User Tag List

First 51314151617 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 235

  1. #141
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    What exactly prevents unscrupulous women from abandoning their children in exactly the same way?
    It's called "the state throwing your ass in jail if they ever find you". Child-support violations only very rarely bring jail time, as opposed to child abandonment charges.

    If we're going to indict the system using people who actively violate its enforced rules as examples, then this is fair game. Women who don't want to deal with raising their kids can "leave the state" or otherwise shirk responsibility just as easily, if they're willing to break the law.
    The very essence of a system is in how it deals with bad actors. Otherwise, we wouldn't need a system in the first place. If men were angels, there would be no need for a state, as there would be no need for interpersonal force.

    Do you really think men and women, in general, have the same biological reactions to their own children? Even you can't be that shortsighted.

  2. #142
    Member Liquid and Flammable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    68

    Default

    Different reasons:

    - Female ENTP are more seldom than male ENTP --> issues with adapting in society
    - The people develop on different ways (some ENTP seem strong F, some seem almost like INTPs, some ENTPs are so well-structured, that they seem almost like ENTJ)
    - Maybe you don't know enough ENTPs and have some bad luck

    This weekend I learned about enneagram my first time. Really, if you want to compare the behavior of people this tool can work more exactly for you. Maybe you have just met the 3w4 or 7w6 - ENTPs. This can explain it.

    How much ENTPs do you have met already?
    ** Upgrading my english **
    Corrections for my language are willingly seen


    Enneagram: 7w6

  3. #143
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I've lived for nearly 22 years as a female, and I've never felt oppressed (at least not in this country) by the fact that I have a vagina. Here a woman is only oppressed insofar as she lets herself be oppressed; there are available opportunities for essentially everybody, and any lacking opportunities are not due to gender biases.
    Right, idea is you haven't been oppressed, so therefore it's redundant, gottit.

  4. #144
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Do you really think men and women, in general, have the same biological reactions to their own children? Even you can't be that shortsighted.
    Do yeu really think that men and women, aren't capable of reacting differently than the norm as well? >.>

    If the father's a drunk, he looses custody of his kids. If the mother's an alcoholic chain smoking abusive parent she gets virtually guaranteed custody even if the father was a model example of someone who loved his kids.

    And honestly, I have seen *ALOT* more abusive mothers than fathers...

    Though admittedly most fathers will tend to be more detached from their children, in the 'in general' category yeu are correct, however, the exception to the rule generally places virtually all of the worst parents as the mother as well as the best ones as the mother usually.

    Happens when yeu seem to have more emotional investment in yeur kids on average I suppose, but even so...

    There's always exceptions to the rule, but people tend to ignore these, and generally it's the kids who get the short end of the stick because of these assumed 'roles' which really aren't all that accurate anymore these days in many cases.

  5. #145
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    It's called "the state throwing your ass in jail if they ever find you". Child-support violations only very rarely bring jail time, as opposed to child abandonment charges.



    The very essence of a system is in how it deals with bad actors. Otherwise, we wouldn't need a system in the first place. If men were angels, there would be no need for a state, as there would be no need for interpersonal force.

    Do you really think men and women, in general, have the same biological reactions to their own children? Even you can't be that shortsighted.
    No, but that isn't the issue. The issue is how the law deals with people who abandon their children, not what biological responses gender elicits toward children. Way to sidetrack the discussion so you could get your little personal jab in though. Real classy.

    Men who refuse to help care for children are also guilty of child abandonment. Women don't have any greater legal responsibility toward their children than men.

    btw, failure to pay child support can and does result in jail time. There is no way the law would be written to separate "men who abandon children" from "women who abandon children" and give them different punishments. You've drawn an imaginary gender line into the law here, when it's really just based on the question: "Did the children have anyone else to care for them after you were gone?"


    Women gets pregnant + child is born + man runs away leaving woman to raise child = failure to pay child support
    Women gets pregnant + child is born + woman runs away leaving man to raise child = failure to pay child support
    Woman gets pregnant + child is born + man dies + woman runs away leaving children alone = child abandonment
    Woman gets pregnant + child is born + woman dies + man runs away leaving children alone = child abandonment

    The determining factor here is obviously whether there was anyone else left to care for the children, not gender. If a single father abandons his children he's going to get exactly the same legal punishment. You just picked the worse scenario and assigned it to the woman and then used it as evidence that women are discriminated against in this area; that's ridiculous.

    Of course, it is easier for a man to disappear before the child is born leaving the woman to care for it, but that's not so much discrimination against or oppression of women as, you know, nature. Yes, women have the biological burden of bearing children--but if you're going to try and pass that off as discrimination, then I don't even know what to tell you.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #146
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity View Post
    Right, idea is you haven't been oppressed, so therefore it's redundant, gottit.
    That's not what I said, at all. You're quoting me out of context and taking one small claim from a whole slew of posts and implying that that's the foundation of my argument. It's not.

  7. #147
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Q:

    It might do us both some good in streamlining this discussion if you read my posts with Onemoretime on this thread regarding the issue. Maybe you'd have a better idea of my position then?

    Nevertheless, you've given me quite a lot to respond to. Oh glorious Ne fuel:

    First and foremost, I'd like to express the view that I do not believe that discrimination against women never occurs in American society. I simply do not believe that this discrimination has a lasting impact on the woman's position. Discrimination is a remnant of the past (Come on guys, it's not even been a century since woman's suffrage was set in place), and while they may be hurtful and frustrating, discriminatory views hold no substantial power here. The reason that women are not in a completely equal position with men, from a numerical viewpoint, is simply due to the fact that they haven't been given enough time to counteract against the old-fashioned notions of the mid 20th century.

    You're right when you say that I bash feminism in spite of its good qualities. The good qualities of feminism are not those which I bash, though. I am frustrated with the feminist views that women are still treated as inferiors, that women should be treated with more respect than they currently experience (regardless of whether or not individuals have earned such respect), and that the problems women face are due exclusively to their womanhood.

    I do not believe a black women is oppressed by the expanses of American society simply because she is a women. I believe she is oppressed because she is black. Likewise, a hispanic women is not oppressed because she is a woman; she is oppressed because she is a hispanic. An immigrant woman is not oppressed because she is a woman; she is oppressed because she is an immigrant. An impoverished single mother is not oppressed because she is a woman; she is oppressed because she is an impoverished single mother.

    I have nothing against movements and organizations that seek to close the gap among different races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic classes. I also have nothing against the movements and organizations that seek to specifically help women within oppressed races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic classes. I find the latter to be tackling a small part of a much larger problem, and some may argue this is a good approach, while others may see the limitations to it. That's beside the point, and not really something I'm prepared to argue for or against in terms of effectiveness. I simply stand by my claim that tackling the belief that women are inherently inferior is futile, as this belief is not widely held nor is it pervasive among modern Americans.

    I do possess a certain view on N. American feminism, and this is the view that I'm bashing. The term "feminist" has a seriously negative connotation in contemporary American thought, and it has this connotation because of a stereotype formed and backed by reality. This connotation is one that I admittedly associate with feminism, and the feminism that abides by this connotation is the one that I am bashing and find redundant, futile, and obsolete. Again, though, I do not find movements that seek to help the downtrodden who are actually downtrodden to be redundant and futile. I just do not believe that it's fair to say that the downtrodden are downtrodden because they are women.

    I do attest to the fact that differences among gender exist in American society. I never meant to imply that other factors also exist, so therefore gender must not be the cause. It wasn't supposed to be a logical corollary. I simply meant to imply that other factors exist, and these factors are the cause, not gender in and of itself (but again, if we want to help certain groups based on gender, then I can't really be opposed to that, as it's still productive in some way, regardless of whether or not it's the most expansive method out there). My overall belief is that if we want to fight oppression, fighting gender biases is hardly the way to go, as I believe gender biases in America are practically obsolete now.

    I do not have a skewed perception of what feminism is. I am merely focusing on one realm of feminism (a significant realm and one that holds substantial weight in modern feminist ideology) and laying out my problems with it.

  8. #148
    Alexander the Terrible yenom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,755

    Default

    I don't understand the point of the arguement :confused:
    It seemed the whole arguement is revolving around semantics
    The fear of poverty turns people into slaves of money.

    "In this Caesar there are many Mariuses"~Sulla

    Conquer your inner demons first before you conquer the world.

  9. #149
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquid and Flammable View Post
    Different reasons:

    - Female ENTP are more seldom than male ENTP --> issues with adapting in society
    - The people develop on different ways (some ENTP seem strong F, some seem almost like INTPs, some ENTPs are so well-structured, that they seem almost like ENTJ)
    - Maybe you don't know enough ENTPs and have some bad luck

    This weekend I learned about enneagram my first time. Really, if you want to compare the behavior of people this tool can work more exactly for you. Maybe you have just met the 3w4 or 7w6 - ENTPs. This can explain it.

    How much ENTPs do you have met already?

    Interesting, do you think we evolve out MBTI from reacting to life or are we born wiht it.

    I took an enneagram about 6 weeks ago I came 5, I took it last week I came out 7, I beleive the first site wasn't a good test, I'm not really convienced about enneagrams but I don't know a huge amount about it (and don't get me started on functional anaysis - I may have to start a - how to make your own MBTI segmentation to show case why I don't by it).

    Yes - I do think ENTP women and guys have a range, except if you are Trinity who only recongnised the ENTPs she types that way

    I have been wokring in a very NT dominant environment, my bosses boss is ENTPs, my boss ENTJs, wider affied, 2x INTJs, 3 x INTPs, 2 supplier ENTPs, I work in senior management there seems a dissporpritionate amount of N types. (trust me when I say my life would be a lot simpler as an ENFP than an ENTP)

  10. #150
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Sounds to me like you're just overly enthusiastic about going off on your moral high horse (ironically, a behavior which is not so foreign to most who claim to be "feminists").
    How is that ironic?

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    First and foremost, I'd like to express the view that I do not believe that discrimination against women never occurs in American society. I simply do not believe that this discrimination has a lasting impact on the woman's position. Discrimination is a remnant of the past (Come on guys, it's not even been a century since woman's suffrage was set in place), and while they may be hurtful and frustrating, discriminatory views hold no substantial power here. The reason that women are not in a completely equal position with men, from a numerical viewpoint, is simply due to the fact that they haven't been given enough time to counteract against the old-fashioned notions of the mid 20th century.

    You're right when you say that I bash feminism in spite of its good qualities. The good qualities of feminism are not those which I bash, though. I am frustrated with the feminist views that women are still treated as inferiors, that women should be treated with more respect than they currently experience (regardless of whether or not individuals have earned such respect), and that the problems women face are due exclusively to their womanhood.

    I do not believe a black women is oppressed by the expanses of American society simply because she is a women. I believe she is oppressed because she is black. Likewise, a hispanic women is not oppressed because she is a woman; she is oppressed because she is a hispanic. An immigrant woman is not oppressed because she is a woman; she is oppressed because she is an immigrant. An impoverished single mother is not oppressed because she is a woman; she is oppressed because she is an impoverished single mother.

    I have nothing against movements and organizations that seek to close the gap among different races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic classes. I also have nothing against the movements and organizations that seek to specifically help women within oppressed races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic classes. I find the latter to be tackling a small part of a much larger problem, and some may argue this is a good approach, while others may see the limitations to it. That's beside the point, and not really something I'm prepared to argue for or against in terms of effectiveness. I simply stand by my claim that tackling the belief that women are inherently inferior is futile, as this belief is not widely held nor is it pervasive among modern Americans.

    I do possess a certain view on N. American feminism, and this is the view that I'm bashing. The term "feminist" has a seriously negative connotation in contemporary American thought, and it has this connotation because of a stereotype formed and backed by reality. This connotation is one that I admittedly associate with feminism, and the feminism that abides by this connotation is the one that I am bashing and find redundant, futile, and obsolete. Again, though, I do not find movements that seek to help the downtrodden who are actually downtrodden to be redundant and futile. I just do not believe that it's fair to say that the downtrodden are downtrodden because they are women.

    I do attest to the fact that differences among gender exist in American society. I never meant to imply that other factors also exist, so therefore gender must not be the cause. It wasn't supposed to be a logical corollary. I simply meant to imply that other factors exist, and these factors are the cause, not gender in and of itself (but again, if we want to help certain groups based on gender, then I can't really be opposed to that, as it's still productive in some way, regardless of whether or not it's the most expansive method out there). My overall belief is that if we want to fight oppression, fighting gender biases is hardly the way to go, as I believe gender biases in America are practically obsolete now.

    I do not have a skewed perception of what feminism is. I am merely focusing on one realm of feminism (a significant realm and one that holds substantial weight in modern feminist ideology) and laying out my problems with it.
    Oh my word, this post is so flagrantly imbecilic that I don't even know where to begin. I was literally flabbergasted into speechlessness for several minutes after my initial read. I think instead of trying to dissect this beast, as you'll likely fail to acknowledge it anyway (and I already have a fucking headache) I'll just say two things:

    (1) I have suggested this before, but I'll spell it out more explicitly for you this time. You are largely ignorant on the subject of "feminism" and should therefore refrain from speaking as though you know what you're talking about. Or else read a Wikipedia page before you do for chrissakes.

    Though I know you will refuse to listen, your perception of "feminism," even if you have modified it in light of criticisms not to encompass all feminisms (althought now it's apparently the one that "holds substantial weight in modern feminist ideology," lol), is so idiotic that I can't believe anyone could think such things without feeling the need to surreptitiously self-flaggelate. But not to worry, I will cure you of your ignorance, or at least this particular manifestation of it (because that's what a selfless person I am.)

    Here we go...now répéter après moi: there is no such thing as a "substantial" feminist ideology holding that women should be treated with more respect than they are currently, even if they don't deserve it (lol what?), that women are viewed by the majority as inferior beings and treated as such (most feminist thought today is very far past issues of conscious discrimination), and that the problems that women face are due solely to their womanhood (lol, what?). Where are you getting this from? I don't even know how to go about theoretically placing these views, because they are so ridiculous as to be beyond identification even as malicious steretypes of feminism. The closest I can get is to suggest that they are MAYBE your own botched interpretation of certain second-wave feminist tenets mixed with a little radical or cultural feminism, and some of the hand-holding, "sob sister" stuff of liberal feminism (e.g., anti-porn, "take back the night," media campaigns to end eating disorders, feel-good stuff about body issues, the Dove campaign, "the patriarchy ruined my life" kind of stuff.) But even if that's the case, your interpretation is still way off and makes little sense, even as satire or humorous exaggeration.

    Your other definition of feminism is not much better, though I think you were going less for accuracy and more for rhetorical effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Feminists seem to think it's productive to beg for respect, pointedly remark on times when they are not treated with respect, and blame it on the fact that their lack of respect is due to deep-rooted societal notions on what a female ought to be.
    "Begging for respect" is likely your interpretation of what these particular feminists you have in mind do, and the phrase choice was, as mentioned, probably rhetorical, so I'll leave this one. As to pointedly remarking on not being treated with respect, again, I don't know what specific feminist or feminists you are referring to here, but this has more to do with specific practices of feminism by individuals than feminist ideologies, or feminism generally. Are you talking about women complaining about sexual harassment in the workplace or something? Finally, as to blaming disrespect on deep-rooted societal notions of what a female should be, this is just another instantiation of your "they think the problems women face are due solely to their womanhood" nonsense, which I've already addressed.

    If I were to give your views a more generous interpretation, I might say that perhaps you read some Camille Paglia, or leafed through some of her writing, and proceeded to (badly) misunderstand what she was saying while still retaining all of her attitude and fervor against the anti-porn, Gloria Steinem feminists of the late 80s and 90s. But you would not even accept a Paglia view, because she advocates for full political and legal equality with men, which she is not naive enough to believe to be already accomplished. And she calls herself a feminist for that reason (but she stands in opposition to a lot of the 90s institutionalized feminism of the academy, and even a lot of the prominent feminisms now, because she rejects the French theorists, who have been HUGELY influential to feminist theory, rejects feminist critiques of media (also often born out of feminist appropriations of the French theories), advocates open sexuality as liberatory, and advocates the marriage of aesthetics and feminism.)

    (2) Your views on gender oppression are incoherent. At one point you claim that:

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I do not believe that discrimination against women never occurs in American society
    And that:

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    The reason that women are not in a completely equal position with men, from a numerical viewpoint, is simply due to the fact that they haven't been given enough time to counteract against the old-fashioned notions of the mid 20th century
    But then you come back and say:

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I believe gender biases in America are practically obsolete now.
    Do you really not see the incoherence here? How can you simultaneously explain current gender inequality as a carry-over of old notions that have not been fully "counteracted" yet (and are thus still causing gender inequality, though to a diluted degree when compared to history), and maintain the belief that there are no "gender biases" in operation today? Further, how can simultaneously claim that:

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I simply do not believe that this discrimination has a lasting impact on the woman's position. Discrimination is a remnant of the past (Come on guys, it's not even been a century since woman's suffrage was set in place), and while they may be hurtful and frustrating, discriminatory views hold no substantial power here.
    ...which implicitly assume the existence of gender discrimination (though you claim, based on God-knows-what, that it has no power or effect), AND maintain that gender biases are "obsolete?" That is an explicit contradiction. You make no sense.

    Also, you have erroneously established a hierarchy in which discriminations based on color, ethnicity, SES, or anything else except gender are considered more fundamental than those based on gender (which, as I pointed out, you seem to hold contradictory views about.) This flies in the face of all contemporary theories of power and oppression, which suggest either that (a) the various "lines of oppression" (race, gender, class, sexuality), a term I take from Deleuze and Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus, interact in complex and unpredictable ways with one another and with the systems that enact their oppression, or (b) that the interaction of these "lines of oppression" can be identified only by careful investigation of the context in which any specific manifestation of oppression is thought to occur. Now, that is not to say that these theories are right (I tend to think most of them just manage to say obvious things in a complex way, or else they flat out don't make sense), but just that you, with your view of "blackness over femaleness," would have been seen as naive by theorists as far back as the 80s.

    And anyway, I don't even know why I'm telling you any of this, as the only basis you have for your "blackness over femaleness," or "third-world-ness over femaleness," is that you, at least part of the time, and despite the contradictions posed by your other stated beliefs, deny the existence of gender discrimination based on how you personally feel about the situation. And don't deny it...I have you redhanded here:

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I've lived for nearly 22 years as a female, and I've never felt oppressed (at least not in this country) by the fact that I have a vagina.
    Trinity and onemoretime (though I am not implicating them in my viewpoints by mentioning their usernames, so keep that in mind) did not take you out of context when they called you on this, because you offer no other justification for your beliefs. This is the only possible thing that could be interpreted as a justification in all of your drivel. Let me remind you:

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I simply meant to suggest that females are equal in today's society so much as they want to be equal, and it takes some sort of "rigorous" thinking to see that. Most "feminists" simply wish to victimize themselves by finding ways that they are not equal rather than by indirectly tackling any such notions via working independently from them. Feminists seem to think it's productive to beg for respect, pointedly remark on times when they are not treated with respect, and blame it on the fact that their lack of respect is due to deep-rooted societal notions on what a female ought to be. The only way for anybody, females included, to gain respect is to earn it, and if one earns respect, she'll get it, regardless of her gender.
    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Here a woman is only oppressed insofar as she lets herself be oppressed; there are available opportunities for essentially everybody, and any lacking opportunities are not due to gender biases. An active feminist movement in America is outdated and redundant (regardless of where such movement falls on the radical scale), and until we let go of it, women will never realize that their problems have nothing to do with societal oppression and everything to do with their own frame of mind.
    All you do is assert what you think is the reality of the situation. In neither of the above two paragraphs do you ever once provide any reasoning, evidence, or anything else of a justificatory nature (except the personal feelings remark.)

    As a closing remark, I'll just say that perhaps you might think about reflecting on why you have such a hostile attitude toward the word "feminism" when, even if it is ridiculous and outmoded as you say, it shouldn't bother you any more than, say, fringe religions or any other organization with an agenda. I don't see you ranting about Wiccans (but there might be a connection with feminism there, so bad example.) What's your specific beef with "feminism?"
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] Can loudness really be classified as a personality trait?
    By PalebloodHunter in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-11-2017, 06:53 PM
  2. Female ESTP and Male ENTP
    By Poki in forum Intertype Relations
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-11-2015, 04:47 PM
  3. [ISFJ] ISFJ Personality Traits - What does an unhealthy ISFJ look like?
    By chatoyer in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 10-22-2015, 09:23 AM
  4. Female INTP's personality traits thought of as negative by American Society
    By latentorganization in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-15-2010, 12:09 PM
  5. Personality traits most valued in your country?
    By autumn in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 10-29-2008, 10:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO