(08-27-2023, 08:02 AM)Ampersnd Wrote: Appreciate the response.

I like these passages:
[*]If we identify to much with our persona, I.e. the image we present to other people, we feel the need to have a "definition" of who we are and how we are separated from others.
[*]Definitions of ourselves are only needed for helping other people get a sense of who we "are", which by it nature will always be a great over-simplification, and we need to see those definitions for their simplified purpose, rather than a necessity for ourselves to ponder.

I'm bit into wordplay and wordsmithing, but that in itself might be a trap. Good definitions require for 100% of the things it references to be included in the definition, excluding the rest, and I think that this might be stifling me, having to fit perfectly into the labels or needing to find the perfect label.

(08-27-2023, 11:40 AM)Frosted Wrote: Are you aware of your Myer’s Brig’s type? From your posts I would put you as someone who uses Ti (Introverted thinking) heavily. Probably a Ti dominant. If I had to guess ISTP. ISTPs are logical problem solvers that like to fix problems in the here and now. Ti also has a habit of trying to define things and find the perfect word for something. Other possibilities are INTP, ENTP and maybe ESTP. Of course you could be something completely different, but these are the possibilities I see from my limited POV of you.

I’ve found Myer’s Brigs helpful in my life, although I don’t use it religiously anymore as I found it stifling to a degree. Now I use it as one element among many systems and ways of thinking.

• On the physical plane, they see man's strong back. Men toil in the sun and build the major infrastructure.
  
• On the psychic plane, they see man's ambition and indominable spirit.
  
• On the intellectual plane, they see inventions and the rapid development of technology.
  
• On the financial plane, they see men heading companies. They see men's leadership and direction.
  
• On the romantic plane, they see men in fearless pursuit. No doubt. No shame.
  
• On the dominance plane, they see guts and sinew. They see callous warriors and ruthlessness.
  

• When a grown man and a grown woman get drunk, and have sex, many people - even feminists (FEMINISTS!) - will believe that the man took advantage of her. This is because he is always the mastermind; how could he not be?
  
• (This opinion is less popular nowadays, but) feminists also used to argue that a woman who has taken as much as a sip of alcohol is too compromised to make sexual decisions. The man can drink a lot and still be seen as more culpable. Consider how infantilizing this is, as algebra can tell us what is left over if you start with (a woman too dumb to make decisions) and take away (the sip of alcohol that took her there).
  
• Basically every major calamity is seen as "affecting women more"; war, climate issues, guns, cancer. Because the implicit assumption is that men can weather these things.
  
• If a man loses big in family court, the world accepts it because we hold the opinion that the man ought to be enough of a rainmaker to make back the money, and then some.
  
• If a woman is required to make alimony payment because of her greater income, she drops all egalitarian pretense and resents it because "she's the woman" and "he's the man, damn it."
  
• The major "equalist" movements to 'destigmatize' mental health and sex, and to contribute therapy, a soft life, and body positivity are for women only. Men are openly called small-dicked balding losers who live in their mothers' basement if they disagree with a woman about the wrong topic.* A man is blamed for the degradation of a relationship; she whole "he cheats and he's an asshole, she cheats because he must have driven her away" talking point, applied to a variety of areas; decision-making, finances, child-rearing.
  

(08-29-2023, 05:01 PM)Ampersnd Wrote: Day 179,

Another big thought I've been sitting on for a while.
Once you've striped away all of the layers of sophistication and rationalization, every major ideological group - including feminists - believe that men are inherently superior to women. This is not an argument about material fact, but an explanation about the world acts so strangely, so do hear me out.

They idealize us and see us as Superman.

• On the physical plane, they see man's strong back. Men toil in the sun and build the major infrastructure.
  
• On the psychic plane, they see man's ambition and indominable spirit.
  
• On the intellectual plane, they see inventions and the rapid development of technology.
  
• On the financial plane, they see men heading companies. They see men's leadership and direction.
  
• On the romantic plane, they see men in fearless pursuit. No doubt. No shame.
  
• On the dominance plane, they see guts and sinew. They see callous warriors and ruthlessness.
  

Accordingly, they see the archetype of Man™ as a Titan; a bulletproof demi-god who can weather any storm.
Obviously, we are not Superman; of course, the title is nice, but then they fire live bullets at us and expect us to stay standing.

I remember when I was 19 and in a class project with only women; they elected a team leader, then every one of them, including the team leader, was turning to me for important leadership questions, then shunned me for not giving complete answers. I was so confused at the time.
My tomboy-ish cousin, who came out as bisexual about 4 years ago and now only dates women, complained that the other woman would turn things over to her to pursue; my cousin felt like she had to do all the work in initiating and planning, which she did.
To her advantage, she was given all the work, and still did not have to face the social mechanism which would shame her if she pushed things too far.

This framework also does such a good job at explaining comically-glaring double standards.

• When a grown man and a grown woman get drunk, and have sex, many people - even feminists (FEMINISTS!) - will believe that the man took advantage of her. This is because he is always the mastermind; how could he not be?
  
• (This opinion is less popular nowadays, but) feminists also used to argue that a woman who has taken as much as a sip of alcohol is too compromised to make sexual decisions. The man can drink a lot and still be seen as more culpable. Consider how infantilizing this is, as algebra can tell us what is left over if you start with (a woman too dumb to make decisions) and take away (the sip of alcohol that took her there).
  
• Basically every major calamity is seen as "affecting women more"; war, climate issues, guns, cancer. Because the implicit assumption is that men can weather these things.
  
• If a man loses big in family court, the world accepts it because we hold the opinion that the man ought to be enough of a rainmaker to make back the money, and then some.
  
• If a woman is required to make alimony payment because of her greater income, she drops all egalitarian pretense and resents it because "she's the woman" and "he's the man, damn it."
  
• The major "equalist" movements to 'destigmatize' mental health and sex, and to contribute therapy, a soft life, and body positivity are for women only. Men are openly called small-dicked balding losers who live in their mothers' basement if they disagree with a woman about the wrong topic.* A man is blamed for the degradation of a relationship; she whole "he cheats and he's an asshole, she cheats because he must have driven her away" talking point, applied to a variety of areas; decision-making, finances, child-rearing.
  

The world expects Superman and deducts points.

Society actually believes that we can withhold guidance, encouragement, and interest in young men for a 20 year period and still have them turn out bulletproof, mentally resilient, and tough as nails. That we can talk down and disband their spaces, to run negative PR, to push their shame and guilt buttons, and not expect them to have psychological and social deficiencies.

They actually expect a plant that grows on its own, without sun or soil or water. Because we are already supposed to know what to do and to just figure it out, right?

•  They want to extract as much value as possible with minimal work
  
• They want the benefits from identifying with a role in society.
  
• Yet they want to be liberated from any expectation on them to fulfill their responsibilities for that role.
  
• They refuse to connect roles and responsibilities, as that would implicate them.
  
• They latch onto frameworks and belief systems as a pretense for harmful beliefs.
  
• They will switch between conflicting frameworks to get the best from every situation.
  
• They will use every dishonest rhetorical tactic to gain the upper hand and stump the other party.
  
• They transmogrify every person who disagrees into someone who is as vile, vengeful, and dishonest as they truly are.
  
• They will pull every lever at their disposal to squash any person who threatens to call out these dynamics.
  
• They want to seamlessly cycle between being viewed as a free agent and an oppressed victim.
  
• They want social permission to navigate the world fluidly, while expecting rigidity (i.e., duty) from everyone else; expecting others to do the same things, day in and day out, as they can take others' movements for granted and as a constant opportunity. You know what else is rigid and never moving? A stepping stone.
  
• They want no cause-effect relationships between their behavior and the kind of person they are.
  
• They want grace for their misdeeds and vengeance for the misdeeds of others.