Revisiting Feminism: INFJ (or other type) perspectives | Page 9 | INFJ Forum

Revisiting Feminism: INFJ (or other type) perspectives

I want to go to anarchist sleep-away camp on a deserted island! Pick me! Pick me!

We could definately get a nucleus of people off this site i reckon!

The people involved in the financial sector know that the dollar is failing. They know it is losing its purchasing power so they are investing in hard assets one of which is land which means a lot of people might get priced out of land at the moment

here in scotland a country of 5 million souls half the land is held by about 180 people; many financial folks from the city of london buy up land here as an investment and often don't even visit it!

However we are having a referendum this year in september to see if scotland wants to remain part of the UK. If scotland breaks off (and i will be voting for independence) then this country will likely see land reform laws that could make things very interesting. We have a history of crofting here which is a form of small scale farming that i'd be very interested in doing. There are various schemes in different places i have looked into but the other issue is housing my family somewhere they want to live and where my partner can also pursue what she wants to do

But if there was wide reaching land reform it might make things more viable

The other options i've looked into are eco villages but also yurt communities which are the most affordable option. For example there are some groups who ask that people who want to be a part of an emerging community buy a stake in the community for example £5000. This then goes into a wider pot used to make a land purchase and each person then gets a plot of land within the greater land purchse that the group makes. So usually they are looking for a certain amount of people to be invested before they can commit.

This appeals to me but the winter months in scotland are pretty harsh so i see it as more of a seasonal option. There are also similar schemes in hotter countries so winters could be spent abroad.

I'm currently speaking with some people who are looking to build a community of energy self sufficient eco houses so i'll see where that leads; i would love to be involved in a project from the start through to completion and beyond!

But one thing i have done already is to remove any sort of hierarchical relationships from my life. I don't have any in my work life or personal life. I do choose to answer to the government to a certain degree (ie taxes) but there are still direct action methods that can be taken regarding that

I have been reading up on composting recently and have bought seeds. This spring i will be growing my own veg and herbs which with rising food prices is going to become more and more of a sensible option. in the war there was a slogan: ''dig for victory'' and the people turned over all free land to growing fruit and vegetables; i think people should do this again and could even potentially try to dig up land that is unused like the diggers did...but there's always the risk of being chucked off by the authorities! (like the diggers were)

Even window baskets in the city can apparently yeild quite a lot of crop!

I think self sufficiency is the key

The corporations hate that because they want everyone dependent on them. They hate localism as well. They like to ship food from across the world as if we can't grow food here...its crazy when you think of the energy invested in that process....but then they like that because they own the oil companies!

So buying local is another way to undermine their system

I think we're going to see more and more people pull away in many ways from the current system. Some ways willl be as simple as taking money out of their banks...which i would recommend to people not only as a protest but also to avoid the coming bail-ins. Unfortunately bitcoin is looking like its not doing so well these days but gold and silver are a good bet for anyone who has more money than they want to hide around the house. The prices of these are actually being manipulated to keep them low so its probably a good time to buy

Interesting times ahead but when the collapse of the fiat currencies happen it will be the people who are most self sufficient and who are part of a helpful community that will ride through it the smoothest
 
Last edited:
is this in reference to post-feminism?
its in thr context of whoever I origionally quoted asking what it was in this thread.... so yes?
 
I want to go to anarchist sleep-away camp on a deserted island! Pick me! Pick me!

I once went to Anarchist Camp. The campers overthrew the counselors then proceeded to turn on each other. Sadly, there was no sleeping.
 
I once went to Anarchist Camp. The campers overthrew the counselors then proceeded to turn on each other. Sadly, there was no sleeping.

Where is this at?
 
Where was it at?

Salt Lake City, right next to a Mormon camp. Or maybe it was the Mormon camp. I don't really remember...
 
Salt Lake City, right next to a Mormon camp. Or maybe it was the Mormon camp. I don't really remember...

yup there you go...it was actually the freemasons...not anarchists at all

They're agents of chaos
 
All men aren't equal to other men, all women aren't equal to other women; so how are men and women going to be equal between two different sexes? Not to mention that there are a lot of other aspects between the two that are obviously different to any reasonable observer. I think the language behind the movement is all wrong is and sabotaging itself. Just like how it's called 'Feminism'; if it is working for the benefit of men as well (especially within a so called male dominated culture) there is going to be a high level of resistance to it based on the first impression we get due to how it is framed.

All the examples that you find on Tumblr, the extreme examples you'll find in the media, and news get all the attention; to say to the general public: 'I am a feminist' is to say I agree with Tumblr/media/news. It's such a loaded term that you can't say that without getting into a long explanation of what exactly you agree with, making it more of a pain in the ass than it needs to be.

I'm not against many of the ideals of feminism until you get to the parts where the feminists say things like: "Why don't we teach boys to not rape?" We do teach everyone to not rape, but just like murder not everyone listens. I only agree with the non-extreme ideas of feminism such as same pay for same work, etc. There is just so much grey it is insurmountable.

I believe they're equal. They arent the same though and this is were most equality discussions mess up, either pro or contra a lot of the time there seems to be a consensus that equality means the same. Its a big reason why I oppose a lot of the "marriage equality" or homosexual rights campaigns, its also part of the reason why, despite being an avowedly socialist thinker I dont disagree with some of the conservative objections to fiscal equality.

The framing of feminism can be a problem for some people, although it makes sense by their lights, taking feminity as what they wish to promote for both men and women but its one of those dichotomies that anyone thinking seriously about things is going to question. Just like the socialism vs. individualism thing, most of the serious socialist thinkers wherent anti-individualist in anything more than a rhetorical sense, most of them saw their ideas as being about realising individualism or making it a reality for more than just the independently wealthy.

Its very possible that in some contexts a point has been reached in which those dichotomies dont make sense anymore, that's why there's such a thing as post-feminism or post-socialism I guess, but I'm sure if that's possible its in part due to the success of the ideologies in question in the first instance. Most of the good criticism of feminism uses the very tools and thinking which feminism originated itself, some of its from within the movement itself. Every movement should have its Orwell or Orwell moments.

It really ought to be recognised that any critical ideology or movement has its own inbuilt obsolescence too. I personally think its problematic that this isnt recognised, so the next generation takes up the campaigns of the past as though nothing had changed and no progress had been made and often provokes reaction because of it. That's why you get people calling strangers racist because, white, or similarly stupid things like that. There's also a veritable "grievance and minorities" industry upon which the livelihoods and personal investment of some really dedicated and well meaning people depend. Whether that minority is the top end taxpayer or women its not good for society, at least I dont think.
 
I feel that we have let misogynists and misandrists win by letting them define what feminism is and making us feel like it is a bad word.

I don't want to let them win!

I know it's just semantics and in a way it probably makes no difference wether I call myself a feminist are not, but I just feel that it's a matter of principle.

What really IS feminism, and who is in charge of defining it?
 
Saw this today- thought it was a bit fitting!

tumblr_n1pxykDW9L1qbtxv8o2_500.jpg


tumblr_n1pxykDW9L1qbtxv8o1_500.jpg


Exert from her blog:

Feminism is having a wardrobe malfunction.
Does your brand of feminism remove barriers for women, or simply move them around? Does is expand options for women, or does it just shift them? You don’t liberate women by forcing them to choose option B instead of option A. What is comfortable for you might not be comfortable for someone else, and it’s entirely possible that what you see as oppressive, other women find comfortable or even downright liberating.
Before you think the girl in the middle is a strawman, let me tell you I used to be her, back in my misguided youth. I considered myself the standard to which other people should adhere. But that was stupid. It’s not up to me to tell people how to dress, and it’s much nicer to let everyone choose for themselves.
Some women would feel naked without a veil. Some women would find it restrictive. Some women would feel restricted by a bra. Some women would feel naked without one. Some women would feel restricted by a tight corset. Others love them. Some wear lots of clothes with a corset. Some only wear the corset and nothing else. What makes any article of clothing oppressive is someone forcing you to wear it. And it’s just as oppressive to force someone not to wear something that they want to wear.

Found here: http://rosalarian.tumblr.com/post/78124344560/feminism-is-having-a-wardrobe-malfunction-does
 
No i don't have a 'utopian' view : http://www.peoplesassemblies.org/

Hi, I really like what you have to say. I am an Anarcho-Syndicalist/Democratic Marxist but most importantly an Anarchist in the classical sense that I am a socialist that: “For the anarchist, freedom is not an abstract philosophical concept, but the vital concrete possibility of every human being to bring to full development all the powers, capacities and talents with which nature has endowed them, and turn them to social account.”
― Rudolf Rocker

And also a VERY important Rocker quote: "anarchist schools of thought represent 'only different methods of economy' the first objective for anarchists is 'to secure the personal and social freedom of humanity'" R. Rocker


I am all about the original 'Paris Commune' and founding Anarchists like Rousseau, Bakunin and Rocker plus the Romantic poets that influenced the era like Percy Shelley and William Blake. I thought you might be interested in a group that I belong to, from a distance, Falken Berlin, a German Socialist youth orginization. They have a very interesting discussion that you might like re; "Do we need utopias?" Here is a translated page for you.http://www2.wir-falken.de/uploads/bericht_un_ausschuss_englisch.pdf

As far as feminism is concerned i have always supported feminism and am an INFJ male. Some of heroines are Sophie Scholl(INTJ) and Ulrike Meinhof(INFJ) Elanor Roosevelt(INFJ) and Tilda Swinton(INFJ) I admire a great many more women but this is my Ni list.

well Ihope that someone reads this and changes their perception about what Anarchism. I admit that the text book definition suggests chaos but the reality of the contemporary Anarchist is far from chaotic...we are firm friends of order, just not authoritarianism.
 
I had to post this very insightful view on feminism and sex:

Although it might upset some commenters, I still believe it's harder to be a woman than a man, and, even today, women are legitimately oppressed in many ways. So enter feminism to address those inequities. The dictionary will tell you that feminism is a doctrine advocating social, political and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Women will tell you feminism is ... well, it depends on the decade, because like all important things, feminism is always evolving. But with all of feminism's changes, there seems to be two constants: 1) it confuses the hell out of women who don't have a strong sense of themselves, and 2) it pisses off asshole men.

I went to college in the '90s. That was the height of Naomi Wolf Beauty Myth feminism. My peers were women who liked Ani DiFranco and wanted to run with the wolves. The '90s were fun, but they were filled with lots and lots of awful sex. I can't tell you how many women I met whose idea of whether or not they were empowered was all tied up in how they liked to screw. And "tied up" could not be a more inappropriate phrase, because restraining a woman in bed only happened on liberal arts campuses in the '90s during an exorcism.

It saddened me, because I thought feminism was the freedom to have sex any dirty, filthy way you wanted without worrying about the psycho-sociological ramifications of being on your knees or having "property of Gladstone" written on your ass in lipstick. Personally, I never felt like any less of a man because of any particular kind of sex I was having, so why should a woman? Regardless of the sexual act, I was still a man, fully capable of driving a stick, hitting a baseball or getting into a fistfight. (Unless I was wearing that thing that did the thing to my thing, but that was just physics.) I thought women should have the same freedom and the same right to degrade and be degraded in any way that got them hot without having Naomi Wolf's babble filling their heads, ruining their orgasms.

In time, however, the 21st century happened, and a new era of Sex and the City feminism entered. Suddenly, women were saying, yeah, we can be slutty, just like guys. After all, guys go out and try to get laid and brag about it, and society encourages them to do so. I'm going to do that too! Suddenly, you had college girls tweeting about blowjobs and wearing their sexuality on their sleeves, thinking that they were supposed to go out and ride the world for the sisters or they were somehow being oppressed. And though I would imagine this brand of feminism is a lot better for guys looking to get laid, it still makes me sad. It's still putting a pressure on women that shouldn't be there.

The whole premise is wrong. Yes, men are jealous of guys who get a lot of women, but women are wrong to think it's a trait that garners much respect. No one says, "We need to calm corporate unrest -- be sure to tell the shareholders how much tang our new CEO is getting." It might surprise women, but do you know what we call guys who go out and try to screw everything? Whores. Know what we call the guy who's always going on and on about all the women he's landed? An asshole. And in my experience, even guys who are legitimately good at having a bunch of promiscuous sex wouldn't make a big show of it.

It's a subtle distinction. Yes, feminism is about women having the same right as men to be irresponsible, brash and slutty, I'll agree. But being brash, irresponsible and slutty doesn't make you a feminist. It doesn't make you empowered. It just makes you as irresponsible, brash and slutty as some of the dudes we don't like. Think of it this way: It was completely unjust to deny black citizens the right to vote, but having gained that right, would a black man be empowering his race by voting for a segregationist?



Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-mistakes-women-make-when-dealing-with-men_p2/#ixzz3K0BTLeQN
 
I'm going to attempt in this thread to give some background context to some of the changes we are seeing in our society; these ideas will not be taught in 'womens studies' because this post is an expose of the people behind things like 'womens studies' (where are the 'mens studies'?!!!)

In marxist theory the aim is to transition a capitalist society to a marxist society

Now there have been various moves in this direction but no country actually achieved a communist state; they never got past the transitional stage which was called ''the dictatorship of the proletariat''

What this means is that the workers never got to that glorious stage where they would own and control the means of production....and lets be clear 'workers' means men and women

What always ruined things was that the powerful interests would not allow the full transition....they would always cease control at the dictatorship of the proletariat stage

This stage was as it says a dictatorship which is to say when power is all centralised

What this means is that the vast majority of men and women are frozen out of the decision making and a very small group of people get to call the shots; this dissenfranchises the majority of men and women (the 'workers')

Capitalism is basically dead in the US and UK now as there is no such thing as 'too big to fail' in capitalism and the bank bail outs represent what some call a 'socialism of the loses' (ie the mistakes of the banks was then paid for by everyone)

What is taking its place is a rise in the STATE. The state is growing and one method through which it is gaining new powers is through so called 'terror' laws where the state takes away your civil liberties in the name of fighting 'terrorism'

The STATE is also increasing the powers of social workers to take children off their parents

The marxists basically did what they called the 'long march through the institutions' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudi_Dutschke) which was a plan for the marxists to infiltrate all areas of US and UK life in order to take over and sabotage the capitalist society

The marxists talk about creating a 'revolutionary consciousness' in the public which basically means that they want the public to become so sick of capitalist society that they willingly accept a new marxist society

In the UK we even have a marxist political party ('labour') calling for a 'reset' of the british constitution!!!!!!!!!

I think many of us would welcome a change at this point but we need to be careful that we don't change to a system that is worse

The marxists want a centralised state that has total control over every aspect of our lives; if the recent paedophilia scandals within the US and UK establishment prove anything it is that the state is dangerous. States have also killed more people through war then anyone else. States can incarcerate you, kill you, take your children from you, take your house from you, take your wealth from you and pretty much anything else it wants to do

One way the marxists conceived of sabotaging capitalist society was through turning women against men. To achieve this they created a militant brand of 'feminism' called 'marxist feminism' and this has received massive financial funding from wealthy backers like george soros making it one fo the most visible and influencial strands within feminism (arguably feminism has been totally hijaked by it)

The marxists have been supported by the bankers and other powerful people who are the very 1% that the occupy movement was complaining about because they have stolen all the money

So why would the richest people be supporting marxism?

They do not want to create a socialist system where the workers own and control the means of production; they want to create a 'state-socialist' system where the state controls the means of production...and guess who would control the state?

You guessed it....the 1% would control the state

This centralised state would have total spying powers (the NSA spy programmes are just the beginning of this) and they would raise the children so that the parents cannot pass on their values to the children. The marxists want the state to pass on marxist values to the children (think of those clips on youtube of rows of chinese children in uniforms all repeating marxist slogans like programmed robots)

The marxists see the nuclear family as the cornerstone of capitalism and one of the aims of the marxists has been to replace the family with the state

The parents are to become mere tax paying workers for the state, whilst the state raises the children and indoctrinates them into marxist state thinking

marxist feminism is part of cultural marxism and it is not about creating equality for the sexes, it is about turning women against men

We are now seeing this process materialising in various laws and cultural shifts

For example we are seeing men being destroyed in the divorce courts; this then provides women with a strong incentive to leave men which in turn helps break up the nuclear family

The state takes the taxes of the workers and it gives them to single mums to subsidise them whilst the state is creating more state funded childcare; this incentivises the women to leave her partner knowing that the state will pay to support her financially and will look after (and indoctrinate) her children whilst she herself goes to work; this also disincentivises people from trying to work through problems or receive relationship counselling

We are seeing new domestic abuse laws that will throw men in prison for 'coercing' their partners; this will discourage men from standing up for themselves within relationships for fear of legal reprisals if the woman decides she is offended by anything he says

Then there is cultural pressures on women now to succeed in their 'careers' so that women have begun to see careers as the end in itself rather than the means to the end whereas before that the end was having rewarding relationships and raising a family

In pop culture like movies and TV programmes and even adverts men are increasingly portrayed as idiots or as the less capable sex whilst women are being portrayed as stronger and stronger. In movies women are increasingly portrayed as violent, often punching out men

Feminism meanwhile pushes women to compete with men by constantly talking about things like the failure to achieve 'equal pay' and the 'glass ceiling' and so on; through this process and the much media hyped 'battle of the sexes' women are now being conditioned to not seek equality but rather the domination of men through the domination of the workplace and corridors of power (i want to be clear i have no problem with EQUALITY but i do have a problen with one sex being preferentially helped to enable them control over the other)

The economy meanwhile has been changed to a 'service economy' where soft skills are valued more which favours women. The problem with a service economy is that it doesn't produce anything tangible (whereas a manufacturing economy does) all it does is print money which is why our economy is failing

All these moves and more besides are basically aimed at removing the powers of men whilst giving all the powers to women (in order to break down the fabric of capitalist society); what this then does is creates a more combatative and aggressive modern woman who has a chip on her shoulder about 'male oppression' so she sets out to trample over men both at work and at home

Another attack on men has come in the form of gender bending chemicals in plastics such as 'PCB's' which can even be found in babies milk bottles!!!! These chemicals are lowering male sperm counts causing an increasing drop in male fertility with each generation. It is also feminising men making them less likely to resist authority (ie the state)

Men have responded to this new environment in a number of ways. Some have closed down completely and entered a fantasy land of computer games so that they don't need to face the real world. Some have committed suicide to escape altogther from a world in which they feel despondant and not at all valued by society. Some have turned to porn instead of real relationships and porn if used often can rewire the brain (as can computer games). Some men have turned to prostitution to meet their physical needs with recent studies finding that 1 in 10 british men have paid for sex. However prostitution laws have been changed so that the men seeking sex are punished rather than the women providing the sex thereby dissincentivising men from turning to prostitution to meet their physcial needs

Recent news articles have covered advances in robotics with some companies working on sex robots. It very much looks like in the very near future mass produced sex robots will become available.

Considering that of the two genders men are the ones who are sexually aroused through visual stimuli i think the market will mostly be men.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that what will happen with the various changes in law is that men will become increasingly wary of women and will increasingly refuse to get involved in relationships (marriage is dying out rapidly); instead many men will turn to other outlets such as porn, prostitution and sex robots

The laws will become tougher on men turning to prostitution so men will then fall back on sex robots. The corporations churning these out will make large profits and at some point they will merge with the virtual reality computer simulation market

Men will become hooked on sex with technology as it involves no hastles and no dangers of legal punishment for arguing with their partner or of having their wealth removed in divorce courts

In turn this will leave women increasingly without partners and over the next decade they will begin to re-evaluate whether 'careers' really are the best thing in life and if men really had such a good deal by having to go to work all the time.

However we are at the moment at the transitional phase so men are becoming more despondant and relationships are becoming more and more temporary and found through russian roulette style serial online dating

There is also an increase in casual sex apps like tinder where men and women will meet up for casual no-strings attached sex

The result of all of this is the breakdown of relationships and families with the state being the net winner as they tie men and women into tax paying wage slavery whilst increasingly raising and indoctrinating their children

The state will become increasingly intrusive and will reach into peoples homes and bodies through various invasive surveillance technology and microchip implants

Personally i'd like to see men and women take power back off the state for example through debt cancellation, direct democracy (people voting on all issues instead of gravy train riding politicians) and also a flat payment of for example 20,000 paid to every citizen every year

For this to happen men and women will need to realise that they are being turned against each other (divide and rule) and they should instead unite and stand together against the state

The other issue that needs addressed in society in a mature and responsible way is the biological differences between men and women. So for example women are the gender who give birth so we need to value their role in that whilst men are sexually stimulated visually more than women which means that the sex impulse is a greater driving force for men; the current approach to that due to marxist feminist influence is to demonise men as being no better than animals for having a sexual impulse. However the sexual impulse is one reason why our species has been so successful so it seems a little late in the day to criticise it!

One way in which this issue can be lessened is through a lessening of the sexualisation of society that has come through 'consumerism' which sells goods through the number one rule of marketting: ''sex sells''

Because of consumerism men are bombarded with sexualised images in movies, pop music videos, fashion, billboards, magazines, TV and so on and because men are more visually stimulated than women the sexualisation of culture has an unequal effect on men. As i have predicted above men will increasingly turn away from women and towards technology as an outlet for the energies created through the sexualisation of society while the state gains greater and greater powers over both women and men
 
Last edited: