That sounds good.Originally Posted by oyburger
That sounds good.
Roboticist: Someone who conceptualizes, designs, builds, programs and experiments with robots.
No one's stoping you from being an engineer. It's just a simple fact of life that less women choose to. Technical schools actually give special attention to women that apply, since so few do. If you think it's some sort of consipracy to keep women out of school, though, then you're delusional. When I higher percentage of women get accepted to technical schools then the guys, well, I hope you can put it together for yourself...headhunters?
Yeah, I think it just makes things worse.had to meet their quota of women or minorities and so jobs were given to people who were so far underqualified it was ridiculous.
Blah. See, to me measures like that do NOT make things more equal, they just give special treatment to certain groups at the detriment of others, exactly what they were trying to avoid.
I see that! I'm just tired of all the crap with expectations and limitations put upon people of a certain gender. For example, for forever before the modern feminist movement, women weren't allowed to work. They had to stay at home and take care of their house. I will never understand women that do that, to me, it's stupid. However, even now a lot of women want to stay at home, and for some reason because most women have some sort of inborn nurturing nature (believe me, I don't!) a lot of other people still think that a woman's place is in the home, and cling to tradition veiws when what I'm asking for is equal opportunities and equal judgement and equal expectations. If you're going to encourage a man to go be an engineer, encourage a woman. See?
And you'll have equal opportunities... until you start having babies. That's the only reason why women were tradtionally "homemakers" btw.
That doesn't make you a feminist. That just makes you sane. Feminism is a more concentrated... religion... like ann was describing.
Then you're not really a feminist, are you?That sounds good.
It's not that simple. It all starts at childhood. Im not going to argue this (a never ending debate, really) but I will ask all of you to watch parent-child relations the next time you are around such an atmosphere. Watch how each parent gender interacts with each child gender. Watch the objects interacted with, too. Watch for the proximities. Listen for the vocabulary used... and so on.
Yep gender typing starts in childhood. I'm glad my parents were very careful about that sort of thing.
All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster
This ain't no rule for man/women. This is only basic human interaction and making people feel at ease around you, in order to smoothen the atmosphere. Emphasizing so much a defect which is so great, since it makes people around you uncomfortable, doesn't seem to me a great choice.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
What feminism SHOULD be is the acceptance of all choices a woman AND man makes that does not harm others and the elimination of ill-founded preconceived notions about either sex.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist.
Although I definately appreciate all the doors feminism has opened for me, in its tactics its sometimes created competition between men and women in ways it didn't need to.
Feminism has made many women feel guilty for staying home and raising their children instead of opting for the choice to stay at home. Its actually taken the choice away from many who otherwise would have prefered it.
Basically I think we need to evolve beyond feminism to a more humanistic approach as to what is best for both man and woman.
Polly
ENTP
I would urge anyone out to trash feminism (and those who support it also) to please read up and become aware that there is no such thing as "feminism" that you could possibly agree with or disagree with. This homogenous mass of women that you call "feminists" in this thread does not exist. Apart from first, second, and third wave feminism in the US and much of the Western world (each wave concerned with different matters) there is so much diversity within each wave, not to even start with international feminism, that I won't even start to get into it here. I am just annoyed by simplistic approaches to something many of you obviously know nothing about. Oh the fun of trashing a feminist...
Here, folks, read up, come back, and please specify the agenda of the "feminist" you want to bitch at. It will make things far more interesting.
For a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
For a great bibliography: http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/enin.html
Women have it pretty good these days in Western Society compared to other countries were women are treated like absolute crap. A friend at work is reading about a woman from iran(i think) and her brother set her on fire because she fell in love with the wrong man. His father told him it was the honourable thing to do. Her mother was constantly beaten as she kept having girls as daughters. Those countries need some type of feminist movement or something i feel really sorry for those women.
The organisation i work with is quite a large one(around 2000 people) and guess who is the CEO. Yes thas right a woman. Granted with this information you could probablly work out where i work as she is one of the few women i know of in such a high position.
Not saying you were complaining about this, but i know why men basketballers get paid so much more than women basketballers. Its genetics. They are much more interesting to watch
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
I love you.
Roboticist: Someone who conceptualizes, designs, builds, programs and experiments with robots.
First, yeah, women in other countries are treated like trash, and I want to help reverse that because it's wrong. If men were treated like that, although they pretty much never will be or never have been, it would also be wrong. I hate knowing that things such as your examples actually do happen and are fairly regular situations.
And for the third paragraph, I don't understand why any sports players get paid so much, because none of them are interesting.
Roboticist: Someone who conceptualizes, designs, builds, programs and experiments with robots.
Economics.
(aside: Book Recommendation: "A New Earth", by Eckhart Tolle.
Just for a differnt perspective, or for fun, if nothing more.)
Man has been pretty bad to men over the decades, and pretty bad to women as well. There have been numerous forms of slavery, which included men and women. I sort of see this all as a lack of evolution, or should I say, an evolution opperunity. Men were originally 'dominant' over women because they were physically superior.
And with that physical superiority, there was a tradeoff of "ethics", so to say, in that things could be more logical --- that was the way it was, though. Men were hunters and fighters. Tribal. survival, etc. That's how it was back then. And yet, we still are in the midst, in the 'gloom', in the 'shadow' of all of that, if you want to use polarized terms.
Mastermind, I believe we actually may have very similar 'quests' in our lives. I hope we can talk more about this over time. The movement towards egalitarianism is something I feel drawn to myself. I think we are ripe enough at this time to be aware of ourselves, to look at our history, and really make some changes. A global introspection, perhaps.
Furthermore, I actually agree with something that Tolle says, in that we basically have a stark choice to make: evolved or die. If we keep going about life the way we have been, then we will easily and quickly make ourselves extinct.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
given that it is difficult to express the agenda of feminism due to the caprice of cultural postmodernism on a feminism that consists of a collection of viewpoints, it does not follow that it is exempt from criticism, nor an example of our ignorance.
the agenda of feminism is the same as every other movement or ideology. the seeking of power. feminsim seeks power through an ethic, in order to propulgate that ethic.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
I believed most feminists were SF types...
women are their own worst enemy
lol
I suppose I'm a feminist INTJ, as in 'I think it's cool when people have equal rights'. Buuut I also believe that it's disgusting to use your gender as some kind of crutch or excuse for how you are treated. If you want society to respect you, you should just go and do something already. I do not think, although my mother insists it, that there is some great male threat to women (at least in developed countries). If you think there is, then you should consider it a challenge and rise to it.
You obviously don't know much about "Feminism". All a person has to believe in, to be a "feminist" is women are not inferior to men. That's the basic principle, let's not over-dramatize this. There's different kinds of feminism and, as seems to be the rule, extremists are always the ones that get attached to the label.That doesn't make you a feminist. That just makes you sane. Feminism is a more concentrated... religion... like ann was describing.
To claim that all feminists don't shave, hate men, and wish to re-write history in favour of women, is absolute bull shit. It's akin to claiming that all muslims want to suicide bomb american buildings... do you understand?
The poster of this topic was correct in claiming that it's logical to be a feminist. I'm a feminist. What this means is that when I meet a woman I don't immediately discard her opinions simply because she is a woman. It's that simple. You don't have to label yourself a "feminist" to be a feminist. If you're not a feminist than you would, for example, believe that women do not deserve equal opportunity in the work place, that they are intellectually inferior to men etc.
Feminism is not an organized group that requires you to apply for membership or anything. Rocky your views on this matter are quite frankly naive and embarrassing to read.
INFp-Ni
If your're a feminist, to me, it seems like you recoginise that there has been inequality between men and women and you wish to readdress this balance - but IMO it would be fair better to be a humanist, and push for equality regardless of sex and of past discrepancies. If I believe men are of equal importance to women, rather than 'women are not inferior to men', does that make me a feminist too?
Right.
No.
No, sorry. That is not correct. To be a feminist you have to believe in much more than that. It is totally wrong to define feminism in that way, and people do that for one of two reasons: either they don't know much about feminism or they want that everyone has to label themselves a "feminist" in order not to look like a person with horrible values.
Those feminists that you label as "extremists" are actually more representative of what feminism really is philosophically than those people who only believe that men and women should have the same rights and that women are not inferior to men.
You may do that because you are a feminist, but you don't become a feminist just because you don't immediately discard a woman's opinion because she is a woman.
That is completely untrue, and that "feminists" reason that way is an additional reason why I find feminism repulsive, besides the fact that feminism is -- philosophically speaking -- an outgrowth of Hegelianism on the same tree as Marxism, fascism, communism etc. What is even worse is that nowadays the feminism disease has penetrated into the central realms of science and threatens to destroy what is still left of the Enlightenment movement. Scientifically speaking feminism is nothing but a huge bunch of crap, and the perspective of most feminists is also detrimental and contradictory to Socionics, where you have to have a biological perspective on people that accepts the fundamental premise that types are biologically different, just as men and women are biologically different. And those differences have an impact on how people think and behave. Men and women are not made "equal" in the sense that we should ignore the fundamental differences between them, but that does not mean that they shouldn't have the same political rights. Of course they should -- but that has nothing in itself to do with feminism.
Ok what is feminism to you? I've taken a feminist history course at my university. My feminist prof told us that if you believe in equality between the sexes you are a feminist..... that's the base of it. Give me your basic definition feminism.Right.
No.
No, sorry. That is not correct. To be a feminist you have to believe in much more than that. It is totally wrong to define feminism in that way, and people do that for one of two reasons: either they don't know much about feminism or they want that everyone has to label themselves a "feminist" in order not to look like a person with horrible values.
Those feminists that you label as "extremists" are actually more representative of what feminism really is philosophically than those people who only believe that men and women should have the same rights and that women are not inferior to men.
You may do that because you are a feminist, but you don't become a feminist just because you don't immediately discard a woman's opinion because she is a woman.
That is completely untrue, and that "feminists" reason that way is an additional reason why I find feminism repulsive, besides the fact that feminism is -- philosophically speaking -- an outgrowth of Hegelianism on the same tree as Marxism, fascism, communism etc. What is even worse is that nowadays the feminism desease has penetrated into the central realms of science and threatens to destroy what is still left of the Enlightenment movement. Scientifically speaking feminism is nothing but a huge bunch of crap, and the perspective of most feminists is also detrimental and contradictory to Socionics, where you have to have a biological perspective on people that accepts the fundamental premise that types are biologically different, just as men and women are biologically different. And those differences have an impact on how people think and behave. Men and women are not made "equal" in the sense that we should ignore the fundamental differences between them, but that does not mean that they shouldn't have the same political rights. Of course they should -- but that has nothing in itself to do with feminism.
Although going to the extreme may seem more representative of feminism to you, feminism is a VERY diverse label and a basic feminist differs greatly from a Marxian feminist (for example).
I would be perfectly happy with women running the world and if I could just sit at home and take care of the babies... sounds like heaven.
Feminism recognises (probably rightly - but it's never black-and-white e.g. men 'evil', women 'good') that women have been disadvantaged throughout history, and seeks equality with men. Feminism obviously comes from the same root word (whatevr it's called) as the word female etc. - there is no male equilavent to this word. Feminism treats the whole inequality thing as a black-and-white dichotomy - there will never be equality between individuals, let alone whole groups of people - i.e. there will always be campaigns for equal rights for women, men, black people etc. - why not advocate for equality for all individuals, regardless of the past?
Your feminist professor is a liar, probably for the reason I stated in my last post.
That's the wrong question to ask. There is no basic definition of feminism that can be captured in a single sentence like your professor made you believe. In order to understand what feminism really is -- the true nature of the referent to the word "feminism" -- you have to see it from many different perspectives at the same time. I have already said that it is an outgrowth on the same tree as Marxism, fascism, and communism. Do you accept that, and do you know what it means?
From there you can go on. You will realize that feminism today is closely linked to the New Left movement in the 1960s and 1970s, and just like the various kinds of "socialisms" that laid claim to be "scientific" then, we can see the same phenomenon today.
In basic books on feminism that are used in feminist courses at universities most forms of feminism are linked to some version of social constructionism, which I have written about before, but maybe that post is lost now. In that post I referred to Vivien Burr's book An Introduction to Social Constructionism. I don't know if that is the best book on the subject, but it gives you a pretty good picture of the basic premises of the perspective upon which most feminist theory is built.
Good point.
"Feminist" is a rather sexist term then, is it not?
Feminist philosophy is quite interesting. They offer what would seem to be a completely different perspective or interpretation on many different events and social phenomenon. Probably my favorite branch deals more with feminist theology and philosophy of religion and the attempts to raise awareness of the dominance of patriarchal religious language, concepts, and institutions.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
long topic, didn't read it all.
i'm INTj, and probably a feminist. 'probably' because i seem to think that if i am more qualified for a job than some guy, i should get it and it should not be given to him just because he's a man and i am a woman. i think this is part of the feminist cause. i don't read what you call 'feminist literature' because i can't be bothered since the concept is self-evident and logical. since it is self-evident, logical and fair, i tend to approach it in that sense and would rather it not be tagged, as in 'feminist', but will use the word since the western world uses it in this sense.
i'm unclear about why feminists are considered to be dirty and unwashed and so on.
some other examples of what i stand for, which probably is within the sphere of feminism:
1. not being disrespected by virtue of being female, or have femaleness disrespected or objectified - i think this is especially irritating for an INTj, since it is effectively a negation of the mind, and since my self-identity is based on my internal mind, and not my body or senses, it is effectively a negation of my self
2. ideas should be judged on their merits, and not on who they come from - including whether it comes from a man or a woman - again, blindingly obvious that i wonder why this is even an issue in the first place
3. no one gender should be told by the other, or by their own, what their limits are. historically it's men who do this to women. women should be able to work if they are qualified and want to, and women should be able to be homemakers if they want to, should have children if they want to or not have children if she doesn't want to.
if gender is not relevant it should not be made relevant. i don't believe that there should be gender equality exactly, since men and women are not the same. i like being female, and i like men who like being male. i think differences are delightful and should be cherished. i'm more for equality where gender/gender roles (mother/father, wife/husband, etc.) is not relevant, and overall, gender equivalence.
long topic, didn't read it all.
i'm INTj, and probably a feminist. 'probably' because i seem to think that if i am more qualified for a job than some guy, i should get it and it should not be given to him just because he's a man and i am a woman. i think this is part of the feminist cause. i don't read what you call 'feminist literature' because i can't be bothered since the concept is self-evident and logical. since it is self-evident, logical and fair, i tend to approach it in that sense and would rather it not be tagged, as in 'feminist', but will use the word since the western world uses it in this sense.
i'm unclear about why feminists are considered to be dirty and unwashed and so on.
some other examples of what i stand for, which probably is within the sphere of feminism:
1. not being disrespected by virtue of being female, or have femaleness disrespected or objectified - i think this is especially irritating for an INTj, since it is effectively a negation of the mind, and since my self-identity is based on my internal mind, and not my body or senses, it is effectively a negation of my self
2. ideas should be judged on their merits, and not on who they come from - including whether it comes from a man or a woman - again, blindingly obvious that i wonder why this is even an issue in the first place
3. no one gender should be told by the other, or by their own, what their limits are. historically it's men who do this to women. women should be able to work if they are qualified and want to, and women should be able to be homemakers if they want to, should have children if they want to or not have children if she doesn't want to.
if gender is not relevant it should not be made relevant. i don't believe that there should be gender equality exactly, since men and women are not the same. i like being female, and i like men who like being male. i think differences are delightful and should be cherished. i'm more for equality where gender/gender roles (mother/father, wife/husband, etc.) is not relevant, and overall, gender equivalence.
I've seen the claims that men would be irrelevant if women could have babies without them. What would you call that?
INTP/ILI(Ni)
/5w4
"When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."
I've seen the claims that men would be irrelevant if women could have babies without them. What would you call that?
INTP/ILI(Ni)
"When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."
my two cents
personally, i think that a woman's worth is a lot more than being the one that gets pregnant. therefore i also think that a man's worth is more than being the sperm donor. the reason for both opinions is that i think that human beings are worth more than for just mating and producing more humans. basically i think that human beings have worth in of themselves, and men and women have worth to each other.
Amen. The whole issue revolves around if you think that gender is the whole person or just a small part.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote