Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Seablue

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
  • Brain Dominance


  • Homepage
  • Location
  • Gender
  • Personal Text
    beauty the brave, the exemplary,
    blazing open
  1. Nice of you to clarify what you meant with the distinction between risk and responsibility, which makes more sense (although not saying I'd agree 100%). Not so nice to give us a lesson about women not realizing they're pregnant. Here are a few facts about that: -Not all women have regular, 28 days cycles. Some women have longer cycles than that and more importantly some women have irregular cycles, making it more difficult to notice a disturbance quickly. -In fact it's common/typical for girls reaching puberty to have irregular, infrequent cycles for years before it stabilizes. It may be normal for them not to have a period for 2 months or more, making it a lot more difficult to notice a «missed» period. -Light bleeding (harmless) can occur during early pregnancy, typically at the time the period should have come. Again, this could be mistaken for the real thing especially in a teen/woman whose normal periods are short/light too. -Especially for a first pregnancy, the body can have barely changed by the third month. -Lots of people who are afraid of something become less likely to test it/see a doctor - yes it's irrationnal but it happens. Pregnancy denial is also a condition (and it's been noted that the pregnancy is often actually, physically less visible in women in denial). -And then there are all the situations where a girl could get pregnant very young and/or as the result of abuse, with her knowledge of biology or her ability to access doctors freely not being the best. As you can litterally be fertile before you've ever had a sex ed class, this assumption that everyone pregnant knows how you even get pregnant is not always right. -That's all assuming all women would choose to abort from the start ; that they could never choose not to, and then want to change their minds later, (something very rare but nonetheless, matters when you discuss being forced to carry to term). As a result, with easy access to condoms and to the plan B helping, most abortions are performed under that 12 weeks windows, but still some women nowadays have to go to Spain for later term abortions, which may not be possible for everyone. I can take arguments about 12 weeks being a good cut out date, and anyway the most pressing issue is access to doctors/facilities. But not loathing of women who don't notice they're pregnant quickly enough as «retarded». But then even if they were indeed stupid, ignorant, you name it - sounds like that'd be all the more reasons to help them avoid raising an unwanted baby. As for adoption, it is free, but an option very rarely picked due to its organization.
  2. I'm pretty sure this was my first try, but since everyone stays anonymous I wasn't entirely sure. % correct: 97.92 time (normal): 900.20 ms time (interfere) 1,384.00 ms And second try with a pseudonym to be sure: % correct: 100.00 time (normal): 847.57 ms time (interfere) 1,149.44 ms Played at least twice longer the first time though, so the %correct on 2nd attempt would probably have dropped with a longer playtime.
  3. @TheGhostAgent Unsurprisingly, I disagree with your summary of the soft drinks debate. But as I neither want to reenact it nor to get this thread entirely off topic, I'll have to let anyone interested read by themselves and make up their own mind. Oh, the anxiety. As for the actually on-topic bit, seems like you're only rehashing things we've already covered. The only new thing is claiming my sources were unreliable (and the comparison is Breitbart, of all things - talk about hyperboles). But considering you've already clarified you're not actually interested in a list of jobs WGS majors have been able to do, but rather in data about the major's «competitiveness» (and that I've already said I don't actually believe it's very competitive), I don't see the point in going back to check the worth of every source since none of them adressed the sort of data you're looking for anyway. Plus, I can't help thinking that if you actually had serious concerns about the value of these sources, that's what you would have pointed out in the first place instead of going for the «I BET YOU DIDN'T READ THAT» approach, because it's quite absurd to nitpick the content and then, several posts later, claim it was altogether unreliable anyway.
  4. Narcissism : 1.2 (6 percentile) Machiavellianism : 1.8 (15 percentile) Psychopathy : 0.8 (2 percentile) Bit surprised machiavellianism is higher than narcissism. That seems to come from a few questions that I may not interpret the way the test's creator did. Oh well.
  5. Look at the material/legal advantages and see if it would be personally significant to you. Don't marry "just to have a companion" in old age, as marriage doesn't mean people can't grow apart or separate, and two unmarried persons can have a companionship that's just as strong. Either your partner is already "there" for you or not, marriage won't magically change that.
  6. Lol, I knew you weren't over the great soft drinks Argument of 2015 You know, I thought about that the other day, when we learned that soda fountains (where you can get refills for free) were becoming illegal in France. Of course whether I was "proven wrong" is another matter. Let me make myself clearer, since my last post doubling down on the first one was apparently not enough: I think WGS is probably not a very competitive major and that finding a job with it must not be easy for most students. I think there can be value in something even if it's not "competitive in the workplace", but that's another subject entirely. Point is, I've never said they were competitive, so I don't have to prove it ; and I don't care if they aren't (which is probably the case), so I'm not interested in researching it. You on the other hand, seem very interested in proving they are uncompetitive, so you might want to look for evidence of that if you want to make claims about it (instead of sticking with insinuations and rhetorical questions that others have to research for you). But either way, I won't argue with you over it. Now, if you're confused as to why I answered to your first question if I don't think WGS is very competitive or very functional in terms of getting good jobs, that's because your question didn't actually mention any of those qualifiers and conditions that you added later. The question was "what functionality and demand is there in the workplace" and to that question, the answer "there is some, here are some examples" was enough. Or, explained in a 20 seconds version: T-What's the demand and functionality of WGS in the workplace? S-Here are examples. T-It doesn't count if they're teachers, if they earn less than a family physician. S-That's ridiculous. T-Are they actually competitive compared with other majors? S-Dunno, probably not.
  7. Let me explain to you how this is working here. You had a stance. Your "questioning" was a rhetorical question that was just one more mean to express that stance ("they have no functionality or demand in the work place"), but anyway. I answered your question to demonstrate it was easy to do so. So my stance, if any, would have been "they do have some functionality and demand in the workplace". Now you're moving to : "I am specifically looking for data in terms of a WGS major's competitiveness compared to other majors. They may accept applications from WGS majors, but if they are declined at a far higher rate or have a lower successful hire rate versus other majors, this objectively points at the low market value of a WGS major." Pause and think: did I ever take the stance that "WGS is more competitive than other majors"? Did I even say "a WGS major doesn't have low market value"? Never. I took no such stance. Am I tasked to research and demonstrate something I never said? I don't think so. So google it yourself, or don't, whatever suits you. And let me remind you of the last paragraph of my first post: Sounds like I was implying that there may not be enough suitable jobs all the people who major in GS or in the humanities, hmm? Yes, definitely sounds like it. But somehow, in your interpretation, my stance became "GS grants all kinds of opportunities applicable in the real world." You've obviously got no clue what my stance is (other than on the "they have functionality and demand" bit), and that's fine, because it was never the subject.
  8. You know what you could do then? Google it. I'm not going to do more googling for you, as instead, I want this comment to be repeated, requoted, reposted, and remembered for all eternity: If you study Gender Studies, you automatically believe there is a wage gap. If you believe that, it is your personal mission to change things through... the sheer weight of your own income on the statistics. Therefore you shouldn't seek an Assistant Professor position because it pays $78,565... even though that's actually quite a lot more than the median pay in the US. Instead, become a doctor or an engineer... it couldn't possibly happen that you'd still be paid less than the male engineers or doctors doing the same jobs with equal competence, no, shhhhh that never happens. Oh yeah and by the way, better not have any kids ever because you might lose some income. Are you devoted to the cause or not?! But wait, that only applies for women. Right? I have to assume that if you are a man who believes in the wage gap, you have to seek the worst pay possible, or better yet, remain unemployed, to help women balance things out. And that, children, is the true story of what the "WGS agenda" is all about. :) I mean, there is "ignorance is bliss" and then there is, "moving beyond the usual realms of knowledge and ignorance and entering the utter-nonsense dimension is a lot more blissful".
  9. But considering you didn't seem to know how to start investigating the subject, a first link with a library of links seemed kinder than a simple link to the google search page :) I saw other jobs than teaching mentioned in those links ; teaching with a GS degree doesn't necessarily mean teaching (exclusively) GS ; and in any case, this still fills the requirement of "job you can do with a gender studies degree". [skipping unrelated digression] So you keep moving goalposts. First you try to move it from "jobs" to "jobs other than teaching". Then with your little digression on the wage gap and the salaries of teachers, it turned into "jobs that pay well". And now you're moving it into the even more vague "jobs that I have judged deserving of the title of career". A stupid requirement, as finding an interesting position, or being particularly good at your job, is often brought by combining different degrees/trainings/experiences. The point of the list is to inform students about the openings that existed at one point, to give them an idea of what they could expect/look for, so I don't see why the disclaimer that it doesn't reflect current openings is relevant. Even without the disclaimer it would frankly be pretty obvious that it doesn't, as keeping an updated list of job offers isn't the purpose of the link. Oh, but it does. "Obvious sectors for gender studies graduates include NGOs, education and government, with many graduates entering policy or research roles, but you could go down a less traditional route! Do you know what a lobbyist actually does? What about a search engine marketer?" Wrapping up: Your opinion on my reading comprehension skills wound me deeply, because I have nothing but the outmost respect for your evading, goalposts moving, off-topic digressing skills. I shall now go nurture my wounded ego in a safe space, taking some small solace in the fact that thanks to me, it is now clarified for everyone that your question was actually: What functionality or demand would there be in the work force for someone with a gender studies diploma, other than teaching, with a salary comparable to that of a mechanical engineer or family doctor, that would meet the undefined GhostAgent's criteria for Can Seriously Be Called A Career? Ps: (having other diplomas not allowed) Such intellectual honesty.
  10. Let me google that for you: https://www.gvsu.edu/wgs/what-can-i-do-with-a-degree-in-69.htm http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2007/womensstudies_letters.asp https://www.pdx.edu/careers/what-can-i-do-degree-womens-studies http://womens-studies.rutgers.edu/resources/career-possibilities https://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/careers-advice/honest-guide-finding-job-gender-studies-degree http://talentegg.ca/incubator/2012/03/29/womens-studies-degree/ But even if you're going to use "there must not be enough jobs openings for all the students with that diploma" as the closing argument, it also applies to other fields (basically all the Humanities) and while subject to some stigma, they're not stigmatized nearly as much as gender studies. Addentum: @rickster
  11. When I was younger I've considered the possibility of not ever having a long-term relationship, and it was something I could come to terms with, but it wasn't welcome. If I got divorced now, I would assume that I'm just not made for this and that a second attempt wouldn't work out better, so I wouldn't purposefully seek another marriage or marriage-like relationship. I'd still probably look for companionship and sex.
  12. Even if that was true, the OP asked: "Did you ever feel intensely attracted to a man that you knew, from the start, wasn't good for you?" A girl may be attracted to a "bad boy" as you say, and not know he's not good for her, especially not from the start.
  13. I'm not going to contribute to dragging this even longer. She was making a point about the law not favoring women. You made a point that how one of her specific claims was wrong (depending on the interpretation). You may be right about that. You've covered why. Nothing more to add, and her larger point still stands. Moving on now.
  14. I think that's important to say considering the initial complaint, which was: It's a very weird claim considering there are two possibilities: The woman has an abortion, or gives up the child for adoption: the father won't be forced to pay anything. Meanwhile the mother may well end up paying for all the medical costs of the abortion, or of the pregnancy and birth, not to mention her income taking a hit if she stops working during the pregnancy or the risk of being disowned by her family in some circumstances. (And that's without getting into all the non-financial issues she may go through.) The woman keeps the child, and asks for child support: she too is responsible for providing financially for the child. Child support may account for more than half of what the baby costs, but in all likelihood, it won't, and she'll end up spending more than the father. (She's also of course responsible of caring for it and raising it, possibly 100% if the unwilling father wants nothing to do with the child.) So no matter how you look at it, this claim that "100% of the fiscal risk is on [men]" doesn't make sense. As I said in my earlier post, I can understand the concern that (in my country) women have an option to abandon the newborn and the father can end up without child support if he asks for the baby then. That's a case where the father ends up with 100% of the responsibility (fiscal and otherwise). Fathers are not FORCED to do this though. But then I think the claim that "no woman I get pregnant is forced to bring the child to term" is even more outrageous. How many countries have abortion laws so lenient that you can abort at any stage of the pregnancy, without providing justifications? Canada, I think? Speaking for myself, I'm hearing "No woman I get pregnant is forced to bring the child to term, provided she notices fast enough, and looks for an abortion provider fast enough, in a country that doesn't have enough of them, because past 12 weeks of gestation, she's fucked". What a sweet deal indeed. ...... added to this post 1 minute later: She also said it's correct because bringing the child to a "safe haven" is still a form of caring for it, so can we stop this pointless exchange?