Yeah, you are very right alysaria. What I meant is that there seem to be a lot less social constraints on men. Not that I would want or think that my personality would be different, just that our society, at least, rewards men for much more. There's the whole double standard thing. A guy sleeps around he's awesome, a lady's man, and if a girl sleeps around she's shunned, a slut. That's just one of the most cliche examples but you get my drift.

I don't really want to be a guy though. Yuck! I like being my girly self and I can live with everything that comes with it. Girls rule, Boys drool!

There's the whole double standard thing. A guy sleeps around he's awesome, a lady's man, and if a girl sleeps around she's shunned, a slut

Personality type doesn't change by gender

Well women do get away with a lot. People are usually more forgiving of women when they cause problems, more willing to find blame elsewhere than cause hurt or even discomfort to women.

I remember once - not in the US - I was waiting in line and had been waiting with any number of other guys for more than two hours, and then a woman came and she just walked straight to the head of the line, and asked the guy in front to move back so she could get her stuff done. Just plain irritating.

Which reminds me of this video I saw of an Indian gameshow...



Girl slaps a guy, the guy slaps her back, and then he gets beaten up by a mob for slapping her

Anyway, back to the topic (kinda) - anime girls...

Motoko Kusanagi from Ghost in the Shell

Posted By sbalbom on 25 Feb 2010 10:25 PM

Personality type doesn't change by gender

Just like any good RPG I really think that women get a +20% to Fi/Fe. And as an F guy I love it.

Also, just like a RPG women get this special ability... once every moon rotation to boost their F 40%

lmao!

I've always had a soft-spot for Lucy.  For those who don't know the series, her personality is half this, and half psychopath with invisible arms who tears anyone who gets within a few feet of her in half.  This picture brings out her sweeter side.

 @sbalbom:

Problem is that reality and what is right has little to do with what we want. What best suits a system is what best suits that system.

IMO, some of the equality we want is based on the assumption that people are the same and serve the same roles. That we are some common kind of idealized being that is typically equal and should be treated the same.

Even if you ignore gender, I think that's not true. People are different and ideally deserve to be treated differently depending on who they are. Like if you were picking participants to represent you in a race - you wouldn't pick one randomly. What would be most reasonable would be to pick the best runner, and not give everyone an equal chance at entering the competition.

Ideally they should've all have been equal and had equal rights - but people are not equal.

--------------------

... and I'm saying this in the Women You Want To Marry thread.

Case 2: Beldandy from Ah My Goddess (the OAV version)

Well, I wouldn't marry her, but she's pure marriage material where you'd have to say that guy was bloody lucky to have her

IMO, some of the equality we want is based on the assumption that people are the same and serve the same roles. That we are some common kind of idealized being that is typically equal and should be treated the same.

ENFPs rule.

INTJs are the Sociopaths :/

everything flies with me as long as they fit in the seat and wear the seatbelt.

@danstar: I think most Ns are at the very least somewhat rebellious. We abstract meaning from things, create a larger picture, and see what seems to be wrong and in need of improvement, where our S type brethren are more accepting of things as they are.

What I've realized of late, is that the correct answer to a problem isn't necessarily the one you project from the generalized model. The projection is often a useful basis for something workable but to really make it something that can be used to serious benefit in the real world, you usually need to add a bunch of more details, and you have to understand not what you'd ideally be working with, but what you're really working with. Equality for all is a simple and likable idea... it also has the benefit of being supported by our feelings and making us feel more comfortable (in part because it insures that we too will not be mistreated)

However, what choices people should be allowed, and how everyone should be treated, is a question that can only be answered after you decide how the world needs to be and why it is better to target that world, as opposed to another world (of which I'm not currently going to suggest anything)

.. I remember thinking as a kid... between a great scientist, who can massively improve the world and an ordinary man... if both committed murder, and the punishment for murder was death, would I choose to let the scientist die considering the sheer amount of good he can do, vs. the other guy? No, not really. I might put more controls on his behavior, or if it looked like a one time thing, perhaps just ignore it (there are more details in that thought - for one thing, letting it be known that a murderer just plain went free is a serious problem - but I think what I said expresses the basic idea well enough)

I just can't wrap my mind around treating people differently for any reason.

For me, it was more difficult than others, since I attended a religious school for a few years before going to a public school. Imagine one of the Flanders' kids going to place littered with Bart Simpsons, and you'll get an idea of my life growing up. They ate me alive, because I was innocent and trusting.

The prejudice that we're all equal and deserve to be treated equally probably comes from our Christian tradition-- we're all God's children, we're all brothers and sisters in Christ, blah blah blah. My view is far more pessimistic. Freud was probably on the right track when he argued people just follow their desires and impulses, however rotten they may be, and then baptize their actions afterward with whatever pretty labels come from the great human rationalization hamster.

Posted By JHBowden on 27 Feb 2010 09:28 PM

 

I just can't wrap my mind around treating people differently for any reason.

Well, growing up I was the school nerd, so I can think of hundreds of reasons why people treated me differently. And once we've been treated differently ourselves, we learn to make careful distinctions in others. It's just accumulated, painfully learned experience.

 

For me, it was more difficult than others, since I attended a religious school for a few years before going to a public school. Imagine one of the Flanders' kids going to place littered with Bart Simpsons, and you'll get an idea of my life growing up. They ate me alive, because I was innocent and trusting.

The prejudice that we're all equal and deserve to be treated equally probably comes from our Christian tradition-- we're all God's children, we're all brothers and sisters in Christ, blah blah blah. My view is far more pessimistic. Freud was probably on the right track when he argued people just follow their desires and impulses, however rotten they may be, and then baptize their actions afterward with whatever pretty labels come from the great human rationalization hamster.

How does pessimism affect your religious faith and perspective outlook on humanity (of lack thereof)?

I was reading a blog article about faith and optimists/pessimists and how a person (of faith) accepts that life is not perfect or unfair, how faith transcends of both ego and logic. And a pessimist/optimist viewpoint is of a native premise that only leads to indecision and a false sense of truth and actualization.

Interesting. I don't agree with it myself, but somehow decided to post it here. Thoughts??

Sorry for going off topic.

I still wish everyone was treated the same.