• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[ENTP] ENTP Personality Traits - Female ENTPs v Male ENTPs

Katsuni

Priestess Of Syrinx
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,238
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4?
I agree with your agreement. See? :tongue:

OH YEAH!? Well I disagree!

...No reason. Just 'cause.

Or at least I disagree that "women are equal" since really it's not 100% so yet. Honestly it's slanted in favour of women at the moment in many ways.

The culture has changed radically as of the last few decades, now it's considered wrong to hit a woman but it's fine if she hits a guy. That's not exactly whot the term "equality" really means...

A woman can work in (most) parts of the military, but she can't be drafted.

That being said though, there are some cases to the contrary as well, where pay isn't as great, or a female is nudged into a 'typical' role in a job, despite being overqualified for it... more than a few times I've known someone who should've been in management and is stuck as a secretary instead.

But such is how things are, it's a give and take dealie, yeu get some benefits, yeu loose others. Right now we're kind of closer to the "equal" mark than it has been traditionally, but it's still not "truly" equal.

When people stop regarding gender as having any importance in any way shape or form, other than atheletics, due to differences in physical body structure, then we can claim equality's been reached.



That being said, true equality will never exist. The most we can achieve realistically, is a balance that's relatively close.

I dunno, there's alot of different "feminist" definitions, but the one thing that tends to be common among the vast majority of the individuals (individuals! Not the groups!) is that they believe women should have all the benefits they'd had before of being female, but drop all the negative aspects.

Sooooo yeah, most active feminists really just want to be where the guys were 100 years ago. Because obviously that fixes everything.

Sigh, people never learn. And I do mean that. PEOPLE. In general, humans as a species do this; they segregate into groups, and then try to showcase "their" group as the "best".

Best country in the world. Best race. Best gender. Best whotever, it doesn't matter, it's always to try to oneupmanship everyone else.

I'd absolutely love it if we could just get along and not be asses towards each other for such arbitrary and foolish reasonings as "ZOMG I was born!" "Zomg I was born BETTER!" "LIES!" "WAAAAAAR"... but meh, it's in our very nature.

Want to see an example? Pick an online MMORPG, any one of them. Warhammer, warcraft, actually, any pvp of any kind, league of legends since the teams swap every single game... as soon as there is *ANY* artificial divide... be it order vs chaos, alliance vs hoarde, red team vs blue team, it doesn't MATTER, they will use it as an excuse to LOATHE the other team for the mere reason that they are ON THE OTHER TEAM o_O

It doesn't help that we actively encourage this crap in schools from an early age. Girls vs boys teams in gym class, pick people in order or whotever, there's always segregation if there is to be competition...

Problem is, competition breeds hostility towards "them".

Meh, stupid people. Some days I'd like to just rescind my membership to the homo sapiens club, but sadly can't do that.

Sigh, can't live with them, and murder's illegal.

Oh well.

Anyways, while I think there's more work that needs to be done on narrowing that gap that's still left, I think it's more a matter of just acting like it isn't there, rather than drawing attention to it at this point. The more yeu poke at it, the more yeu make it linger. If yeu ignore it, and just act as though yeu ARE fully equal, then if done often enough with enough force, people just go with the flow and it becomes true.

Of course that wouldn't've worked before, it has to get to this stage we're at now to work, so don't think I'm saying that the effort so many put into before was needless. Though... admittedly the bra burning thing was kinda needless. I still don't get that one.

Whotever.

I'd rant myself in circles some more, but I just finally got the phone call I've been waiting for telling me where to pick up my package at, they lost my parcel I ordered online, and finally told me where to get it, so I must go do that if I am to.... PLAY DDR o_O

*Dancedancedance*

Anyways XD
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Katsuni, your post is making me dizzy, and I'm not sure how accurate it is, but you're basically suggesting a double standard. Regardless of how accurate your post is, double standards are inadvertently preached by some feminist ideologies, and that's definitely part of the problem that I see in very radical feminism.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Yeah I believe I've actually read excerpts from that book in a women's studies class.

I'd argue that these problems are not due to the fact that the woman is a woman; they are due to the fact that the woman is from a poor socioeconomic background. We should be fighting socioeconomic gaps more than we should be fighting for woman's rights.

And the woman can't leave her socioeconomic status because she has to work 80 hrs/week to feed her children, which if she fails to do, she will have the children irrevocably separated from her by our legal system. Notice that we men don't have the same burden placed upon us unless we voluntarily take it upon ourselves. That's institutional oppression.

A movement going on that seeks to minimize the hardships that single mothers face is fine and dandy (and this kind of feminism is cool, though I'm not sure it should be called feminism). A movement going on that seeks to have females treated as equals is pointless; we've been there and done that already, and we did it quite successfully.

Is that really the case? Feminism cuts both ways, you know; it's also about the demarginalization of men who take on traditionally feminine roles. Are not men still disdained for taking jobs like nursing, or elementary-age teaching? Doesn't that imply that those jobs are stigmatized, for some reason? Not only that, but why then aren't women subject to the same disrespect for taking those jobs?

The claim I'm trying to make here is that oppression occurs, but oppression for being female does not, thus a feminist movement that fights against female oppression is redundant.

The more overt forms of sexist oppression have fortunately faded, true enough. However, much like the vestiges of institutional racism that linger throughout our society, we can't close our eyes to the possibility that this sort of prejudice still exists in insidious forms.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
^ Okay, it's absolutely not true that men are somehow exempt from responsibility for the children they father. I don't know where you guys are getting this idea that men can run around fathering hundreds of children and never pay a dime in child support.

When a woman gets pregnant, the father is legally compelled to contribute financially to the support of the child. The legal system doesn't just ask him, "Hey dude, you feel like chippin' in to help this here little brat you fathered? If not don't worry about it--you're a MAN, we don't expect this kind of responsibility from you!"
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
I wonder what would happen if the poor left women ditched the kids into care and looked after themselves... how many men would take up the burden.

In a corproate capcity, women 5 years older than me broke the glass celine to an extent, my age didn't have a lot of didficulties but some, 5 years below me and they didn't notice anything.

I work for an organisation with as many females in senior management possitions as men.

It's not full blow top to bottom, but it's a damned site better than it has been. For the first time in HISTORY women have the ability to make chocies to live male free and not be below the poverty line... That's stagering.

women who work similar hours to their men - get home and have to do 80% of the domestic chores...

there is a way to go, but seriously ranting on feminist issues in educated places just is wrong these days... take action lower the social gap... it's the more importan thing to do.

I was asked recently to feed into a project to ry and get a more gender balance within a specific area of a very large organisation. I litend to what the issues appeared to be... then challenged the project team... the areas was awful 1970's style management, dull un rewarding jobs... its attractivness to women wasn't the issue, it was just a hell hole to work... fix the enviroment and how it is managed and women will go... but lets face it women are not nuts enough to work in some crapy envrioment... ;)
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
And the woman can't leave her socioeconomic status because she has to work 80 hrs/week to feed her children, which if she fails to do, she will have the children irrevocably separated from her by our legal system. Notice that we men don't have the same burden placed upon us unless we voluntarily take it upon ourselves. That's institutional oppression.

Again, fight poverty, not female oppression. Poverty is the issue here; not being female. Labeling the problem of not being able to take care of your children with a female problem is only a female problem due to biology. It's a problem at all because of socio-economic status, and it has nothing to do with the unequal treatment of women and everything to do with the inability to escape the confines of poverty.

Is that really the case? Feminism cuts both ways, you know; it's also about the demarginalization of men who take on traditionally feminine roles. Are not men still disdained for taking jobs like nursing, or elementary-age teaching? Doesn't that imply that those jobs are stigmatized, for some reason? Not only that, but why then aren't women subject to the same disrespect for taking those jobs?

Perhaps some idiots think that men shouldn't be able to have careers in such "female" positions, but are men actually denied of these jobs or just chastised for it? If just the latter, then I don't really see how this is a substantial problem. Society is always going to have dogmatic bullies, but so long as the bullying has no real power, then it's not too much of a problem.

The more overt forms of sexist oppression have fortunately faded, true enough. However, much like the vestiges of institutional racism that linger throughout our society, we can't close our eyes to the possibility that this sort of prejudice still exists in insidious forms.

The only real sexism that still lingers are some occasional closed-minded opinions, but I'd argue that these opinions don't actually take away from a woman's opportunities here.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
^ Okay, it's absolutely not true that men are somehow exempt from responsibility for the children they father. I don't know where you guys are getting this idea that men can run around fathering hundreds of children and never pay a dime in child support.

It's called "leaving the state", among other techniques plenty of men use to dodge the child support system.

When a woman gets pregnant, the father is legally compelled to contribute financially to the support of the child. The legal system doesn't just ask him, "Hey dude, you feel like chippin' in to help this here little brat you fathered? If not don't worry about it--you're a MAN, we don't expect this kind of responsibility from you!"

Except, that's pretty much what it does. The strongest recompense comes from garnishment of wages. What happens when that man has very little in the way of taxable wages in a given year? Not only that, but allocating tax dollars to go after these guys isn't a big winner in election years.
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
^ Okay, it's absolutely not true that men are somehow exempt from responsibility for the children they father. I don't know where you guys are getting this idea that men can run around fathering hundreds of children and never pay a dime in child support.

When a woman gets pregnant, the father is legally compelled to contribute financially to the support of the child. The legal system doesn't just ask him, "Hey dude, you feel like chippin' in to help this here little brat you fathered? If not don't worry about it--you're a MAN, we don't expect this kind of responsibility from you!"

I was going to make that point, but then I realized it'd just be countered with "But what if the woman can't prove who the father is? What if daddy disappears? What if some other factor prevents her from pursuing legal isses? Blah blah, woe is her..."

Better to just stick to the fact that the problem is not one of femininity but one of poverty.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Again, fight poverty, not female oppression. Poverty is the issue here; not being female. Labeling the problem of not being able to take care of your children with a female problem is only a female problem due to biology. It's a problem at all because of socio-economic status, and it has nothing to do with the unequal treatment of women and everything to do with the inability to escape the confines of poverty.

Which is almost impossible to do, because of the expectations society has upon her as a woman. The vicious circle.

Perhaps some idiots think that men shouldn't be able to have careers in such "female" positions, but are men actually denied of these jobs or just chastised for it? If just the latter, then I don't really see how this is a substantial problem. Society is always going to have dogmatic bullies, but so long as the bullying has no real power, then it's not too much of a problem.

Social power often has as much effect as institutional power. Women had full political equality in 1919. Would you say they then had equal rights, however?

The only real sexism that still lingers are some occasional closed-minded opinions, but I'd argue that these opinions don't actually take away from a woman's opportunities here.

Until those opinions stand in the way of advancing in your career.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
I was going to make that point, but then I realized it'd just be countered with "But what if the woman can't prove who the father is? What if daddy disappears? What if some other factor prevents her from pursuing legal isses? Blah blah, woe is her..."

You know, you pretty drastically undermine your position of there being little in the way of marginalization when you then go and marginalize a potential issue yourself. Just sayin'.
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
You know, you pretty drastically undermine your position of there being little in the way of marginalization when you then go and marginalize a potential issue yourself. Just sayin'.

I was just being an obnoxious idiot. Don't mind me.
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Until those opinions stand in the way of advancing in your career.

So you think women have trouble advancing in their careers here in America? Really, now?

If a women is possessed with enough merit, she will advance in a career and she will be rewarded. If anything stops her from doing this, it is not her womanhood or any oppression that occurs solely from being a woman. Recall how we had a female VP candidate and a potential female democratic candidate? Recall also that we have a female speaker of the house. Also note that females in advanced positions of science and medicine are on the rise. And what's that other woman's name? Oprah or something?

Females may be still be outnumbered in many fields, but that's just residue from the old-fashioned notion that all women should be housewives. Female presence in the job market is on the rise, and females are becoming much more prominent in their careers everyday. The problem is fixed, we have just yet to see the full effects of its solution.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
So you think women have trouble advancing in their careers here in America? Really, now?

So are most of the executive boards in this country 50/50 male-female? How about Congress, the Senate in particular? How about academia outside of "women's studies"?
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
So are most of the executive boards in this country 50/50 male-female? How about Congress, the Senate in particular? How about academia outside of "women's studies"?

Sorry, I added this to my last post:

Females may be still be outnumbered in many fields, but that's just residue from the old-fashioned notion that all women should be housewives. Female presence in the job market is on the rise, and females are becoming much more prominent in their careers everyday. The problem is fixed, we have just yet to see the full effects of its solution.

It's also important to note that more men than women want these kinds of powerful and prominent careers. There are a substantial number of women who want to be housewives and stay-at-home mothers. Family is the most important thing to them so that's what they pursue, and there's nothing wrong with that. This probably also contributes to the gender gap.

We cannot deny that there are zero differences between men and women. That would be absurd. We have to account for these differences and not assume that a 50/50 gender split in everything is an indicator of pure equality.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Sorry, I added this to my last post:

Females may be still be outnumbered in many fields, but that's just residue from the old-fashioned notion that all women should be housewives. Female presence in the job market is on the rise, and females are becoming much more prominent in their careers everyday. The problem is fixed, we have just yet to see the full effects of its solution.

It's also important to note that more men than women want these kinds of powerful and prominent careers. There are a substantial number of women who want to be housewives and stay-at-home mothers. Family is the most important thing to them so that's what they pursue, and there's nothing wrong with that. This probably also contributes to the gender gap.

We cannot deny that there are zero differences between men and women. That would be absurd. We have to account for these differences and not assume that a 50/50 gender split in everything is an indicator of pure equality.

There's no denying the value of those women who choose to assume the traditional roles of motherhood and homemaking; you'll rarely find a more difficult role in the working world. However, the above examples aren't just examples of where the disparity comes from volition; the numbers are just too skewed.

Eighty-three of 100 Senators are male, with none of the women of minority origin (unless you count Jewish as a minority). The same percentage applies to the House of Representatives, with 76 of 435 members being female. What's more is that these numbers are the highest they've ever been.

You look at the other categories listed, and the numbers are just as far off. Now, something like 60%-40% or even 75%-25% may be understood within the context of normal variation given the desire of women to pursue other callings in life; however, the sheer scale of the disparity suggests something else is at play here.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
I understood that she's arguing against the belief that there exists one narrow, all-encompassing feminist ideal. However, it's fair to assume that there actually is a very broad ideal (otherwise "feminism" as a word would have no real meaning), and that is for the equal position/treatment of women in today's society. The need for an active movement that pushes this is the movement that I find redundant.

E.g.,
The position of a white woman in North America, are in many instances, not the same as the position of a black man in North America.

The position of a white woman in North America, are in many instances, not the same as the position of a black woman in North America.

The position of a black woman in North America, are in many instances, not the same as the position of a black man in North America.

All three positions are valid in today's society, you can check the findings in many research from psychology, to health concerns, to sociology, etc.

This points that it's not only about race, but, there's an interaction with gender that we are seeing. So, again, I'm asking you to explain how exactly you think it's redundant.

The feminism of which I speak is the feminism that seeks to have women treated equally in a society where they are largely treated equally and the feminism that seeks to blame female problems on the way in which society treats them.

The "feminism" you speak of is purposely facetious, (lol?), and I don't know many informed feminist theorists and supporters for whom this is a reality. Please show me these feminists that you speak of, name some of these prominent modern feminists. Because, I for one (ignoring the sarcasm of that definition - to the truth behind the sarcasm), find that this in no way aligns with my own views in regards to feminism.

Again, it seems like you have your own idea of what feminism functionally looks like in today's N. American society, and then, bash that idea, rather than speak to what the reality really is.

I'd argue that such "barriers" in these communities are due to something other than just gender. Oppression may exist in certain ethnic, socio-economic, and minority subpopulations, but the driving force behind such oppression is not exclusively gender; it's because of race, economic standing, or cultural dissimilarities, or any of these things+gender, not exclusively gender. If we want to fight for equality, doing it based on gender is the wrong way to go about it, as there are much more expansive reasons for oppression and fighting these other causal factors would be a lot more productive.

Of course there are other barriers, but, gender is relevant as well. I don't think I ever said that because gender issue is relevant means all the other factors are not. That's more reflective of your position, 'other things are relevant so that somehow means gender is not'. Very narrow.

Your bolded, if you can say that it is not exclusively a gender issue means that gender is still revelant an issue, along with other factors, so, how do you then claim gender to be not relevant hence no need for feminist advocacy in our current times? Either gender is relevant or it isn't. You need to decide on your position and lift those contradictions.

Secondly, it seems that you are not too familiar with positions of most feminist theories if you think that they're saying oppression of equal rights for women is due to an isolated factor of gender. Feminist theories rise out of pscyho-social and political milieu. They talk of how the factor of gender is intensified or lessened, given different milieu, how the factor of gender interacts with a whole host of other factors, i.e., gender is relevant, in the context of all those other factors. Unlike you, they don't think that focusing on gender invalidates all other factors. Feminism just uses the lens of gender to focus on the issue. It's the perspective that it takes through which it looks at how all the factors interplay with gender to create the barriers that it does. This doesn't negate the focus of those other factors, at all. Where did you get the idea that this is the slant of feminist theories?

Orangey warned you to not just take the stereotyped, Femi-nazi view and apply it to feminism, but, it seems this is what you're really speaking about.

It is the consequences to the women that these theorists and advocates focus on, women. This, in the broadest sense, is feminist theories, looking through all the interplay of factors and its manifestation on gender politics.

When people talk of racism, they are not simply focusing on race in isolation to other contributing factors, race issues becomes magnified again through, e.g., socio-economic factors. To say to these people, well, obviously there's other factors, means that it can't be a race issue is short-sighted. You can say it's not just a race issue, that would be more precise.
Race theorists have chosen one perspective of focus, feminist theorist another, and so on; this doesn't negate all other perspectives (and those theoriests would never claim that it does). It just focuses on the one that those particular advocates and theorists are interested in.

Taking the race analogy and applying it to gender, your initial position that gender issue is not relevant means that you're completely taking gender out of the equation, which is incorrect, as reality shows.


I wasn't trying to paint the world with a white middle-class brush. Obviously that kind of view is narrow-minded and invalid. Quit using your ENTP brush to paint me with such hyperboles.

It was because of this, which I bolded previously:

I've lived for nearly 22 years as a female, and I've never felt oppressed (at least not in this country) by the fact that I have a vagina. Here a woman is only oppressed insofar as she lets herself be oppressed; there are available opportunities for essentially everybody, and any lacking opportunities are not due to gender biases. An active feminist movement in America is outdated and redundant (regardless of where such movement falls on the radical scale),

You haven't seen oppresion, having been alive for nearly 22 years, you haven't been oppressed. So, therefore, it is redundant and outdated, and 'here [all] women is only oppressed insofar as she lets herself be oppressed'..........:confused:

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.

And, this also contradicts what you said before:
I'd argue that such "barriers" in these communities are due to something other than just gender. Oppression may exist in certain ethnic, socio-economic, and minority subpopulations, but the driving force behind such oppression is not exclusively gender; it's because of race, economic standing, or cultural dissimilarities, or any of these things+gender, not exclusively gender.

So, either it's "simply" an easy fix of her frame of mind, and NOTHING TO DO WITH SOCIETAL OPPRESSION, or there are other societal barriers, as you later point out, like ethnic, socio-economic, etc. Again, you need to fix the contraditions in your position.

Again, I stand by the claim that women are not oppressed directly because of their gender (at least not in the US). If they are oppressed, there's another more important causal factor, and that's what we should be focusing on. Fighting where there's no problem is futile and takes away from our ability to find the real problems and fight them.

What does it mean directly? What's more important? How are you objectively quantifying such terms? "Directly", "more important"?


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?

I would never say such a naive statement, and I doubt most feminists, informed on gender politics, would say this either. You have a very skewed (and incorrect) view of what most feminist theories, in our current times, really is.
 

Timeless

Playnerd
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
896
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7
Don't yeu mean "So many ENTPs, and not enough ammunition"? ^.^

One day...

onedaye.jpg


;)
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
It's called "leaving the state", among other techniques plenty of men use to dodge the child support system.



Except, that's pretty much what it does. The strongest recompense comes from garnishment of wages. What happens when that man has very little in the way of taxable wages in a given year? Not only that, but allocating tax dollars to go after these guys isn't a big winner in election years.

What exactly prevents unscrupulous women from abandoning their children in exactly the same way? If we're going to indict the system using people who actively violate its enforced rules as examples, then this is fair game. Women who don't want to deal with raising their kids can "leave the state" or otherwise shirk responsibility just as easily, if they're willing to break the law.
 
Top