[ENTJ] Feminine/Masculine/Ego Ideal/Shadow and the ENTJ personality type - Page 9

Feminine/Masculine/Ego Ideal/Shadow and the ENTJ personality type

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 103
Thank Tree237Thanks

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; ...

  1. #81

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikusagami View Post
    @Wellsy, again, love your presentation, but only got half way through. Will try to come back to it later.
    I get, and actually appreciate your points. I can definitely see that 9ness you speak of, haha.
    My only contribution, at current, is to highlight the difference in presentation. You are verbose, turgid, loquacious, prolix, and various other synonyms all wrapped up in one beautiful bundle, but you manage to deliver your ideas without hostility, projection or scapegoating.
    I wonder how much of how I am receive is based on some developed image in people's minds more so than just the delivery.
    A bit like how a comedian cultivates an image in order to help the reception of the delivered joke.
    Well I guess I could try and step it up, but generally such a rigidity is expressed when people press against me or when people try and test my views and values which..."Ain't nothing but a Fi thing, baby"

     
    Any impression that the 1w9s are deaf to the plight of minority struggles (again, both Stawker and I can go on about our own, but that isn't our way) is a misconception. What we combat is having our words and meanings twisted so as to become a soapbox. As spectators we would give encouragement to arguments that we rail against when we are made targets for their catharsis.
    Look at the difference between a stranger saying, "Hey you, let you me tell you about my problem!" and "Hey you! You ARE my problem!"
    The difference is in whether somebody has an opinion on a subject, or whether they need to formulate their opinion as an attack, even if it means creating a scapegoat. (I won't bother citing all the quotes where I tried to settle the misunderstanding--the thank ratio speaks for itself. Two people dedicated to an illusory cause, and everybody else actually bothering to read what was typed)

    But to highlight a point that requires trend recognition:
    Can you see how you are the problem?
    That exact thing was said to me once before by the very same person when saying that my capacity for laughing about my own hardships is a belittlement of other people's (ie. I was, quite violently, told I am not allowed to cope with trauma with humor). As an isolated incident, things look innocent. A stance isn't being appreciated.
    Where patterns stand, the tapestry starts to reveal itself as more than just, "this is my soft point, tread lightly even though I take delight in stabbing others in theirs."
    Hang around the forum more, observe behaviors. The most sensitive are also the most sadistic, and 1s don't thole hypocrisy or contradiction.

    Everything you say bears merit, which is why it is meritorious. Not because of your gender, but because of your mature and thoughtful delivery.
    Yet you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. (in short, your thoughts are appreciated on the subject, and unlike most of this thread, are of actual merit to SRX's intention, but any defense of personal entities overlooks previous trends displayed proving the point you may perceive in them is in fact less important to them than the conflict itself [One of them has actually picked a fight with Scarlet.Black, an all time first for humans])
    You show awareness then in the this is my problem and you are my problem, with such, then you can also tease out the difference between the problem within itself and its distinction from yourself.
    But I think this thread kicked off as personal in a sense in that whilst it's not conclusive, it seems your first post is largely in association to MBP post and with this part about
    That exact thing was said to me once before by the very same person when saying that my capacity for laughing about my own hardships is a belittlement of other people's (ie. I was, quite violently, told I am not allowed to cope with trauma with humor). As an isolated incident, things look innocent. A stance isn't being appreciated.
    Where patterns stand, the tapestry starts to reveal itself as more than just, "this is my soft point, tread lightly even though I take delight in stabbing others in theirs."
    Hang around the forum more, observe behaviors. The most sensitive are also the most sadistic, and 1s don't thole hypocrisy or contradiction.
    Seems to me to suggest that you're talking about beef across time in the forum more so than this thread specifically. In which case, I can't give much comment to such an ongoing tension. Though understandably, having a reccuring tension with particular members isn't uncommon. There was one member in particular that i had a bit of a intensive dislike towards on the basis of their views, values and the way they went in asserting them. To which I had to stop in that pursuing someone I disliked showed some sort of attachment to the excitement of my rage towards them, it was addictive for one as I who ignores their anger and suppresses it and their general urge to action.

    Moving on from me though, it sounds as if you're expressing a sense of being targeted, I can get that, I know the person I disliked certainly felt annoyed with me clipping on their heals when they asserted their views, always ready to debate them hehe. Which wasn't an active intention but a necessarily implication in making them feel uncomfortable to say their true views (chilling effect), because I was being bullish. And that isn't being dismissed when the focus then shifts to points made about what implications are held by what you have expressed. To which you wrote
    What we combat is having our words and meanings twisted so as to become a soapbox. As spectators we would give encouragement to arguments that we rail against when we are made targets for their catharsis.
    And I have no doubt that this is uncomfortable with this being a public setting and contributing to a sense of being attacked, which naturally raises one's defenses. Which again, I tie to my experiences of arguments with my partner where, I often realize that what I defended was stupid or wasn't as big of a deal for how intensely we were arguing and that after I stopped seeing red, and opened myself to expressing that I was hurt and that I could see what I did to hurt her and that I was sorry, that we were able to begin to reconcile our views and hopefully understanding one another.
    Sometimes it's at this point that what underpin our aggressiveness/defensiveness comes out more explicitly, basically, we were vulnerable to one another. Which is hard with strangers, especially so public, but it makes me think to a point about fearlessness...
    Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche | Philosophical Explorations
    You would like to spill your heart’s blood, give your heart to others. For the warrior, this experience of sad and tender heart is what gives birth to fearlessness. Conventionally, being fearless means that you are not afraid or that, if someone hits you, you will hit him back. However, we are not talking about that street-fighter level of fearlessness. Real fearlessness is the product of tenderness. It comes from letting the world tickle your heart, your raw and beautiful heart. You are willing to open up, without resistance or shyness, and face the world. You are willing to share your heart with others.” — from Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior
    It's hard to open heart in this case because it feels it's open to being stabbed, a notion that fits well with what you said...
    Where patterns stand, the tapestry starts to reveal itself as more than just, "this is my soft point, tread lightly even though I take delight in stabbing others in theirs."
    Hang around the forum more, observe behaviors. The most sensitive are also the most sadistic, and 1s don't thole hypocrisy or contradiction.
    To which, I see two routes if this discussion does go any further and isn't reconciled to a separation agreement formally or otherwise. Which of course takes a lot of work and time and it's kind of the case that as strangers, not all that invested in reconciling it as one would with those already important part of their lives, so I can't say i necessarily see it as a worthwhile go except if one wants to find peace.
    The first thought is a fresh slate, the old grievances exist, but one chooses to separate them in a new interaction to clarify views.
    This entails a curiosity to understand another and see what their view is, to which there may be felt confusion. And that can come from both sides in order to find what perspectives each other has. Which of course, if at the fundamental level there is a disagreement, it doesn't result in any peace. Though there is the case that in exploring things with one another, that one concludes with a disagreement but can do so respectfully, often appreciating the journey for having improved one's perspective.
    So in my mind that's forgetting what was said and making an effort to understand another's view on things before even engaging in a debate on any subject. Because quite often disagreements are at a deeper level than fact.
    But really it's hard to dismiss and ignore the tension, and so the other path would be to directly go back to what was said and zoom in on the responses. Because my personal view, is that some of your responses have in a way not made direct contact.

    My impression as a third party didn't even register initially the tension that emerge from the first page posts. Where MsBossyPants responded to your post. And the exchange didn't develop out of curiosity, it was on the defense for a felt sense of being implied to be sexist in attitude or whatever. To which I rather not concern oneself with the label and think about the content of what happened.
    The exchange could've went the way of clarifying views, and I imagine you experienced as such, but it seemed to move along rather rapidly from the initial points. And this is why I made the view of the above, where start anew just exploring views in their substance with no relation to self but purely about what one perceives, so that the perceptions are evaluated on their basis as I imagine you desire, as your criticized the sense of you being accused of being the problem.
    But, I think your post did open up into a broader discussion of gender stuff not restricted to the matter of 'power, strength, assertiveness, leadership skils, having a big bold personalty,' being attributed male traits and thus masculine and this applied to women. In that there was a lot more involved and i think I might continue it down below in that I think the tension in a general sense resides in the views expressed there.


    Okay, this turned into a monster where really I'm trying to change the way you perceive things, it's less about the conclusions as much as the means to a conclusion as the most important thing to change is the way we see things, because then we can be more self conscious to the way we think and thus the way we consider things.
    So yeeeeeaaahh do with that as you will XD
    It just feels like I'm wanting to explain my world view and hope it appeals. Hell I even explain a point about abstracting at different levels and it's as if I'm trying to keep expanding out and out, unable to keep things proximal and to the point.
    I totally get why it's a pain to engage with me because it's just a lot of work regardless if there was much of a pay off for the effort.
    I just characterize it by INFP tendency ;)
    Overwhelmingly, INFP writers told me one of their biggest challenges was the non-linear way their brains work. Starting at the beginning, then writing the middle, and then finishing up with the end is simply a plain impossibility for most INFPs. However, because most INFPs have gone through the standard educational system, they’ve been taught that chronological order is the right way to do things. They’ve been convinced that the way their minds work is weird, or ineffective, or hard for others to follow. This results in many INFPs trying to force themselves to work on projects in some sort of order that only brings a disastrous outcome. When INFPs push themselves to work in a way that runs counter to their natural wiring, they find themselves near tears, paralyzed, and suffering from lower self esteem than ever before. Usually at this point, they give up on writing their story.

    One INFP I interviewed had this to say about it:

    I find that I am completely unable to do linear chronological order. Everything about writing is a mystery until I know for certain what it is…Usually, there is an image or a sentence or sound or an impulse or a hunch that will open up a scene or moment of the book for me. Often, I will have to go wandering for a long time until I find the piece that connects with it. Then I have to go back and find out how they are related.

    The problem with this approach is that every time I go to revise, I feel like the self that wrote the thing tried to make cake in the kitchen on the floor and forgot to use a bowl. There is no structure, no container, just mess. I have to sit on the floor and sort out what is egg, what is cat litter, what is dust bunny, what might be part of a different cake, what belongs, what doesn’t. I keep telling myself that I’ll use a bowl next time, but I can’t seem to.
     
    While logically valid, the problem is that when you focus on it, it becomes reciprocal. Raging about persecution becomes persecution of the class once seen as dominant. It creates conflict. Overcoming those who seek to subjugate actually wounds them more than retaliating. It belittles them. (admittedly, it goes without saying I opt for the "act out" approach myself, but I can attest that the introverted approach is more effective. It took many years to learn to ignore oppressors, but the difference in results is phenomenal)
    It's basically a MLK vs Malcom X approach.


    This is your assumption there are no negative effects on the opposite gender.

    As for the past impacting the present :P common sense, but aren't ENTJs known for moving forward rather than getting hung up on the past? My heritage is rife with genocide, but I genuinely don't give a fuck. Aside from leading to me, it doesn't immediately impact me. You can look forward, or backward. And I prefer not to trip on dead injuns I never even met.
    And I'll state explicitly that I agree with maust's summary, and envious of her eloquence and succinctness, she got to points that I at best touched on in a round about way.
    I think this sort of thing could be siphoned off into a few discussions:
    https://personalitycafe.com/critical-...l#post35279322
    https://personalitycafe.com/critical-...discourse.html
    https://personalitycafe.com/critical-...onal-wiki.html
    It's where i put a very strong opinion in opposition to that which I see the view of acknowledging conflict as being positioned as creating conflict rather than seeing what exists. This sense of the conflict being illusionary I sense underpins the belief that to speak about it is problematic. It reminds me the way judges in New Zealand viewed couples struggling over child custody as both equally terrible. Not considering at a deeper level that their emotions, anger and such was in large part because they're both emotionally invested in the child or implications of having custody of the child. To which the judge thought that they should simply reconcile their differences. But what if there are irreconcilable differences, conflicts that can't be tolerated, like if ones partner was abusive and would be a danger to one's child? Often this consideration was left out of contemplation it seemed for the New Zealand judges who posited cooperation inherently as a virtue in principle irrespective of the circumstances.
    And I would assert it is often an ideological strategy to disarm those that would oppose one's self to have them believe in a morality that is self denying rather than affirming, it makes a virtue of impotence, when one should not be passive to one's plight, one seeks to change the state of the world as it is into what one wants it to be. The real weakness is in those that lack the will and ability to impose their will.
    106 Nietzsche: Knowledge and Belief (1990) - Rick Roderick
     
    Now Nietzsche’s argument is rather… ah, abrasive… it’s certainly provocative, and “The Genealogy of Morals” traces the moral form of discourse – good, bad, right, wrong – back to rigidly… and again, remember this is 19th Century Germans again… back to the Greeks. Now, here Nietzsche talks about the Greeks as having… the word he uses is very important… and this will move us finally back to our account of the present. Nietzsche talks about the translation of “Virtue”. What was Virtue for the Greeks? Nietzsche was a philologist who could never get a normal job as a professor, because he was a little nuts, okay. And anyway… that wouldn’t have stopped him now, but it stopped him then.

    For the Greeks, Virtue… when I said the word, I could see all of you go: “Oh, virtue…”… yeah, it wasn’t like that for the Greeks, I have already given you the Greek ideal of Odysseus, where Virtue included the ability to be a clever liar. In other words, knowing when and who to con was important. That’s not part of the Victorian idea of virtue, but its part of the Greek ideal of it. And so, ah… Virtue for them meant this “Excellence” in being well rounded. It meant to be excellent at revenge, so that – unlike the Christian ideal of Virtue – if someone strikes you, you strike them back, and the reason you do that is because if you don’t it will offend them worse. It will hurt their honour and yours. Much more virtuous to hit them back, then both your honours are intact. It will only humiliate them to turn your face, as though they were unworthy scum; no, hit them back. So Nietzsche discusses this use of virtue; and the Greek evaluation he calls “noble”.

    Now, “noble” itself for Nietzsche is not a term of value, but a kind of descriptive term of the way the Greeks evaluated. And he himself is not doing ethics the way I was doing it the other day. He is giving, as it were, a genealogy; a history of the way in which we have come to use these words. For Nietzsche the key movement in the way the words “good”, “bad”, “right” and “wrong” occur, occur around the word “virtue”, and occur with the Christian transformation of virtue. From something active, based on Excellence into something filled with what Nietzsche calls “resentment“.

    And I guess there is a simple way to make the argument – and I am trying to keep my remarks here at a level where they are debatable – what he means is something like this. For the Greeks, you know, someone who was strong enough to sin went ahead and sinned; which meant they did what they wanted to and enjoyed it… and for the Greeks, that was good. The Christian idea of “virtue” which includes the idea of “guilt” and “sin” meant that you wanted to do something real bad and you don’t; and they’re frustrated and filled with resentment towards those sinners who go ahead and do what they want to do. And you turn the name of your fault – cowardice – into a virtue: “virtue”. Really you just didn’t have the guts to go ahead and do what you wanted to do… trying to make it sound even slimier than it is, but this is Nietzsche’s argument. In other words you didn’t have the strength to go ahead and pursue what you really wanted. And so your name for that inability is your virtue: you didn’t do it.
    http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/10867/...s_ETD_2011.pdf
    Several years later, in an article for the Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung, Marx is even clearer in his argument for why Christian morality and its basis in a dogma of original sin and redemption is inadequate as a theory of human liberation. His argument is formulated against the claim made by a Prussian state functionary that there is no need for “all this tedious talk of communism, if only those who have the vocation for it develop the social principles of Christianity, then the Communists will soon fall silent.” Marx’s reply merits quoting at length

    The social principles of Christianity have now had eighteen hundred years to be developed, and need no further development by Prussian Consistorial Counsellors. The social principles of Christianity justified the slavery of antiquity, glorifies the serfdom of the Middle Ages and are capable, in case of need, of defending the oppression of the proletariat, even if with somewhat doleful grimaces69. The social principles of Christianity preach the necessity of a ruling and an oppressed class, and for the latter all they have to offer is the pious wish that the former may be charitable. The social principles of Christianity place the Consistorial Counsellor's compensation for all infamies in heaven, and thereby justify the continuation of these infamies on earth. The social principles of Christianity declare all the vile acts of the oppressors against the oppressed to be either a just punishment for original sin and other sins, or trials which the Lord, in his infinite wisdom, ordains for the redeemed. The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, selfcontempt, abasement, submissiveness and humbleness, in short, all the qualities of the rabble, and the proletariat, which will not permit itself to be treated as rabble, needs its courage, its selfconfidence, its pride and its sense of independence even more than its bread. The social principles of Christianity are sneaking and hypocritical, and the proletariat is revolutionary. So much for the social principles of Christianity. (The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter, MECW 6:231)

    Which of course is contemptable to my values in that it is inherently non-radical, it in actuality is the passive and weak attitude as it naturalizes impotence and hence why the morally pure are impotent, they are too attached to abstract ideals with no concern for how to realize them in an imperfect reality (Humanism and Science - Evald Ilyenkov for reconciling means (via what is) with ends (abstract ideals) which results in a actual/realized end.
    It is the one who struggles and is antagonistic that asserts their will and doesn't stand down. And this isn't done by being quiet, and this is why I think a history in how feminist politics accepted a right wing positioning of victim = purely subjective feelings, was used to deliegitmize the feminist movement and even talk about being a victim via negative associations, which they ironically then relied on their feelings to position themselves as victims.
    https://personalitycafe.com/critical-...discourse.html
    The rhetorical attacks were deployed under the discursive banner of ‘political correctness’. This discourse positioned those who supported various forms of social justice as oppressors, while those making accusations of ‘political correctness’ positioned themselves as champions of free speech and mainstream values. This constituted a discursive counter-strategy aimed at attempts to empower the socially and structurally disadvantaged, and formed the crux of what became known as backlash literature. In turn, the powerful and privileged were repositioned as themselves victims of the political strategies of ‘special interests’. It was somewhat ironic, therefore, that this discourse promulgated the idea of ‘victimhood’ as a negative identity which embodied a number of assumptions: that claims of victimisation by ‘minority’ groups were exaggerated and supporting evidence largely fabricated (Iannone 2000/2001; Williamson 1996, 115; Dench 2000, 47), and that the ‘cult of victimhood’ was adopted as a deliberate political strategy designed to obtain ‘special treatment’ and institutional advantage through cynical manipulation of public sympathy (Hollander 1994, 41-2, and 1996, 60-1; Richardson 1991).
    Which I would say reflected an ideological position so that say if one thinks of themselves as a member of the capitalist class, they no doubt feel quite personally persecuted when their private ownership of production is sought to be socialized. But their feelings whilst real are irreconcilable to the interests of their class enemies.
    A person who does something sexist may not readily see the wrongness of what they said because within their internalized sense of the world they haven't yet been in contact with the view and perspective that characterizes the same reality in a different way.
    And this is why I emphasize the sense of considering perspectives in relation to an objective reality in order to have a broader sense of what they believe and why. Won't be a perfect model, but one develops self consciousness to their own positions this way, by seeing that one's perspective isn't a universal one, but this isn't some postmodernist every opinion is valid, as truth is outside of pure subjectivity, but we have mediated access to reality.

    And I find it interesting that you bring up the dichotomy of MLK Jr and Malcolm X, in that it's MLK Jr who I refer to to speak to the complacency of the white moderate, it's one of my favourites as MLK is quite the writer/orator.
    I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

    I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
    Here, we see that Martin Luther King Jr was quite frustrated by those that in appearance said they were with his cause, but weren't even friendly to his non-violent method. Which wasn't strict pacifism but a discipline to endure brutality but never to back down, to always put pressure and bring to the fore front he conflict that was embedded in the US and continues to this day.
    He was one who advocated the struggle, because change did not come from no where, but from people who put pressure on others, to bend them to their will, even if it were in the form of moderate concessions.
    "Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent."
    A song I love to share that is in the same vein as MLK's white moderate...


    The conflict exists in the real world, in real relations, the ideas and expressions often merely reflect those real material conflicts. To acknowledge the conflict isn't to purely create it, though acknowledgement certainly does have an effect in that it can be the case that people endure punishment in a difficult conceptualizing their problems.
    Which I think should note that isn't simplistic as man versus woman, black versus white, that is from a underdeveloped manner of thought in which it's overly concerned with the form/appearance of things. Because in this logic, one would mistake women whose actions and beliefs didn't coincide with one's political aims. Something of an issue for the feminist movement as those too afraid to assert battle lines and conflict, have inevitably undermined feminists by making it so broad and inclusive as to have no distinction and thus no meaning. That an anti-feminist can be a feminist, largely because of a neoliberal individualism and 'postfeminist' nonsense.
    This is all abstract in that it's not about you but about the general view, and points to try and press upon this sense of conflict only existing if you assert it does.
    Things exist in tension, and I like to use this point for the concept of causality which I think people rely on an obsolete linear and overly strict detereminist view.
    http://users.spin.net.au/~deniset/cc.../gdeffem05.pdf
    The cause-effect connection can be conceived as a one-way, one-directional action only in the simplest and most limited cases. The idea of causality as the influence of one thing on another is applied in fields of knowledge where it is possible and necessary to ignore feedback and actually measure the quantitative effect achieved by the cause. Such a situation is mostly characteristic of mechanical causality. For example, the cause of a stone falling to the ground is mutual gravitation, which obeys the law of universal gravitation, and the actual fall of the stone to the ground results from gravitational interaction. However, since the mass of the stone is infinitely small compared with the mass of the earth, one can ignore the stone's effect on the earth. So ultimately we come to the notion of a one-way effect with only one body (the earth) operating as the active element, while the other (the stone) is passive. In most cases, however, such an approach does not work because things are not inert, but charged with internal activity. Therefore, in experiencing effect they in their turn act on their cause and the resulting action is not one-way but an interaction.

    In complex cases one cannot ignore the feedback of the vehicle of the action on other interacting bodies. For example, in the chemical interaction of two substances it is impossible to separate the active and passive sides. This is even more true of the transformation of elementary particles. Thus the formation of molecules of water cannot be conceived as the result of a one-way effect of oxygen on hydrogen or vice versa. It results from the interaction of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. Mental processes are also a result of the interaction of the environment and the cortex.

    To sum up, all processes in the world are evoked not by a one-way or one-sided action but are based on the relationship of at least two interacting objects.
    And so things interact and they change things, things aren't so fundamentally distinct from one another, though conceptually we may make them distinct, but in reality we all belong to it.

    And as herinb hinted with in her humoruous way of Shannon Noll's what about me cover, acknowledging problems faced by women doesn't exclude that of men. To which if one wishes to be heard for as much, then one creates the space. Though, there is often conflict in part because many assert views that are in substance incompatible with other views and the tension remains not purely in the realm of ideas but in reality that underpins those ideas and conflicts.
    And if you get into theorizing about gender (which I believe is inferior to Marx's implicit philosophical outlook, which gives a means for a more nuanced view), you'll see that issues facing men have been under some development for quite some time, following trends in academic thought of how to conceptualize things in different ways.
    To which I think the issue is often the sense of when I say men, I mean men universally, which is a highly abstract sense of men.
    To which I tend to assert that Marx's relational definition of class is the best basis on which to begin any analysis and then to examine the strata within that class in their differences. Because in the way in which people speak of men and women, black and white in an abstract universal, they often obscure other relations like that of class, which often contributes to the antagonism.

    But in regards to the past, it echoes into the present, as one can make no sense of the present if one cuts it off from the past. To which I want to bring your attention to levels of abstraction by using a point about causality.
    Here's a quote from prominent American thinker, William James.
     
    It is a common platitude that a complete acquaintance with any one thing, however small, would require a knowledge of the entire universe. Not a sparrow falls to the ground but some of the remote conditions of his fall are to be found in the milky way, in our federal constitution, or in the early history of Europe. That is to say, alter the milky way, alter our federal constitution, alter the facts of our barbarian ancestry, and the universe would so far be a different universe from what it now is. One fact involved in the difference might be that the particular little street-boy who threw the stone which brought down the sparrow might not find himself opposite the sparrow at that particular moment; or, finding himself there, he might not be in that particular serene and disengaged mood of mind which expressed itself in throwing the stone. But, true as all this is, it would be very foolish for any one who was inquiring the cause of the sparrow's fall to overlook the boy as too personal, proximate, and so to speak anthropomorphic an agent, and to say that the true cause is the federal constitution, the westward migration of the Celtic race, or the structure of the milky way. If we proceeded on that method, we might say with perfect legitimacy that a friend of ours, who had slipped on the ice upon his door-step and cracked his skull, some months after dining with thirteen at the table, died because of that ominous feast. I know, in fact, one such instance; and I might, if I chose, contend with perfect logical propriety that the slip on the ice was no real accident. "There are no accidents," I might say, "for science. The whole history of the world converged to produce that slip. If anything had been left out, the slip would not have occurred just there and then. To say it would is to deny the relations of cause and effect throughout the universe. The real cause of the death was not the slip, but the conditions which engendered the slip, -- and among them his having sat at a table, six months previous, one among thirteen. That is truly the reason why he died within the year."

    And from this, one should begin to have a hint of why one should respect the chain of entropy between history and our present circumstances. A similar line of thought can be applied to my very existence at this very moment. Can refer to existing some years ago, can speak to my birth, my conception by my parents, to them meeting, to their ancestors, to their ancestors coming to Australia in conjunction with British colonialism which exists because of previous things.
    Similarly, issues of the present aren't independent of the past, though the extent to which they play upon the present may vary.
    Like some folks tell blacks in the US, slavery ended hundreds of years ago, or that Jim crow ended decades ago, but they seem to isolate the now from that past in order to maintain the delusion that American somehow overcome it's white supremacy and turned into a paradise racially, so much so that being black is insignificant socially. But of course this isn't the case, being black, particularly of African american, and not recent African immigrant, strongly informs one's probable outcomes in life. This doesn't reduce the causality of those outcomes to being African american, but that there is an association of being black and those outcomes, thus something can be a predictor but not necessarily a causal factor.
    And in one of the links in my post, I shared link to an article called case for reparations which isn't a legitimate ask for reparations but the thought experiment of the actual costs historically and continuously of white supremacy in America. I mean, there being a significant amount of black men in prison didn't pop out of thing air, it's in relation to the history of the US as a series of colonies.

    Similarly, your past doesn't stop existing because you don't think of it, and something as significant as a genocide isn't without significant impact upon the world and people within it. A good way to think about it is how the existence of a single thing often relies on other things. This is a point useful in identifying the essential thing that explains everything else in many analysis. So for example, the cell was an important discovery in connecting all sorts of biological phenomenon into something coherent.
    In this way, one can begin to see relations between things temporally and spatially. You can begin to think about things changing via interaction, as things aren't perfect immutable abstractions, but are constantly deteriorating and in flux.
    Hell, the capacity to do and say things you can now, is entirely contingent on the history of humanity and it's labours, the very means to talk with these words, in the way I write them, that I can even write them and communicate them via the internet.
    Because even a single individual, whilst empirically distinct does not exist independent of time and place.
    But to bring it back to the point about abstraction, when William James speaks of the silliness of positing a distal cause for a proximal event, he's using different levels of abstraction. And its in this sense, one can be conscious of what one includes or excludes in one's thoughts. And knowing this, one should then also be able to tell, that because one doesn't include something in their abstraction, doesn't negate the existence of things, it just means there's a different focus, as one can't hold too much of reality in one's mind.
    And this is important to avoid reductionism, where one asserts something as the primary existent thing, rather than a non-reductionist view that sees that things exist at many different scales, focuses, relations and so on.

    And in the case of women's historical subjugation as society developed complexity to the present where post-industrialization women formed direct economic power and thus political power and unity to dismantle formal legal discrimination. We can put into perspective our current circumstances and see where it once was, what state we're in at different parts of the world and where one can go (in an inexact manner/less precise than classical physics).
    http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/10867/...s_ETD_2011.pdf
    What Marx describes when he addresses the way in which economic laws play a role in determining the actions of human beings, are tendencies of members of various social groups to act in circumstances shaped through those laws, and not iron-clad predictions for particular individuals. Howard Sherman, in his 1981 paper, “Marx and Determinism,” puts this point very nicely when he writes:

    Marx pointed out that one can find regularities of human behavior, that on the average we do behave in certain predictable ways. This behavior also changes in systematic ways, with predictable trends, in association with changes in our technological and social environments. At a simpler level, the regularities of human behavior are obvious in the fairly constant annual numbers of suicides and divorces (although these also show systematic trends). If humans did not, generally, behave in fairly predictable ways, not only social scientists but also insurance companies would have gone out of business long ago. Any particular individual may make any particular choice, but if we know the social composition of a group, we can predict, in general, what it will do. Thus, on the average, most large owners of stock will vote in favor of preferential tax rates for capital gains; most farmers will favor laws that they believe to be in the interest of farmers109.
    MsBossyPants, Warp10 and Khadroma thanked this post.

  2. #82
    ENTJ


    I find it very interesting that while I was originally just trying to establish a list of characteristics that make up the "feminine" and the "masculine" aspects of our species, it has degenerated into a Battle of the Sexes Royale. No one really even bothered to question the validity of the list, which implies that:
    1. Everyone agrees with the characteristics that distinguish the feminine from the masculine
    or
    2. No one read or cared about the list because they wanted to address their own issues, while dancing around the subject entirely.
    (okay, not all of you, but I was relying on more responses to the list itself, to see where others "fit" - and I say this tongue in cheek, because we ENTJs tend to not "fit" in with the crowd in most cases)

    Some responses that we women are complaining again of oppression and being victims. Never the intent (although I measure excellence by the quality of the results... "B-")

    That brings about another interesting question. Are the feminine qualities of a person in line with them being a "victim" of "oppression?" If they are, then those of us anatomical females who display the qualities of the masculine are in a "unique" position, inherently in opposition to a physical world that demands the oppression of the feminine. For females to gain power over the forces of oppression (jee, that's a bit SJW of me to phrase it like that), they have to:
    1. Become more masculine
    2. Allow the feminine shadow qualities come to the fore, top from the bottom, take charge without it being perceived as such (you know how I looooove S&M psychology)

    This is basically what as @Duo stated being the overt vs. the covert. Schopenhauer had actually even posited why women attempt to achieve power covertly and if I find the passage, I will link for those of you interested in that sort of thing.

    So here is that list again. If any of you females or males dare to take a stab at it, then I think we will get this thread back into focus. Here, I will start. Green is a YES, Black is a SOMEWHAT (or in some cases, NEUTRAL). Red is a NO

    1. Psyche centres in reason, will, spirit, mind
    2. Defining virtue is warmth
    3. Allowed tears but no anger
    4. Becomes victim, blamer, martyr
    5. Strives for independence, self-definition
    6. Fears abstraction, history, power politics, all that evades the logic of the heart
    7. Covertly manipulative and cruel
    8. Fragile and terrified of tenderness and mortality
    9. Psyche centres in emotion, sensation, nature and body
    10. Supposed to be brave, bold, aggressive
    11. Sphere of action is public, political
    12. Arrogance and pride shadow life
    13. Supposed to be fearful, shy, passive
    14. Assumption of super responsibility and Promethean guilt
    15. Moody, lacking skills in dealing with emotion
    16. Covertly submissive and passive
    17. Controlling fear is frigidity
    18. Controlled by dependency needs, surrenders to and obeys authority
    19. Expected to protect, to suffer, to kill, and to die. Body and character are hardened to allow for violence.
    20. Grief and melancholy cause depression
    21. Strives for relationship, belonging
    22. Represses boldness and aggression
    23. Has abandoned the familiar and domestic
    24. Controlling fear is impotence
    25. Allowed anger, but no tears
    26. Controlled by rebellious emotions and fears of self-definition and freedom
    27. Introverted, intuitive, unfocused, cyclical, process-oriented; at worst, hysterical and atonic (This would have been red except for the intuitive part)
    28. Fears feeling, nature, death, all that evades efforts to control
    29. Expected to inspire, to nurture, to heal. Body and character are softened to allow for care
    30. Dominant, cruel, sadistic
    31. Timidity and low self-esteem shadow life
    32. Sphere of action is private, domestic
    33. Extroverted, practical, focused, linear, goal-oriented; at worst, obsessive and rigid
    34. Tough and terrified of one’s own power
    35. Opinionated, lacking skill in disciplined thinking
    36. Defining virtue is power
    37. Submissive, obedient, masochistic
    38. Resentment and rage cause depression
    39. Represses fear and shyness
    40. Has abandoned the worldly and political

    So now you know a little bit more about me...
    Last edited by Warp10; 09-20-2017 at 07:35 AM. Reason: formatting

  3. #83
    Unknown


    Quote Originally Posted by SkyRacerX View Post
    I find it very interesting that while I was originally just trying to establish a list of characteristics that make up the "feminine" and the "masculine" aspects of our species, it has degenerated into a Battle of the Sexes Royale. No one really even bothered to question the validity of the list, which implies that:
    1. Everyone agrees with the characteristics that distinguish the feminine from the masculine
    or
    2. No one read or cared about the list because they wanted to address their own issues, while dancing around the subject entirely.
    (okay, not all of you, but I was relying on more responses to the list itself, to see where others "fit" - and I say this tongue in cheek, because we ENTJs tend to not "fit" in with the crowd in most cases)

    Some responses that we women are complaining again of oppression and being victims. Never the intent (although I measure excellence by the quality of the results... "B-")

    That brings about another interesting question. Are the feminine qualities of a person in line with them being a "victim" of "oppression?" If they are, then those of us anatomical females who display the qualities of the masculine are in a "unique" position, inherently in opposition to a physical world that demands the oppression of the feminine. For females to gain power over the forces of oppression (jee, that's a bit SJW of me to phrase it like that), they have to:
    1. Become more masculine
    2. Allow the feminine shadow qualities come to the fore, top from the bottom, take charge without it being perceived as such (you know how I looooove S&M psychology)

    This is basically what as @Duo stated being the overt vs. the covert. Schopenhauer had actually even posited why women attempt to achieve power covertly and if I find the passage, I will link for those of you interested in that sort of thing.

    So here is that list again. If any of you females or males dare to take a stab at it, then I think we will get this thread back into focus. Here, I will start. Green is a YES, Black is a SOMEWHAT (or in some cases, NEUTRAL). Red is a NO
    1. Psyche centres in reason, will, spirit, mind
    2. Defining virtue is warmth (ehhh....let's go with peaceful)
    3. Allowed tears but no anger (how about we avoid both?)
    4. Becomes victim, blamer, martyr
    5. Strives for independence, self-definition
    6. Fears abstraction, history, power politics, all that evades the logic of the heart
    7. Covertly manipulative and cruel
    8. Fragile and terrified of tenderness and mortality
    9. Psyche centres in emotion, sensation, nature and body
    10. Supposed to be brave, bold, aggressive (only in the case of self-preservation)
    11. Sphere of action is public, political
    12. Arrogance and pride shadow life
    13. Supposed to be fearful, shy, passive (not so much fearful)
    14. Assumption of super responsibility and Promethean guilt
    15. Moody, lacking skills in dealing with emotion (not so much as an adult)
    16. Covertly submissive and passive (independent and indifferent. Not submissive)
    17. Controlling fear is frigidity
    18. Controlled by dependency needs, surrenders to and obeys authority
    19. Expected to protect, to suffer, to kill, and to die. Body and character are hardened to allow for violence. (only in extreme cases -- I'm not violent, but then again, people aren't violent towards me)
    20. Grief and melancholy cause depression
    21. Strives for relationship, belonging (probably an Fe thing for me -- though I'm not that good at maintaining said relationships)
    22. Represses boldness and aggression
    23. Has abandoned the familiar and domestic
    24. Controlling fear is impotence
    25. Allowed anger, but no tears
    26. Controlled by rebellious emotions and fears of self-definition and freedom
    27. Introverted, intuitive, unfocused, cyclical, process-oriented; at worst, hysterical and atonic (never hysterical)
    28. Fears feeling, nature, death, all that evades efforts to control
    29. Expected to inspire, to nurture, to heal. Body and character are softened to allow for care
    30. Dominant, cruel, sadistic
    31. Timidity and low self-esteem shadow life
    32. Sphere of action is private, domestic
    33. Extroverted, practical, focused, linear, goal-oriented; at worst, obsessive and rigid
    34. Tough and terrified of one’s own power (tough-minded -- not terrified of my own power, though)
    35. Opinionated, lacking skill in disciplined thinking
    36. Defining virtue is power
    37. Submissive, obedient, masochistic
    38. Resentment and rage cause depression
    39. Represses fear and shyness
    40. Has abandoned the worldly and political

    /INTP male
    Wellsy and Warp10 thanked this post.

  4. #84

    @SkyRacerX
    Thanks for getting back on topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikusagami View Post
    I'm going to answer a question with a question:
    What does any of this have to do with the topic SRX put forth? She was simply asking for stereotypical traits misattributed to anatomy, and I raised the point ENTJ females seem to make a bigger deal out of gender than males.
    But you realize you're just baiting me and Stawker into continuing to attack the validity of the list, which will further incite others to continue perverting our meaning for their own design.

    Also, not going into detail, but your color coding is occasionally reversed by situation. But we all go a little grippy sometimes.

    Likewise for me, the entire list is variable, but I'll state those most readily attributable to me.

    1. Psyche centres in reason, will, spirit, mind
    3. Allowed tears but no anger (I permit myself both, as they are human, though the latter is far more natural, the former a rare phenomenon)
    4. Becomes victim, blamer, martyr (+ Scapegoat)
    5. Strives for independence, self-definition
    10. Supposed to be brave, bold, aggressive (See, the "supposed to be" has been my issue from the start--it is sourced externally rather than ego-focused)
    11. Sphere of action is public, political
    12. Arrogance and pride shadow life
    14. Assumption of super responsibility and Promethean guilt
    15. Moody, lacking skills in dealing with emotion
    16. Covertly submissive and passive (like you, this varies to situation)
    19. Expected to [tendency to] protect, to suffer, to kill, and to die. Body and character are hardened to allow for violence.
    20. Grief and melancholy cause depression (AmIright? )
    21. Strives for relationship, belonging (Again, variable. Typically no, but where considered important, very much so)
    23. Has abandoned the familiar and domestic
    25. Allowed anger, but no tears (again, why do I need permission?!)
    29. Expected to inspire, to nurture, to heal. Body and character are softened to allow for care
    30. Dominant, cruel, sadistic (only when earned)
    32. Sphere of action is private, domestic
    33. Extroverted, practical, focused, linear, goal-oriented; at worst, obsessive and rigid
    36. Defining virtue is power
    37. Submissive, obedient, masochistic (Only when involved with an ENTJ )
    39. Represses fear and shyness
    40. Has abandoned the worldly and political (common reaction to depression)

    @Wellsy , just going to say as I've repeated many times, I wasn't saying what she thought I was saying--you'll see she's still insisting otherwise. That is my sole problem. My issue is in no way with anybody's particular stance, but their scapegoating a non-existent stance onto me. I generally dislike stupidity, haha. Last time I'm going to explain it, and as this is SRX's thread, I likewise encourage we all move away from the SJW stuff and redirect to her desired aim. Again, I do appreciate your thoughtful and mature delivery of thought-provoking and insightful data.
    Last edited by Ikusagami; 09-20-2017 at 10:36 AM.
    Wellsy and Warp10 thanked this post.

  5. #85
    ENTJ


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikusagami View Post
    Judgement? I don't recall passing any judgement. I'm a 1, so I'm pretty fuckin' explicit when I do.
    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 <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
    @<b><a href="https://personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=319498" target="_blank">Fumetsu</a></b>
    <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->, 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: <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
    @<b><a href="https://personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=28590" target="_blank">Wellsy</a></b>
    <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->, I love ya, but I just can't keep up with you, man!

    What am I being dragged into now?

    It's true though; that's why I haven't felt compelled to respond; it just isn't something I put any thought into.

    Have I been called " manly"? Yes, often. And like most women who think they're "one of the guys" almost all my friends were male. It took a serious stalker, multiple molestation attempts and God-knows how many unwanted advances to learn that while blanket stereotypes should not be taken to heart, ignoring them entirely is just naïveté

    I do what I do, I like what I like and I am who I am.
    If people insist on assigning a gender to anything I do than that's their hang up. It has zero effect on my enjoyment ( or ...unjoyment) I got over the " Eeeew pink!" Phase by around ten.

    As to ...whatever has been going on with this discussion about equality/oppression. Here -haven't been paying much attention-I'm surprised that the ENTJ woman here would admit to something like that as much as they bark about control. I figured any mention of oppression would be met with something like "The world can't oppress me! I oppress the world! " RAAAWWWR!" or some other gawdy show of wocheesemo.

    Right, oppression; sure there are problems. Anyone who ventures outside the fENTJ forum knows that I consider myself a feminist.
    A common feminist argument is that " toxic masculinity is imposed by the same men who complain about it", such is the idea that " for women to be respected they cannot act like women." pushed by other women.

    For example; height = respect. Interesting. Does anyone have a chart converting heel inches to dick inches?
    Yes, men may have to look you in the eye when you where stilettos but height is not their intended purpose. As soon as you walk away I assure you, they are not staring at the back of your head.
    If that faux respect is worth the damage to your spine or being unable to outrun a deranged coworker than I guess you can say died doing what you love : being tall...until they bury you and you're forced to just be you.

    In short (no pun intended) a flock if women puffing out their chests and yelling about how they're " so badass and totally on par with the men!" Still just sounds like cackling hens.

    I'll leave you with this:
    Warp10, Stawker, Ikusagami and 1 others thanked this post.

  6. #86
    ENTJ


    To put the final touches to the shitstorm's funeral, notice how neither Ikusagami nor I nor anyone in this thread ever explicitly or implicitly said 'Gender issues don't exist'.

    When you ponder this momentous revelation, it'll shed some light on the insecurities of those who felt like projecting anyway because we didn't praise them highly enough for their struggles or didn't emphasize their hardships well enough. The issue here has never been that Ikusa or I negated society's unfair treatment of women, but that we didn't affirm it enough! We should talk about it, raise it to high heavens where this is the only problem of the world, and crown everyone who's ever struggled with it! If we don't do that, we are sexist assholes whining for validity and understanding -- sheer blasphemy.

    There you go. Time to rest the corpse in the grave.


    1. Psyche centres in reason, will, spirit, mind (YES)
    2. Defining virtue is warmth (NO)
    3. Allowed tears but no anger (NO)
    4. Becomes victim, blamer, martyr (YES)
    5. Strives for independence, self-definition (YES)
    6. Fears abstraction, history, power politics, all that evades the logic of the heart (NO)
    7. Covertly manipulative and cruel (NO)
    8. Fragile and terrified of tenderness and mortality (NO)
    9. Psyche centres in emotion, sensation, nature and body (NO)
    10. Supposed to be brave, bold, aggressive (YES)
    11. Sphere of action is public, political (YES)
    12. Arrogance and pride shadow life (NO)
    13. Supposed to be fearful, shy, passive (NO)
    14. Assumption of super responsibility and Promethean guilt (YES -- FUCK YES)
    15. Moody, lacking skills in dealing with emotion (YES)
    16. Covertly submissive and passive (NO)
    17. Controlling fear is frigidity (NO)
    18. Controlled by dependency needs, surrenders to and obeys authority (NO)
    19. Expected to protect, to suffer, to kill, and to die. Body and character are hardened to allow for violence. (SOMEWHAT)
    20. Grief and melancholy cause depression (NO)
    21. Strives for relationship, belonging (YES)
    22. Represses boldness and aggression (NO)
    23. Has abandoned the familiar and domestic (SOMEWHAT)
    24. Controlling fear is impotence (SOMEWHAT)
    25. Allowed anger, but no tears (YES)
    26. Controlled by rebellious emotions and fears of self-definition and freedom (YES -- FUCK YES)
    27. Introverted, intuitive, unfocused, cyclical, process-oriented; at worst, hysterical and atonic (SOMEWHAT)
    28. Fears feeling, nature, death, all that evades efforts to control (SOMEWHAT)
    29. Expected to inspire, to nurture, to heal. Body and character are softened to allow for care (SOMEWHAT)
    30. Dominant, cruel, sadistic (NO)
    31. Timidity and low self-esteem shadow life (NO)
    32. Sphere of action is private, domestic (NO)
    33. Extroverted, practical, focused, linear, goal-oriented; at worst, obsessive and rigid (SOMEWHAT)
    34. Tough and terrified of one’s own power (NO)
    35. Opinionated, lacking skill in disciplined thinking (YES)
    36. Defining virtue is power (SOMEWHAT)
    37. Submissive, obedient, masochistic (NO)
    38. Resentment and rage cause depression (SOMEWHAT)
    39. Represses fear and shyness (YES)
    40. Has abandoned the worldly and political (NO)
    Warp10 and Ikusagami thanked this post.

  7. #87
    ENTJ

    @SkyRacerX

    No one really even bothered to question the validity of the list, which implies that:
    1. Everyone agrees with the characteristics that distinguish the feminine from the masculine
    or
    2. No one read or cared about the list because they wanted to address their own issues, while dancing around the subject entirely.
    (okay, not all of you, but I was relying on more responses to the list itself, to see where others "fit" - and I say this tongue in cheek, because we ENTJs tend to not "fit" in with the crowd in most cases)
    Actually, I quoted and agreed with the premise of your position, with two reasons to support why - even explicitly stating regardless of gender twice. My position regarding this list remains the same.

    @Ikusagami For all your talk on egalitarianism and gender neutrality, you do realize you are contradicting yourself when you make sweeping statements such as

    1. ENTJ males seem to be unanimously egalitarian. We judge on merit, and social expectations mean nothing to us
    2. 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

    3. 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
    4. I'm going to address this. When you address SkyRacerX, a woman:
    Is this what you were hoping for when you invited me here, love?

    When you end a heated exchange with Duo, a woman, claiming she misinterpreted your position:

    By the way, thanks for keeping me engaged and entertained tonight. Second best date I've been on. ;)

    Understand that you are essentially bringing sex to the forefront - it is patronizing, demeaning, and laced with sexual innuendos.

    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.

    You won't get an argument out of Stawker and I that suits you, because we prefer the mentality of overcoming such things rather than identifying with them.
    You can prove yourself with merit and at the same time acknowledge and identify with gender issues. They are not mutually exclusive. The fact that you think this is binary is the problem.
    Duo, MsBossyPants, Santa Gloss and 2 others thanked this post.

  8. #88

    Thank you @Fumetsu . Though I'm sure everybody will assume I asked you to contribute. You and @SkyRacerX are the two I know for a fact harbor no such persecution complexes or victim mentality, and so can actually read my words without a veneer of misconstrued blame. Strength of mind and character. Hell, even if I did make blanket judgements about women, you'd focus on the traits instead of the category and decide whether it applies to you individually.
    For the rest: What she said. Yes: SHE. So NOW it suddenly has validity.

    @Asd456
    You're new to the forum. SRX and I have history. That is how I have always addressed her. The part you did not quote is where I referred to myself as the bitch. A gender neutral term you would see as sexist if I said it of her.
    As for patronizing Duo, see how I react to anybody of any gender displaying hostility at a projected stance. You should see me interacting with some INTPs.
    See, by assuming my behavior varies by gender is again an instance of somebody seeing sexism, not of me demonstrating it. I flirt even with men, I condescend men who cannot follow me in conversation, and I look down on those of any variety who make a production of identifying with their weaknesses or who go into special snowflake tangents despite claiming to dislike those who do.
    Again, what I have said has already been personified by SRX and Fumetsu. ENTJs go on about how strong and unflappable they are, but then display the opposite behavior. SRX and Fumetsu have demonstrated what I perceive to be "strength." (even if SRX does occasionally bring up social expectations, which is what my first post alluded to)
    And they would demonstrate those same qualities no matter what body they were in. It is innate, not artifice like in many others.
    Warp10 thanked this post.

  9. #89
    ENTJ

    @SkyRacerX I didn't respond to the list because I see it as pointless musing on a topic that I don't care about. How people define feminine and masculine is entirely up to them. You can't make a list of what is "objectively feminine" and "objectively masculine" and say well, you don't fit the list, you can't be feminine/masculine/etc. "Ego ideals"? WTF is this, Freud? Don't care. Not interesting. Debunked. What is a "shadow life"? Don't know. Don't care.

    What I do care about is when people are being overtly sexist and don't want to acknowledge it. Pretending sexism doesn't exist is sexist. I'll respond to that because I think it's stupid.

    Not responding to your list is not agreeing to it. I also don't respond to the drunk guy on the street catcalling me - except to flip him off.

    @Ikusagami Do you literally not have anything better to do than continue to toot your own horn
    Duo, Santa Gloss and Warp10 thanked this post.

  10. #90
    ENTJ


    @Fumetsu

    These are the closest charts I could find:

    93b711d6e00bf69c4eb34ec88c524fad--shoe-size-conversion-shoe-size-chart.jpg

    And this link:

    http://www.i18nguy.com/l10n/shoes-anatomy.html



    Quote Originally Posted by Fumetsu View Post



    For example; height = respect. Interesting. Does anyone have a chart converting heel inches to dick inches?


    I'll leave you with this:
    Last time I checked, I do not sound like this. But fuck ya, I drink beer, play video games, eat steak and would totally lead my people against the tyranny of the English. And I fart in your general direction.

    Let my wocheesemo awesomeness drown out the sound of cackling hens.


     
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Enneagram Type 2] Ideal Romantics and the love languages
    By nicoloco90 in forum Type 2 Forum - The Helper
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-01-2017, 02:08 AM
  2. [INTP] INTPs and the ENTJ shadow
    By nadjasix in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-24-2012, 12:23 AM
  3. Fieldmarshals: The ENTJ Personality
    By Grey in forum ENTJ Articles
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-20-2011, 10:42 AM
  4. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-26-2011, 01:15 AM
  5. God and the ENTJ
    By Drake in forum ENTJ Forum - The Executives
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-05-2011, 04:39 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:11 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0