Calling All Feminists

[ashlesha]

Yeah @Bertrand this is why I avoided the "are you a feminist" question because seeing things in those terms is so often a way to avoid thinking. "Dislike of Jordan Peterson" is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of assumptions that are made as a way to think you know who you're dealing with. I recognize this dynamic because I've been roped into it before. It's a very easy mistake to make when it seems like there are limited options.

People recognize this quality in SJWs and that's why it gets attributed to delta aristocracy ("us do gooders and those fascists") but for some reason it seems to be considered more reasonable on this forum to shoehorn and language police those on the left. I think this speaks to the predominant values here.

I see you edited your post, I might add more later. I guess I'll just say I'm not a huge fan of the 'real man' stuff in general though I think you're 100% on the mark in describing some of these problems

[Bertrand]

yeah totes, its either a cheap tactic or just the unintended consequence of a confused mind, either way it fails to reach bottom

I actually hate the idea of a good person like JP being lumped in with x camp, then another good person who, rightly, does not like x camp, prejudice JP negatively, because it just means driving a wedge between two good people by one foolish loudmouth. obviously you're smart enough to see it, but I still feel like I should say something because I feel like these ideas get traction over time if no one speaks up and good people get vilianized or written off entirely because the consequence would inevitably be JP would lose credibility, he can't and won't bring credibility to a manifest untruth, despite what the people using him in this way hope. its only a millstone around his neck

[Spermatozoa]

You say that women want alpha males, but when they willingly choose men who make less money or are unassertive you say that they are settling for undesirables. Seems like confirmation bias.

I see physically unattractive, effeminate-looking men with hot women all the time. This baffled me for a long time actually, but I think I realize the answer now. These men all have money, or are at least likely to make lots of money in the future. The high school and college dating scenes are a bit different; status replaces money as a form of social currency as pretty much nobody is financially independent. Your friends are not a part of your sexual relationship, so logically, it should make no difference whether you have a hundred or none. However...a man's social status determines his ability to elevate and promote a girl into the various "cool" aka dumb groups and cliques she's likely to be obsessed by. Sad!

Yes, I would agree that aggression is not universally valued by women. I can understand why American men assume otherwise, though, especially if they haven't spent much time in another country. Women in my culture, at least, expect men to be casual, moderate, studious and reserved. American culture (and Americans themselves) are considered to be tacky, crass and lacking in nuance. This smug, condescending attitude has been around for a long time, but ever since Trump was elected it's become relentless.

[Slade]

I see physically unattractive, effeminate-looking men with hot women all the time. This baffled me for a long time actually, but I think I realize the answer now. These men all have money, or are at least likely to make lots of money in the future. The high school and college dating scenes are a bit different; status replaces money as a form of social currency as pretty much nobody is financially independent. Your friends are not a part of your sexual relationship, so logically, it should make no difference whether you have a hundred or none. However...a man's social status determines his ability to elevate and promote a girl into the various "cool" groups and cliques she's likely to be obsessed by. Sad!

You have taken another blue pill and you don't even know it

It's clear you don't understand women, and to a further extension, people.

These labels you use alpha, beta, omega, don't exist. Once you realize this you might start getting it. But go ahead and chain yourself.

[rat200Turbo]

You have taken another blue pill and you don't even know it

It's clear you don't understand women, and to a further extension, people.

These labels you use alpha, beta, omega, don't exist. Once you realize this you might start getting it. But go ahead and chain yourself.

Getting what, though, if there isn't any "it" to get.? ... And once you accept that, what do you do with yourself? You won't go back to the way you were. The only option left is to kamikaze and channel your existence into some higher purpose then - assuming you mean it, that there is no "it" to get.

[Retsu77]

I dont want to get bogged down in an irrelevant debate, the issue is you trying to associate him with anti feminist messaging which is the child of the alt right. you can say he's a "classic liberal" (because he himself says this of himself) but it would take understanding what the means--liberty as the basis for political doctrine--and the germ of feminism itself, before you could even begin to fairly leverage that. this idea that its all congruent with anti feminism in supporting you over what lungs is saying is a shell game of political labeling.

lungs is making a point about how men want to attribute a fate to women that women should be motivated to avoid, but the truth is its a prediction loaded with values on the part of the speaker leveled at someone who doesn't share those values and thus it loses all its force. rather, it operates as psychological self disclosure as to the speaker not the actual doom for the accused it purports itself to be. if these fore-tellers of feminist doom had any shred of self awareness they would realize their own claim reflects back on them as being the rejected inferior alternative to a life of cats, and see that perhaps as cause for reflection. instead they assume women don't somehow get it and offer their own psychological interpretations of the feminist mindset, which are juvenile in comparison. for the woman, its as if they're being lectured by a child, which only deepens the lack of attraction and confirms their decision to not get involved with them.

this isn't about men v women per se, its about specific men who make specific claims and specific women who see it for what it is

Jordan Peterson really has nothing to do with it because he's arguing about issues wholly removed from individual men's unattractiveness; to bring him into it, you'd have to first be capable of understanding the aforementioned dynamic and rising above it, because Peterson's thinking is based on a certain level of base sophistication. which is precisely what a lot of the people would like to "use him" lack but without which their entire line of thinking is a swindle

in other words,


this is a complete misrepresentation

JP is all for women rejecting weak men. Its just that the stereotypical "alpha" image is one such potential weak man. Men elevate it in their mind and impose it as the standard on all women and none of that is real. When women point that out, men who double down on it seal their fate. To put it succinctly a "true" alpha male doesn't dictate reality to women, he demonstrates it and women decide for themselves (because they are people, fully entitled to choose for themselves). all this political maneuvering by men to corner women misses the point and proves their weakness, because its an attempt to coerce via words women into believing something manifestly false. a "real man" doesn't resort to these tactics--they presuppose failure--and the size of his muscles or paycheck has little to do with it. its a cloud of words some men confuse themselves over and try to impose on women then throw a fit when it doesnt work out. then they double down on their theory, which is MGTOW, Redpill, PUA, and all this other shit.

JP has nothing to do with that, but you got people so far down the rabbit hole of self justification they grab at his words trying to parasitically attach some truth to their delusion. none of that is convincing to women and its precisely why when the choice is that or a cat, they choose the cat. JP is about sorting yourself out first, all this political sloganeering trying to impose things from the top down is the problem in the first place he'd say

sort yourself out. demonstrate the truth by your values and actions. let people decide for themselves. if they don't like it, improve or move on. it really has very little to do with feminism or even men v women. these are general principles for life. threats amount to: threatening the other person with a good time, if it means you won't be there and that's all you're good for

Except JP is very vocal in his opposition to modern day feminists, SJWs and the like. It is intellectually dishonest to attempt to claim otherwise.

I would say that his ideas are much, much greater than merely opposing these twats, but to say that he is not by and large opposed to such ideologies is absurd. He plainly names cultural marxists and post-modernists as the culprits and directly contributing to the destruction of marriage, family and society. I can prove evidence, if you wish.

The rest of your post was nonsense, so it is not worth addressing.

[Bertrand]

These men all have money, or are at least likely to make lots of money in the future.

To add to what Slade is saying: yeah I mean whys it so hard to believe women might find things about those men attractive that falls outside the scope of what you personally aspire to be? Maybe what you subjectively define as undesirable is not universally accepted, such that when another person finds it attractive, there isn't some latent perception of what you find desirable in there, it may just be the thing you reject is precisely the thing they like. trying to reduce everything to money or money making capacity is too much of a reduction. I mean "money making capacity" might be proxy for something such as "ability to make tangible contribution" but tangible is limited to sensing. there is such a thing as emotional needs on the scale of either humanitarian or social contribution. do you think female LIE CEO 10k/day types are primarily looking for more Te/Ne? Then why this all women nonsense

the point is not that all women want this or that, or what the breakdown is. that is a flawed analysis. it is about acknowledging subjective values and a healthy relationship has harmony in that regard. there's no way to hack the system or brute force relationships via clever logical if->thens. socionics is actually the closest one can get to that, but the real truth is socionics would lead you to overcoming the desire to use it as such and only then would you have understood it and made use of it

Except JP is very vocal in his opposition to modern day feminists, SJWs and the like.

feminism is not at all isomorphic to post modernism or marxism, thats where you need to sharpen up

lungs is not arguing a post modernist or marxist take on feminism, thus your opposition and your bringing in of JP to the discussion misses the point. you're arguing strawmen rooted in your own misunderstanding

It is intellectually dishonest to attempt to claim otherwise.

this is funny to me because its like you're trying to punch way above your weight intellectually and yet still reserving for yourself the right to make these kinds of assessments. if you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground then how can you even begin to say what is intellectually dishonest or not. you're not even approaching meaningful participation in the realm of discerning intent, you don't even understand what's being said yet

[Retsu77]

I see physically unattractive, effeminate-looking men with hot women all the time. This baffled me for a long time actually, but I think I realize the answer now. These men all have money, or are at least likely to make lots of money in the future. The high school and college dating scenes are a bit different; status replaces money as a form of social currency as pretty much nobody is financially independent. Your friends are not a part of your sexual relationship, so logically, it should make no difference whether you have a hundred or none. However...a man's social status determines his ability to elevate and promote a girl into the various "cool" aka dumb groups and cliques she's likely to be obsessed by. Sad!

Yes, I would agree that aggression is not universally valued by women. I can understand why American men assume otherwise, though, especially if they haven't spent much time in another country. Women in my culture, at least, expect men to be casual, moderate, studious and reserved. American culture (and Americans themselves) are considered to be tacky, crass and lacking in nuance. This smug, condescending attitude has been around for a long time, but ever since Trump was elected it's become relentless.

Gay men are often considered highly attractive to straight women. Women don't mind more "effeminate" looking men, so I feel this is beside the point. That said, I get your point - it is quite common to see a short, fat or ugly dude with a hot chick. It's actually very common, and no, these guys were not all wealthy either. None of that matters.

Women are just as aggressive as men, cuiv. The difference is that they tend to usually use non-physical forms of aggression more, while men opt for more physical means of expressing aggression. Both are toxic and harmful. I'm not sure belligerence was ever the main trait women prized. Being dominant does not mean being domineering or an asshole picking fights with those weaker than themselves.

[Retsu77]

To add to what Slade is saying: yeah I mean whys it so hard to believe women might find things about those men attractive that falls outside the scope of what you personally aspire to be? Maybe what you subjectively define as undesirable is not universally accepted, such that when another person finds it attractive, there isn't some latent perception of what you find desirable in there, it may just be the thing you reject is precisely the thing they like. trying to reduce everything to money or money making capacity is too much of a reduction. I mean "money making capacity" might be proxy for something such as "ability to make tangible contribution" but tangible is limited to sensing. there is such a thing as emotional needs on the scale of either humanitarian or social contribution. do you think female LIE CEO 10k/day types are primarily looking for more Te/Ne? Then why this all women nonsense

the point is not that all women want this or that, or what the breakdown is. that is a flawed analysis. it is about acknowledging subjective values and a healthy relationship has harmony in that regard. there's no way to hack the system or brute force relationships via clever logical if->thens. socionics is actually the closest one can get to that, but the real truth is socionics would lead you to overcoming the desire to use it as such and only then would you have understood it and made use of it

LIE women are gross. lol Also, exceeding rare too.

Some values are subjective when deciding what you want in a LTR, but not for attraction itself.

[Spermatozoa]

You have taken another blue pill and you don't even know it

It's clear you don't understand women, and to a further extension, people.

If you want to change my mind, insulting me off the bat probably isn't a good way to start.

These labels you use alpha, beta, omega, don't exist. Once you realize this you might start getting it. But go ahead and chain yourself.

Well then, I will make the same offer to you that I did to Bertrand weeks ago.

If you are genuinely keen to help me out, why not suggest an alternative approach that will help me achieve my goals? You have such a great opportunity to share your extensive knowledge with me, with all of us. Explain the steps I will need to take if I am to succeed (according to you). This is your chance. I am listening.

How you respond will tell me whether you're serious, or just out to flame me. You will be treated accordingly.

[Bertrand]

but not for attraction itself.

define attraction and it becomes obvious whether or not its subjective or objective. anything less is just assuming everyone already agrees with you because you share the same private definition, which is obviously not the case. this really just goes back to people trying to peddle their pet theory of attraction as if it ought to control, rather than flow, from people's behavior. in other words, it purports to describe people's behavior but you're trying to use it prescriptively for what people will respond to based on what you personally value. at the end of the day whatever you come up with in answer to the question is just a word game. itll implicate certain people within its ambit, and exclude others. the point is not everyone participates in your word play, and you can say "well those people were gross anyway" but lungs' point has always been it goes both ways, you're trying to exercise an illegitimate degree of control over people and that is what's causing them to prefer cats, because turns out you're gross not them

[Retsu77]

define attraction and it becomes obvious whether or not its subjective or objective. anything less is just assuming everyone already agrees with you because you share the same private definition, which is obviously not the case. this really just goes back to people trying to peddle their pet theory as if it ought to dictate people's behavior. at the end of the day whatever you come up with in answer to the question is just a word game. itll implicate certain people within its ambit, and exclude others. the point is not everyone participates in your word play, and you can say "well those people were gross anyway" but lungs' point has always been it goes both ways

When you want to fuck someone. It's physical, primal and has physiological responses in the body. Is this hurting your Se PoLR yet?

I have no desire for any logical type woman. But this thread isn't about your favorite poster, is it?

And since attraction can be easily triggered in both men and women, it's not as subjective as you may think. It's also certainly not a choice. Will plays zero role in this.

[Bertrand]

if will plays zero role in this why are we having this discussion to begin with

just be objectively attractive and let the marxist pomo feminists fall in line

[Retsu77]

feminism is not at all isomorphic to post modernism or marxism, thats where you need to sharpen up

lungs is not arguing a post modernist or marxist take on feminism, thus your opposition and your bringing in of JP to the discussion misses the point. you're arguing strawmen rooted in your own misunderstanding



this is funny to me because its like you're trying to punch way above your weight intellectually and yet still reserving for yourself the right to make these kinds of assessments. if you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground then how can you even begin to say what is intellectually dishonest or not. you're not even approaching meaningful participation in the realm of discerning intent, you don't even understand what's being said yet

It's a good thing lump has a good male feminist ally to defend her.

Coming from you, I'm not too worried about anything logical or intelligent.

You had nothing of value to contribute in defending christianity, so now you come over here, thinking you are an expert in feminist theory. Are all Deltas this annoying?

[Retsu77]

if will plays zero role in this why are we having this discussion to begin with

just be objectively attractive and let the marxist pomo feminists fall in line

Yes, because attraction and acting on it are clearly identical. For someone who tries to show off his role function, you don't seem to do as well with logic as you think.

[Bertrand]

oh so the problem is you can be objectively attractive but women still won't act as if they like you. in other words, women not liking you is evil, if you're objectively attractive. and "feminism" causes them to be that way, ergo feminism is evil at least inasmuch as it causes them to conceal their true lust for you

you've really just defined feminism in opposition to your private definition of attractiveness: i.e.: your personal qualities. good luck with that

[Slade]

If you want to change my mind, insulting me off the bat probably isn't a good way to start.



Well then, I will make the same offer to you that I did to Bertrand weeks ago.

If you are genuinely keen to help me out, why not suggest an alternative approach that will help me achieve my goals? You have such a great opportunity to share your extensive knowledge with me, with all of us. Explain the steps I will need to take if I am to succeed (according to you). This is your chance. I am listening.

How you respond will tell me whether you're serious, or just out to flame me. You will be treated accordingly.

I already did that.

You have taken another blue pill and you don't even know it

It's clear you don't understand women, and to a further extension, people.

These labels you use alpha, beta, omega, don't exist.

That wasn't an insult, by the way. You write in earnestness using red pill ideas to explain dynamics between men and women and expect to be taken seriously. You aren't that much different from the feminists you criticize if you actually believe that bullshit. I'm sorry if that hurts your ego, but it's the truth.

[ashlesha]

It's a good thing lump has a good male feminist ally to defend her.

Coming from you, I'm not too worried about anything logical or intelligent.

You had nothing of value to contribute in defending christianity, so now you come over here, thinking you are an expert in feminist theory. Are all Deltas this annoying?

He must be getting under your skin if you think that some personal white knight accusation is the way to gain ground but I think he and I have both spoken for ourselves just fine.

[Retsu77]

oh so the problem is you can be objectively attractive but women still won't act as if they like you. in other words, women not liking you is evil

What? Do you even understand how attraction works in people? The answer is no.

For someone with such a big Fi-laden mouth, you sure do have a lot of blindspots.

I think you hear what you want.

[Retsu77]

He must be getting under your skin if you think that some personal white knight accusation is the way to gain ground but I think he and I have both spoken for ourselves just fine.

Yes, I find him quite annoying to be honest. You somewhat as well, but nowhere near his level. He seems quite full of himself, condescending, a pseudo-intellectual Delta NF attempting to look smart by obfuscating the issue. Typical Ne creative crap for an eii.

It sounds like a couple of Delta NFs have gotten butthurt someone online insulted their prized ideology and now they have a bone to pick.

[Spermatozoa]

I already did that.

That wasn't an insult, by the way. You write in earnestness using red pill ideas to explain dynamics between men and women and expect to be taken seriously. You aren't that much different from the feminists you criticize if you actually believe that bullshit. I'm sorry if that hurts your ego, but it's the truth.

You wrote a few lines of insignificant nonsense to me, claimed to be a genius, and then dodged when I called you out on it.

Well, you are clearly a lightweight. You have my permission to fuck off.

[Bertrand]

What? Do you even understand how attraction works in people? The answer is no.

the problem isn't even that you're totally wrong, its that you just identify the contents of your ego with the objective truth, which is precisely what EIE does as well. its absolute conviction of your own messiahood, except in this case its based around natural selection, i.e.: sexual reproduction and fitness in the evolutionary sense (i.e.: "attractiveness"). this creates a worldview wherein you're doing absolutely everything you can to be attractive and get laid and equate a lack of mutuality and reciprocity on the part of women to be an evil inasmuch as it contradicts your own personal values, which you assume everyone should adopt. the bottom line is someone will find your crazy shit attractive so maybe just go get them instead of trying to reform the women who aren't interested and never will be. that's called harassment

I get that, to you, frustration on that front seems like some deficiency of delta or any group that disagrees, but you just gotta accept that's something you're imposing on the world and you suffer or not accordingly

I saw an Osho quote about that somewhere...

[Slade]

You wrote three lines of insignificant nonsense, and now you claim to be a genius.

Well, you have my permission to fuck off.

I never claimed to be a genius, but I do claim that you are a retard.

[Retsu77]

oh so the problem is you can be objectively attractive but women still won't act as if they like you. in other words, women not liking you is evil, if you're objectively attractive. and "feminism" causes them to be that way, ergo feminism is evil at least inasmuch as it causes them to conceal their true lust for you

you've really just defined feminism in opposition to your private definition of attractiveness: i.e.: your personal qualities. good luck with that

I would define feminism in its modern form as what you see with the third wavers. A quick visit to websites like Everydayfeminism, Salon, Buzzfeed and the like will help you to get the picture.

I do not believe a man's looks play any large factor in his ability or lack thereof to get laid. You are spouting dishonest bullshit, are being intentionally ignorant or are stupid.

[ashlesha]

It sounds like a couple of Delta NFs have gotten butthurt someone online insulted their prized ideology and now they have a bone to pick.

I don't have a bone to pick. This is another "prediction loaded with values on the part of the speaker," as bert put it. Refer to posts 201-202. The only thing im bothered by is the personal accusation. You can dislike either or both of us, but insults don't provide leverage to your arguments.

[Retsu77]

the problem isn't even that you're totally wrong, its that you just identify the contents of your ego with the objective truth, which is precisely what EIE does as well. its absolute conviction of your own messiahood, except in this case its based around natural selection, i.e.: sexual reproduction and fitness in the evolutionary sense (i.e.: "attractiveness"). this creates a worldview wherein you're doing absolutely everything you can to be attractive and get laid and equate a lack of mutuality and reciprocity on the part of women to be an evil inasmuch as it contradicts your own personal values, which you assume everyone should adopt. the bottom line is someone will find your crazy shit attractive so maybe just go get them instead of trying to ideologically reform the women who aren't interested and never will be. that's called harassment

I am 100% fine with being ENFj. For years, in fact, I typed as one (in mbti anyway).

I do not think any ought to adopt anything. There is simply the way the world is, how it works and we can choose to accept it, or become bitter, lonely people who resort to opposite-sex-hating ideologies like feminism, mgtow or the like to assuage our own inadequacies.

Also, who is trying to reform any women...? I would never want a feminist woman, so we're on safe grand staying as far away from each other as possible.

[Spermatozoa]

I never claimed to be a genius, but I do claim that you are a retard.

Excellent, I'm sure to always exceed expectations.

[Bertrand]

I'm implying you're in the realm of LIE, because you're a voice for nature itself, which is reproduction at all costs and inasmuch as anyone isn't into that they're wrong

the problem is if you're trying to do it via Ni its halfbaked, you need to just go raise the resources cause your theory sucks and is counter productive. in other words, if attractiveness is the test and reproduction is the goal, your way of thinking, when verbalized, kind of sucks. but if you can put into action and keep your mouth shut, maybe there's something to it... either way it requires objective Te feedback to be something more than mere words

[Retsu77]

I don't have a bone to pick. This is another "prediction loaded with values on the part of the speaker," as bert put it. Refer to posts 201-202. The only thing im bothered by is the personal accusation. You can dislike either or both of us, but insults don't provide leverage to your arguments.

Well, you might want to tell your buddy bertrand to stop with the petty insults then. I don't recall ever insulting you.

I don't know you well enough to say anything positive or negative about you. Personal accusation of what...?

And tbh, getting offended by some random idiot's posts online seems a bit much. For all you know, I could be trolling the hell out of you. I'm not - but I'm just saying, you take this shit too damn seriously.

[Retsu77]

I'm implying you're in the realm of LIE, because you're a voice for nature itself, which is reproduction at all costs and inasmuch as anyone isn't into that they're wrong

Yes, that is Jungian Te. But my Se is too good, so LSE mebbe? This is fun... you know, I've even been typed as LII before.

[Slade]

Excellent, I'm sure to always exceed expectations.

It's easy to exceed expectations when you constantly lower them for others.

[Bertrand]

Yes, that is Jungian Te. But my Se is too good, so LSE mebbe? This is fun... you know, I've even been typed as LII before.

same, the point is not that you're definite x or y forever, its that what you're manifesting sounds like x or y as a discrete data point. to synthesize the whole is up to you. I don't buy people saying a singular x or y confirms anything

believe it or not I actually think I see the inherent cogency to your worldview, I just think its going to be victim to its own bad press and it gets hijacked by conspiracy theories when it should just go forth and prove itself true

there's a lot of posters that go around neglecting the time component when assessing what type someone is, but the bottom line is personality itself is a pattern over time, so people cannot be reduced to a single dispositive manifestation. the best we can do is most accurately assess what x or y is in the moment, and there is not necessarily going to be complete consistency because people vacillate in what they manifest and people's assessments are biased or otherwise inaccurate for all sorts of reasons... then maybe we assess the pattern that starts to form on the basis of a collection of those data points. I think you're in the realm of gamma so far, but who knows

[Spermatozoa]

It's easy to exceed expectations when you constantly lower them for others.

But being an asshole is so much fun. I get to release my stench everywhere, pollute the environment and undermine sexual harmony.

[ashlesha]

Well, you might want to tell your buddy bertrand to stop with the petty insults then. I don't recall ever insulting you.

I don't know you well enough to say anything positive or negative about you. Personal accusation of what...?

And tbh, getting offended by some random idiot's posts online seems a bit much. For all you know, I could be trolling the hell out of you. 'm not - but I'm just saying, you take this shit too damn seriously.

Haha, I do? I guess the pedantic nature of that post probably made it seem that way.

[Retsu77]

same, the point is not that you're definite x or y forever, its that what you're manifesting sounds like x or y as a discrete data point. to synthesize the whole is up to you. I don't buy people saying a singular x or y confirms anything

believe it or not I actually think I see the inherent cogency to your worldview, I just think its going to be victim to its own bad press and it gets hijacked by conspiracy theories when it should just go forth and prove itself true

there's a lot of posters that go around neglecting the time component when assessing what type someone is, but the bottom line is personality itself is a pattern over time, so people cannot be reduced to a single dispositive manifestation. the best we can do is most accurately assess what x or y is in the moment, and there is not necessarily going to be complete consistency because people vacillate in what they manifest and people's assessments are biased or otherwise inaccurate for all sorts of reasons

I actually think I might be Fi lead.

Anyway, evolutionary psychology backs up "red pill" ideology, mostly anyway. They have no morals or scruples and that is where they fail. MGTOW are just as pathetic as modern day third wave feminists.

For the record, I don't oppose first wave feminism and even some elements of the second wave. However, modern day feminism in the west is largely unnecessary and is simply used to divide the sexes (and it works to great effect too). I would argue the concept of "patriarchy" especially in western society, is largely treated the same as a conspiracy. Name one right women do not have that men do in western society.

Also, seeing as how you are a christian, tell me more about how God hates gender roles when he said women are to be followers of their husbands, to keep silent in churches, not to preach and have only half the value of a man in the old testament. I'll wait.

Jung said type is not static over life, which runs contrary to every typological system. It explains my life better than being born X and being X forever. But that is irrelevant to feminism.

[Retsu77]

Haha, I do? I guess the pedantic nature of that post probably made it seem that way.

You said you were bothered by something I said. I'm saying don't let it bother you. lol

[Bertrand]

I'm not worried, you'll be fine (emotionally)

just stay safe in trying to get laid, I could see you getting stabbed by a white knight or militant lesbian

[squark]

I actually think I might be Fi lead.

?Really? Why?

[Retsu77]

I'm not worried, you'll be fine (emotionally)

just stay safe in trying to get laid, I could see you getting stabbed by a white knight or militant lesbian

I don't sleep around brah. You seem to have me confused for Mystery or something.

PUA is useful for learning a few tricks but it's not going to help you find a happy, long lasting relationship.

[Retsu77]

?Really? Why?

Well, I don't want to derail the topic but it makes more sense than Si lead. That is one typing I don't get.