[INTP] The Female INTP Experience: "INTP Women Across Cultures" - Page 7

The Female INTP Experience: "INTP Women Across Cultures"

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 61 to 67 of 67
Thank Tree201Thanks

This is a discussion on The Female INTP Experience: "INTP Women Across Cultures" within the INTP Articles forums, part of the INTP Forum - The Thinkers category; ...

  1. #61
    INFP


    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1c/33...09e3555766.pngYour sense of oppression is too weakly conceived if you're implying that oppression of women is non-existant int he west. And perhaps be interested to be critical of the way in which non-western women are portrayed as subject to oppression strictly for cultural reasons and that somehow we're enlightened and beyond it despite often comparable levels of violence against women.
    https://personalitycafe.com/critical-...y-culture.html
    So this sense of feminism only for third worlders or something seems weak unless one has a an increasingly obsolete standard for treatment of women in the west ie liberalism dissolving formal discriminations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cal View Post
    Let us get a few things straight.

    First off, this thread is referring to gender roles, not rape.
    But it is only an arbitrary distinction that would draw the lines to say how women behave in the household as the social structure that is replicated materially in a disparities in behaviour and outcome of men and women cannot not be isolated from the sexual violence women face except conceptually.
    But this need not be the case, except that you're making a reduced focus.
    In that maintaining certain gendered practices is based in instilling terror to maintain an illusion that only 'bad' women are subject to sexual violence.


    http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?f...ileOId=4461660
    Patriarchy is a system of beliefs that fundamentally asserts the supremacy of the male (Brinson, 1992:361). It exist through people’s upholding of the structures without questioning them, because it has become a system of norms (Thomsson, ElvinNowak, 2013:38) that include myths, rules and assumptions which with time are taken for granted (Ibid, 2013:30). Men’s position of dominance is normalized through language (Berrington, Jones, 2002:308) and that process includes a normalizing of male aggression. Sexual violence is constructed as a risk that women can protect themselves against, if acting responsible (Ibid:317). By that, women are socialized into fear of male violence (Ibid:319) and thus become subjects of violence and objects of fear (Marcus, 1992:398), the so called subjection process (Ibid:394). Due to that, women are expected to monitor and restrict their behavior (Berrington, Jones, 2002:317) and even hinder their movements in an attempt to ensure the safety of their bodies (Edwards et al, 2011:767). Dr. Eileen Berrington and Dr. Helen Jones, mean that the relationship between the patriarchal construction of the society and the existence of male violence can be understood as part of a system of power (Berrington, Jones, 2002:308).
    ...
    Rape myths exist in symbiosis with cultural stereotypes of “ideal” behavior for women and men (Brinson, 1992:361). Questioning the behavior of the woman before the rape is the same thing as saying that something she did provoked a man to rape her. By talking about being in the “wrong” place, wearing the “wrong” clothes and acting in the “wrong” way presupposes that there is a right way for women to behave (Ibid:362). These “norms of femininity” as Berrington and Jones chose to call them, describe the cultural attributes and expectations assigned to women (Berrington, Jones, 2002:309). The horror of rape is not that it steals something from women, but that it makes women into things to be taken (Marcus, 1992:399). The production of a norm of behavior is a form of power that regulate, control and normalize and aim to produce docile and useful bodies (Henderson, 2013:238).This creates an assumption that that women can, when behaving correct and responsible, avoid the violence of men (Berrington, Jones, 2002:307). Henderson claims that historically women have been told to avoid rape by restricting their choices, movements and behavior (Henderson, 2013:233).
    https://aifs.gov.au/publications/con...street-harassm
    However, all of these forms of sexual harassment are interconnected, regardless of intent or the way they are experienced by the recipient, as "the remarks serve multiple functions of social control" (Kissling, 1991, p. 455). Kissling denoted this harassment as a form of "sexual terrorism", which serves to remind women of their status as sexual objects, and "of their vulnerability to these and other violations" (p. 455). It is here that the interconnections between sexual harassment and more severe forms of sexual violence are most apparent. Firstly, sexual harassment functions as a reminder to women of the threat or possibility of something "more serious" occurring, therefore rendering women as sexually vulnerable (Crouch, 2009; Kissling, 1991; Laniya, 2005; Macmillan et al., 2000; Tuerkheimer, 1997). Secondly, both sexual harassment and sexual violence remove women's sexual and bodily autonomy (MacKinnon, 1979), curtail women's behaviour, and are used to threaten, intimidate, and harm women.
    The social nature of such violence directed towards women is often shaped in such a way as to set limits on women's behaviour and restrict their autonomy.
    https://orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/226...al_jpsp_00.pdf
    The authors argue that complementary hostile and benevolent components of sexism exist across cultures. Male dominance creates hostile sexism (HS), but men's dependence on women fosters benevolent sexism (BS)--subjectively positive attitudes that put women on a pedestal but reinforce their subordination. Research with 15,000 men and women in 19 nations showed that (a) HS and BS are coherent constructs that correlate positively across nations, but (b) HS predicts the ascription of negative and BS the ascription of positive traits to women, (c) relative to men, women are more likely to reject HS than BS, especially when overall levels of sexism in a culture are high, and (d) national averages on BS and HS predict gender inequality across nations. These results challenge prevailing notions of prejudice as an antipathy in that BS (an affectionate, patronizing ideology) reflects inequality and is a cross-culturally pervasive complement to HS.
    ...
    The more sexist the nation, the more women, relative to men, accepted BS, even to the point, in the four nations with the highest mean sexism scores (Botswana, Cuba, Nigeria, South Africa), of endorsing BS significantly more than men did. In general, relative to men, women were more accepting of BS than of HS, suggesting that members of subordinate groups fmd ostensibly benevolent prejudice more acceptable than hostile prejudice toward their group.

    The evidence is consistent with the idea that women adopt BS as a form of self-defense when overall levels of sexism in a culture are high. HS and BS work together as a particularly effective method of system maintenance: When men are high in HS, women have a strong incentive to accept BS to gain men's protection, admiration, and affection and as a means of avoiding men's hostility. Faced with hostility from a more powerful group if they choose to reject conventional female roles and rewarded with men's benevolence for conforming to those roles, it is not surprising that many women choose to adopt prescribed roles and the ideology (BS) that supports them (see also Eagly, 1987; Jackman, 1994; Ridgeway, 1992). This is similar to arguments made by Smuts (1996) and Jackman (1994) that the threat of male aggression leads women to seek protection by pair bonding with men. Such effects are ironic, as women are driven to seek protection from members of the very group that threatens or oppresses them, and the greater the threat (i.e., the more men endorse HS), the stronger the incentive to seek male protection (rather than independence).
    Though because there have indeed been advancements in women's rights in terms of being recognized in the abstract as equal citizens, granting women formal autonomy, the matter of it being substantive is another issue that is seemingly incomprehensible within a liberal framework.


    Secondly, men technically get raped more often, once you take into account prison rape.
    And it's a big problem among many policy fuck ups in regards to the justice and prison system particularly in the US for example.
    Although it's unclear what this fact on it own is meant to make in that it's left implicit, the uncharitable interpretation being, men have it rough to. Which need not be denied, but if its somehow meant to negate the prevalence of sexual violence against women and its social implications in how its framed as a problem whcih women must restrict themselves in various ways, it doesn't seem to make a point against anything but simply raise a fact independently.
    Unless there is something more to unpack.

    Thirdly, unless if our society is a "rape culture", where the raping and sexual harassment of women are seen as normal and does not constitute as a crime, then I don't see what argument you are trying to put up here. Statistics on response rates may not be helpful, since both male and female victims of sex crimes may not end up reporting to the authorities about it, due to fear of ridicule.

    either way, if you wanted real oppression, then how about traveling to a third world country.
    Ah, I see you do end up making a relative argument which you should no makes a point separate from the issue.
    If there's people starving and without water in another country, this doesn't negate anything happening to me. It doesn't negate whether it's terrible or not or make a point to argue that thinking of a certain thing as terrible is somehow inappropriate/incorrect.
    One should be sensitive to the way one abstracts because one can trivialize even those problems by a point of relativity in which nothing matters and shouldn't care about anything. I think it happens to be a piss poor standard to in regards to measuring our success if we're to compare ourselves to those with say histories of colonization and imperialism as if they're able to be liberal democracies as in the west.


    The fact that you live in a country where "mansplaining" and "manspreading" is a thing should already hint the severity of the problem here in the west.

    statistics from my country:


    Should we now only act as though homicides and physical assault affect men? Want to fight against rape?
    Well, then stop acting as though it is a "women only problem", and keep gender out of it. Now I can understand only focusing on one gender when it comes to societies that see raping a woman as fine, but in the west, that is not the case.
    The existence of things such as mansplaining and manspreading doesn't give a hint of the problems as they exist in the west but problems as they exist in the lives of middle class folks in those countries who are distant from working with such social problems.
    One should not measure such issues on such terms unless want to set a low bar on drivel in sensationalist media rather than serious discussion.
    And in regards to violence against men, that similar trend is replicated in my home country Australia, where men are more likely to be physically assaulted by strangers in public and alcohol also exacerbates it.
    Whilst women are more likely to be assaulted by someone they know in the home.
    But for many that seem to show an interest in things affecting men, its difficult to get people to see issue with such prevalent violence as when issues of violence against women are raised I believe.
    https://personalitycafe.com/critical-...aults-men.html
    There isn't the political climate that is hostile to it, it's just not a point of discussion for many apparently who don't seem to see it as a social problem in the way feminists have taken on violence against women historically.
    There were some mens groups that emerged from the feminist movement, many that became hippyish individualized psychology stuff rather than social issues of gendered relations.
    Although some good stuff still remains https://www.xyonline.net/
    I think it's unfair that you characterize benty's position as a woman only problem, it seems that you've perhaps had negative experiences in the past with feminists or something and you're speaking from a position as if they fit your conception of an average one.

    And I think in regards to the concept of rape culture is constituted by more than rape not being viewed as a crime.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
    And theres also the issue in which people in the abstract may believe something but in practice function in problematic ways.

    And in regards to what attitudes do prevail, you might be interested in exploring debates around the idea of there being a gap in the justice systems efficacy in charging and convicting rapists, based in myths that are a self fulfilling prophecy.
    http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/v...76&context=plr
    Although the connection between rape myths and conviction rates has long been demonstrated, the need for a contemporary, scholarly study that compellingly reiterates this connection is, perhaps aptly, provided by those legal practitioners interviewed as part of the authors’ UK-based research.10 When asked about the existence of the justice gap, only one of the twenty-four interviewed (seventeen judges and seven barristers) “was prepared to concede that there was in fact a justice gap.”11 “Other interviewees denied or showed resistance to this idea, and some were plainly annoyed at the suggestion.”12 The authors importantly go on to identify the contradiction between this rejection of the notion of a justice gap—which a number of interviewees described as a “concoction” of women’s groups13— and the observations of the participants about the difficulties of conviction when there is no “real rape”:

    Many interviewees considered that the idea of a justice gap was based on fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of rape cases in which so frequently it was one person’s word against another so that the burden of proof would necessarily be very difficult for the prosecution to discharge. Yet they themselves had pointed to the problems in processing rape caused by failures in evidence-gathering, weak prosecuting and reliance on stereotypical thinking, all of which have a bearing on whether the burden of proof is regarded by juries as having been satisfied. 14

    The authors’ research makes the case for the need to continue to talk about “real rape” and how the dissonance between reports and convictions can be explained, not by lack of evidence, but by preconceived notions of what rape looks like and how a “real victim” will act. Rather than explaining the justice gap as a result of the difficulties of proof when credibility is the main issue, Temkin and Krahīe argue that “[p]erceptions of rape are influenced by stereotypes, bias and gender prejudice. . . . [I]t is this attitude problem that needs to be addressed if the justice gap is to be reduced.”15 Judgments about sexual assault, the authors say, are “skewed in the direction of low conviction rates partly because of the widely held attitudes about rape which undermine the position of the complainant and benefit the defendant.”16
    https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.go...ch%20Paper.pdf

    Although the issue should be considered beyond the judicial context as thats a rather restricted and conservative avenue.

    My arrogant suggestion to you is to look at critiques of liberalism and make explicit it's limitations.
    Because feminism didn't succeed, liberal reforms in regards to women did and its in fact the liberal attitude that give such a post-feminist sentiment. I hope that your concern for men is more meaningful for you then a reaction to any feminist seeming views and opinions. Which is whats wrong with my assault and men thread. The views spark up to dengrate poorly views of social problems of women, which need not be at the expense of men except when whats asserted politically opposes.
    Generally its easy for people to care some in the abstract about men and women on gender issues. But with such concern you should no doubt be able to acknowledge it sint some utopia for women because of knee jerk reactions to the intellectual degradation that comes in a postmodernist mileau.
    Replicating the abstract individuality that things individual choice without formal discrimination by law is the epitome of freedom and entirely neglects the matter of a substantive autonomy of women. How they empirically exist and in relation to how they potentially could be instead of in relation to the worst societies in regards to treatment and autonomy of women.
    Last edited by Wellsy; 01-02-2018 at 09:59 PM.

  2. #62
    INTP

    Quote Originally Posted by Wellsy View Post
    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1c/33...09e3555766.pngYour sense of oppression is too weakly conceived if you're implying that oppression of women is non-existant int he west. And perhaps be interested to be critical of the way in which non-western women are portrayed as subject to oppression strictly for cultural reasons and that somehow we're enlightened and beyond it despite often comparable levels of violence against women.
    https://personalitycafe.com/critical-...y-culture.html
    So this sense of feminism only for third worlders or something seems weak unless one has a an increasingly obsolete standard for treatment of women in the west ie liberalism dissolving formal discriminations.

    But it is only an arbitrary distinction that would draw the lines to say how women behave in the household as the social structure that is replicated materially in a disparities in behaviour and outcome of men and women cannot not be isolated from the sexual violence women face except conceptually.
    But this need not be the case, except that you're making a reduced focus.
    In that maintaining certain gendered practices is based in instilling terror to maintain an illusion that only 'bad' women are subject to sexual violence.


    http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?f...ileOId=4461660

    https://aifs.gov.au/publications/con...street-harassm

    The social nature of such violence directed towards women is often shaped in such a way as to set limits on women's behaviour and restrict their autonomy.
    https://orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/226...al_jpsp_00.pdf

    Though because there have indeed been advancements in women's rights in terms of being recognized in the abstract as equal citizens, granting women formal autonomy, the matter of it being substantive is another issue that is seemingly incomprehensible within a liberal framework.



    And it's a big problem among many policy fuck ups in regards to the justice and prison system particularly in the US for example.
    Although it's unclear what this fact on it own is meant to make in that it's left implicit, the uncharitable interpretation being, men have it rough to. Which need not be denied, but if its somehow meant to negate the prevalence of sexual violence against women and its social implications in how its framed as a problem whcih women must restrict themselves in various ways, it doesn't seem to make a point against anything but simply raise a fact independently.
    Unless there is something more to unpack.





    Ah, I see you do end up making a relative argument which you should no makes a point separate from the issue.
    If there's people starving and without water in another country, this doesn't negate anything happening to me. It doesn't negate whether it's terrible or not or make a point to argue that thinking of a certain thing as terrible is somehow inappropriate/incorrect.
    One should be sensitive to the way one abstracts because one can trivialize even those problems by a point of relativity in which nothing matters and shouldn't care about anything. I think it happens to be a piss poor standard to in regards to measuring our success if we're to compare ourselves to those with say histories of colonization and imperialism as if they're able to be liberal democracies as in the west.



    The existence of things such as mansplaining and manspreading doesn't give a hint of the problems as they exist in the west but problems as they exist in the lives of middle class folks in those countries who are distant from working with such social problems.
    One should not measure such issues on such terms unless want to set a low bar on drivel in sensationalist media rather than serious discussion.
    And in regards to violence against men, that similar trend is replicated in my home country Australia, where men are more likely to be physically assaulted by strangers in public and alcohol also exacerbates it.
    Whilst women are more likely to be assaulted by someone they know in the home.
    But for many that seem to show an interest in things affecting men, its difficult to get people to see issue with such prevalent violence as when issues of violence against women are raised I believe.
    https://personalitycafe.com/critical-...aults-men.html
    There isn't the political climate that is hostile to it, it's just not a point of discussion for many apparently who don't seem to see it as a social problem in the way feminists have taken on violence against women historically.
    There were some mens groups that emerged from the feminist movement, many that became hippyish individualized psychology stuff rather than social issues of gendered relations.
    Although some good stuff still remains https://www.xyonline.net/
    I think it's unfair that you characterize benty's position as a woman only problem, it seems that you've perhaps had negative experiences in the past with feminists or something and you're speaking from a position as if they fit your conception of an average one.

    And I think in regards to the concept of rape culture is constituted by more than rape not being viewed as a crime.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
    And theres also the issue in which people in the abstract may believe something but in practice function in problematic ways.

    And in regards to what attitudes do prevail, you might be interested in exploring debates around the idea of there being a gap in the justice systems efficacy in charging and convicting rapists, based in myths that are a self fulfilling prophecy.
    http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/v...76&context=plr

    https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.go...ch%20Paper.pdf

    Although the issue should be considered beyond the judicial context as thats a rather restricted and conservative avenue.

    My arrogant suggestion to you is to look at critiques of liberalism and make explicit it's limitations.
    Because feminism didn't succeed, liberal reforms in regards to women did and its in fact the liberal attitude that give such a post-feminist sentiment. I hope that your concern for men is more meaningful for you then a reaction to any feminist seeming views and opinions. Which is whats wrong with my assault and men thread. The views spark up to dengrate poorly views of social problems of women, which need not be at the expense of men except when whats asserted politically opposes.
    Generally its easy for people to care some in the abstract about men and women on gender issues. But with such concern you should no doubt be able to acknowledge it sint some utopia for women because of knee jerk reactions to the intellectual degradation that comes in a postmodernist mileau.
    Replicating the abstract individuality that things individual choice without formal discrimination by law is the epitome of freedom and entirely neglects the matter of a substantive autonomy of women. How they empirically exist and in relation to how they potentially could be instead of in relation to the worst societies in regards to treatment and autonomy of women.
    Yeah, this may be a little confusing to read because it is not in order and that's because I am tired and lazy.

    The researchers found a sense of entitlement in women was associated with stronger endorsement of benevolent sexism. Women who believed they deserved more out of life were more likely to endorse benevolent sexist beliefs and adherence to these beliefs increased over time. The association between a sense of entitlement in men and endorsement of benevolent sexism was weak, in contrast, and did not increase over time.

    “It tells us that one factor underlying women’s endorsement of sexist attitudes toward women is the propensity to feel more deserving than others and wanting to feel special,” he explained. “This also gives us insight into showing how benevolent sexism is subjectively positive but is not actually a ‘pro-social’ set of attitudes.”

    one reason women agree with benevolent sexism is a self-protection motivation, because it promotes the care and safeguarding of women against danger
    The study you showed me clearly states that most women who indulge in bs behaviour usually tend to have strong beliefs upon entitlement. And the last part could theoretically be explained by:


    there were over 200,000 cases of parental kidnapping
    worldwide.
    To reiterate, maternal/paternal aggression is a type of
    maternal/paternal investment. Humans demonstrate both
    maternal and paternal investment. Women demonstrate
    higher parental investment both at the minimum biological
    level (e.g., gestation and lactation) and in terms of perform-
    ing child care (Coltrane, 2000; Hook, 2010). Men exhibit
    lower levels of fear (Brebner, 2003; Campbell, 2013) and
    higher levels of testosterone, risky behavior, and general
    physical aggression. In addition, men’s higher physical
    aggression can be used for a variety of survival or repro-
    ductive ends (Buss, 2009), such as offspring protection
    In the case of offspring.
    PS. I cannot send the link right now, since I cannot send pdf links on my phone.

    Flawed, since what you have shown me does not revolve around any actual studies, and does not have any significance towards this weird of time(since it mainly refers to Jewish culture, Nazism, and ww2). Mostly opinionated and is simply an analyzation of certain events in history, during a time where sexism was more prevalent.

    Again, you have given me a link to an opinionated piece, not facts. Also, by that same logic we could that losing electricity in a small area of a town in Canada is the equivalent of what's going on in places such as countries in Africa where the electricity goes out on a more so consistent basis, and how only a small amount of the contents population is of equivalents to this situation, and does not stop it from being a problem. Sure it's minor, but it's still a problem.
    The whole argument is nothing but idiotic, and does not provide any leverage whatsoever.


    Your link has barely shown any proof towards female discrimination in the west, and the only points it did make revolves around domestic violence.
    But physical domestic violence affects 1 out 7 men(40% in the UK) and nearly half of all reported cases of psychological domestic abuse reported includes men as being the victims of it. But only 8% of men have reported finding the domestic abuse hotline as useful, while the other 92% reported being teased and/or being hung up on. Domestic abuse in America is more so of a humanitarian issue, rather than a gender one.




    This was a wwyd experiment by ABC.^


    Benty’s argument mainly revolved around her feelings. Most women who complain of a sexist society were usually brought up that way(and I can tell you this from first hand experience), which is why you see more women in the west complaining of sexism. But once you ask someone who actually was at the hands of sexism you end up finding that this isn't the case. There is a reason for why the amount of females out there that are considering themselves to be feminists is falling greatly(only 1in 5 women consider themselves to be feminist in the US, and only 7% of women in the UK consider themselves to be feminists, yet 85% of women in the US believe that there is gender inequality out there, and 92% of women in the UK believe in the equality if the sexes). This is due to a large realization upon the fact that feminism is not what it used to be.
    The arguments you have given me were mainly based upon one person's philosophy/opinion, but not upon basic reality, making this one big waste of my morning.

    Now if you need me, I will be eating a grape in the most divine of ways only pretend rich people know how too. Good day!

    Also, I agree with you on the justice system part. Now, time to eat them divine grapes!









  3. #63
    INFP


    Quote Originally Posted by Cal View Post
    Yeah, this may be a little confusing to read because it is not in order and that's because I am tired and lazy.

    Fair enough, I’ll express areas where I don’t quite follow should you feel up to reading my response.


    [QUOTE]
    The researchers found a sense of entitlement in women was associated with stronger endorsement of benevolent sexism. Women who believed they deserved more out of life were more likely to endorse benevolent sexist beliefs and adherence to these beliefs increased over time. The association between a sense of entitlement in men and endorsement of benevolent sexism was weak, in contrast, and did not increase over time.

    “It tells us that one factor underlying women’s endorsement of sexist attitudes toward women is the propensity to feel more deserving than others and wanting to feel special,” he explained. “This also gives us insight into showing how benevolent sexism is subjectively positive but is not actually a ‘pro-social’ set of attitudes.”

    one reason women agree with benevolent sexism is a self-protection motivation, because it promotes the care and safeguarding of women against danger


    The study you showed me clearly states that most women who indulge in bs behaviour usually tend to have strong beliefs upon entitlement. And the last part could theoretically be explained by:

    there were over 200,000 cases of parental kidnapping worldwide. To reiterate, maternal/paternal aggression is a type of maternal/paternal investment. Humans demonstrate both maternal and paternal investment. Women demonstrate higher parental investment both at the minimum biological level (e.g., gestation and lactation) and in terms of perform- ing child care (Coltrane, 2000; Hook, 2010). Men exhibit lower levels of fear (Brebner, 2003; Campbell, 2013) and higher levels of testosterone, risky behavior, and general physical aggression. In addition, men’s higher physical aggression can be used for a variety of survival or repro- ductive ends (Buss, 2009), such as offspring protection

    In the case of offspring.
    PS. I cannot send the link right now, since I cannot send pdf links on my phone.[QUOTE]
    This I think is the study.
    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/14747049166622852

    This part is bit hard to follow, I’m thinking there was difficulty by typing on the phone that forgot about this section and wasn’t able to fully express what you wanted here.
    So I’ll leave it be.

    [QUOTE]Flawed, since what you have shown me does not revolve around any actual studies, and does not have any significance towards this weird of time(since it mainly refers to Jewish culture, Nazism, and ww2). Mostly opinionated and is simply an analyzation of certain events in history, during a time where sexism was more prevalent.[QUOTE]
    Going to have to be more specific here to help me see where what I referenced or said relates to Jewish culture, Nazism or WW2. So in the end I don’t know what this refers to.



    Again, you have given me a link to an opinionated piece, not facts. Also, by that same logic we could that losing electricity in a small area of a town in Canada is the equivalent of what's going on in places such as countries in Africa where the electricity goes out on a more so consistent basis, and how only a small amount of the contents population is of equivalents to this situation, and does not stop it from being a problem. Sure it's minor, but it's still a problem.
    The whole argument is nothing but idiotic, and does not provide any leverage whatsoever.

    And I’m assuming this is in reference to the point about your argument being relative.
    Where you seem to be making the point I thought I was making to you.
    That a problem else where doesn’t mitigate another probelm but may be a problem independent of it. Such that by bringing up issues facing men, it doesn’t negate the sexual violence done to women. Unless one wants to make an explicit argument that neither men nor women are oppressed because both are subject to similar degrees of sexual violence or something.
    So I take it that you didn’t understand what I believe I expressed.
    But I think since the point is oppression, I’ll throw in the point that oppression is constituted by

    p. 25
    1. The harm condition: There is a harm that comes out of an institutional practice.
    2. The social group condition: The harm is perpetrated through a social institution or practice on a social group whose identity exists apart from the oppressive harm in (1.)
    3. The privilege condition: There is another social group that ebenefits from the institutional practice in (1.)
    4. The coercion condition: There is unjustified coercion or force that brings about the harm.

    Which leading to the next part...

    Your link has barely shown any proof towards female discrimination in the west, and the only points it did make revolves around domestic violence.

    You must have a limited sense of oppression and its significance if your focus is apparently confined to discrimination. Which is why I ended my last post in that you need to look at critiques of liberalism as it seems your view of things being wrong extends only as far as crude legal discrimination and lacks acknowledgement that whats wrong in society isn’t simply how things are codified in laws but the actual state of society and its relations.
    Domestic violence is a prominent example of social means of oppressing women.
    Although you may need to unpack the concept some in order to differentiate the sort of domestic violence as studied by feminists historically from the sort found by family researchers whose methods ignore social dynamics and only take self reports of acts of violence. Where the restrictive conception doesn’t allow one to conceive of the kind which feminists have long opposed and been based in ideas of dominance over women.
    And there is also the intuitive point that because something passes in law, that doesn’t mean it’s effective in barring all the wrongs in society. Making discrimination illegal doesn’t wash away discrimination from society, especially with such heavy costs in order to pursue it. Most things don’t end up in civil courts for various reasons.


    But physical domestic violence affects 1 out 7 men(40% in the UK) and nearly half of all reported cases of psychological domestic abuse reported includes men as being the victims of it. But only 8% of men have reported finding the domestic abuse hotline as useful, while the other 92% reported being teased and/or being hung up on. Domestic abuse in America is more so of a humanitarian issue, rather than a gender one.

    Here as I am sympathetic to violence against men as an issue that isn’t to be dismissed, though I can be hostile to the way in which it is recklessly framed, I would mention the idea of gender inclusivity.
    Basically acknowledge certain dimensions that differentiate the experiences of men and women. WHich has been found relevant in the felt unpreparedness of some who have sought to work with male victims of domestic or in my own case, family violence.
    But as noted earlier with point about relativity, whats happening to men doesn’t negate whats happening to women or the idea that they’re oppressed.
    Which is why I found your response worht while responding to initially in that emphasizing violence against men seemed almost non-sequitur to benty’s point about sexual violence as an element of women’s oppression.


    This was a wwyd experiment by ABC.^



    Benty’s argument mainly revolved around her feelings. Most women who complain of a sexist society were usually brought up that way(and I can tell you this from first hand experience), which is why you see more women in the west complaining of sexism. But once you ask someone who actually was at the hands of sexism you end up finding that this isn't the case. There is a reason for why the amount of females out there that are considering themselves to be feminists is falling greatly(only 1in 5 women consider themselves to be feminist in the US, and only 7% of women in the UK consider themselves to be feminists, yet 85% of women in the US believe that there is gender inequality out there, and 92% of women in the UK believe in the equality if the sexes). This is due to a large realization upon the fact that feminism is not what it used to be.
    The arguments you have given me were mainly based upon one person's philosophy/opinion, but not upon basic reality, making this one big waste of my morning.

    Maybe bit grump in the morning but nothing about bentys post conveys things simply revolving around feelings. She made an assertion, little more.
    But that you dismiss it as much sounds concerning in as far as you may be caught up with typical dismissals that don’t genuinely consider viewpoints.
    Instead you explain a conception that comes to your mind, a preconception.
    And it sounds like the preconception is based heavily in personal experience.
    Seems you presuppose the non-existence of it, but the point I think isn’t that you should necessarily presuppose it but out of curisoity investigate the arguments that do exist rather than what sounds like average peers during a time when feminism is as you would agree at its weakest ideologically.
    Thought to be replaced by an abstract individuality of (neo)liberalism and its emphasis on choice rather than agency within concrete world.
    https://personalitycafe.com/current-events/1039042-women-now-empowered-everything-woman-does.html#post35148898

    Although again hard to respond in that I don’t know what point you’re referring to.
    As much of what I sahred was conceptual in understanding the nature of sexual violence as a means of terrorizing and oppressing women.
    The sort that functions to reduce women’s autonomy in the public space and elsewhere.
    Which was following benty’s point of women’s oppression being related to rape and sexual violence. To which I’m articulating it’s terrorizing social function which doesn’t deny sexual violence done to men, but that it doens’t have the same social form. Like as dangerous as physical assault from other men in public is for men, there isn’t comparable social attitudes to restrict and legitimize restrictions on men’s behaviour as with sexual violence.

    And if you are to engage in things meaningfully I would argue you should engage with people at the level of philosophy because piling up empirical facts will not give one a deeper comprehension of things. They need to be synthesized to see the bigger picture.
    A common problem in the west where the way people think treats things as independently rather than relationally.

    Now if you need me, I will be eating a grape in the most divine of ways only pretend rich people know how too. Good day!

    Also, I agree with you on the justice system part. Now, time to eat them divine grapes!

    Hopefully the morning picked up, perhaps else where if feel free to i might debate you more seriously in effort to convince you but also to hear your explicit and articulated viewed in an engaging manner.
    In the end, all that I implore of you is to be curious, perhaps even simply observant and empathetic to your peers.
    You may well find out how many of them experience individually similar things such as sexual harassment and violence. And the means to make sense of them isn't to treat them separately but to analyze things on the societal level, to note trends.
    And also to engage in discussons and take in the common responses people give and ask why they respond in that way.
    Because often its not so much that people are necessarily telling something false, as much as they simply obscure the whole truth.

    Like how sexual violence is framed in terms of strangers when its most often someone a woman knows and trusts.
    And how the behaviours suggested for women to safeguard themselves are all charactersitically affirming of behaviours seen as respectable and good, whilst those who are punished are denigrated.
    Something true of any social system where there is no protection for those with an unacceptable behaviour, they break the norms and thus are subjected to violence to be put back in their place.
    Fragmented and without collective power, women are easily controlled to the benefit of men. Which isn't that many of the gender norms aren't costly to men, but men are often resistant to changes to the benefit of women.
    Although one's sex isn't strictly determinant of one's politics.

    Regardless though, the whole interaction was to be centered on the sense in which you dismissed oppression of women in the west. But as far as I see it, you have a lot of reading and thinking you'll have to get through before you can conceptualize forces of oppression beyond the most crude forms that are offensive and regressive relative to liberal standards.
    Cal thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #64
    INTP

    Quote Originally Posted by Wellsy View Post
    Domestic violence is a prominent example of social means of oppressing women.
    Though domestic abuse can be a sign of female oppression in some countries, it is nuts sign of female oppression in all countries. Especially those in which it also happens often to the opposite sex, and is quite frequently emphasized and fought against(especially when it comes to domestic abuse against females).
    Although you may need to unpack the concept some in order to differentiate the sort of domestic violence as studied by feminists historically from the sort found by family researchers whose methods ignore social dynamics and only take self reports of acts of violence. Where the restrictive conception doesnít allow one to conceive of the kind which feminists have long opposed and been based in ideas of dominance over women.
    And there is also the intuitive point that because something passes in law, that doesnít mean itís effective in barring all the wrongs in society. Making discrimination illegal doesnít wash away discrimination from society, especially with such heavy costs in order to pursue it. Most things donít end up in civil courts for various reasons.
    But the fact is that there isn't really any discrimination against women in the west for the most part. A majority of female discrimination comes from other countries, but in the west it is very minimal(closed off to very small groups of people, but even that doesn't effect a majority of people).


    Here as I am sympathetic to violence against men as an issue that isnít to be dismissed, though I can be hostile to the way in which it is recklessly framed, I would mention the idea of gender inclusivity.
    Basically acknowledge certain dimensions that differentiate the experiences of men and women. WHich has been found relevant in the felt unpreparedness of some who have sought to work with male victims of domestic or in my own case, family violence.
    But as noted earlier with point about relativity, whats happening to men doesnít negate whats happening to women or the idea that theyíre oppressed.
    Which is why I found your response worht while responding to initially in that emphasizing violence against men seemed almost non-sequitur to bentyís point about sexual violence as an element of womenís oppression.
    I am pretty sure I was responding g to one of your points, though I cannot really remember(that was a really foggy morning for me).




    Maybe bit grump in the morning but nothing about bentys post conveys things simply revolving around feelings. She made an assertion, little more.
    But that you dismiss it as much sounds concerning in as far as you may be caught up with typical dismissals that donít genuinely consider viewpoints.
    Instead you explain a conception that comes to your mind, a preconception.
    And it sounds like the preconception is based heavily in personal experience.
    Seems you presuppose the non-existence of it, but the point I think isnít that you should necessarily presuppose it but out of curisoity investigate the arguments that do exist rather than what sounds like average peers during a time when feminism is as you would agree at its weakest ideologically.
    Thought to be replaced by an abstract individuality of (neo)liberalism and its emphasis on choice rather than agency within concrete world.
    https://personalitycafe.com/current-events/1039042-women-now-empowered-everything-woman-does.html#post35148898

    Again, you did not show me facts, only opinionated and philosophical articles about the topic. Also, I could disclose Benty's point if I wanted too, but when I don't feel obligated to defend my stance, I don't work very hard to defend my stance. And I find it quite hard to feel obligated to defend my stance against some randy on the internet, who I don't even know the age of.

    Although again hard to respond in that I donít know what point youíre referring to.
    As much of what I sahred was conceptual in understanding the nature of sexual violence as a means of terrorizing and oppressing women.
    The sort that functions to reduce womenís autonomy in the public space and elsewhere.
    Which was following bentyís point of womenís oppression being related to rape and sexual violence. To which Iím articulating itís terrorizing social function which doesnít deny sexual violence done to men, but that it doensít have the same social form. Like as dangerous as physical assault from other men in public is for men, there isnít comparable social attitudes to restrict and legitimize restrictions on menís behaviour as with sexual violence.

    And if you are to engage in things meaningfully I would argue you should engage with people at the level of philosophy because piling up empirical facts will not give one a deeper comprehension of things. They need to be synthesized to see the bigger picture.
    A common problem in the west where the way people think treats things as independently rather than relationally.

    Arguing with one upon the means of the philosophical meaning of a movement is not very useful at all. It mainly revolves around what it means to others, but does not indicate the true flaws and what the movement is doing as a whole. We could apply the same logic with any movement, and make it seem as though it will give us a deeper meaning and understanding if the movement, but that is not always the case. What someone will write about the movement does not reflect the movements true meaning, and can just as easily be a cover up to the movements true intentions.
    Facts are not subjective, and cannot be faked as easily.



    Hopefully the morning picked up, perhaps else where if feel free to i might debate you more seriously in effort to convince you but also to hear your explicit and articulated viewed in an engaging manner.
    In the end, all that I implore of you is to be curious, perhaps even simply observant and empathetic to your peers.
    You may well find out how many of them experience individually similar things such as sexual harassment and violence. And the means to make sense of them isn't to treat them separately but to analyze things on the societal level, to note trends.
    And also to engage in discussons and take in the common responses people give and ask why they respond in that way.
    Because often its not so much that people are necessarily telling something false, as much as they simply obscure the whole truth.

    Like how sexual violence is framed in terms of strangers when its most often someone a woman knows and trusts.
    And how the behaviours suggested for women to safeguard themselves are all charactersitically affirming of behaviours seen as respectable and good, whilst those who are punished are denigrated.
    Something true of any social system where there is no protection for those with an unacceptable behaviour, they break the norms and thus are subjected to violence to be put back in their place.
    Fragmented and without collective power, women are easily controlled to the benefit of men. Which isn't that many of the gender norms aren't costly to men, but men are often resistant to changes to the benefit of women.
    Although one's sex isn't strictly determinant of one's politics.

    Regardless though, the whole interaction was to be centered on the sense in which you dismissed oppression of women in the west. But as far as I see it, you have a lot of reading and thinking you'll have to get through before you can conceptualize forces of oppression beyond the most crude forms that are offensive and regressive relative to liberal standards.
    [/QUOTE] Relative to liberal standards?
    So this implying that you have an obvious political biased towards this subject, and are just speaking from one side of the story without any further analyzation into this subject?

    Did you ever bother at looking at both sides of the story. I have been reading about this stuff for years now, and have watched videos about, so I think I know what I am talking about. My views are based off of analyzing both sides of the subject and coming to a conclusion on it.

    Now if you need me, I will be busy holding an important charity event for the CWPA(Chicken Witness Protection Agency). It is quite important!
    contradictionary thanked this post.

  6. #65
    INFP


    Quote Originally Posted by Cal View Post
    But the fact is that there isn't really any discrimination against women in the west for the most part. A majority of female discrimination comes from other countries, but in the west it is very minimal(closed off to very small groups of people, but even that doesn't effect a majority of people).

    I would agree in a qualified sense that there have been the removal of many formal laws of discrimination such that women have formal equality in the west. And no doubt many of western countries do have less discrimination relative to many nations who have regressed politically.

    But the point is to emphasize problems in the west, which aren’t dismissed by citing problems beyond. The dismantling of discriminatory laws or creation of laws that are meant to ‘protect’ people stop discrimination doesn’t guarantee it’s effectively dealt with.
    And I think we’d have to get into the specifics in considering the prevalence of discrimination, of which sexual harsasment is a prevalent form.
    https://aifs.gov.au/publications/conceptual-understandings-and-prevalence-sexual-harassment-and-street-harassm
    Being subjected to sexually harassing behaviours is a particularly common experience for women (Pina & Gannon, 2012). Given the pervasive and often highly public nature of these behaviours, it is perhaps not surprising that high numbers of women have been subjected to sexual harassment and street harassment. Indeed, Tuerkheimer (1997) went as far as to say that for many women "street harassment seems an inevitable part of our existence" (p. 180; see also Laniya, 2005). For example, in Macmillan and colleagues' (2000) study "more than 80 per cent [of participants] experienced some form of stranger harassment, and almost 30 per cent experienced explicitly confrontational forms of harassment" (p. 319). This study drew on data from the Canadian-based 1993 Violence Against Women Survey, and used a representative sample of 12,300 women aged 18 years or older. Similarly, Lenton et al.'s (1999) study of 1,990 Canadian women found:

    nine in ten women have experienced at least one incident of public harassment, and three in ten have been involved in the most severe type of harassment, where the perpetrator touched or tried to touch the victim in a sexual way. (p. 537)

    Lenton et al. (1999) also highlighted that younger women and single women are more likely to be impacted on by sexual harassment and street harassment stating that "younger women report much more harassment than older women, and … single women are more likely to report harassment than married, cohabiting or widower women regardless of the measure used" (p. 530). LaMontagne, Smith, Quinlan, Shoveller, and Ostry (2009) also found that younger women in Australia are disproportionately affected by unwanted sexual advances in the workplace (p. 177). Likewise, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (2012) also identified young adults (including both women and men) aged 18-24 as the age group most likely to experience sexual harassment.

    In Ho, Dinh, Bellefontaine, and Irving's (2012) study of 248 Asian and White female college students in the USA, 96% of participants reported experiencing at least one unwanted sexual advance, while 35% experienced at least one incident of sexual coercion.

    Around 41% of the 228 female college students in Fairchild and Rudman's (2008) study indicated that they experienced "unwanted sexual attention from strangers at least once a month, including sexist remarks or seductive come ons" (p. 353). In addition to this, approximately one-third of these participants reported experiencing harassment such as "catcalls, whistles, and stares every few days or more" (p. 353). Finally, one-quarter of Fairchild and Rudman's sample encountered experiences "akin to sexual coercion or assault at least once a month" (p. 353). Based on these data, the authors argued that sexual harassment by strangers functions as "a significant form of humiliation and indignity that targets women and is likely to undermine the quality of their lives" (p. 353).

    According to the AHRC national sexual harassment survey, one-third of women surveyed have experienced sexual harassment since the age of 15. Further, one-quarter of women had experienced sexual harassment in the workplace in the past 5 years (AHRC, 2012).

    Finally, as with other forms of sexual violence, these statistics are likely to underestimate the true extent of women's experiences of sexual harassment. Victims of sexual harassment may not recognise or label their experience as constituting harassment (Pina & Gannon, 2012).

    One might object to including street harassment, but it seems but arbitrary to isolate women in public from the workplace in regards to the prevalence of sexual harassment. As you yourself were rightfully inclusive in regards to male victims of sexual violence in prison. And it's from such a prevalence that one is able to have the explanations and ideas of what is legitimate shaped in such a way that women may accept such as an inevitable threat in which they can only seek to behave in restricted fashion.
    Rather than be critical of the prevalence of it and what underpins it, as not an uncontrollable male sexuality, but a means of conditioning women. Just as in the work place sexual harassment has the implication press women out of a workplace. Regardless of the subjective intentions of the harasser, this is the implications of such a lot of the time. Because many do things from which the origins of their motivations they never suspect or speculate.
    Such that people do what they want to do freely, but they do not want what they want, they are often incredibly unaware of themselves or their self awareness is pseudo.


    But within the workplace, because of barriers to there being consequences to it, proving sexual harassment for example which is a kind of sex based discrimination, is costly not only in time and resources, which many people lack, but extremely difficult to prove to the necessary burden of evidence. So what happens then is many things that do happen don’t have any legal consequence though in the abstract they should.
    I imagine it’s intuitive that people with less power are more vulnerable and thus unable to effectively deal out consequences either.


    Again, you did not show me facts, only opinionated and philosophical articles about the topic. Also, I could disclose Benty's point if I wanted too, but when I don't feel obligated to defend my stance, I don't work very hard to defend my stance. And I find it quite hard to feel obligated to defend my stance against some randy on the internet, who I don't even know the age of.

    Because I’m on the sense that before you can properly interpret facts, you should be reflective on how you perceive the problem first.
    I dislike what I often see common to the spontaneous thought in which people act like british empiricists as if they can form a comprehensive sense of things by collecting a series of particulars/facts. Their disregard and lack of reflection on the conceptualization of things makes them rather poor in comprehension, not synthesizing.
    My thought was that it’d be better first that consider alternatives perspectives/lens on which to consider the facts and methods.
    I’m 67 years old if you check my profile.
    ANd of course you don’t have to defend it, not obligated to.
    Arguing with one upon the means of the philosophical meaning of a movement is not very useful at all. It mainly revolves around what it means to others, but does not indicate the true flaws and what the movement is doing as a whole. We could apply the same logic with any movement, and make it seem as though it will give us a deeper meaning and understanding if the movement, but that is not always the case. What someone will write about the movement does not reflect the movements true meaning, and can just as easily be a cover up to the movements true intentions. Facts are not subjective, and cannot be faked as easily.

    And this expresses what I summarize just previously, what I speculate as a lack of reflection. Which I suspect also informs your sense of such things being spurious subjectivities. Which is where i would emphasize what is accepted as fact necessarily entails a subjective relation. But I won’t bore you in a tangent on this as I know you’re not wishing for much in this.

    Though what I brought up wasn’t about defining feminism, it was about conceptualizing the social nature of sexual violence and its implications.
    Due to the initial comment from benty focusing on as much
    Where do you live that females are not disproportionately subjected to rape and sexual harassment? That in itself constitutes oppression.

    And i don’t care to argue feminism itself as i’m sure you don’t care either.


    Relative to liberal standards? So this implying that you have an obvious political biased towards this subject, and are just speaking from one side of the story without any further analyzation into this subject?

    Did you ever bother at looking at both sides of the story. I have been reading about this stuff for years now, and have watched videos about, so I think I know what I am talking about. My views are based off of analyzing both sides of the subject and coming to a conclusion on it.

    Now if you need me, I will be busy holding an important charity event for the CWPA(Chicken Witness Protection Agency). It is quite important!

    I am necessary partisan in that I don’t think truth (lowercase) in many context can be otherwise.
    https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/foucaul1.htm
    So when, for example, my male chauvinism confronts your feminism, it is not true that both are equally true, nor that the truth of each are incommensurable, or that the truth of each is in my life and your life, or yours is true for middle-class Western women and mine for backward males, nor surely that "truth" is meaningless, or something trivial that interests only dogmatists!? Nor that I make a better, more convincing, politically-correct defence of my position which is published in a reputable journal, or vice versa, or that I get more votes than you. But nor can I make the claim that my idea reflects what objectively exists, independently of human experience and yours not - what an absurdity! Perhaps we can say that yours is liberatory and mine repressive, and although neither is true, one is good and the other is bad, and that is all that matters? Perhaps we could settle the matter by arm-wrestling?

    We must not get this question confused with the right of an individual to hold a view. This is of course a basic bourgeois right. But that is not the point; I do not thank you for allowing me the right to walk across a mine-field. I am interested in whether my idea of the best way home is objectively correct or not.

    The Politics of Identity
    The structuralists were right when they identified the location of truth in the social practice of a culture, but limited by the conception of culture in anthropological static isolation (dynamic, static or partial "equilibrium"). The truth and error of my view and your view (continuing the metaphor from above) is a really-existing patriarchal society of which we are both a living part and which is undergoing transformation under the impact of the socialisation of women's labour and your struggle for the value of your labour. That is the source of the concepts (of "feminism", "male-chauvinism", "sexist language", etc.), that is the criterion of truth and that is what is changed by the material struggle of our ideas, that is the meaning.

    But then this is getting into an epistemology in regards that there is no Gods eye perspective on which to look upon such things, and the truth isn’t that all truth are equal in some postmodern fashion, where its all just a subjective local narrative.
    To kind of illustrate such a view
    [spoiler]http://loydo38.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/christianitys-perversion-zizek-and.html
    This, however, does not mean that the Real is self-evident, or that the symbolic carries or shows its meaning by itself. After describing two identical maps of a tribal village drawn by both some of the elites who live in the area more central to the temple and the less individuals who are pushed to the outskirts of town, Zizek points out that while the two maps may be identical, what those maps mean and symbolize can be very different. While one group may see an equally dispersed layout, the other may see an invisible, but present, line delineating the elites of the village from the rest. He writes,

    It is here that we can see in what precise sense the Real intervenes through anamorphosis. First we have the “actual,” “objective” arrangement of the houses, and then its two different symbolizations that both distort, in an anamorphic way, the actual arrangement. The “Real” here, however, is not the actual arrangement, but the traumatic core of the social antagonism that distorts the tribe members’ view of the actual antagonism.[7]

    He further adds that “the ‘truth’ is not the ‘real’ state of things, that is, the ‘direct’ view of the object without perspectival distortion, but the very Real of the antagonism that causes perspectival distortion. . . .” In other words, the truth of the Real is not a hard objective kernel that we attain by peeling away subjective perspective. Instead it is the truth of the reality of those perspectives.
    [spoiler]
    People relate to the same objective reality we’re all in from different points. Such that the same objective reality is imbued with different meaning because of how one relates to it.
    In this one can get a sense of how certain divergent views are a product of real conditions. But to get a sense of this one needs to try and comprehend things within their relations rather than isolate things from one another.

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek1.htm
    The 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.

    http://marx2010.weebly.com/uploads/5/4/4/8/5448228/limits_of_a_debate.pdf
    The point is that, purely in terms of formal logic, there is no reason why one criterion should be chosen rather than another. The cause of this indeterminacy is that formal logic is implicitly based on methodological individualism (which implies that everybody is free to choose whatever theory she likes) rather than on a dialectical and thus a class and objectively determined logic.



    And this need not necessitate bias in terms of not considering othersides, in fact I would say for such an effective partisanship, one needs to comprehend the opposition so as to have a broader sense of the whole and the struggle within it.
    I mean, does not your own position have a partisan nature to it, we need not assert ourselves somehow above it all asn purely objective and others less so.
    But I am critical of liberalism and the spontaneous thought from of liberalism which to me seems unreflective of one’s own abstracting, tends to idealize things by considering things isolated from their real world relations (abstracting a single thing, rendering it an empty sign as signs end up assume synonymous with reality with a correspondence theory of truth with mind as mirror of reality) and effectively only considers things in terms of snapshots in time (static) rather than having an ontology of process/things in flux. Which isn’t to say that people aren’t conscious that things change, but the way they think about things is more like thing at point A and thing at point B and one repeats the whole Zeno paradox again as one ends up in contradiction in regards to motion because a thing ends up here and not here.

    ForTheRecord thanked this post.

  7. #66

    1st of all, wow, i'm embarassed to realized that hey, yeah, INTP girls are probably the most suffering type of female in the world.I haven't properly research for the other types but i guess it wouldn't be to far off to say.

    I am not really good at symphatizing so the very least I can say is, hey INTP girls, we will always be your friend =)

    I live in a country which is more skewed towards extraverted, observant, feeling and judging so I can't barely remember I have met any INTP girl here because that would made them even rarer. I guess I must have yet i'm very new in this MBTI thingies so I may not realize it all. I need to check my contact lists, maybe later. Haha.

    Having said that, I must pay my tribute to Cal above. You go gurrll...! NT to the core, hell yeah! Not all girl like that!

  8. #67

    The OP with the study was an interesting read. The negative perceptions correlates with what I have surmised as to when certain (meaning many) people "just don't get it".

    I am not agreeable when it comes to what most people use as trying to get someone to go along and that is primarlily emotion, emotional reasoning. It can be as obvious as "I feel such and such and so you should...." and along the spectrum to subtle emotional appeals (read: manipulations). This is pretty normal for many people to use, but I have zero use for it.

    The problem arises for women who don't have use for emotional appeal because it is presumed "What kind of woman wouldn't?" Presumption: "Because you have a womb, you must be more interested in nurturing everyone's precious feelings." No. I prefer and insist upon someone to be reasonable. Hence, I must be sullen and distrusting.

    The distrust is partly correct. I distrust emotions as a reliable source of convincing about anything someone wants. The sullen is just the outcome for me when someone keeps trying with the emotion shit.


Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7

Similar Threads

  1. INTP "Thinker" seeks ENTJ "Performer" as business partner
    By Melquiadez in forum ENTJ Forum - The Executives
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-28-2015, 11:27 PM
  2. [INTP] INTP Women Across Cultures
    By Zic in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-06-2013, 09:53 PM
  3. INTP "Thinker" seeks ESFP "Performer" as business partner
    By Melquiadez in forum Education & Career Talk
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-11-2013, 07:05 PM
  4. [INTP] Is it essential for an INTP to seek a "profession" or "accreditation"
    By jd_ in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-08-2011, 08:01 PM
  5. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 07-10-2011, 12:41 PM

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 08:44 AM.
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