This is a discussion on Feminine/Masculine/Ego Ideal/Shadow and the ENTJ personality type within the ENTJ Forum - The Executives forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; Originally Posted by MsBossyPants No and no. This is where I take my 8w9 ass out of here and let ...
Last edited by Baracuda902; 09-18-2017 at 08:27 PM.
There is a difference between a sort of, there is no gender in terms that there's nothing still problematic in society and that there is real world distinctions in the lives of being a man or a woman at least in the matter of degrees compared to the sense that men and women in an ultimate sense aren't so substantially different that gender shouldn't come into their lives as significant.
But what is requires is a awareness between the reality and abstractions.
Because for example, there is an abstract individuality that was progressive in considering everyone equal under law, to do so one had to ignore many of the qualities that differentiate men and women, the person under law was the same. It just so happened though in practice that this abstract everyone in content was basically a man and thus laws were inconsiderate to substantial differences for women.
A great example of this abstractness is the quote about the great equality of law that both rich and poor are forbidden from sleeping under bridges and begging for bread. The point being that whilst the law in the abstract applied to all citizens, it in effect only applied to the poor.
Similarly, see this confusion in regards to the law in which women can get abortions, and people cry why can't men be absolved of parental responsibility. Losing any sense of what law is being applied and at what time. Where the ability to have an abortion is contingent on the ability to get pregnant and thus one could in the abstract make it legal for men to have abortions but it'd mean nothing substantially.
But in the effort to say that men and women are similar, one often ignores the substantive differences and often denies the reality in which there is still sex segregation and issues as they more significantly effect women on the basis of being a woman. Because what MsBossyPants and Duo are referring to is that in reality, they had to face arbitrary and problematic emphasis on them being women in their pursuit of things and performing their jobs. Them being women was made an issue in them simply doing their jobs, it was irrelevant, but it was an issue for others that they had to navigate and deal with. Because them being women and doing what they did was so noteworthy for many in a way that wasn't simply observing a felt novelty to their experience of reality but went further.
One might in the abstract say being a man or woman shouldn't be relevant, but it's also the case that one's sex is relevant because the real world isn't so absolved of significance on the basis of sex that an abstract equality can be considered true, and in fact this abstractness can hide issues as they pertain to women.
So for example, many speak of shared role of housework and even raising children, but the evidence suggests that this ideal isn't as much of a reality as it may seem and that there is still gendered differences. Sex becomes substantively insignificant only when it actually corresponds to the reality.
Some good pieces about the sort of abstractness in liberal thought:
1. INTIMACY TRANSFORMED? A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE ‘PURE RELATIONSHIP’ - criticizing Anthony Gidden's Pure Relationship, where the individual is conceived as unburdened by any pressures and is but an individual free to do as they please.
2. An elaborate post with some resources explaining how in John Rawl's thought experiment he merely presupposes an ideal subject devoid of their real world qualities.
Need to more clearly delineate the difference between an ideal in which men and women aren't met with resistance on the basis of their sex and the reality where one can disproportionately predict certain outcomes on the basis of sex that perhaps shouldn't necessarily be as such. For example, some might speak of the notion that women disproportionately choose to be stay at home mothers, forgoing careers in some degree and thus can often be more economically vulnerable individually. But this choice is posited in an abstract way that ignores the real world pressures that influence one's behaviour and the systemic and social nature of them. So how women are expected to give up their careers, how there's a lack of support for the real difference in women being able to get pregnant and the matter that whilst men increased their role in child care, its not comparable to that of women's yet.
These may seem tangential, but it's to give emphasis to the distinction between the abstract and the real. Because it's quite typical for people to consider themselves as individuals in such a way that isn't very concrete, in that one has merely erased many of the qualities of the real existing person within their real world circumstances.
http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/10867/...s_ETD_2011.pdfIndividuality itself is contingent on a society that allows one such prosperity that one isn't vulnerable to certain coercion/pressures because one has economic power.Marx's second argument against Kantian morality is that its focus on the free will belies the extent to which the will is itself determined by material conditions and material interests. The abstraction of the “free will” is illegitimate according to Marx because it attempts to prize apart the intellectual life of individuals from their economic, social, and historical context. A person with a will that is “wholly independent of foreign causes determining it,” to adopt Kant's phrase, simply does not exist in reality, and therefore such a subject makes a rather poor starting point for moral theory. (Later, in 1853, Marx writes, there critiquing Hegel, “Is it not a delusion to substitute for the individual with his real motives, with multifarious social circumstances pressing upon him, the abstraction of “free-will” — one among the many qualities of man for man himself”74!)
It's quite often the emphasis on individuality that seeks to reject the real world in it's obstacles and thinks of itself purely as promoting an attitude to overcome obstacles (if you don't believe you can, then you can't/motivational issue) but rather it calls to ignore obstacles, it seems to reject their existence and thus makes any difficulties purely about mentality rather than relating one's mentality to the objective reality. Thus, it becomes dismissive of systemic problems because it posits the issue as purely a subjective/motivational issue unrelated to the reality. If my abstraction is restricted to the individual level, how can I see the bigger picture, I'm not relating the individual/particular to the broader society/universal. Where its the case that many don't have a motivational issue and seek to confront those obstacles, but in part often requires awareness of those obstacles. The person who feels that they faced no such obstacles isn't necessarily correct if things are to be confined to the realm of feeling what things were like. Hence why even when talking about personal experience, one relates it to the broader whole, to show that one's individual experience isn't so unique, which means relating the individual scale to a macro societal one.
I suppose to more explicitly speak to the more concrete case of what it's often like for many women and to explain the point of how they're not being masculine as masculine as characteristics of men has clearly been disturbed since strict work segregation has diminished...
p. 42Consider another example showing how beliefs about sex differences cloud people's analytical vision. How often have we heard question like: will women who enter high-status jobs or political positions end up looking like men or will the result of their entry be a change in the way business and politics is conducted? Implicit in this question are a set of strong assumptions: men have essential personality characteristics and cultural orientations that have shaped the terrain of high status jobs and women have different essential personality characteristics and cultural orientations. The conclusion is that and women's entry into these positions unleashes a conflict between their feminine essence and the dominant masculine essence that has shaped the positions. Either the positions must change to adapt to women's distinctive characteristics or the women must become masculine. (It is perhaps telling that those who raise this issue usually seem concerned only with women entering high-status positions; it is unclear if women becoming factory workers are believed immune or unimportant.) The analytical flaw here i assuming that masculinity has shaped the character of jobs rather than that jobs have shaped masculinity. In her well-known book Men and Women of the Corporation, Rosabeth Kanter argued persuasively that the personality characteristics associated with male and female corporate employees really reflected the contours of their positions. The implication is simple and straightforward. Women who enter high-status positions will look about the same as men in those positions not because they are becoming masculine, but because they're adapting to the demands and opportunities of the position, just like men.
So whilst we might agree with the above in that women can be such and such, it's clear that the added masculine is unnecessary. But it's also the case that whilst one might not pose negative connotations with a woman being masculine, it is the case that the idea of such behaviour being masculine is tied into this idea that one is no longer being a woman and is being a man. Which then maintains the sense that being a woman is not being powerful, competent, in charge. And to a degree we necessarily engage with the same concepts as others and thus can't speak about things in a manner independent of a shared language.Many authors have suggested that feminine personality characteristics (including a lack of drive) explain women's lack of success in climbing corporate ladders. Kantor has persuasively argued that these characteristics are really a direct result of structural conditions. Men placed in positions with no opportunities for advancement and with no effective power show the same personality and behavior characteristics as women in such positions. In the past, however, all women were condemned to occupy the positions without futures. Only men could realistically aspire to rise. Therefore we have good evidence that inequality produces differential motives to dominate weighed against no evidence of any inherent sexual difference in such motives.
But by erasing the language of gender in some contexts and ways, such as it no longer being masculine to be powerful as masculine as a guide or constraining norm based on sex is clearly nonsensical when women can do it to. Does not mean that gender or being one sex or the other is irrelevant in regards to obstacles one can come up against, especially in regards to women acquiring power. Who based on the association that being a woman means one belongs to certain position and roles in society that formally don't have power, do face resistance in a degree that suggests its because they are a woman. That quite often in this case, it's people making something that is irrelevant to the position, explicit. In the same way that in the workplace someone who brings up sexual stuff is being unprofessional and introducing something to the work space that is irrelevant. Though can be done in a way that is more morally condemable than someone talking about something less charged with a history of formal discrimination.
The OP, though is about characteristics that are grouped as msaculine or feminine but wishes to consider them as detached from 'manliness' and 'womanliness', which I think means they wish to detach the terms from sex. To which gender was once purely a grammatical term, which is why see in languages a sense of things being masculine or feminine. But the problem is we can't return to that time because the term is now thoroughly been associated with sex and whilst it's losing it's place due to the world not so clearly delinting sexual division of labour, it's not yet at a point in which society has effectively made the association socially insignificant. This is because of an issue if dialogic...It's in a way that certain words, symbols and the sort have a mark on them due to historical events.It does not merely answer, correct, silence, or extend a previous work, but informs and is continually informed by the previous work. Dialogic literature is in communication with multiple works. This is not merely a matter of influence, for the dialogue extends in both directions, and the previous work of literature is as altered by the dialogue as the present one is.
For Bakhtin, the influence can also occur at the level of the individual word or phrase as much as it does the work and even the oeuvre or collection of works. A German cannot use the word "fatherland" or the phrase "blood and soil" without (possibly unintentionally) also echoing (or, Bakhtin would say "refracting") the meaning that those terms took on under Nazism. Every word has a history of usage to which it responds, and anticipates a future response.
Though one could still deploy it descriptively, but it'll never be detached from fe/male until the distinction between man and woman is perhaps purely a matter of appearance and not associated to strictly with competencies that are shared by both when ample opportunity is afforded.
But i get the sentiment that the ENTJ type is not often characterized by a demure sense and as expressed in relation to enneagram, the type 8s tend to have childhoods where they learn to fight for themselves, they stand up to challenge.
And often standing up for one's self is associated with masculinity due to the connotations of women having been subjugated and thus many in a less stable position to be so bold. In that gender often has the connotation of power, in which historically it was perceived correct for man to have power over women.Basically, we're not out of the shit yet, liberalism will not effectively afford more to women than a dismantling of formal discrimination that barred them from their own wealth and some particularities in the realm of paternity when women are most militant and organized. And it will only allow a substantive equality for women of the higher classes, those in poverty will have the particularities of being women exploited severely due to economic coercion that can compel a lot of workers to do many things they wouldn't otherwise.My definition of gender has two parts and several subsets. They are interrelated but must be analytically distinct. The core of the definition rests on an integral connection between two propositions: gender is constitutive element of social relationships based on perceived differences between the sexes, and gender is a primary way of signifying relationships of power. Changes in the organization of social relationships always correspond to changes in representation of power, but the direction of change is not necessarily one way.
Last edited by Wellsy; 09-18-2017 at 10:05 PM.
Perhaps your projection of how I perceive ENTJ women is a syllogistic correlate to your judgement of oppressive men in the workplace, a "blanket" judgement you may be tempted to lay over an entire gender. The sexism you are seeing is a reflection of your own. And for not playing the victim card, everybody who takes my egalitarian stance on "gender neutrality," to use MBPs phrasing, highlighted with my own unidentificication with traditional masculinity as condemnation of a group rather than my advocating of the abolition of stereotypes is interpreting me entirely from a position of sensitivity and self-conscious insecurity.
Note: I spoke of ratios I had observed, by no means saying this trend of sexual identity-fixation extends to all--take @Fumetsu , tough as hell, "wears the pants" in her relationship, but never once has made a point of differentiating behavior vs gender. She's just herself. Fuck what people think.
And my previous "relationship" for lack of a better word, was with an ENTJ female, and this entire forum has borne witness to who the "bitch" [ie. submissive party] was in that coupling, despite the inevitable power fluctuations of ENTJ on ENTJ action. I take no shame in this, because gender roles/expectations, and the shallow judgements of other people, don't mean shit to me....
seeing the difference in how we think? (I mean you and I, not men and women, since I'm sure that's how you took it)
But I already told you to interpret me however you like, so I bear no umbrage for your scapegoating.
And just for some insight into we 1w9 unicorns: if we are judging you, it will be on logic and reading comprehension.
Edit: @Wellsy , I love ya, but I just can't keep up with you, man!
Last edited by Ikusagami; 09-18-2017 at 09:29 PM.
It could all be for nothing but might have some interesting material and perspectives. Even after all that I started thinking about conceptual distinctions to help express a sense of norms to help make clearer that whilst one is aware of such distinctions, it doesn't necessarily have normative connotations.
Injunctive - Norms that one perceived as expected from 'society', this or that is the right or wrong behaviour (Percieved societal ought)
Descriptive - What one perceives people to behave irrespective of it's right or wrongness (Percieved is)
Personal - Normative standards one holds for ones self, expectations that are self-referential and can be distinguished from injunctive/descriptive in that one could acknowledge cultural norms but hold different norms for one's self (Personal ought)
Moral - Moral a combination of injunctive and personal, norms one holds one's self to and also expects others to abide by (personal/societal ought)
It could help clarify the connotations one might imbue certain terms.
Though the earlier part of the post was to try and give conscious awareness to the manner in which we abstract about reality in order to see the way in which real world details may not be held in the abstract model in our minds.
So that the acceptance of men and women in some vague sense being able to do certain things remains, but that in this view there is often an abstract individualism in which one presupposes an ideal subject and thus neglects real world problems where gender whilst arbitrary and irrelevant is an made socially significant.
Just thinking that there can be an error in which the abstract model denies real world pressures and obstacles and tends to have in mind an abstract free will unaffected by reality. But no such will exists, it's abstract in that it excludes the real qualities and one's relation to the world by isolating the individual and then increasingly removing the limitations (human necessities mediated by the real world) of the person.
Okay, i'm rambling again. But i promise there's interesting things in all the chaos.
I thanked Wellsy's post for a reason. Where have I denied social struggles of disparate groups, disenfranchised etc? Quite the contrary, I pointed out every group is a minority in some capacity in certain elements (cf. SRX's post discussing height). This is not taking anything away from women in patriarchal systems any more than feminists are taking anything away from oppressed aborigines. Is there really a pissing contest over who has it worst while you talk of being a successful business woman?!
And as I said, I have my own stories, but I define myself by accomplishments, not roadblocks.
If I were more candid with my own struggles you wouldn't find me such a worthy avatar onto which to foist your social qualms.
My point stands: anatomy =/= identity
If this is a problem for you, take it up with a transgender forum.
What I don't "get" is how you link Wellsy's post to my initial one, other than projecting a purpose onto it completely of your own fabrication. Seems to me you desperately need me to hold a belief I do not for you to oppose. Is simply opposing the belief as an abstract of social thought too troublesome for you?
By the way, thanks for keeping me engaged and entertained tonight. Second best date I've been on. ;)
Last edited by Ikusagami; 09-18-2017 at 11:04 PM.
I'll try it tease it out some as i've just been spitballing not knowing if it holds a definitive relevance but it being food for thought to give ammunition to any possible points to further dig into and clarify. But I'll try and tease somethings together not knowing what conclusion I'll come to and I think some will be more speculative associations any anything necessarily definitive, as often people necessarily talk in vague way as to get to the nitty gritty takes a lot more talking. And this might feel a bit personal in the sense of dissecting things, though I trust that most of us here aren't too riled up.
p. 1In short, so many ENTJ females describe themselves as being more like men. ENTJ males don't seem to give a shit whether we conform to superficial social stereotypes. "Male" and "female" denotes anatomy, nothing more. (and yes, anatomy affects biochemistry, but saying that has a "hard" effect on behavior is just one goose-step away from "Sieg Heil"Here I think MBP was just clarifying where there may indeed be agreement in that you do speak of ENTJ females describing themselves to be more like men, to which MBP asserts that she rejects in that she doesn't view things as being inherent to men. Though you then speak to how one's anatomy shouldn't be tied to such things.and, I wouldn't describe myself necessarily as being more like a man. It's that people tend to attribute the qualities of power, strength, assertiveness, leadership skils, having a big bold personalty, to men. So therefore, a woman who exhibits these attributes tends to get described as being "masculine". You wrote that "men don't give a shit whether [you] conform to superficial social stereotypes". Well, of course not, because the above bolded stereotypes are positive attributes associated with men. It's a bit more difficult for women in that if we naturally have those attributes, and those attributes are generally considered to be masculine, it's a slam on our femininity to be that way. "You're acting like a man. You need to be more feminine."
To which MBP is pointing out a tension in that it's easy to not give a shit about stereotypes when you're not running against them, to be a man and meet those qualities is expected, less for women.
Though interestingly you seem to speak to a rejection of certain norms, that of anti-femininity (a societal idea of men dissociating with femininity in some degree)ENTJ males seem to be unanimously egalitarian, even if we have aesthetic preferences. We judge on merit, and social expectations mean nothing to us (I am hardly a cliche man--I do not get along with cliche men. At all. I do not complain about the differences in expectations between "macho" men and smart ones, or that most people, like Paul Krendler, think my Hannibal Lecter tastes (no I don't mean in cuisine!) make me a faggot.But I think what might be something of note is the way you express a sense of don't care about these things, but I would speculate it's not something that one can 'not' care about in the sense that social perceptions do have a reality to them. When your boss thinks of women in a particular way, you don't get to not care, not caring wouldn't disappear his views. Which might be a point of contention, women care because people care about women exhibiting certain characteristics in a way that if they don't pay attention, can be detrimental to them navigating towards their goals. This i think might be an area to really get down in on about what one believes, because I thin the devil will be in these details of how one is to ignore or not such things.Whereas I have seen many ENTJ females comment on what they perceive to be allowable or encouraged in men but not in women (meaning, they care what people think). To the point they almost seem like ESTJs, except they rail against (other people's!) expectations rather than supporting them.
You gave the example of your ISFJ sister who I guess epitomized this sense of not caring or noticing as an exemplar of what to be.
I wasn't going to dig too deep into this, having already stated my own take that traits are traits, gender is incidental, and other people's opinions are just that, but I actually discussed this with my ISFJ sister earlier.
She is 5'3", petite, very traditionally feminine in apparel selections. She has made management in every job she has ever worked. She says she sees no such gender issues, because she proves herself with merit over men, and uses that authority in directing them. She is unafraid if a male (or female) employee tries to intimidate her, because she has the power and can fire them if they cross any lines. She also says she has never felt at all out of place with the size difference (wears modest shoes), be it larger women or men, because, again, she is confident in her authority. They don't need to see her a certain way, they need to do their job, or they won't have one.
She has owned and operated a contracting company, with her husband for an employee, and she is currently a house wife who flips houses to rent during school hours while working toward a roofing license so she can be an inspector.
She (and I) see absolutely no disparity or contradiction in any of this despite having been raised by an ISTJ who did, strongly, believe in gender roles.
So, in short, it's just a matter of opinion. Society's expectations are only a problem if you feel obligated to live up to them. And that's just another form of conformity.
To which MBP expressed how such an example didn't make a good exemplar on the basis that the issue isn't with men who are of an inferior position and hold now power, it's when men with ill fitted beliefs have power and influence over one's life in some way (MBP gave example of people of equal rank being shitty).To which in the realm of not noticing gender, one might drill in onThat ^^^ is not the problem. She's the one with the power in that scenario. I've rarely had a problem with men who were my inferiors at work because of the reason you state: I'm in charge here. I outrank them.
The problem aries when you are the underling, or what I was talking about - men who are your "equal" at work. So in my case, other managers. The woman frequently has no such power in those situations. You've either got to punch back, and be called unfeminine, or attempt to defuse it.Where it'd be difficult to delineate, but it can be the case that the characterization of snarky whilst not restricted to women, could be the sense of women behaving in a way that is expected of man but when a woman does it, it holds the negative connotation. It becomes snarky instead of assertive which I imagine is why MBP posted the list to express this idea.I once commented to an ENTJ female that I have noticed ENTJ women seem to be more snarky, and more likely to end an argument with a snide remark than to prove their point. She replied that it's because women do not get caught up in pissing contests like men do. I stated a surprising trend I had noticed (having expected all ENTJs to be likewise egalitarian) and she supported that observation with a sexist remark. (when Stawker and I bounce ideas off each other, there is certainly no urinating or posturing involved--debate is about proving a point, not scoring one to your ego)
Though you point here is that she asserted a generalization about men which characterizes men as having pissing contests.
To which if applied strictly to yourself, one might take offense in that you might reject that characterization, but the point here is to think of what is communicated and see that often when referring to men or woman, the description qualifies what men and women it clearly applies to.
So if I talk about men who beat their wives, one's identity as man shouldn't be a cause to be up in arms about how I'm generalizing all men when the subgroup of men are entailed within the discussion as men who beat their wives. But I take it you were trying to illustrate the equivalence of being able to say a generalization about men not being considered on par with a generalization about women. But I think to properly discern it, one would have to deeply examine the nature of the generalizations, to which I assume you're putting the comment about ENTJ women seeming more snarky as a generalization equivalent to the one about men being in pissing contests.
To which could apply the same logic as above, but here's the ringer of course, the comments were made in association to one another. So whilst speaking generally and can be interpreted the way, it had relevance for both. To her in the association of ENTJ women being snarky to which she would reject as a connotation based in a mismatch between expectations of a woman and her behaviour. Because even as we might like in the assertive women, it doesn't necessarily exclude that there may be situations and contexts that this proves to be false in how we experience and evaluate a woman's behaviour.
And for you it's the sense that you don't identify with all stereotypes about men, in fact many don't live up to the abstract image that is conjured up, because there is a distinction between a sort of cultural ideal which we're in contact with and the extent to which our own ideas overlap with it or are qualitatively different. In that I've seen men who speak of masculinity being buff, talk, big, yet speak to how this is a minority of men and thus most men aren't actually in some sense, masculine.
IN the end, it may simply be a miscommunication, but I would put some stock in that these are ENTJ women that have done some hard yards with a lot of men's shit.
And then it went into, fuck this shit i'm outTo which you seemed to have interpreted more broadly than applicable, as MBP qualified it's range specificallyJust going to go ahead and say it.
You guys come off as trying to "mansplain" to us women what it's like to be a woman and how we should comport ourselves in situations that you'll never face because you aren't women.Since you're saying there's such a gulf between the sexes that a man could not possibly understand you or the struggles of being a woman, what makes you think you are accurately interpreting us?
I apologize if my equality speech and disdain for conformity to social norms offended. Blame the lack of Si.and note her issue is that she expresses that it appears that you're talking in about things in a way that could be seena s positing an ideal expected behaviour of women in dealing with such issues which is don't complain, using your sister as an example. And I take it that MBP and Duo experience that as a kind of shut up sentiment that is often associated with silencing people's legitimate complaints. Which regardless of intentions, this is the interpreterable implication. Because let me say for everyones sake, people dont' give a fuck about intent XD I can tell my partner all I want how I didn't mean to do something wrong and hurt her by disregarding the value of her time or something but it doesn't acknowledge and apologize for what the consequences of my behaviour was, what it in effect did do to her. To which we might feel attacked and that people are crazy, we don't see what we did wrong, but upon reflection in examining the behaviour devoid of any noble intent, see the possible implications of. Sometimes I find that i might defend that I didn't do something wrong even after reflection, but I affirm and acknowledge how it was experienced and legitimize that. It makes a person feel heard because you show that you can see what they saw and empathize with them and aren't playing it off as illegitimate/invalid. In this case, it then makes perfect sense why MBP and Duo take issue in that it in effect seems like a positing what women should do and then not seeing this, which I imagine why MBP posited it as 'mansplaining'. MBP sees your posts as positing an ideal behaviour and its been strictly reduced to an example that not complaining doesn't have the same relevance (sister having authority/power over other men) when MBP and Duo speak to the men they've experience who have equal or more power, messing with them.No. If you look at what I wrote, I didn't say that. You generalized it and make it a blanket statement.
I said that you (two) are coming off that way.
I clearly wrote, "you guys come off as".
And this is where, there is such a thing as feminist standpoint theory, and what it's trying to do is reconcile the epistemic position on average of those who actually experience certain things in a way that isn't necessarily experienced by others.
And this isn't so strong a point as to say, there is no ability to have a shared understanding between men and women. Rather the idea being that men, ont he basis of living and experiencing life perceived as men, don't have a felt subjectivity of life as a woman.
Considering the 'conscious' raising experience of Dustin Hoffman for tootsie
And what this is, is that one is a subject and has a position relative to things in the world, because our knowledge of the world necessarily entials subjectivity in relation to the same objective reality. So for example, two people look at cops beating up protestors, one sees legitimate use of force, another sees illegitimate force. Or two sides in a conflict such as israeli palestinian conflict, the subjective position put in relation to the conflict may entail only one's position. Or I most like the one of worker and capitalist relation to production, their relation orientates their subjective evaluation of the same conditions because they experience it differently.
And this is where shit gets heavy
https://www.marxists.org/reference/s.../ot/zizek1.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/len...8/mec/two4.htmThe key question thus concerns the exact STATUS of this externality: is it simply the externality of an impartial “objective” scientist who, after studying history and establishing that, in the long run, the working class has a great future ahead, decides to join the winning side? So when Lenin says “The theory of Marx is all-powerful, because it is true,” everything depends on how we understand “truth” here: is it a neutral “objective knowledge,” or the truth of an engaged subject? Lenin’s wager — today, in our era of postmodern relativism, more actual than ever — is that universal truth and partisanship, the gesture of taking sides, are not only not mutually exclusive, but condition each other: in a concrete situation, its UNIVERSAL truth can only be articulated from a thoroughly PARTISAN position — truth is by definition one-sided. (This, of course, goes against the predominant doxa of compromise, of finding a middle path among the multitude of conflicting interests.) Why not, then, shamelessly and courageously ENDORSE the boring standard reproach according to which, Marxism is a “secularized religion,” with Lenin as the Messiah, etc.? Yes, assuming the proletarian standpoint IS EXACTLY like making a leap of faith and assuming a full subjective engagement for its Cause; yes, the “truth” of Marxism is perceptible only to those who accomplish this leap, NOT to any neutral observers. What the EXTERNALITY means here is that this truth is nonetheless UNIVERSAL, not just the “point-of-view” of a particular historical subject: “external” intellectuals are needed because the working class cannot immediately perceive ITS OWN PLACE within the social totality which enables it to accomplish its “mission” — this insight has to be mediated through an external element.https://www.marxists.org/glossary/te...b.htm#absolute1) Is there such a thing as objective truth, that is, can human ideas have a content that does not depend on a subject, that does not depend either on a human being, or on humanity? 2) If so, can human ideas, which give expression to objective truth, express it all at one time, as a whole, unconditionally, absolutely, or only approximately, relatively? This second question is a question of the relation of absolute truth to relative truth.- supplementary: Asimov - The Relativity of WrongAbsolute and Relative are philosophical terms concerning the mutual interdependence of things, processes and knowledge. ‘Absolute’ means independent, permanent and not subject to qualification. ‘Relative’ means partial or transient, dependent on circumstances or point-of-view. For dialectics, the Absolute is only the whole movement through various relative stages of understanding, but the progress of knowledge never comes to an end, so the absolute is relative. However, even a relative truth may nevertheless contain some grain of the whole absolute truth, so there is an absolute within the relative. Perception is relative to the observer, but the existence of an objective world is absolute.
Thinking and Being: Lacan versus Parmenides | Philosophical ExplorationsTo which this would be an interesting read for maintaining our humilityThe correspondence theory utilizes a mirror model between subject and world; the removal of the mirror leaves us in the dark concerning the real.The second reason for Lacan’s rejection of the adequation theory is the elimination of the subjective dimension of truth. It assumes that the knowing subject is self-transparent. What is the difference between a proposition “p” and “p is true”? Against deflationary theories of truth, which claim that there is no difference, one can argue that the second proposition, “p is true” is a proposition about a proposition: it adds not more content, but another dimension. This dimension is no longer independent from the subject. Whereas traditional theories of truth only consider the polar opposites true/false, Lacan considers the opposition truth/lie. The reason for his emphasis on the “I am lying” example is exactly this: If one only thinks of the relationship between concept and reality for the question of truth, as the adequation theory does, then one has already foreclosed the dimension where the question of truth gains its relevance for us: the human dimension. Subsequently, on the level of concept/reality alone, the “I am lying” becomes a paradox, because “I” can only be understood as an entity that thinks: being has ontological priority. (This is the shadow of Parmenides.) The contradiction dissolves if one separates “I” from being; the separation shifts the dimension of truth from concept/reality to subject/Other (understood as the locus of the signifier) or to the relationship subject/language. In order to gain such a two-dimensional view of the concept of “truth” one has to accept the priority of the signifier in relation to the signified as a well as in relation to the subject.Representatives of the adequatio theory realized that although truth is always truth for somebody, it cannot be subjective. They argue that the subject has to be excluded from the definition of truth because we live in a common reality (the facts of the world are the same for all of us). The exclusion of the subject is done with the assumption that the mind – as mirror – is self-transparent and that the subject in its particularity can be separated from the epistemic process. Because human consciousness can be self-referential it is easy to assume that the “I” is identical with itself; the next step is the subtraction of the subject from the equation of truth, even if it is the subject that enunciates the truth-statement. For Lacan, then, the correspondence theory hides the deeper split between the subject and the real as well as the split within the subject itself. What remains is the construction of a common reality.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zhuangzi/#PonPNotice, the argument about the fish implies we have a perspective on the perspectives of others. So skepticism grounded in dependence or relativity of perspective need not be predominantly negative. Zhuangzi, here, uses it to justify a way of claiming to knowing. In many other parables, he addresses the kind of knowing that comes with a gestalt shift, especially when we see our own and others’ points of view as similar—see ourselves as others see us. This is the more comprehensive perspective Zhuangzi urges on us. We experience such gestalt shifts especially when we come appreciate we had been wrong before and now view things differently. We are confident from our own “now” that we have made epistemic progress—our new awareness seems “relatively” improved to us now. We reach a state where we judge our former perspective to be inferior to our present one. It includes insight into our relative situations. Evidently, this awareness of one’s own perspective as one of many, equally natural points of view motivates us to wonder if we have made the final correction. This enhanced awareness of ourselves as one of many perspectives is an intelligible candidate reading of Zhuangzi’s 明 míngclarity. It is harder to construct a coherent narrative for mystical and/or dogmatic readings—those that jump from an improved perspective to a perfect one.
Can we describe Zhuangzi’s míng as “having a sense of our limited perspective?” Credulous, dogmatic and imperious absolutists do not appreciate themselves as being in one of a variety of natural perspectives. Broad open-mindedness and mild skepticism come together in the míngclarity Zhuangzi encourages in us. It has a dual nature—an epistemically modest perspective on ourselves that arises from improving our epistemic status and encourages us to continue. It helps us appreciate that we are still as naturally situated and others with whom we may disagree and still grow. Further improvement can come from further exchange of perspectives.
The naïve Confucian-Mohist advocates of imposing a single social dào thus disrupt the natural process by which social dàos evolve in real time as we seek a harmony guided by “glances at nature.” Seeing things from another’s perspective both alerts us to how we could be wrong and makes us feel that we now understand things better than with our former, narrower perspective. Yet, the Zhuangzi repeatedly reminds us not to abandon epistemic modesty when we make epistemic progress. That we now see things from a perspective in common with another does not make us both right. Yet, the more comprehensive our perspective, the “clearer” the new gestalt should seem.
So MBP, wouldn't likely reject the ability to understand, but she would be asserting that due to being a male subject in society, it isn't unlikely that you may not really have a sense of the experiences that women have. Which doesn't mean one can't become aware and transcribe similar experiences and feelings to be empathetic. But that our sense of truth is often based on a felt sense of reality and living life as a man can make one dismissive of some truths for not having felt them.
Here I speculate the issue might be in the realm of whether such discrimination exists, which I think you don't deny in a broad sense, though it is ambiguous in the details with the emphasis of not caring about it which can be interpreted as pretending such things don't exist and then associating it with complaining, which has negative connotations for many. And this negative connotation can be felt as backed up by your rejection of itstill open for alternative interpretation but can see how it can be viewed as such.do not complain about the differences in expectations between "macho" men and smart ones, or that most people, like Paul Krendler, think my Hannibal Lecter tastes (no I don't mean in cuisine!) make me a faggot.
And another interesting association I madeI once commented to an ENTJ female that I have noticed ENTJ women seem to be more snarky, and more likely to end an argument with a snide remark than to prove their point.
(when Stawker and I bounce ideas off each other, there is certainly no urinating or posturing involved--debate is about proving a point, not scoring one to your ego)To which, I think you've come to experience what I imagine many of us do which is that whilst there is an intellectual ideal of always proving your points. As real existing people with responsibilities, different priorities and a dislike for banging our heads against the wall in confusion, misunderstanding and such. We often withdraw from discussions because CBF hahaJust chalk it up to another misunderstanding. What I was saying is that the way we come off is inaccurate from the actual stance being presented. Not worth a debate, so let's walk away from it, shall we?
Let's us know what you think ^_^
Can reject it all outright, but don't know what's going on until take a stab... or in the words of L.A. Noir Cole Phelps "Sometimes You Have to Shake the Tree to See What Falls Out"
And I understand that i'm kind of continuing things as people are teetering out and like, STOP BEATING THE DEAD HORSE! But I like to think i've given it a pretty good stab at what may be going on
Last edited by Wellsy; 09-19-2017 at 12:11 AM.
So, topic to address now is:I am going to take this cue to debate not the subject but the comparison.driven women are almost viewed like an aberration of nature (akin to how we treat men with an inclination toward the "feminine")
As Tyler Durden says, "We're a generation of men raised by women."
Look at men on television, in media, etc. The "feminine" ideal is idealized in a masculine body.
Sensitive, romantically compassionate male with perfectly chiseled features, six pack abs and not a single body hair under his skinny jeans. And if he's still in his teens, he even sparkles. This is the new "masculine" ideal. Men who spend all day preening in front of the mirror (female sign, venus, representative of the mirror, vanity) to look more manly, but ironically remove the first pubescent indication of masculinity--body hair. (I mean relative to women of course--nobody faults you your legs and pits)
Masculinity is now found in "boyishness." (look at all the news cases--no longer male professors fucking their students in highest quantities, but female high school and even middle school teachers) [does feminism become predatory as masculinity becomes associated more with youth? Food for thought]
I remember seeing some western show, I think it was Hell on Wheels, where two burly bearded guys have a brawl, take off their shirts, and under their grizzled cowboy exteriors are freshly naired bodies that clearly spend 3+ hours a day doing ab work in the gym. True to the old west, of course. Likewise in the televised adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire. Burly northmen who doff their clothes to look like they belong on a beach in Hawaii.
This speak of ideals speaks to perspective, which is variable, and the times they are a changin'. Look at the classical feminine ideal, of chastity, faithfulness, etc. given way to scantily clad teenagers doing strip tease music videos on television immediately followed by predator shows where people get arrested for trying to hook up with teenagers, almost as if the intent is to create a cultural neurosis. There are no "ideals" anymore. Society itself has become a deconstruction of itself, indulging its immorality while demonizing the old norms and critiquing itself for its own degradation from the societal norms it eschews. Nothing is sacred, all is permitted, but not all is permitted, so learn your catechism, just don't get too attached to it.
The nuclear family is outmoded. God is dead, and morality has become subjective. Ethics becomes a social imperative, but not imperatively enforced. We no longer have models, archetypes, "heroes" to lead expectations, just superficial models that barely serve as stand-ins. Deadbeat dads, single moms and television nannies.
Thus the ego itself becomes a variable, because there is no traditional template on which to model it.
No thesis, all nerdery. Is this what you were hoping for when you invited me here, love?
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to preen in front of a mirror while playing Goodbye Horses.
Last edited by Ikusagami; 09-19-2017 at 12:36 AM.