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 Madden

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Global 5/SLOAN


  • Occupation
    Professor of English and Literary Theory
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

32,813 profile views
  1. What my facetious reply meant was this: just because you haven't noticed (or detected) any philosophy in popular music, doesn't mean it's not there to be detected. ...... added to this post 2 minutes later: For your reading pleasure: Aesthetics of Popular Music.
  2. Perhaps you haven't, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
  3. When's the last day of the competition?
  4. A philosophical poet. There are philosophers who have no time for poets and poetry, whereas there aren't any poets that I can think of who don't traffic in philosophy.
  5. One word: Flappers. "Short Hair The 1920s saw a universal fashion for short hair a more radical move beyond the curtain styles of the war era. Hair was first bobbed, then shingled, then Eton cropped in 1926-7. An Eton crop was considered daring and shocked some older citizens, since hair had always been thought a woman's crowning glory. Only maiden aunts and elderly dowagers avoided the severe shorter styles, but by the 1930s softer waved hairstyles were a refreshing change."
  6. I do a lot of hiking, and have more than once peed in the great outdoors. You shouldn't be hiking in a sea of nettles at all, never mind peeing in one, standing or squatting. You mean that women aren't provided with enough facilities? If that is true (and it might be, yeah), that's not a disadvantage caused by being a woman; that's a problem caused by an environment that doesn't take women's requirements into consideration. :) ...... added to this post 2 minutes later: Interesting point. Can they be satisfyingly separated, do you think? Or is it more that biological and social factors are intertwined (such as the toilet facilities issue raised by the poster before me...Remszarvas)?
  7. Bras are important, yeah, especially when working out, running, etc. For comfort and to keep them in good shape. I'm just taking issue with ishulte's view that it's some serious disadvantage to have them. That they 'get in the way', like some kind of nuisance, or annoying optional extra. In my view anyway, the advantages of boobs outweigh the precautions one must take to protect one's boobs (I'm kinda fond of my boobs ). And good point re: those women who have boobs big enough to cause back problems, to the point that they need surgery. I hadn't taken them into account, mainly because I think (?) such women are in the minority, or that their boob/back issues are connected with being overweight, or under-muscled, rather than simply having larger-than-average boobs.
  8. Ah, gotcha! And yeah, that does indeed often occur. (It still might) Completely agreed, yes.
  9. I think feminism is still necessary, yes. I also wouldn't be a man, just to get the rights/privileges of manhood, given that these things can be obtained, and I could remain a woman. Yes, that's obvious, Storm. But I'm not willing to give up my identity as it is now to get the advantages of another identity. That's the point I'm making. I'd rather change society, so that being who I am doesn't put me at a disadvantage. I understand what ischulte is asking, and speaking for myself, I'm not in the least frazzled. I am amused. I would not, under any circumstances, change who I am in order to gain some kind of advantage. His OP title wasn't asking if we wished to live in a matriarchy or a patriarchy, Storm. I don't know where you're pulling that from (unless it's a post I haven't read somewhere in the thread). No. I wouldn't trade being a woman to be a man (I'm going by his question). Simple as that. I would choose to be a woman, and take all that comes with it, PLUS any missing advantages/rights that are denied women due to the fact we still live in a patriarchy. In other words, I'd change the world to make it a more equitable place, rather than not change the world, but leave it inequitable, and choose to be a man so as to eschew womanhood and its attendant enforced inequalities that result, not from being a woman, but from a society that is inherently unequal. Edit: If the OP actually didn't prevaricate on the OP title, but was consistent, there would be no ambiguity. But the OP does prevaricate, and hasn't been adjusted to reflect the title query. I have been answering the title query, and ignoring the prevarication, which is a different issue altogether. The title question frames the discussion as one that targets feminists in particular - would you rather be men? No. Because feminism isn't about wanting to be a man. It's about achieving equality between men and women (and LGBTQ, etc.). As for the OP prevarication made in the OP post itself: "I would not trade the benefits of being a guy for the benefits of being a man. I'm not sure if I'd be skewing the poll by voting yes so I'll just stay out of it. [...] I'm mostly just referring to the rights, privileges, and downsides that come along with the gender stereotype." No. I wouldn't, because some of the advantages and disadvantages of the male stereotype aren't desirable to me. For instance, I don't want to be more powerful/influential/higher-status than others due to my having a certain gender. ...... added to this post 8 minutes later: Of course it hasn't achieved all of its goals, and even fewer of its goals on an international level. We have a long way to go, ishulte, before we can declare full equality with men, especially on a global scale.
  10. Here you go: "Muscular endurance is the ability of a muscle group to contract over long periods of time. Men have more muscle mass than women, but they do not necessarily have more muscular endurance. Although there is controversy as to how and to what extent muscular endurance differs between men and women, men and women consistently have similar levels of muscular endurance or women have more. Hormones, training, genetics and other variables may influence muscular endurance between genders." "According to Brian C. Clark and colleagues in a 2007 article in the “Journal of Applied Physiology,” women may have increased muscular endurance because of a more effective activation pattern than men. Women fatigued less quickly because they recruited more synergistic muscle groups. Men failed to recruit these muscles and therefore had less muscular endurance than women." Did you just seriously imply that it's insane to not give a damn about standing up or sitting down to pee? I think it's stupid to think that either method is an advantage or a disadvantage. It's also laughably trivial. And speed isn't an advantage or a disadvantage either. Why would it be advantageous? For what? Unless you're a sprinter, where speed is indeed necessary, everyday life doesn't require men or women to be able to outrun one another. Isn't the ability to create life an advantage? Many women would see it that way (despite the effort required). Okay, just ignore the evidence, and reality. How does wearing a bra indicate that boobs get in the way? They're not separate items...they're part of one's body. Get in the way of what? But if you're going to come up with silly arguments against boobies, I'll just say that men's balls are more tender and fragile than women's tits, and require more protection from irrevocable damage, especially when they engage in contact sports. That's why men wear cups and jockstraps, etc. I see it as a disadvantage that they can do that: it's not healthy to eat more calories (calorie restriction correlates with many health benefits), and the ability to drink more alcohol leads to serious damage to health over the long haul. Prove it with evidence, since you seem to think that men don't get them. Testicles are part of the male reproductive system, ischulte. I can't believe I have to point that out. Men can get breast cancer as well. Along with all sorts of other cancers. So now we're deciding truth by consensus, what the majority believes? I see you have access to what most of the population would think, so would you please pull up these statistics?
  11. Evidence?
  12. Still, I found it rather amusing that you made that particular mistake in the OP you initially felt was a clear articulation of your thinking. I wouldn't be a man for love nor money. I like being female, with the rights and privileges of womanhood, and any that men have due to their historically more powerful position can be acquired (or have been acquired) via social change.
  13. You haven't even realized (yet) that you fucked up your own gender categorization. So you want us to pretend to know absolutely nothing about what it means to be female? That's a stupid thought experiment. And you know why? Because it's literally, truly impossible to forget our subjective experiences. We need to know these experiences in order to answer the question in any meaningful way.
  14. True enough! That's a good point. At the same time, there is the wicked pleasure involved in shocking said normative Norma's with gently-worded, but barbed, retorts. Such as your wife's INTP friend uttered. Now. I'd be even more impressed if he had said it directly to Normie Norma, but I suppose one must maintain a certain level of decorum and politeness in society, even if the Normie Norma's seem to get away with being condescending cows.
  15. Don't flatter yourself, ischulte. I'm not insulted. Interesting that some of us here understand your OP better than you do yourself. Your OP says nothing whatsoever about forgetting everything we know as women, before we answer the question.