User Tag List

First 91718192021 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 235

  1. #181
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    hmmm, I'll have to read this whole thread later..

    The biggest diff I see is in how tert Fe grows in.

    Females-Seem to have more ability to use a bit of Te, Fe grows in more smoothly and they feel very motherly and calming/caring by 30-35.

    Males-Fe grows in kinda funny sometimes-bumpy? It makes them sweet, yet -with a few-not always so ethically obligated-just a few though so don't freak out on me. They also seem to have a lower tolerance for stress/confrontation/disagreement. They will be less likely to stand up and disagree overtly in meetings-especially with other Fe users or Te users. This ends up limiting their upwards movement from an executive perspective.

    The best ENTP we have is a VP and has surrounded himself by INTJs as supports.

  2. #182
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Puppy View Post
    hmmm, I'll have to read this whole thread later..
    My advice? Don't. You will regret losing those minutes/hrs of your life.

  3. #183
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Wait, before I respond to this, can you clarify something? Are the theoretical reasons you listed supposed to be reasons for why women are/may be oppressed in society, are they reasons that women who feel oppressed have noticed/formulated to describe the cause of their [perceived] oppression, or are they theoretical reasons as to why it's possible/legitimate for women to feel oppressed (regardless of whether or not certain oppressions actually occur)?
    Theoretical reasons for both why women feel and are oppressed, and where that oppression may come from.

  4. #184
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    My advice? Don't. You will regret losing those minutes/hrs of your life.
    Seconded. Btw, I'm wasting minutes of my life by responding to your last post right now. I know you're sUPerZ exCiTed!!1!!!!1

  5. #185
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    First off, Q: let me make sure that you're clear on the fundamental miscommunication we were having (because I found it!). Any time I said something along the lines of "Women shouldn't think that they are oppressed simply because they are women" or "oppression does not occur against a woman simply because she's a woman" you translated that to: "Women should not feel oppressed simply by being born a woman" or "Oppression does not inherently go along with being a woman." This is absolutely 100% not what I meant, and I did not realize that you thought that was what I meant until I read through our last two detailed posts to each other. What I meant is that I do not believe certain facets of society cause oppression towards women due to the fact that these certain facets of society are backed by the ideal/belief that women are inherently inferior, ie: A woman should not feel that oppression occurs simply because she's a woman. Do you see how 2 different interpretations of that statement are possible? You and I just cognitively structured the sentence differently.

    Obviously I don't think that there are some women out there, who if were isolated from society, would feel oppressed. That makes absolutely no sense! You can't be oppressed without some other factor causing you to feel oppressed (what you labeled as manifestations of oppression, or "dependent variables"). Of course I agree with you that there are dependent variables that cause a woman to feel oppressed! I do not think that women feel oppressed sans some manifestation of oppression arising from some facet of society, and I do not think that ANY "feminist" theories are based off of this notion. The hold up we had is that you kept explaining that to me, I told you I got it, but then I went on to say something that completely nullified my claim to understanding your point, so you went on to explain it again and fight my position by re-explaining, and I was just like "Wtf I get it dammit!" It's pretty clear why that resulted in frustration for both of us. I'm really sorry you interpreted my words that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    K, one little thing....yes, there's a contradiction here, as I said, I'm out, but I came back....

    How do you know that the 'women are inherently inferior' outlook is the cause, not the effect, of such manifestations of oppression by forces in society?
    Well I just typed up this whole post and have now realized that I could interpret your last post in a different way. I don't know which way you meant though, so I'll just leave this as is and take my chances. Anyway...

    Chicken: Women are inherently inferior outlook.
    Egg: Women are oppressed/[suppressed].

    Well, I don't really know if the chicken or the egg came first (well I do from a biological standpoint, but let's just stick to the typical usage of that metaphor), but I don't really understand why that matters when I don't even think the chicken exists anymore in the first place. I think women believe in the chicken, even when it's not there, and the reason women believe in this is due to the egg, and then they take their believed existence in a chicken and use that to explain why the egg is there. In other words, I think that some women perceive society to be claiming that women are inherently inferior and such women have this perception as a result of some kind of oppression that they feel. Some of these women who have this perception reason that any oppression they feel is due to the (perceived) notion that society deems them inferior. Those are the perceptions some "feminists" possess, and I stand by my claim to that.

    In other words: I understand that women are treated (or perceive themselves to be treated) as inferiors...(Of those two possibilities, I do believe that each occurs), and thus inadvertently become inferior (or start perceiving themselves as inferior or perceive society's outlook on them as inferiors)...(and of those 3 possibilities, I do not believe that the first has occurred). To this, I'd say that in some (perhaps many) instances, it is possible and legitimate for a woman to perceive herself as being treated like an inferior and thus it's also possible/legitimate for a woman to perceive society's view of her as an inferior. I think instead of fighting that view that women are inferior, however, we should be fighting the perception that women have of how society views them and the way in which women interpret and respond to how society treats them, as I stand by the claim that their perceived view of society's ideals does not accurately represent reality.

    [Systematically] Treating them inferior, where the forces allow for this inferior treatment to deepen, until an idea arises [or they start to perceive an idea], that, hey, they truly inherently inferior.
    Insert the bolded, and you've identified the problem.

    They are inherently inferior, so they can be treated so, in the face of such forces.
    This perception of societal ideals is flawed, but I think a lot of "feminists" have this perception and operate under it. That's what I think the problem with "feminism" is, as this perception is not an accurate representation of reality.

    How do you determine which it is?
    Well I still stand by the claim that it's neither, honestly, as I don't believe that American society deems women inherently inferior. I can give you some reasons (based on something other than personal experience, don't worry) for why I don't think that, if you want...

    And that whole post applies to American society, not societies in which women are clearly viewed as inherently inferior.

    That post required an inordinate amount of Ti. I may have lost myself somewhere...hopefully I made sense though? I seriously may have just responded to my own inaccurate interpretation. Argh.

    I feel like you may have been referring to the idea that women/feminists believe that society could start deeming them inferior because they are being treated as inferiors in some facets of society, thus women/feminists believe that have to fight these facets of society in order to prevent society from eventually deeming them as inherently inferior. If you meant that, then I don't really know where to go from there. That's a perfectly legitimate stance to have (and measures to fight/prevent such treatment are in place), but I don't believe the kind of feminists to which I'm referring have solely that stance. If they did, then they wouldn't be making claims along the lines of "Men/society do/does perceive us as inferiors; it's true, they do!", and they do make such claims.

    I took that on like a gazillion tangents (sorry?). I'm actually getting pretty sick of this discussion, as it's starting to get draining to think about all the ways in which you and I could possibly be interpreting each other, but if you have a decent response I'll give it thought and probably respond, but if you're done, let me know.

  6. #186
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Puppy View Post
    Males-Fe grows in kinda funny sometimes-bumpy? It makes them sweet, yet -with a few-not always so ethically obligated-just a few though so don't freak out on me. They also seem to have a lower tolerance for stress/confrontation/disagreement. They will be less likely to stand up and disagree overtly in meetings-especially with other Fe users or Te users. This ends up limiting their upwards movement from an executive perspective.
    Hedging our bets. We don't have all the information, so just making a claim without lots of evidence leaves us open to showing our asses. Not only that, but when we do outright disagree with others, you know that ENTPs generally don't pull punches. Knowing how political the work world is, you can see why we'd be less than enthusiastic about doing this.

  7. #187
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I took that on like a gazillion tangents (sorry?). I'm actually getting pretty sick of this discussion, as it's starting to get draining to think about all the ways in which you and I could possibly be interpreting each other, but if you have a decent response I'll give it thought and probably respond, but if you're done, let me know.
    That's why Fe is a good thing. It lets us just say "hey, I see where you're coming from. I'm not quite sure I still buy it, but you've given me a lot to think about. Thanks for that."

  8. #188
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Theoretical reasons for both why women feel and are oppressed, and where that oppression may come from.
    K.

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Good reasons? Here are a few theoretical ones.
    Here we go.

    Part I, "Reasons for why women feel oppressed" response:

    Women may have reasoned that oppression occurs because of some/all of these factors, but after some "rigorous thinking" (to reference the original term that got all this shit started), they'd realize that there are measures in place to prevent these factors from actually causing oppression on a grand scale. It's fair for women to believe that oppression could occur as a result of these theoretical reasons, but does it really? I don't think so. And...

    Part, II, "Reasons why women are oppressed" response:

    1. Men hold the physical power advantage. There's simply no getting around this. Women traditionally compensated through their use of soft power.
    There are a substantial number of measures in place to prevent man's physical power from exerting oppression on the female gender. Men cannot use their physical strength against women. There are highly enforced laws against battery, rape, murder, you name it. The laws strongly discourage (to the point of preventing) men from using their physical might against women. To say that women are oppressed because men can beat the shit out of them is kind of silly. Men can beat the shit out of women, sure, but the fact is that it doesn't occur on a particularly large scale, and it's definitely not something that prevents a women from being equal, as again, a women has a number of resources at her disposal to fight such actions by men.

    If you mean that women are oppressed because men are more capable of doing physically-demanding things, then that's kind of silly too. Positions of power and influence, positions that could cause oppression, don't require physical strength.

    2. After industrialization, women's power within their traditional spheres was diminished and marginalized, as their productive capacities (crafts) were replaced by mechanization, to a much greater extent than those traditionally held by men.
    Really? How so? I believe the contrary is more true, ie industrialization and mechanization have been empowering for women.

    In terms of "crafts", prior to industrialization, men did the heavy lifting: pushing the plow, cutting the wood, bringing home the buffalo, building the house, etc. Industrialization has significantly marginalized that role, has it not? Now women can cut wood with power tools and buy food at the supermarket. Their capacity to successfully complete such analogous goals has become almost completely on par with a man's...

    Prior to industrialization, women cooked, cleaned, sewed, helped out with less physically demanding chores around the house, etc. Women still do this. It's not their role anymore, but that role never gave them power in the first place. Now women/people have new mechanization at their disposal to take care of these jobs, so women/people can take on new more powerful positions.

    Industrialization actually helped to empower women, as it created more employment opportunities for women, allowing them to start joining the workforce to a much larger degree. Mechanization decreased the need for a female to spend so much time keeping house, which in turn made it even more possible for women to join the workforce and acquire new positions of power that had never before been realized. Industrialization essentially allowed for the first wave of feminism altogether, and mechanization allowed for the second. How can you say industrialization/mechanization has decreased a woman's power?

    3. Courtship and reproductive paradigms still persist regarding man as the pursuer and woman as the pursued, male reproductive success as gaining something and female reproductive success as losing something. Given the immense role sex has in our lives, it's very likely that this paradigm colors all intergender relationships.
    Agreed here (except with the bolded; that line of thinking is completely outdated...both men and women are pretty bummed out when they accidentally conceive a child, and both men and women are very happy with themselves when they conceive and have a child on purpose). It's mutually shitty and congratulatory, respectively.

    Anyway, oppression due to the remainder of #3 has a lot more to do with a woman's frame of mind, though. If she starts to see her own sexuality as empowering, she can completely tackle the above notion. If anybody has sexual power, it's most definitely women, and women just need to see this and realize that men need sex in a much more drastic way than do females, so females cannot be controlled by traditional (and rather outdated) societal notions. Females really do control the market here; it just takes a bit of enlightenment to see that. At the most fundamental of levels, if a woman starts to be proud of her sexuality, rather than ashamed of it, she can overcome this paradigm entirely.

    4. The education of women holds the highest correlation with several quality-of-life factors, such as infant mortality rate and political freedom.
    Agreed here too. So let's educate the uneducated. Awesome.

  9. #189
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    That's why Fe is a good thing. It lets us just say "hey, I see where you're coming from. I'm not quite sure I still buy it, but you've given me a lot to think about. Thanks for that."
    I can say that.

    Q, I think I see where you're coming from for the most part (though there are still some areas that are a little fuzzy for me). However, I don't agree entirely on everything you've said. But trust me, I've done a good bit of thinking (some about feminism, lots about communication, and some about logic) as a result of this thread. Thanks for participating (and continue if you deem it worthwhile).

  10. #190
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    K.



    Here we go.

    Part I, "Reasons for why women feel oppressed" response:

    Women may have reasoned that oppression occurs because of some/all of these factors, but after some "rigorous thinking" (to reference the original term that got all this shit started), they'd realize that there are measures in place to prevent these factors from actually causing oppression on a grand scale. It's fair for women to believe that oppression could occur as a result of these theoretical reasons, but does it really? I don't think so. And...
    OK, then...

    Part, II, "Reasons why women are oppressed" response:



    There are a substantial number of measures in place to prevent man's physical power from exerting oppression on the female gender. Men cannot use their physical strength against women. There are highly enforced laws against battery, rape, murder, you name it. The laws strongly discourage (to the point of preventing) men from using their physical might against women. To say that women are oppressed because men can beat the shit out of them is kind of silly. Men can beat the shit out of women, sure, but the fact is that it doesn't occur on a particularly large scale, and it's definitely not something that prevents a women from being equal, as again, a women has a number of resources at her disposal to fight such actions by men.

    If you mean that women are oppressed because men are more capable of doing physically-demanding things, then that's kind of silly too. Positions of power and influence, positions that could cause oppression, don't require physical strength.
    Rape is still one of the hardest charges to get a conviction on. There still is a bias against the victim in the situation; the argument that "she shouldn't have dressed so sluttily" or "what he did was wrong, but you know, with how she was flirting with him, she shouldn't have given him the wrong idea". Domestic violence continues to be incredibly widespread to this day, often underreported due to other factors like the potential economic impact, or threats of retaliation. With the low level of funding we give social services in this country, most of these women have little recourse in these circumstances. Given the proven psychological impact of the cycle of violence, this isn't just an unfortunate situation, it's a continuing cycle that disproportionate

    Really? How so? I believe the contrary is more true, ie industrialization and mechanization have been empowering for women.

    In terms of "crafts", prior to industrialization, men did the heavy lifting: pushing the plow, cutting the wood, bringing home the buffalo, building the house, etc. Industrialization has significantly marginalized that role, has it not? Now women can cut wood with power tools and buy food at the supermarket. Their capacity to successfully complete such analogous goals has become almost completely on par with a man's...

    Prior to industrialization, women cooked, cleaned, sewed, helped out with less physically demanding chores around the house, etc. Women still do this. It's not their role anymore, but that role never gave them power in the first place. Now women/people have new mechanization at their disposal to take care of these jobs, so women/people can take on new more powerful positions.

    Industrialization actually helped to empower women, as it created more employment opportunities for women, allowing them to start joining the workforce to a much larger degree. Mechanization decreased the need for a female to spend so much time keeping house, which in turn made it even more possible for women to join the workforce and acquire new positions of power that had never before been realized. Industrialization essentially allowed for the first wave of feminism altogether, and mechanization allowed for the second. How can you say industrialization/mechanization has decreased a woman's power?
    I believe you might have a misconception of what women did prior to industrialization. Until their children came of age, they did keep the house. However, the more important jobs they took were the crafts they undertook, such as weaving, knitting, spinning, milking and dairy work, among other things. The key difference between this age and the industrial age was that these crafts were indispensable to men. They could not live without the labor of women, and as such, women had coequal, if not superior, power within the household. Not only that, but if a woman left her husband, these crafts could provide a means of living.

    After industrialization, all these crafts were replaced by factory goods. Like you said, the women could just pick them up at the department store... but you need money for that. The only means of making money were in the factory jobs that men worked, and the ones women worked were much lower paying. This also fundamentally changes the power dynamic of the household: not only could the woman buy goods, so could the man. She was indispensable no longer. As such, the man was the only outwardly productive member of the household, and controlling the majority of the wealth, had unquestioned dominion over it.

    Agreed here (except with the bolded; that line of thinking is completely outdated...both men and women are pretty bummed out when they accidentally conceive a child, and both men and women are very happy with themselves when they conceive and have a child on purpose). It's mutually shitty and congratulatory, respectively.

    Anyway, oppression due to the remainder of #3 has a lot more to do with a woman's frame of mind, though. If she starts to see her own sexuality as empowering, she can completely tackle the above notion. If anybody has sexual power, it's most definitely women, and women just need to see this and realize that men need sex in a much more drastic way than do females, so females cannot be controlled by traditional (and rather outdated) societal notions. Females really do control the market here; it just takes a bit of enlightenment to see that. At the most fundamental of levels, if a woman starts to be proud of her sexuality, rather than ashamed of it, she can overcome this paradigm entirely.
    If I sleep with a lot of girls, I'm a player. If a girl sleeps with a lot of guys, she's a slut. This is regardless of what she may think of the situation; we're talking about societal paradigms here. Society and its views and norms permeate and influence the way we think about the most mundane of subjects.

    Think of something as simple as a car sale. Yes, the salesman is trying to get as much money as he can from any customer. However, in general, they prefer female customers. Why do you think this is, given that women can be particularly cagey bargain-seekers in other, more self-serve purchasing environments?

    Agreed here too. So let's educate the uneducated. Awesome.
    Yep.

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