, but you might be a pipe carrier.
Maheengun gave up his status as a pipe carrier because, for him, there was too much dissonance between his humanist, atheist worldview and the expectations that came with that ceremonial role.
That gets into something I do not think anyone’s explored yet: if someone adopts atheism and secular humanism seriously and then steps away from a role like a pipe carrier or traditional knowledge keeper, how does that affect their voice—not just within the community but in broader systems like government-to-government or what is often termed “nation-to-nation” relations in Canada?
Because if someone lacks ceremonial or spiritual status, they often have no formal recognition—and no seat at the table. So, the representatives federal governments see in these discussions tend to be those with supernatural frameworks. That becomes the perceived Indigenous worldview, even though, as we know, many Indigenous people do not subscribe to that at all.
And the same is true for Māori. Significant portions of the population—like in the 634 recognized First Nations bands in Canada—either reject or question those beliefs. Even if, as in your case, they still participate culturally. Yet they are still not always seen as “real Māori” by some.
Where could that conversation go? What questions should we be asking?
Hiko-Tahuri: I’ve been thinking about this one for a long time—and honestly, I still don’t know.
In New Zealand, the government recognizes several iwi—tribal groups—as official representatives. So, if the government wants to consult with Māori, it will go to those groups and their hierarchies. The structure is established and formalized.
But here’s the thing: because those bodies represent the majority, people like me—those without a spiritual or ceremonial role—do not get much say.
That said, I’ve been fortunate. I have working relationships with some of the local tribal leaders. I’ve worked within their organizations, so I know at least they’re getting one different voice in the room—mine. I can say, “Hey, this is something you must consider.”
But that’s not a system-wide thing. It’s very personal. And yes, it isn’t easy to imagine how to scale that and how to make it more inclusive.
These representatives often claim to speak for all of us. But do they? We don’t know.
Jacobsen: That’s a tension in democratic governance, too. No political party or leader truly represents everyone. They represent the most significant percentage of voters in a particular cycle. So even there, you get a majority-of-plurality scenario, not true consensus.
It’s the same dynamic. When a Māori elder with a collar and status comes forward and tells the New Zealand government, “This is what we want as a community,” it’s assumed that their voice is the voice of all Māori.
But that’s not the case.
Hiko-Tahuri: There’s a presumption that doesn’t map cleanly onto European governance models. But most of our iwi—tribal groups—that the government interacts with are democratically elected. It’s not always a traditional hereditary hierarchy. Leaders are often voted in.
Jacobsen: Interesting. So there’s a mix of democratic process and cultural leadership?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, and I wouldn’t say all of those leaders are particularly religious either. Many use religious language or rituals to connect with the people they serve. It’s less about being deeply spiritual and more about resonating with the majority—many of whom are.
Jacobsen: That ties into self-stereotyping and external stereotyping. It becomes a kind of feel-good activism—what I sometimes call “parade activism” instead of “hard-work activism.”
For example, I attended a session at the 69th Commission on the Status of Women—Canada’s Indigenous. There was an Indigenous panel, and a few participants represented Indigenous communities beyond Canada’s borders.
Some arrived in full traditional dress—massive ceremonial headgear and all. Now, that visual shorthand becomes what government officials expect to see. It creates a kind of caricature—but it also becomes self-reinforcing.
That person becomes the “abstract ideal” of what a proper Indigenous representative should look like, and the government becomes the “abstract system” responding to that image. Both sides feel good about the exchange, but it risks becoming performative. It’s not always representative of the range of Indigenous experiences—especially secular ones.
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes,.
Jacobsen: So it becomes this cycle: “We brought the right Māori to the table,” and “Irepresented the right version of Māori identity.” Everyone walks away satisfied—but it also acts as a brake. You’re pushing the gas and the brake at the same time.
Hiko-Tahuri: Right—and then when someone like me comes forward, without the collar or ceremonial role, they’re seen as the outlier.
Jacobsen: Like the cranky guy on the porch yelling at the sky.
Hiko-Tahuri: The Garfield of the meeting, if you will. [Laughs]
Jacobsen: No one wants that person. They’re not the story anyone wants to hear.
Hiko-Tahuri: That reminds me of something recent. The New Zealand Psychological Society referenced my book.
Until now, the society’s approach was based on a framework developed by a respected Māori elder—someone known in cultural and philosophical spaces. He proposed a four-sided model of well-beingwellbeing, likened to a house. It’s used widely in Māori mental health services.
The four sides are physical, family, spiritual, and—something else. But the point is: if you’re working with Māori clients, the model says you must consider all four, including the spiritual.
So, twenty years ago, I went to see a therapist. They used this exact model. We sat down, and they said, “We need to begin with a karakia—a prayer.”
I said, “I’m not religious. I don’t want to pray.”
But their training told them they had to do it. So, I was forced to sit through a religious ritual I didn’t believe in to access mental health care. And worse, I was pressured to participate in that prayer myself. That’s a significant example. It shows how models meant to be inclusive can become exclusionary—especially for Māori who are secular.
Jacobsen: That’s like people being forced to go to AA.
Hiko-Tahuri: I presented to a group of psychologists about a year ago. One of the prominent members—someone involved in the humanist movement here—submitted a formal statement to the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists.
He said, “Look, this is a perspective you haven’t considered.” That spiritual requirement—where practitioners were required to begin with a prayer—was challenged. As a result, recommendations have now been made to adjust those protocols to include people who do not believe. That’s one positive change I can point to that came out of it.
Jacobsen: Is the traditional Māori dance called the haka?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, the haka.
Jacobsen: That seems like one of the more benign aspects of cultural tradition, even for someone transitioning ideologically. I don’t see how a dance would be impacted by whether someone is spiritual.
Hiko-Tahuri: No—not at all. The haka isn’t inherently religious. It’s a form of emotional and communal expression. While its origins include warrior preparation, it’s evolved far beyond that.
There are haka for celebrations, mourning, farewells, and graduations. At university ceremonies, if someone Māori walks across the stage, people from their whānau will often leap up from the crowd and perform a haka in celebration. It’s done everywhere, for all kinds of moments. It’s how we express collective feelings—joy, grief, pride, and love.
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: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Mark Carney vs. Donald Trump: Energy Policy, Climate Finance
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/11
Yale-trained energy economist Ed Hirs contrasts the leadership and philosophies of Mark Carney and Donald Trump in this in-depth interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen. Hirs highlights Carney’s global credibility and his commitment to sustainable finance, in stark contrast to Trump’s transactional, fossil-fuel-driven approach. Hirs critiques the myth of U.S. energy independence, explains the economic flaws in “Drill, Baby, Drill,” and underscores the long-term viability of renewables. He outlines how market forces, climate data, and energy transition are reshaping global policy—regardless of political shifts. Hirs warns of urgent climate tipping points, echoing voices like Hawking, Keeling, and Nordhaus.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Ed Hirs. He’s a Yale-educated energy economist, an inaugural energy fellow and lecturer at the University of Houston. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in energy economics and is widely recognized for offering clear, apolitical analysis on complex energy issues. He is frequently quoted in both national and international media.
Hirs has authored numerous opinion pieces and academic publications on energy markets, energy policy, and corporate governance. He also co-founded and co-chairs the Yale Alumni in Energy conference, an annual event focused on demystifying energy policy and promoting transparent, fact-based discussion free of political spin. He is considered a trusted voice in public discourse on energy finance, the Texas electricity grid, and global energy security.
How would you characterize the ideological and economic policy contrast between Mark Carney and Donald Trump?
Ed Hirs: Well, there’s a difference in style and philosophy, perhaps more than in explicit economic policy. Mark Carney is essentially everything that Donald Trump is not. Carney earned degrees from Harvard and Oxford, where he completed a doctorate in economics. He worked for over a decade at Goldman Sachs, served as Governor of the Bank of Canada from 2008 to 2013, and then as Governor of the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020 — making him the only person to head the central banks of two G7 countries. He guided the Bank of England through Brexit and was a key figure during the global financial recovery. He has advised governments and multilateral institutions and currently serves as the UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance.
Carney is a highly competent, globally respected expert in monetary policy, financial markets, and climate finance. He understands that no single individual can dictate the direction of markets. Markets operate on expectations, seek profit, and tend to converge toward equilibrium by closing arbitrage gaps.
President Trump, by contrast, comes from the private real estate sector. He has a contentious and legally complex business history, including multiple bankruptcies. According to public records, several of his casino and hotel ventures failed — most notably, four Atlantic City casinos filed for bankruptcy under his leadership. Trump tends to view large institutions, including banks and central authorities, more transactionally and often antagonistically.
So the contrast in style, substance, and global credibility is clear. I would bet on Carney in a poker game against President Trump any day.
Jacobsen: What do you think of Carney’s advocacy for sustainable investing and his influence on shaping Canada’s international economic policy? How does that contrast with what you might call “Drill, Baby, Drill 2.0”?
Hirs: Carney’s advocacy for sustainable investing is rooted in rigorous economic reasoning and climate risk management. As a central banker and now as the UN Special Envoy, he’s championed the idea that climate risk is financial risk. He helped launch the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), aimed at making companies disclose how climate change impacts their business.
His work supports aligning financial systems with net-zero goals, which stands in direct contrast to extractive-first policies like “Drill, Baby, Drill 2.0,” which prioritize short-term fossil fuel development over long-term sustainability. While the Trump administration rolled back environmental regulations and withdrew from the Paris Agreement, Carney’s approach has been about integrating climate policy into mainstream economic planning and financial regulation.
Even with resistance in places like the United States, the overall trajectory of sustainable investing is forward. Eliminating or defunding climate data collection agencies does not stop global warming or market adaptation. Investing in sustainable energy production is central to future global economic growth, particularly as the Global South develops. Over the next 40 to 50 years, an estimated 2 to 3 billion more people will join the global population — and energy access will be critical to improving their quality of life without worsening the climate crisis.
The development of the Cosmos field offshore Ghana — and the incredible wealth it has generated throughout West African nations — has extended the lifespans of people across the continent. These populations are going to want, and are already moving toward, energy-intensive technologies. They are not going to get Ford F-150s, but they all want iPhones. They all want the Internet. They want safe and reliable food resources.
And so, no matter what the U.S. or Canada does, we are going to have to adapt to what happens across the rest of the world. The Trump administration holds the view that it is not necessary to accommodate either U.S. behavior or global behavior — or to account for the consequences that come from that stance.
Carney, on the other hand, has a different view — one that many developed nations, the EU, and China share: we need to plan ahead. We are seeing more and more weather disasters arise and intensify due to a warming atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, and when that moisture is released, it causes increasingly devastating effects.
The melting of the polar ice caps is another major concern. Where I grew up, along the U.S. Gulf Coast, the water level is now 16 inches higher on average than it was when I was a child.
Jacobsen: Can you address “Drill, Baby, Drill” as well?
Hirs: Certainly. “Drill, Baby, Drill” is not going to work. The U.S. is currently producing roughly 13 million barrels of oil per day, of which about 2 million barrels per day are light ends — natural gas liquids (NGLs) that sometimes get classified as crude oil.
Texas, for example, has been producing around 4 million barrels a day, mainly from the Permian Basin in West Texas. This oil is light. The U.S. is more than self-sufficient in light grades of crude oil. However, the U.S. refinery system depends on both light oil and heavier grades — including, at times, up to 4 million barrels a day imported from Canada.
So, the U.S. is not energy independent, and it is inaccurate to describe the U.S. as energy independent.
And, in fact, in the tariff war, if Canada decided to stop exporting crude oil to the United States and stop selling electricity down to the United States, the U.S. would be in a heck of a fix. The Midcontinent region would have to find and source refined products from somewhere else. There are not enough power plants in the Northeast or through the Midcontinent Independent System Operator — MISO — for the U.S. to operate independently of Canada.
So, the “Drill, Baby, Drill” issue also relates to the cost of oil. Tight formations require higher prices. The Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve — the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas — published its Energy Survey for the fourth quarter of 2024, and 85% of the respondents said they would not invest or drill new wells at a price below $70 per barrel. That forecast includes the year ahead.
Now, with tariffs on steel 25% higher, the cost of drilling these wells has gone up. The price of oil is somewhere around $60 per barrel at this moment. So, we are going to see the rig count in the United States drop like a rock.
And because these tight formation wells tend to produce nearly 80% of their lifetime output in the first two years, we are going to see a steep decline in U.S. oil production through the end of the year. The “Drill, Baby, Drill” mantra simply will not work at $60 oil or less.
The opening of lands in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and along the Eastern Seaboard — lands that President Trump had actually removed from drilling and exploration during Trump 1.0 — will not add anything meaningful to U.S. production. It takes too long for companies to evaluate, explore, drill test wells, and then bring them to market — up to 15 years.
Opening up ANWR — the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — and other Alaskan lands to drilling is not going to help either. That oil needs to sell at $100 per barrel just to make it worth the cost of moving men and material up to Alaska to begin exploration again.
What Trump has asked for from the Saudis is clear — he’s asked for low oil prices, and he’s getting them. During Trump 1.0, the average price of oil was lower than it was during the Obama administration, and lower than it has been during the Biden administration — even setting aside the pandemic-related price suppression.
Trump — more than 30 years ago — was taking out advertorials in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, calling for low oil prices. Essentially, he argued that high oil prices are a tax on living. That idea has been one of his touchstones throughout both his private and public careers. And the Saudis? They are willing to go along with it. They have about 2 million barrels a day of excess production capacity — or production in reserve.
Increasing production at this time is helpful for OPEC+ to punish those member nations that have been cheating on their quotas. So, the low oil price helps Trump. Of course, we saw from his trip to the Middle East that there is a lot of reciprocal investment coming back into the United States from those OPEC members who have made a lot of money over the years. It is a real issue.
In fact, back in 2010, we wrote a paper titled Crude Oil and National Security, where we discussed the rationale for returning to President Eisenhower’s oil import quota system. That system was originally intended to keep the United States relatively oil independent. It was eliminated by Eisenhower’s former Vice President — who by that time was President Richard Nixon — when he struck a deal with OPEC and Saudi Arabia to maintain low oil prices in exchange for an expanded U.S. defense umbrella. That, of course, led to the United States becoming extremely dependent on foreign crude, triggering the Arab oil embargo and everything that followed.
So, this is not just an economic issue — it is truly a national security issue. At the moment, the only way the United States can project naval power and maintain air superiority is with hydrocarbons. You should ask about that.
Jacobsen: YSo, there are those who champion decarbonization efforts — such as Carney and his allies — and others who do not, such as Trump and some of his allies. Will this create tension in energy policy and in foreign relations — binational or multinational?
Hirs: It should not. Keep in mind that during Trump 1.0, a great deal of progress was actually made toward decarbonization of U.S. energy supplies. This was led primarily by the states and state-level initiatives. Also, the extremely low price of natural gas — relative to both oil and coal — pushed coal-fired power plants out of the power stack across America and reduced the use of liquid petroleum products.
So, natural gas has become the bridge fuel, the substitute fuel. In Texas, for example, we are seeing extreme growth in both wind and solar energy — although the legislature is about to pass a bill to try to slow that down. But Texas — the home and oil capital of the world — currently has the largest utility-scale solar fleet and the largest utility-scale wind fleet in the country. Soon, it will have the largest battery storage fleet as well.
This is a substitution of electrification for hydrocarbon fuels. And as economists, we know that the low marginal cost producer wins out in the end. Because there is no fuel cost for wind or solar, those technologies will undercut natural gas, oil, and coal over time. That is where we are heading.
It is called the transition for a reason. It is not going to be smooth. Everything that is happening in Washington — and in Texas, for example — is making sure that it is not smooth.
Jacobsen: And there is, quite frankly, a lot of science fiction that has gone into energy commentary over the decades. Figures like Isaac Asimov and others — humanist figures — were big on this.
Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov — both humanist figures and major public science educators. One was more of a writer than a practicing scientist, but regardless, some of their legacies are being carried forward today by the American scientific community — by people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, and others.
So, we still have these public figures who speak about science, energy, and the future. One big topic that has always come up in that commentary, especially in the science fiction context, is the Kardashev scale.
And so, in that larger picture, solar is pretty much the endgame — in terms of any advanced civilization’s energy source. The question, then, is: will this transition happen before climate change renders life unsustainably livable? I know Chomsky had a different phrasing for it.
Hirs: And that was one of Stephen Hawking’s final warnings — that humankind would eventually fry itself, through the generation of electricity and the misuse of AI. He may yet be right about that.
At our recent conference at Yale — just two months ago — we had Bill Nordhaus, one of my former professors and a Nobel laureate in climate economics, as well as my classmate and dorm mate Ralph Keeling — the scientist behind the Keeling Curve for CO₂ levels in the atmosphere. They had never met before. Yet they referenced each other’s work in their presentations. A physics major like Ralph had no reason to visit the econ department back in the day, so we finally brought them together. That was pretty cool after almost 50 years.
Now, going back to the Kardashev scale, at the time we were estimated to be around a Type 0.7 civilization — which is kind of cute. But the reality is more urgent. We know that we have now surpassed the 1.5°C global warming threshold.
Ralph Keeling’s projections show that if we do not begin actively reducing CO₂ in the atmosphere within the next five years, and if we do not act dramatically, we will not be able to avoid breaching the 2°C warming limit.
Jacobsen: I remember when President George H. W. Bush dismissed concerns about the ozone hole, which was caused by fluorocarbons.
Hirs: Yes — fluorocarbons. Apparently, what led him to change his mind was personal experience. While at his usual summer retreat — the Walker Point Compound in Kennebunkport, Maine — he got a blistering sunburn on his head because the ozone hole had extended over the bay. He got cooked.
Jacobsen: Is that kind of personal impact still relevant today?
Hirs: Yes, absolutely.
Jacobsen: So, when I talk to businesspeople and economists — especially those outside environmental fields — they often speak about stability as if it were a guiding principle, even if they do not state it directly. So, it is probably fair to say: markets and business love stability.
Do you think Trump will eventually provide some stability for the energy sector, particularly in supporting a more sustainable future? Or no?
Hirs: I do not see it coming in this term. Certainly, in his first term, Trump was actively pushing for low oil prices. But of course, when oil prices are low, the economic incentive to shift to alternatives — like wind and solar — diminishes. So, in that sense, he was undercutting the transition to more sustainable energy sources.
Eventually, I expect to see the shift occur — with or without Trump. I view the current situation as a temporary slowdown. There is a 1.3-gigawatt solar farm about to be commissioned north of Dallas. It covers 18,000 acres. That 1.3 gigawatts of capacity will be supported by just 12 full-time employees — six of whom are shepherds who manage the land and livestock grazing beneath the panels.
By comparison, a 1.3-gigawatt nuclear power plant would require around 500 or more employees. A coal-fired power plant would need slightly fewer than that, but it also faces serious materials handling issues — coal coming in, ash going out, and water remediation processes.
Natural gas power plants, particularly the newer models, are essentially jet engines. They require maybe 100 to 200 employees per gigawatt unit. So when you look at the operating costs of these different power plants, along with fuel costs, the economics clearly favor wind and solar — especially as battery storage technology improves and the cost of battery installations continues to drop. 1.3 gigawatts is enough to power close to a million American homes.
It’s a huge amount of energy. Of course, in Texas, it might not quite power a million homes — because, well, we run the air conditioner too damn much.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Ed.
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: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Important video about LLM influence {-/+] on music in the whole process of concept composition notation production, mixing mastering and release
#LLM #slop #audio #technology #music #AI #copyright #datacenter
All works by "Sueño y Dicho" removed from the station due to repeat misleading copyright claims against compliant users. #Creativecommons #Copyright #Radio https://www.jamendo.com/artist/505975/sueno-y-dicho
Copyright - He Is (Feat. Song Williamson) (Alaia & Gallo Extended Remix)
#JazzDeVille #Dance #NowPlaying #Copyright
Quick question for photographers who register their images with the US Copyright Office:
When you submit your images for copyright registration, do you submit all of your RAW files (in JPG or TIFF format) before you process them, or do you submit only your final processed images?
Client Info
Server: https://mastodon.social
Version: 2025.07
Repository: https://github.com/cyevgeniy/lmst