[INTP] Feminism - Page 7

Feminism

View Poll Results: Are you a Feminist?

Voters
218. You may not vote on this poll
  • INTP (Woman) Femnist

    27 12.39%
  • INTP (Woman) Not Feminist

    19 8.72%
  • INTP Don't know/ Don't care

    27 12.39%
  • INTP (Man) Feminist

    11 5.05%
  • INTP (Man) Not Feminist

    42 19.27%
  • *Other type* (Woman) Feminist

    21 9.63%
  • *Other type* (Woman) Not Feminist

    20 9.17%
  • *Other type* Don't Know/ Don't care

    14 6.42%
  • *Other type* (Man) Feminist

    4 1.83%
  • *Other type* (Man) Not Feminist

    25 11.47%
  • None of the above categories fit me. I'll answer in comments.

    8 3.67%
Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 7 of 80 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 17 57 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 795
Thank Tree1462Thanks

This is a discussion on Feminism within the INTP Forum - The Thinkers forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; Ah. Then we good, @ Bellsy The point of all of that was not to say you're a dirty red ...

  1. #61

    Ah. Then we good, @Bellsy

    The point of all of that was not to say you're a dirty red (though you know I do like to tease) but to actually make space for an interpretation of one mother's experience. If you'll remember, that's where I began. That's what I said was sorely lacking in feminism, so when you countered with a non-mother's...thing... and basically implied "things are/have always been tough all over" (or as the blog author implied, we've all been sniffing Donna Reed's glue stick) it came off as very dismissive of that reality.

    I see now you were only trying to provide context. However, I'm not even sure context is necessarily our friend. Our societal and technological change is accelerating, and if we're going to keep the reins on this runaway horse, we need to remember, not that there have always been problems, but what it looks like when it works. Then we try to keep steering toward that. And in this case, only mothers (and mother-others) would know what "that" is. Everyone else only has abstract theories, and we know how those go. I don't have the answers except that far: mothers are an integral piece of the puzzle, and they are woefully under-consulted in feminism, which not only ignores them, but often works contrary to their interests and ideals.
    Dalien and Wellsy thanked this post.

  2. #62

    3rd wavers are nuts. Its already been stated why in thread.

    Sent from my ASUS_A002A using Tapatalk

  3. #63

    The problem with feminism is that the definition isn't clear. People typically have either one of two definitions in mind
    a) the old kind of feminism, about equality of rights and opportunity
    b) third wave feminism, which is full neurotic, resentful and illogical man-haters

  4. #64

    Quote Originally Posted by Eryngo View Post
    Ah. Then we good, @Bellsy

    The point of all of that was not to say you're a dirty red (though you know I do like to tease) but to actually make space for an interpretation of one mother's experience. If you'll remember, that's where I began. That's what I said was sorely lacking in feminism, so when you countered with a non-mother's...thing... and basically implied "things are/have always been tough all over" (or as the blog author implied, we've all been sniffing Donna Reed's glue stick) it came off as very dismissive of that reality.

    I see now you were only trying to provide context. However, I'm not even sure context is necessarily our friend. Our societal and technological change is accelerating, and if we're going to keep the reins on this runaway horse, we need to remember, not that there have always been problems, but what it looks like when it works. Then we try to keep steering toward that. And in this case, only mothers (and mother-others) would know what "that" is. Everyone else only has abstract theories, and we know how those go. I don't have the answers except that far: mothers are an integral piece of the puzzle, and they are woefully under-consulted in feminism, which not only ignores them, but often works contrary to their interests and ideals.
    Ah, I see what you mean, it sounded like it's always been this way, get used to it. Which I did partially expressed though I wouldn't add the get used to it because it's not a good thing and is worth changing.
    Personal experience is a good starting point in grounding political views as need to give content to what the issue is.
    Which to me as you know exists between women's expectations as mothers responsible tot he care of their children, and workers, who need to make a living and are held accountable to employers and such.
    That the expectations and responsibilities of work are often antithetical to not just mothers, but to anyone who has people dependent on them (carers of all sorts). And it resonates, your point of how neglected motherhood, because when feminism was an organized movement in our parts of the world it was of course in response to confining women to the role of mother and the realities that child rearing brought.


    What you describe in regards to technological and societal change at an accelerating rate is what I would state as being the result of capitalism.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...festo/ch01.htm
    The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
    It is why I posted earlier a piece summarizing the work of Max Webber in regards to how economically what Webber studied was progressive, but it destroyed the very values he appreciated of Prussia.
    Values can not endure in the face of economic want and necessity. We persist with human values in spite of the situation we exist within. But we don't control capitalism, capitalists don't control capitalism, they abide by it's logic out of necessity as we all do.
    I think we can agree that in the past there was a great deal more social support from family and kin in raising a child.
    But I'm not sure what cultivates that sort of familial connection in places such as ours where many can be quite distant and detached from family. Mothers can be pretty powerful as any group when unified, as I elaborated earlier, people are fractured and fragmented more than ever before in our societies. We are physically proximal to one another but community doesn't exist, people are strangers to their neighbors and most people they see in the denser populations.
    I'm not sure how one cultivates community/family when it comes into tension with the economic except through political power to force the hand to economically support mothers. Though not all that is difficult in child rearing is simply economic but for what ever policy one wishes to support, it's money that greases things along.

    Tangent
     
    And the money does exist but need political power to which, leftists are at ground zero at the moment as far as I can tell.
    People are barely holding onto ideological clarity from past generations if they even know of past figures all that well.
    My view is that capitalism has been effective in creating a mass of individuals, who are naive to the whole in which they exist. They know it exists but the way they think can't adequately conceptualize their place within it.
    Subject, Ego, Person | Philosophical Explorations
    People need the illusion of individualism, of unique subjectivity, in order to function as isolated individuals who are not aware of the degree to which they are integrated into the capitalistic totality of the market.
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul
    The most favorable moment to seize a man and influence him is when he is alone in the mass. It is at this point that propaganda can be most effective.
    And this is what I think is the case when it comes to feminism, they lack the social coherence and unity of a feminist movement.
    The Dynamics of Gender Hegemony: Femininities, Masculinities and Social Change
    That new femininities are able to assimilate masculine attributes without upsetting hegemonic masculinity can be explained by the ideological function these femininities serve. As symbols of cultural development, social progress and the triumph of main-streamed equality strategies they are viewed as ‘progressive but also consummately and reassuringly feminine’ (McRobbie, 2009: 57, emphasis added). Modernization is not about women becoming masculine but about becoming individuals as constituted by discourses associated with modern individualism in which masculine attributes are conflated with individuality (Budgeon, 2003, 2011). The contemporary social value accruing to these new femininities is partly due to the possibility that young women may pursue the idealized subject of late modernity; that is, they may reasonably assume the position of an individual and not primarily as a member of a disadvantaged group. This construction of new femininity performs a significant role in promoting and naturalizing a liberal ‘de-gendered’ social realm in which the dynamics that maintain gender relationality and hegemony are obscured.

    The impact of this dynamic is evident in empirical studies which focus on the identity work undertaken by young women as they juggle contradictory subject positions associ-ated with this version of modernized femininity. Despite recounting experiences of gen-der inequality, young women often reject gendered social relations as a valid framework for understanding their access to life choices or to account for the outcomes of choices made. For example, in one Australian study, a gender neutral discourse that privileged ‘unique’ personal qualities was deployed by young women to aid in the interpretation of their lives (Baker, 2008). This facilitated the description of gendered power differentials as a problem largely associated with past generations and residual inequalities as part of a temporary stage in ongoing social progress. Similarly, Rich (2005: 496) argues that the narrative relied on by young British women in her study ‘was heavily informed by a position of individualism which ostensibly opened up “new choices” in their life paths, but simultaneously influenced the ways in which they could recognize and resist gen-dered inequalities in their lives’. The successful performance of femininity increasingly takes place against a backdrop of meritocratic systems promising to reward worthy indi-viduals, but in a stratified social system such promises produce contradictions. These must be navigated in the absence of readily available socially legitimate discourses apart from the principles associated with liberal individualism (Budgeon, 2011). Denying the relevance of gender in favour of complying with the values associated with the rights of the ‘free individual’ does not fundamentally undermine or interrogate the social con-struction of masculinity, offer critical tools for reconstructing gender difference, or challenge a hierarchical gender complementarity.

    ...
    The authors argue that identity work performed in this context is significantly gen-dered as a result of the influence of discourses of gender emancipation in the 1990s which focused on the constraining values traditionally associated with femininity. For the most part, new identities are considered desirable for girls who are more actively encouraged to emulate and embrace the ‘choices’ now viewed as synonymous with newly empowered and individualized femininities. Young men, on the other hand, are not similarly incited to remake their masculine identities, to become more ‘feminine’ or incorporate more ‘womanly’ attributes such as empathy and vulnerability because masculinity per se is not being made visible or problematized. Falling short of demands for men to proactively reconstruct their own relationship to hegemonic masculinity, gender neutrality simply implies they should not actively discriminate against women. It may be concluded that new femininities are associated with a heightened emphasis on individual responsibility, the ideological de-gendering of social relations and a position within the gender binary consistent with the workings of a hegemonic form of femininity.
    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2449/1/Post...re_(LSERO).pdf
    What has not yet been examined, however, is the relationship of neoliberalism to gender relations. But it appears from this attempt to map the elements of a postfeminist sensibility that there is a powerful resonance between postfeminism and neoliberalism. This operates at at least three levels. First, and most broadly, both appear to be structured by a current of individualism that has almost entirely replaced notions of the social or political, or any idea of the individual as subject to pressures, constraints or influence from outside themselves.
    They're free liberal subjects, unconstrained by formal discrimination, you really were liberated from sexism Eryngo, just the rather crude formal legal sort, for the most part anyway.
    It's the freedom of the lbieral subject to be emancipated from obligation to the old institutions, family, church and to be constitued as a free individual, which makes one so terrible vulnerble and naive to their own vulnerbility.
    This is why I emphasize that people have a view of abstract individualism, themselves conceived in isolation form the real world influences. People who assert that oppression doesn't exist because they simply don't feel it.
    Slavoj Zizek-Bibliography/Can Lenin Tell Us About Freedom/Lacan Dot Com
    The three ways of legitimizing the exercise of authority ("authoritarian," "totalitarian," "liberal") are nothing but the three ways to cover up, to blind us for the seductive power of, the abyss of this empty call. In a way, liberalism is here even the worst of the three, since it NATURALIZES the reasons for obedience into the subject's internal psychological structure. So the paradox is that "liberal" subjects are in a way those least free: they change the very opinion/perception of themselves, accepting what was IMPOSED on them as originating in their "nature" - they are even no longer AWARE of their subordination.
    People are ideologically trapped before they can even contemplate effectively orgnaizing.
    108 Philosophy and Post-Modern Culture (1990) - Rick Roderick
    Under conditions where many of the people in other parts of the world that receive our culture will do so with extreme naivete. In Eastern Europe they’ll believe we have got a democracy. They will love to have a VCR, and with each step forward they will become more entrapped in the same totalitarian system that is much more subtle than the crude and simple ones that many of them have overthrown. What a joy to overthrow a crude and simple totalitarian system, I mean all of us enjoyed that, right? Dancing on the wall was fun, because that system was so crude, and not postmodern enough… they didn’t understand that there are walls that cannot be seen between people. Those are harder walls to overthrow, the walls they build between different races and classes and sexes, those walls are much more difficult to overthrow than stupid walls like The Great Wall of China, which doesn’t wall anybody out, it just walls you in. But the stupid forms of totalitarianism build these walls in a way that people can storm them. The global system that I am talking about, not is already here perhaps but is on its way, perhaps. About the present and future you can just guess. I mean, that’s what scientists do too, make their best guess… you can just guess. But about this system, the walls will be much harder to storm, because they won’t be the kind that will be available for storming. Hard to storm the walls on TV, in fact you’ll already – like in Total Recall – have the feeling you have already stormed them. You’ve already… I mean, you know, the guy in Total Recall, well, he has already won the revolution, it’s cool. He did it in ten minutes sitting in a chair injected with the same emotions.
    This is the difficulty, there can be no radical change when people themselves are so trapped within their own heads that they can't properly conceive of such problems in the first place.
    But you mentioning it should certainly help as an improved point beyond bland statements of 'equality' and other words that have all but lost their content. Equality was a big deal when there was a law that forbade a woman from entering a line of work, from owning property and so on, now with such laws gone, everyone champions an equality that was already struggled and won for at such a level and they think they're free relative to what they could be.

    Women today don't identify as a feminist in large part because they swallow the very warped rewriting of history as summarized in the earlier post about having it all. They're sold a narrative that it is all to easy yo swallow if one doesn't give it much thought and investigate. To which if there are failures to learn from, it's from the movements that failed to achieve even half of their stated aims.
    Pifanjr and Eryngo thanked this post.

  5. #65
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by Eryngo View Post

    Life stuff
    Well then, if I ever cared to legitimately stop, and appreciate a post for more than 5 minutes after reading it, this is the one.

    Now write four books, and a movie franchise on it.

    But remember, when casting your kids and life story with random strangers, and vfx, for the sake of whatever deity: do. not. make. them. sparkle.

    Unless it's for a comedic spinoff.


    Now, if you'll excuse me as I checked off the 'INTP Don't know / Don't care' column. I'm simply interested in seeing what others think of 'Feminism', should it stay / leave, or be reformatted once again. Personally, I hope it'll get back to its roots, cure its third wave psychosis, and evolve, but one can hope.
    Last edited by Sava Saevus; 12-09-2017 at 10:45 AM.
    Dalien, Eryngo and Literally Gone thanked this post.

  6. #66

    Of course I'm a feminist.

    I only became one after university, however. During my time at university I never had the impression I was treated differently than my male colleagues.

    But that's why the contrast between university and work life was so shocking.

    It's shocking how much sexism there is in the work life. I used to work as a management consultant, visiting plenty of companies as an external person, so I was able to observe that as an outsider, not involved in internal conflicts. If they had something in common it was that for a woman to get promoted she needed to be twice as good as a man. As a man you need to know the right people and avoid mistakes. As a woman you need to know the right people, avoid mistakes, be excellent in what you are doing, have extraordinary social intelligence to know when to assert yourself and when take a step back.

    And be attractive! It's shocking how attractive most women in high positions are. And it's even more shocking when I think that many guys who are higher than them are not conventionally attractive at all. (And no, I don't think the causal relationship is the other way round i.e. women get promoted and "get" attractive - because I saw the women's professional trajectories).

    Add to that the comments directed to women in the workplace which can only be described as mobbing (obese women being called elephants, laughed at; one guy commenting to the other he would never accept getting corrected by a woman), which I've never witnessed directed to men.

    We still have a long way to go.

    And: I worked internationally, so I collected my experiences in several European countries, not just one. Of course there are exceptions, as always. But there are just that, exceptions.
    Jewl thanked this post.

  7. #67

    @Eryngo , that was an awesome post. My wife has told me many of the same things, but never put together in such a comprehensive way. What's striking is the femaleness of it, which of course was the whole point. Far better than any mansplaining!
    @thetraveller , I don't see anything wrong with a woman having to be twice (a bit of hyperbole, but I'll go with it) as good as a man to get promoted in a company run by men. There are risks inherent in having women in the workplace, such as
    1. Leaving the job to have children, even temporarily can be a huge burden. Especially now that most workplaces are required to hold the woman's job for a year or more. That means an employer may have to hire a temporary replacement- who may end up being a better fit than the woman who left!
    2. Women take more sick days than men. Not a huge disparity, but a significant difference. Much of this is due to childcare issues. For the same reason, many women cannot be counted on to "stay until the work is done" like men can.
    3. Women go out on stress leave more than men, last I looked (15 years ago) it was more than double. If they come back from it, they have to be handled with kid gloves.
    4. Men, especially nonwhite men, do not
    do well taking orders from women. I see men constantly undermining female bosses' authority with patronizing behavior. I did this myself when I was younger (I got sex out of it so I don't regret it), I try to be more respectful now. It takes a rare woman to be able to handle these challenges well.
    5. Irony! Many women do not like to work for women. My wife explained it as 90% female cattiness. I'm not sure exactly what that entails (boobs were mentioned), but I trust her wisdom. My current boss is a woman who is more attractive than my female colleagues, and they constantly complain to me about her in ways that I never heard about my previous (less competent!) male bosses. And yes, boobs are mentioned and proffered.
    6. With women in the workplace, you run the risk of angry/jealous boyfriends and husbands, stalkers and creeps interrupting the workplace. Almost every workplace with female employees runs into this problem at some point. It puts everyone at risk of violence. In an all male workplace this almost never happens.

    So to even out the potential downsides, a woman SHOULD be extra great to be promoted. Or hot, as you have observed...

    Now in a company run by women, it should be different. I've never worked in one, so I don't know.
    Sava Saevus, Eryngo, Nephandus and 1 others thanked this post.

  8. #68

    Quote Originally Posted by Bellsy View Post
    I think we can agree that in the past there was a great deal more social support from family and kin in raising a child.
    But I'm not sure what cultivates that sort of familial connection in places such as ours where many can be quite distant and detached from family. Mothers can be pretty powerful as any group when unified, as I elaborated earlier, people are fractured and fragmented more than ever before in our societies. We are physically proximal to one another but community doesn't exist, people are strangers to their neighbors and most people they see in the denser populations.
    I'm not sure how one cultivates community/family when it comes into tension with the economic except through political power to force the hand to economically support mothers. Though not all that is difficult in child rearing is simply economic but for what ever policy one wishes to support, it's money that greases things along.
    First, a quick story about bears. Mother bears will move closer to human settlements when they have cubs, because if they don't, unrelated males will kill the cubs. No bears like being next to humans. It stresses them out. But mother bears have figured out how to endure the stress for the sake of their cubs. The big bad male bears are too scared to get close to the humans, so they have to wait to mate until her cubs are big and safe and she's good and ready. It's like evolution in action--the mother bears are literally rewriting their instincts, because after the cubs get big, they get the hell out of Dodge just like the males do and don't hang out with the humans anymore. It's not like they learned to like humans: they learned to be superbears. The mother bears saw a need and moved time and instinct to protect the babies.

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...cubs-breeding/

    So.

    That's power. That's incredible. And you're right, feminism started out of a desire to question that assumption of mother roles for all women, but they literally threw the babies out with the bathwater. Think of all the iconography we've seen over the years since the 70's of vaginas as a source of "power." (How much sense did that really make, Eve Ensler? Asking, not telling.) I mean, it's great that we brought the aesthetics of vaginas into the common discourse, I'd bet more women get oral sex by enthusiastic parties due in part to this de-mystification, they're beautiful and fantastic, but power? Just not sure. Words have meanings, after all. I suspect the desire to attribute power to vaginas is the desire to make something on the other side of the binary with the phallus. Only problem is, few of the fertility icons of ancient days depicted feminine power as a vagina (the way male fertility phalluses were) unless that vagina was giving birth. Feminine power icons were pregnant with large breasts like Venus of Willendorf. Whether Shakti or Mary, the maternal is the power.

    I think this is because maternal power is undeniable and it has this capacity to change the rules of nature. So, for example, while you're right and community has become really hard in our culture, even an introvert like me found a culturally rich group of mothers to hang out with when my kids were infants. For the same reason as the mama bears: I knew I couldn't survive otherwise. We were a tribe, and I haven't been tribal since, because I haven't really needed to be.

    Which brings me full circle into intellectual outrage that this definitive power would be so ignored by feminism. Out of fear of alienating women who don't have or don't want it, we've decided to pretend it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, men respect power (when they're not terrified of it). How much respect can you get when you're blabbing about your powerful vagina instead of where the power really might be? We are equal, most people know this intuitively, but the mechanism of how and why that equality works might not be properly represented in the discourse. And that offends the INTP me more than the woman me, honestly. (You really have to picture me explaining the bear thing like Ian Malcom.) It just doesn't make sense.
    Dalien, Wellsy, SpookySprite and 2 others thanked this post.

  9. #69

    INTJ woman and not so much.

    I only make an exception for those societies that kill or disown a female baby because it wasn't a son. Or those countries/societies that forbid women from getting an education (I've lived/traveled to these types of countries as well). Yet, I personally don't care for most of the sense of feminism that I see in today's Western societies.
    .
    Euclid, Sava Saevus, Eryngo and 3 others thanked this post.

  10. #70

    Quote Originally Posted by OneLove21 View Post
    INTJ woman and not so much.

    I only make an exception for those societies that kill or disown a female baby because it wasn't a son. Or those countries/societies that forbid women from getting an education (I've lived/traveled to these types of countries as well). Yet, I personally don't care for most of the sense of feminism that I see in today's Western societies.
    .
    Just keep in mind that those societies have been around a lot longer than Western societies, and will likely be around a lot longer than Western societies. I know it's distasteful to us, but it seems to work for them.


     
Page 7 of 80 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 17 57 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [INTP] My analysis of modern feminism and teenage relationships
    By Protagoras in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 11-01-2010, 02:31 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 06:53 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