User Tag List

First 71516171819 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 235

  1. #161
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    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.)
    You're right I have no idea what I'm talking about. I should have read a wiki page instead of taking those two women studies courses at my university.

    But in all seriousness, I don't claim to be an expert on feminism; I have after all, only skimmed the surface of feminism and taken those two courses, experienced society as a female, and read a few things about it here and there (and no, this is not meant to be facetious; I legitimately do not believe myself to be an expert). However, I have noticed a trend in some feminist ideology (though it may not encompass all of feminism, and there may not be one all-encompassing view, I still see a trend in a certain way of feminist thinking), and that is what I was spelling out.

    And as far as being "the" one that holds substantial weight; there is no "the" one. I never said "the." I just said it holds substantial weight; that doesn't logically imply that it holds the most weight.
    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.
    You're right; there is no overt claim to this belief, but I believe that it's an underlying premise in a significant portion of feminist theory. Obviously the feminists about which I speak don't claim this outright; that would just make them sound ridiculous and get them no where. In fact, the feminists to which I'm referring probably don't even realize for themselves that they are inadvertantly expressing this belief. I don't think that any rational and reasonable person would ever overtly make the affirmation "Respect me even though I don't deserve it." or think the claim "I want respect even where it's not deserved." in their own head. I'm referring to an underlying notion. Again, the underlying notion may not be the primary backing force behind all feminist theory, but it takes up a large enough portion to be worth mentioning.

    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.
    Yes, along the lines of that. But I'd of course argue with the claim that my botched interpretation of the realm of feminism to which I refer is nonsensical. I never meant to imply that all feminism is backed by this though, and I've stated that several times in this thread.

    Your other definition of feminism is not much better, though I think you were going less for accuracy and more for rhetorical effect.
    You're right; it's not a completely accurate representation of all feminism. I don't know how you can possibly argue that it's not a representation of some, though.

    I've had self-proclaimed feminists tell me that porn should be illegal because it objectifies women, rapists should face the death penalty, any man accused of rape should be locked up until all accusations are wiped clean, a woman who claims rape should never be argued with, men treat women like meat, men only treat women as equals because the government has set in place certain measures to force equality but men don't actually believe in equality, and the best yet: "If I were a man, I could have gone so much farther in society." I didn't hear these claims from completely ignorant "feminists" either. We had debates in one of my womens studies classes, and these notions were brought up by womens studies majors. My representation of feminism may be breaching on only a small part of "feminism" (and perhaps the part that you'd like to not take claim on as a more educated and intellectual feminist), but my representation is not a skewed version of reality.

    "Good" feminism exists, but so does bad "feminism." That's to be expected with any ideology, though. Perhaps you think I've played up the "bad" feminism too much, and that's a fair judgment on your part. I have given hardly any credit to "good" feminism, and the reason for that is because I'm trying to make a point about bad feminism here. Hell, maybe I shouldn't even be calling "bad feminism" feminism at all. Maybe I should be calling it pseudo-feminism, and perhaps those self-proclaimed feminists who make claims like the above are wrongly labeling themselves as feminists. However, they are still claiming to be a part of the feminist culture, and regardless of how accurate their claim is, it's going to contribute to the ways in which I perceive the word "feminism."



    "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.
    Yes, thank you. I'm glad you see the rhetoric in that (and hopefully you see the rhetoric in other things I've said here?). Obviously I don't think feminists are down on their knees grovelling.

    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?
    An example of this is some women believing that they are more entitled to certain jobs where female presence is lacking, simply because it adds "diversity" to the field. If a woman is as qualified as a man, she will get the respect that such man of equal standing receives. If not, she shouldn't expect to get special treatment just because hiring her may aid in closing a male/female gap. And before you go and say that feminists don't believe this, I'm just going to clear it up and say that some do. Maybe not the most prominent ones (as the prominent ones are likely to have a much better grasp on reality; the idiots are not the ones that become prominent), but again, some self-proclaimed feminists hold this view.


    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.
    I don't believe that women are completely equal with men. That's pretty apparent by the ratios in certain intellectual fields and positions of power, average salaries, SAT scores, etc. I simply do not believe that women are oppressed because society as a whole still deems them as inferior. Some interpretations of certain statistics may suggest that women appear to not be equal with men when it comes to caliber, at least not at this point, but I stand by my claim that their inequality is not due to an overt oppressive and discriminating force. Women in American society are faced with the same kinds of equal opportunities as men to pursue what they believe will make them happy, and again, if a woman finds herself in a situation where she is not faced with equality, it's not due explicitly and exclusively to her gender.


    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?
    I don't see how it's logically inaccurate to claim that women are still in recovery but are not overtly oppressed by society. Sorry.

    I still think there is ground to be made, but not in regards to fighting some societal belief that women are inferior or by fighting treatment of women as inferiors.

    ...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.
    Discrimination can exist but be so negligible (or in other words obsolete, not in general use, old-fashioned, out-dated, what have you) that it has no relevant effect on a woman's position. Again, I don't see the contradiction.


    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.
    I agree that there is a complex relationship between our different distinguishable attributes; I just don't think being female plays nearly as large a role as the others, and the role it plays is not as a fundamental reason for the oppression that females may face.

    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:
    Yes, I did throw in a personal experience remark, and I can see how you might think that I am applying my narrow frame of reference to a larger whole, but I'm not. I threw that in as a rhetorical device; not as a substantial foundation for my view.

    My view on feminism and the extent to which females are oppressed for being female is from the education I have received about it regarding statistics, philosophy, and just talking with "educated" feminists. I've stated enough times that the views to which I'm referring and critiquing are not how I see all of feminism in its entirety; it's merely a part of some (and again, a large enough portion to be mentioned) feminist ideology that I find really silly.

    If you're finding contradictions in my beliefs, then maybe I haven't laid them out well enough. I see no contradictions, though, even the ones that you feel you've so clearly pointed out.

    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.)
    Well, I'm telling you what I think because on of the main points I'm trying to convey here is my perception of feminism.

    I provided no evidence; you're right. I'm just too lazy to look up statistics and provide you guys with concrete data that supports my claims. I don't take my debates on this forum seriously enough to do that, and I'd just rather you think my argument completely unfounded than go find some numbers and/or philosophical excerpts (especially statistics/philosophies about which I've already read). Sorry.

    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?"
    As my closing remark, I'll just say that perhaps you might think about why somebody who is mildly informed on the topic has such a notion about some modes of feminism.

    And no, I'm not ranting about fringe religions or any other ideologies that I find absurd right now, as that's not what this topic is. I brought up feminism as some tangent to some train of thought I (or maybe someone else?) on this thread was having. Just because I'm ranting about feminism doesn't preclude me from having any problems with other philosophies and ideologies as well. How does the former imply the latter in any way?

    In short: I've noticed a trend in some realms of feminist ideology. I've noticed this trend by speaking with self-proclaimed feminists and through reading feminist theory by some prominent feminist writers. The trend I've noticed is an underlying notion implied by certain feminist ideals, not something that is overtly expressed by feminists, and not something that is implied by all feminist theories.

  2. #162
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    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?
    We can streamline, but, first I must point out that my initial reaction to your response is that you initially came into the topic, seemingly guns blazing, throwing opinions around on feminism that were grossly a misrepresentation. And, then, when we countered, now I see you back-peddaling on your original claims, trying to use rationalization to twist the claims you originally made, to show, 'Oh, that's not really what I meant, actually.'

    You came in saying that truly rigorous thinkers would know that feminism is obsolete, or something like that. And, now it seems, you're the one finally doing the rigorous thinking, yet, you haven't retracted any of your previous statements as wrong or a misrepresentation.

    Even though, what you're saying now stands in obvious contradiction to what you initially said.

    One blatant example -

    You before:
    An active feminist movement in America is outdated and redundant (regardless of where such movement falls on the radical scale), ...
    You now:
    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 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.
    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.
    ....so now you're seeing differences in feminist theories, while before they were all bad, because you lumped them in all as one (regardless of where they lay on the radical scale). Orangey even told you that's what you were doing, initially. You ignored that, and continued on. And, now you are saying, 'well, okay, I meant only a segment of feminist thoughts, you guys are just confusing that I meant all.'

    Okay. Which position are you truly supporting?

    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.
    Bolded, yes, you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    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.
    You also believe that [all] feminism is about crying out about women facing injustice and opression simply because they're women.

    As I pointed out, and so did Orangey, and maybe you misinterpreted what you were presented in those TWO classes of yours, and swallowed the words of those angst-ridden people you were speaking to, to be a representation of feminism, but, clearly, once, more, NO! This. is. not. the. position. of. most. of. modern. feminist. theories. Your statement is more the naive stereotype I hear of those that truly don't understand what most feminist theories are about. Yet, bash it. (reminds me of a less exaggerated position of those people who say, 'ew, I would never be a feminist, all those PMSing, man-hating butch women, burning bras and not shaving legs')

    Sex is a biological construct, gender a sociological one. This inherently assumes that there's something about the construct of gender through social pressures. How gender influences/is influenced by, different social settings, and other social, psychological and political constructs, is more accurate a representation of feminism today. Not simply because she's a woman.

    Until we can agree on that - or "streamline" so that we're on the same page of understanding about what feminism is - I don't think anything you or I say, would add to the progress of this discussion.

    PS - I read your discussion with Onemoretime, and yours with SW, I am speaking to you, having understood the position you're holding (or, trying to reshape to not be quite what you previously said, because you got countered)........and, you're stuck on a very weird definition of what feminism is, and expecting us to respond to that, when we don't even agree with that premise in the first place.

  3. #163
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    We can streamline, but, first I must point out that my initial reaction to your response is that you initially came into the topic, seemingly guns blazing, throwing opinions around on feminism that were grossly a misrepresentation. And, then, when we countered, now I see you back-peddaling on your original claims, trying to use rationalization to twist the claims you originally made, to show, 'Oh, that's not really what I meant, actually.'

    You came in saying that truly rigorous thinkers would know that feminism is obsolete, or something like that. And, now it seems, you're the one finally doing the rigorous thinking, yet, you haven't retracted any of your previous statements as wrong or a misrepresentation.
    I came in guns blazing because I just wanted to make a silly comment for humor value. I expected it would spur a reaction and that I'd end up having to elaborate on what I meant (which I did). You can take that elaboration as twisting my claim, but it's not. It's just me elaborating on what initially appears to be a flamingly dogmatic position.

    I have not just started doing rigorous thinking, at least not about feminism. I have done a good bit of rigorous thinking about feminism, brought on by readings and discussions taken on prior to this thread. The only rigorous thinking I've been doing as a result of this thread is how to enter into a debate without seeming like an [ignorant] asshole.

    ....so now you're seeing differences in feminist theories, while before they were all bad, because you lumped them in all as one (regardless of where they lay on the radical scale). Orangey even told you that's what you were doing, initially. You ignored that, and continued on. And, now you are saying, 'well, okay, I meant only a segment of feminist thoughts, you guys are just confusing that I meant all.'
    I started out very early on in this discussion with specifying what I meant when I said feminism. I restated and restated and restated, maintaining the same position, but no one seems to have heard me.

    I also started out very early on in this discussion by saying that I do not refer to all modes of feminism when I bash it, and I also said very early on that I don't think the definition of feminism that I laid out applies to all feminism.

    Okay. Which position are you truly supporting?
    I'm supporting the position that females are not on an equal level with males when it comes to societal status. I'm supporting the position that the reason these females are not on an equal standing is not due to a notion that society deems women inherently inferior to men. I'm supporting the position that a significant portion of (but not all) "feminists" believe that society is overtly oppressive to the female gender because they deem the female gender inferior. I'm supporting the position that this notion is explicitly stated by so-called "bad" feminists (a term I laid out in my response to Orangey) and implicitly stated as an underlying notion in some (but again not all) prominent feminist theory. I'm supporting the position that feminism which seeks to close the gender gap by tackling some existing causal factor, one grounded in the soils of reality, (one that is not based upon the fact that society treats women as inferiors) is great.


    You also believe that [all] feminism is about crying out about women facing injustice and opression simply because they're women.
    No. I. don't. I find it really obnoxious and frustrating that despite no matter how many times I say that I don't think ALL feminism is about what I was referencing, I still get blamed for that. I realize that there are more grounded and accurate forms of feminism that seek to solve problems that actually exist, but I also recognize that not all feminism is this healthy.

    As I pointed out, and so did Orangey, and maybe you misinterpreted what you were presented in those TWO classes of yours, and swallowed the words of those angst-ridden people you were speaking to, to be a representation of feminism, but, clearly, once, more, NO! This. is. not. the. position. of. most. of. modern. feminist. theories. Your statement is more the naive stereotype I hear of those that truly don't understand what most feminist theories are about. Yet, bash it. (reminds me of a less exaggerated position of those people who say, 'ew, I would never be a feminist, all those PMSing, man-hating butch women, burning bras and not shaving legs')
    I even admitted to this in my last response to Orangey. I said that the bashing in which I'm engaging is pointed at these feminists. I said that this may not be a completely accurate representation of feminism, but it is a notion that a significant portion of "feminists" possess, so regardless of its alignment with the ideals of "modern feminism", it's going to contribute to my perception of the word "feminism", and I'm going to complain about it.

    I understand what other feminist theories are about, and again, these are not the ones I'm bashing.

    When I said that I don't see the need for a feminist movement, I clarified what I meant by that, and I did that soon after my original brash statement.

    Sex is a biological construct, gender a sociological one. This inherently assumes that there's something about the construct of gender through social pressures. How gender influences/is influenced by, different social settings, and other social, psychological and political constructs, is more accurate a representation of feminism today. Not simply because she's a woman.
    It's an accurate representation of healthy feminism and feminism preached by prominent feminists, but it's not an accurate representation of many self-proclaimed feminists. I even touched upon gender roles in my first post on this thread, in regards to female v. male ENTPs, before this discussion ensued...
    .
    Until we can agree on that - or "streamline" so that we're on the same page of understanding about what feminism is - I don't think anything you or I say, would add to the progress of this discussion.

    PS - I read your discussion with Onemoretime, and yours with SW, I am speaking to you, having understood the position you're holding (or, trying to reshape to not be quite what you previously said, because you got countered)........and, you're stuck on a very weird definition of what feminism is, and expecting us to respond to that, when we don't even agree with that premise in the first place.
    I'm not expecting you to defend the notions that the feminists I'm outlining possess/defend. I'm expecting you to admit that my perception is not completely flawed, though.

  4. #164
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Arguing for female equality is the nice scale of feminism. When you say that the female ENTPs you know are feminists, do they argue for female equality insofar as females and males are completely equal (zero gender gap), or to the point that it appears these feminist views cause more of a split than a convergance?

    Feminism has a really negative connotation to me, and if you mean it in the over the top "I'm a woman; watch my breasts roar with voluptuous triumph and my vagina give birth to a better world! Men should treat me with respect; I don't need men to hold open doors and lift heavy things for me, and God forbid I take a few years off from my career to spend them at home with my babies. Women are equal dammit and we must do everything that men do and not acknowledge the fact that we are biologically different than men!" way, then I'm going to argue with you on this claim. Feminism is way too irrational for real Ti.
    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Ok, yes it is. I just think that feminism has kind of a negative connotation nowadays, considering that females are practically equal as it is, so the "feminist movement" has become a bit redundant and kind of a moot point. I have the above views that you just elaborated on, but I don't consider myself a "feminist." I'm just arguing connotative shit now though, so don't worry about it. You're right.
    These are your initial posts on the subject. Yes, you outlined the feminism you were talking about...the bolded.

    This is how you see modern Feminism primarily. We'll call it TeslaSkewsFeminism (does it reflect reality? No, just your reality given the people you've interacted with. But it's your perspective so you can see it any way you like)

    And, then you say:
    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    The real "rigorous thinkers" understand that there's no point in pursuing a feminist movement anymore.
    Pardon me, but TeslaSkewsFeminism does not take much amount of rigorous thinking to find it ludicrous and ridiculous. (joke? oh, haha)

    But, then it gets kind of confusing because your subsequent thoughts muddles your initial assertion that you're only speaking of TeslaSkewsFeminism.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    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.
    Such as the bolded ^.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    The only rigorous thinking I've been doing as a result of this thread is how to enter into a debate without seeming like an [ignorant] asshole.
    It might help if you clear up the joke as soon as you see the person is not reading it as one, rather than adding more 'joke'(?) statements, or, sweeping generalizations, such as the bolded ^ above, which negates that you were still talking of ONLY TeslaSkewsFeminism but adds in the whole spectrum of feminist theories into the discussion.

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    You also believe that [all] feminism is about crying out about women facing injustice and opression simply because they're women.
    No. I. don't. I find it really obnoxious and frustrating that despite no matter how many times I say that I don't think ALL feminism is about what I was referencing, I still get blamed for that. I realize that there are more grounded and accurate forms of feminism that seek to solve problems that actually exist, but I also recognize that not all feminism is this healthy.
    See, below:

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I mean can you seriously tell me that a woman in America is still treated as an inferior simply due to the fact that she's a woman?
    Lemme guess, another brash statement that's really all just a silly joke? Or you were still just talking of TeslaSkewsFeminism? K.


    I'm supporting the position that females are not on an equal level with males when it comes to societal status.
    Agreed.

    I'm supporting the position that the reason these females are not on an equal standing is not due to a notion that society deems women inherently inferior to men.
    Not agreed. Depends on which segment of N.American society you are speaking for, and how this disparity in equality is manifested. Thus, I can't agree with such a broad blanket statement, as it doesn't match reality, nor is a comprehensive view of reality.

    I'm supporting the position that a significant portion of (but not all) "feminists" believe that society is overtly oppressive to the female gender because they deem the female gender inferior.
    Not really agreed, it seems it's more a significant portion of "feminists" that you've personally had experience with. Agreed in the sense that yes, again, for certain segments of our society, there are overt opression faced by the female gender because they are deemed inferior.

    I'm supporting the position that this notion is explicitly stated by so-called "bad" feminists (a term I laid out in my response to Orangey) and implicitly stated as an underlying notion in some (but again not all) prominent feminist theory.
    TeslaSkewsFeminism.

    I'm supporting the position that feminism which seeks to close the gender gap by tackling some existing causal factor, one grounded in the soils of reality, (one that is not based upon the fact that society treats women as inferiors) is great.
    Tesla's response for a solution to TeslaSkewsFeminism.



    I even admitted to this in my last response to Orangey. I said that the bashing in which I'm engaging is pointed at these feminists. I said that this may not be a completely accurate representation of feminism, but it is a notion that a significant portion of "feminists" possess, so regardless of its alignment with the ideals of "modern feminism", it's going to contribute to my perception of the word "feminism", and I'm going to complain about it.

    I understand what other feminist theories are about, and again, these are not the ones I'm bashing.

    When I said that I don't see the need for a feminist movement, I clarified what I meant by that, and I did that soon after my original brash statement.



    It's an accurate representation of healthy feminism and feminism preached by prominent feminists, but it's not an accurate representation of many self-proclaimed feminists. I even touched upon gender roles in my first post on this thread, in regards to female v. male ENTPs, before this discussion ensued...
    Okay.

    I'm not expecting you to defend the notions that the feminists I'm outlining possess/defend.
    Yeah, there's no way I'm defending TeslaSkewsFeminism.

    I'm expecting you to admit that my perception is not completely flawed, though.
    They are not completely flawed as TeslaSkewsFeminism is a reality, not just for you, but a lot of these people that claim they have rigorously studied, or are informed on, feminist theories, and then, they decide to either chuck it out the window because they are only inclined to movement by the radical (and mostly outdated) feminist theories, or, they hold on to such ridiculous and radical viewpoints and then people think these are what most informed feminists are really like. However, these people are not the majority within modern feminist politics and thought.

    We could have solved all this way ago, I guess, if we had agreed that the way you viewed Feminism (the "negative connotation") was the one in discussion, by simply agreeing with you and saying, 'yes, that's ridiculous'. But, I think we couldn't really believe that TeslaSkewsFeminism was a serious assertion of someone's views on Feminism, that they were then arguing against, as if it really needed to be countered (it's so ridiculous, it counters itself).......so this discussion became what it was.

  5. #165
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Ok Q I'm getting pretty annoyed with how you seem to be continually blind and dense to the things I'm saying in my posts here. You seem to be particularly sensitive to the critiques of feminism and due to such sensitivity, care to completely invalidate them rather than accepting the fact that such critiques are fair judgments in regards to some areas of "feminism" (or some self-proclaimed "feminists").

    I have yielded to your notions of feminism and said that they are valid. I would never dogmatically claim that ALL feminism falls under one of my perceptions of feminism. How can you so dogmatically claim that my perceptions are completely unrealistic and go so far as to label them as "TeslaSkewsFeminism"? You think that's going to get us anywhere in this discussion to facetiously poke fun at my perceptions? I've changed my tone to try and approach this issue courteously, but you seem no where near willing to do so. Luckily(?) I'm not particularly sensitive to sarcasm, so I'll still keep the ball rolling here...

    Feminism has a really negative connotation to me, and if you mean it in the over the top "I'm a woman; watch my breasts roar with voluptuous triumph and my vagina give birth to a better world! Men should treat me with respect; I don't need men to hold open doors and lift heavy things for me, and God forbid I take a few years off from my career to spend them at home with my babies. Women are equal dammit and we must do everything that men do and not acknowledge the fact that we are biologically different than men!" way, then I'm going to argue with you on this claim. Feminism is way too irrational for real
    Ti.
    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    These are your initial posts on the subject. Yes, you outlined the feminism you were talking about...the bolded.
    Q, if you think this is the definition of feminism that I'm operating under when I critique it, then you have clearly not been reading or accurately interpreting my posts here. Obviously the above is wrought with satirical hyperbole. This was before a serious discussion ensued, and before beginning a serious discussion on the matter (or as soon as a serious discussion ensued), I explicitly defined the kind of feminism I was talking about, and the above is not the definition I gave.

    This is how you see modern Feminism primarily. We'll call it TeslaSkewsFeminism (does it reflect reality? No, just your reality given the people you've interacted with. But it's your perspective so you can see it any way you like)
    This is how I see feminism primarily? Really? Did I ever say that? Where are you pulling this shit from?

    I laid out one of my perceptions of feminism, and yes, I do believe that my perception is accurate and constitutes a significant portion of notions that self-proclaimed feminists possess. But my primary (and only?) view? No.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    And, then you say:
    "The real "rigorous thinkers" understand that there's no point in pursuing a feminist movement anymore."
    Pardon me, but TeslaSkewsFeminism does not take much amount of rigorous thinking to find it ludicrous and ridiculous. (joke? oh, haha)
    Again, I put that in there for humor value and to incite a reaction. It's a broad and unclarified assertion when I say "no point to pursuing a feminist movement." I wanted to use the term "rigorous thinking" in parallel with a previous post to briefly lay out one of my feelings on feminism. Again, I went on to clarify what I meant by this. If you want to argue with my claims, then argue with my more detailed elaboration, not my broad assertions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    But, then it gets kind of confusing because your subsequent thoughts muddles your initial assertion that you're only speaking of TeslaSkewsFeminism.

    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.
    I explicitly defined what I meant by feminism not long after (or maybe within the same post?). The above claim is not contradictory to the rest of my posts when you look at the term "feminism" according to how I explicitly defined it and the conditions under which I make such assertions about it being [insert negative adjective that I've used many times over, here].

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post

    You also believe that [all] feminism is about crying out about women facing injustice and opression simply because they're women.
    Oh I do? Well that's news to me. Cool.

    Again, (and hopefully this will be the last time?) I do not think that all feminist theory is based off of women crying about injustice and oppression simply because they are women. I merely think that this notion is held by a significant portion (not all, not the majority, but a significant portion) of feminists.


    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I mean can you seriously tell me that a woman in America is still treated as an inferior simply due to the fact that she's a woman?
    Lemme guess, another brash statement that's really all just a silly joke? Or you were still just talking of TeslaSkewsFeminism? K.
    No, actually that part wasn't a joke. Go look again at the context in which I put that statement. I was trying to make the point that I don't believe that women are treated as inherently inferior by American society, and you even agreed with me on that point, so it's essentially moot.


    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I'm supporting the position that the reason these females are not on an equal standing is not due to a notion that society deems women inherently inferior to men.
    Not agreed. Depends on which segment of N.American society you are speaking for, and how this disparity in equality is manifested. Thus, I can't agree with such a broad blanket statement, as it doesn't match reality, nor is a comprehensive view of reality.
    Do you not see your contradiction here, Q? You stated earlier that you don't believe that society deems women inherently inferior (by answering the aforementioned question that I posed to you), yet now you are stating that you do...

    The next section of your post goes on to label every view that I claimed on feminism as what you define as "TeslaSkewsFeminism." You just briefly assert that my view is skewed and not backed by reality, and I'm going to disagree with that, and elaborate on the disagreement:

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    [Your perceptions] are not completely flawed as TeslaSkewsFeminism is a reality, not just for you, but a lot of these people that claim they have rigorously studied, or are informed on, feminist theories, and then, they decide to either chuck it out the window because they are only inclined to movement by the radical (and mostly outdated) feminist theories, or, they hold on to such ridiculous and radical viewpoints and then people think these are what most informed feminists are really like. However, these people are not the majority within modern feminist politics and thought.
    My view on this area of feminism is not backed by overt claims in feminist theory. It is backed by some feminists who overtly express these claims. I do not believe that my evaluation of feminism represents all of feminism (oh, there I go again with restating that my evaluation does not pertain to all).

    I actually have not chucked all of feminism out the window. Only the feminism that I clearly defined. I volunteer at a women's shelter where mothers and children come to seek refuge from domestic violence. This kind of assistance falls under the realm of feminism, and it's great. I'm also a part of an organization that is trying to raise funds to build an education center in Cambodia that informs women of sexual health. This kind of assistance also falls under the realm of feminism, and it's also great. I do not think all feminism is redundant, pointless, and irrational. I simply expressed my notions on one of my the realms/my perceptions of it.

    And again, I do not think this is the majority or that's what most informed feminists are really like. Some are, but most of the feminists that are explicitly like that are the uninformed ones. Feminism is like any realm of philosophy in that it has some really great underlying concepts and is backed by some really great ideology, but some who engage in the philosophy misinterpret it or detach it from reality, thereby redefining its ideology based on pure garbage.

    However, I still stand by the claim that even some/many informed feminists are inadvertantly, implicitly, and perhaps unknowingly acting under some kind of unrealistic premises, but I don't really even think we are talking about how I feel about informed feminist views at this point, so I'll refrain from elaborating on that.

    We could have solved all this way ago, I guess, if we had agreed that the way you viewed Feminism (the "negative connotation") was the one in discussion, by simply agreeing with you and saying, 'yes, that's ridiculous'. But, I think we couldn't really believe that TeslaSkewsFeminism was a serious assertion of someone's views on Feminism, that they were then arguing against, as if it really needed to be countered (it's so ridiculous, it counters itself).......so this discussion became what it was.
    But that was the one in discussion. The argument then became about whether my views are a fair one to possess, and you seem to still think that they aren't. You seem to think that I've formed a stereotype and will not yield to exceptions to that stereotype, and you're wrong. You're also wrong when you say that the stereotype I've laid out is unrealistic. Many self-proclaimed feminists do express the views that I have such a clear problem with; you think those who fall under the stereotype are really that rare, and that me and all the others who formed the stereotype just so happened to run into these rarities by chance? That's a rather unfortunate coincidence, isn't it? I could turn your argument around and say that your own perception and narrow reality is skewed because you hang around people who share the same rational views on feminism as you do, but I wouldn't dare invalidate your perceptions, as your perceptions (like mine) are shared by many (including me). Personal experience is not everything, but many different personal experiences that all find the same trend counts for something. Stereotypes are not everything, but they don't just appear out of thin air. They form due to reality (whether or not they are completely accurate representations is irrelevant...and I wouldn't go so far as to say that the majority of feminists fall under the stereotype; they are accurate representations of some realms of reality, otherwise they wouldn't have formed at all).

    Whether or not my perceptions of feminism are backed by the purest forms of feminist theory is irrelevant. My perceptions of feminism are backed by enough "feminists" to cause my perceptions to be shared with many others as well, and that's what matters here. That's what helps to validate my perception.

  6. #166
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I started out very early on in this discussion with specifying what I meant when I said feminism. I restated and restated and restated, maintaining the same position, but no one seems to have heard me.

    I also started out very early on in this discussion by saying that I do not refer to all modes of feminism when I bash it, and I also said very early on that I don't think the definition of feminism that I laid out applies to all feminism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    These are your initial posts on the subject. Yes, you outlined the feminism you were talking about...the bolded.

    This is how you see modern Feminism primarily. We'll call it TeslaSkewsFeminism (does it reflect reality? No, just your reality given the people you've interacted with. But it's your perspective so you can see it any way you like)

    And, then you say:
    Pardon me, but TeslaSkewsFeminism does not take much amount of rigorous thinking to find it ludicrous and ridiculous. (joke? oh, haha)

    But, then it gets kind of confusing because your subsequent thoughts muddles your initial assertion that you're only speaking of TeslaSkewsFeminism.
    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Q, if you think this is the definition of feminism that I'm operating under when I critique it, then you have clearly not been reading or accurately interpreting my posts here. Obviously the above is wrought with satirical hyperbole. This was before a serious discussion ensued, and before beginning a serious discussion on the matter (or as soon as a serious discussion ensued), I explicitly defined the kind of feminism I was talking about, and the above is not the definition I gave.

    This is how I see feminism primarily? Really? Did I ever say that? Where are you pulling this shit from?
    Oh brother....okay, obviously you've gotten that my last post was sarcastic in many parts (TeslaSkewsFeminism was a blatant clue). It's because trying to get your concrete views had been riddled with contradictions and evasions until very recently, so I was kinda done playing this back and forth.

    To explain.......

    You asked me to look at your initial posts, to specify what you meant by feminism. So, I took you literally, and did just exactly that. (yes, facetiously so). And, yes, I understood the exagerration in it, you blatantly called it, "over the top...."

    And, yes, it was pure sarcasm in my last post, and that's why I called that gross exaggeration of feminism, by you, TeslaSkewsFeminism. It's because, in a few posts back, I likened your view to a less exaggerated form of "man-hating, pmsing, butch-like, braburning, not leg shaving = feminism" (can't be bothered to look for where I said that, and quote, but I did use that comparison as a more extreme form of how your view the feminism that you bash, which is just bashing feminism as a whole because it's a misunderstanding of what it is...explained later, please read on). Hence, me taking a quote of yours that resembled that kind of exaggeration.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock
    I'm supporting the position that the reason these females are not on an equal standing is not due to a notion that society deems women inherently inferior to men.
    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us
    Not agreed. Depends on which segment of N.American society you are speaking for, and how this disparity in equality is manifested. Thus, I can't agree with such a broad blanket statement, as it doesn't match reality, nor is a comprehensive view of reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock
    Do you not see your contradiction here, Q? You stated earlier that you don't believe that society deems women inherently inferior (by answering the aforementioned question that I posed to you), yet now you are stating that you do...
    No, not a contradiction, but a reading error on my part.
    The double negative threw me off, and I didn't catch that: "not"/"not"....whatever: agreed/not agreed. I still don't know the answer.

    Just follow the rest of the response to know my position. There's no contradiction there. It's apparent by the rest of my response where I point out the "disparity in equality". If I had not agreed (agreed? double negatives??) with your stance, I wouldn't have been talking about the disparity nor the explanation I gave following "not agreed". Official answer: Women are not equal with men when it comes to social status, and it is because society [some aspect of it] deems certain groups of these women inferior to men.

    (were you trying to purposely trick me there?)

    To clarify, your position is that women are not overtly oppressed because of gender, but that the 'bad feminists' believe it to be so. If this is your position, then I disagree with this part: women not being overtly opressed. I believe that they are overtly oppressed when it comes to certain segments of the N.American female population (minority groups, esp.).

    As for the "bad"/"good" feminism you speak of, I'm going to kindly bow out of that, cuz as we've seen, this is becoming a hot tangled mess. At this point I don't know exactly what this 'bad feminism' that you speak of entail, it's had many definitions (expanding, contracting) attached to it by you throughout the course of our discussion, so I'm done trying to untangle and pinpoint exactly what you mean. And, I was countering a very different point of yours than your 'bad'/'good' feminism, which was the outlook of feminism itself held by you.

    If I can try to sum up your position, and without sarcasm, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong:

    You do not support this feminism that aims to put at the troubles experienced by women to be based solely on their gender. You believe that there are 'more important' social factors that contribute to the disparity and female oppression that we see, and we should target those social factors, like poverty, etc. (even though previously you said it was all in her mind and her will to change her fate, and then after a few prodding, you agreed about the social factors, but, we'll let that confusion/contradiction be).

    Again, it's not really about 'bad'/'good' feminism, it's about what I've been telling you for a while now, and got a bit fed up with you missing the point, and went to sarcasm. It's about your understanding of feminism, good, bad, whatever. The good/bad are the hows of feminism, I'm challenging the what (is feminism) stance of yours.

    I'll try once more to explain to you why I can't agree with this. Feminism is a lens of focus by which theorists study how gender influences/is influenced by social settings, and social, psychological and political factors.

    Independent variable/Dependent Variable
    Women/media
    Women/racism
    Women/domestic abuse
    Women/education
    Women/politics
    Women/workforce
    Women/health(care)
    Women/SES

    (there's of course interactions between the dependent variables, leading to confounding or interaction effects)

    Of course the way to tackle such things would be change the social, political and psychological aspects that affects how the gender's role is highlighted or diminished. We can't very well change their gender (independent variable), now can we?

    So, this whole argument of yours that 'it's cuz she's simply a woman is a weak argument', 'there's other more important issues to tackle these social barriers'...does, not, make, sense, if you understood what feminist theories as a whole is all about!

    Feminist theory is just about looking at one particular lens of the interplay of all these factors. WOMEN. I even tried to give the analogy of race, so I'll try once more.

    Independent variable/Dependent variable

    Race/media
    Race/domestic abuse
    Race/education
    Race/politics
    Race/workforce
    Race/health(care)
    Race/SES

    Now, imagine if the same arguments of yours applied, 'saying that its simply cuz of race is weak', 'there's other important issues to tackle these social barriers'.

    Women in soceity. What does that even mean? We have to bring in factors to understand women's role (manifestation) in society, there has to be an association we look at. Women's role in ___ in society. Otherwise, it's just X (women); we need a Y. And, this is why it's kind of ridiculous, your argument of marginalizing the role of women and saying to highlight on the other social factors. The only way to understand the role of women is if we have the other social factors to compare it to, otherwise, there is no commentary. This is feminist theories and what motivates feminism. Women. They choose the independent variable to be Women. Race theorists choose the independent variable to be race. Queer theory choose the independent variable to be sexual orientation&identity!

    So, your position of 'women not being overtly oppressed in society' is a sweeping blanket statement, cuz the natural question to ask is, 'women not being overly opressed in WHAT of society?' The what are the other social factors (dependent variables).

    So, for you to say that women are not overtly opressed in society, you'd have had to argue that for these likely social factors, women are not being overtly opressed, and I gave you examples, early on, of certain segments of population, where this is not the case (a bit more complicated, as we're introducing more than just 1 dependent variable).

    You separated the two things, women different than the social factors. X irrelevant to Y. This as an equation does not make sense. This as a relationship does not make sense. "Simply because she's a woman" would translate to X's relationship with X. What???

    This, as an understanding of the core of feminist theory, good, bad, or downright, ugly does not make sense to most informed feminists. It does to those, like yourself, who are seeing 'gender' as this isolated thing, to either use as a crutch to bitch about (the stereotyped "feminists" that you've seen), or to use as a target to mock (like you).

    I'm not really even challenging your good/bad feminism (I hope now it makes sense why I quoted that exaggerated quote of yours as I did and called it TeslaSkewsFeminism) because you have a skewed idea of what feminism and feminist theory is, as a whole, at its core. And, when I tried to explain this (more than a few times before), you just glossed over in agreement and called it the 'good feminism'. (?!)

    And, I kept telling you, again and again, that feminist theory looks at how gender influences or is influenced by the social setting, and social, psychological, political factors. And, you keep agreeing with this, and calling it the "good feminism", and calling some host of other stuff "bad feminism".....when I can't even understand this distinction to begin with.


    Whether or not my perceptions of feminism are backed by the purest forms of feminist theory is irrelevant. My perceptions of feminism are backed by enough "feminists" to cause my perceptions to be shared with many others as well, and that's what matters here. That's what helps to validate my perception.
    I am sorry that I was completely sarcastic and facetious to you in my last post, and it's probably on me that I'm not able to explain exactly what my point with you is, but, I think I've tried (before, and this post, ignoring the previous one). And, it keeps going over your head. But, what I keep saying is, the way you are understanding the overarching core of feminist theories is not what feminist theories is for the majority of people informed in it (all feminist theories, even before we get to parsing out good/bad in it). Maybe I should have stopped picking at the little points of yours in regards to your 'bad feminism' and kept it strictly about one point: that of understanding the core of feminist theories in the first place. Once that was agreed between us, then, we should have tackled your good/bad assertions. But, I've been responding to both of these points of yours (feminism as a whole, your good/bad stuff) which may have added to the confusion.
    My frustration at you not getting what I meant manifested the last post the way it did (and a few parts in previous posts).

  7. #167
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Even though all of this is interesting, I really hope this thread gets split.

  8. #168
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    Even though all of this is interesting, I really hope this thread gets split.
    Yeah me too. I don't like this being in the ENTP gender thread; it makes it look like ENTP gender roles/associations come down to feminist theory, and that's not really why this discussion was spurred. Can some mod make a new thread or something?

  9. #169
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Just so you know, I love the fact that I achieved an epic thread derail just by mentioning the word "feminism".

  10. #170
    Artisan Conquerer Halla74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/so
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Just so you know, I love the fact that I achieved an epic thread derail just by mentioning the word "feminism".
    Rock on.
    --------------------
    Type Stats:
    MBTI -> (E) 77.14% | (i) 22.86% ; (S) 60% | (n) 40% ; (T) 72.22% | (f) 27.78% ; (P) 51.43% | (j) 48.57%
    BIG 5 -> Extroversion 77% ; Accommodation 60% ; Orderliness 62% ; Emotional Stability 64% ; Open Mindedness 74%

    Quotes:
    "If somebody asks your MBTI type on a first date, run". -Donna Cecilia
    "Enneagram is psychological underpinnings. Cognitive Functions are mental reasoning and perceptional processes. -Sanjuro

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