Toxic Femininity

Author: Vader

Posts

Total: 58
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,025
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@oromagi
I mean, female rulers tend to have a disproportionately bloody track record, historically speaking (if I'm not mistaken, Catherine took power by having her husband murdered). Are you talking about bureaucrats? What yardstick is there to measure something like that?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,313
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Swagnarok
Also, what kind of role do you want for government? A motherly role or a fatherly role?
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Swagnarok
Any list of powerful rulers is bound to be bloody.  I don’t think I buy women as disproportionately bloody but as I said the tiny sampling size distorts. 

Was Catherine more bloody than Peter I?  Was Elizabeth I more bloody than Henry VIII?  I don’t particularly think so , tho the body counts might tell a different story. Do know of any literature that backs your claim? 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,313
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
There is also the gender bellcurve argument that states the DNA of women are more normalized and the DNA of males are more radical to the extreme tails of the bellcurve.(both good and bad)

If we are looking for the best and the brightest to lead, then we must be focused on these DNA tails.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,266
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@oromagi
What is that understanding?  How do those hormones work?
Testosterone is what makes the difference. Some biology reading can enlighten you.

Men were traditionally head of the household in all the cultures of the early Christians- Roman, Greek, & Hebrew.  I don't think it can be fairly said that Christianity made some conscious move towards elevating men.  If the Nag Hammadi literature tells us anything, it's that women were more important in the early Christian church than just about any other Mediterranean religious institution- Isis worship, perhaps.
One thing is to believe women are more important, which is true, and other thing completely different to believe women can lead this world, which I really doubt.

unsubstantiated, unsubstantiatable, and blech.
There are several studies that have shown women with leadership capabilities have a bit more of testosterone than the average woman.

I said average.  Are you putting forward Alexander as an average male leader?
I'm just saying that a man can be greater than any woman could ever be.

I'm thinking of Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Zenobia, etc.  You're countering with tech bro surveys?  You have attributed effective female leadership to an excess of testosterone but also to male supervision- do you mean both?
Both, of course. If you don't supervise women at work, it could be a mess.

And talking about tech and CEOs, the number of executive females have decreased last year. Why could it be?


Il Diavolo
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,791
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@IlDiavolo
Why do you sign your posts with your name @ bottom

SupaDudz
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,791
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Swagnarok
Hilary was a twisted liar. If she was a man, she would've gotten clean swepted in the election
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,266
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Vader
Why do you ask? Can't I?
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,791
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@IlDiavolo
Yea you can, nothing against it, just curious as to why?
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,266
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Vader
Alright, Kid. What I write in this forum is as serious as any document I write in real life, that is why I sign it.

Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,791
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@IlDiavolo
You shouldn't take this site seriously

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@IlDiavolo
Testosterone is what makes the difference. Some biology reading can enlighten you.

That's what I was afraid you going to say.  The little reading I've done on the subject tells me that there has not been much serious research into the relationship between leadership and testosterone in women because unlike men, the amount and range of testosterone in women is too small to allow for practical study [see https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-38657-001.]  What studies are reading?

The behaviors most associated with testosterone are, of course, aggression and risk taking.  Where testosterone is not tempered by cortisol, violent behavior is highly indicated.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/ 

We do associate high testosterone aggression with dominance with primate troops.  Given humanity's history of offering leadership roles to the most violent among us, I daresay it is not surprising that elevated testosterone is associated with leadership roles.

Feminism interrogates and challenges the value of controlled violence as a leadership trait, questions the value of stockpiling devices exclusively designed to end the world, questions the value of spending half our GDP manufacturing killing devices.  I have no doubt that were we to test Trump and Putin we'd find elevated levels of testosterone but Feminism asks whether those dudes are offering worthwhile leadership.

One distinct advantage of putting the majority gender in charge is the devaluation of aggression, risk-taking, violence, and criminality as leadership traits.

Instead of saying women are insufficiently violent to lead why can't we prefer leadership that is less apt to violence?

One thing is to believe women are more important, which is true, and other thing completely different to believe women can lead this world, which I really doubt.
And yet we've never tried.  My original point was that so many of place a high value on democracy and majority rule but in the big picture- not one government has ever really tried it.  If we really believe in majority rule and women are almost always the majority in any culture, then we must give the women the reigns sometime and discover what that's like.

There are several studies that have shown women with leadership capabilities have a bit more of testosterone than the average woman.
Please provide three.

I'm just saying that a man can be greater than any woman could ever be.
I'm just saying that tells me more about your willingness to be dominated than about the nature of  men vs. women.

Both, of course. If you don't supervise women at work, it could be a mess.
I think supervising a woman's work exclusively because  some  man thinks any woman can't go unsupervised is illegal discrimination & deeply creepy.

And talking about tech and CEOs, the number of executive females have decreased last year. Why could it be?

This is an Indian talent agency. What do scientists say?

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@IlDiavolo
Testosterone is what makes the difference. Some biology reading can enlighten you.

That's what I was afraid you going to say.  The little reading I've done on the subject tells me that there has not been much serious research into the relationship between leadership and testosterone in women because unlike men, the amount and range of testosterone in women is too small to allow for practical study [see https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-38657-001.]  What studies are reading?

The behaviors most associated with testosterone are, of course, aggression and risk taking.  Where testosterone is not tempered by cortisol, violent behavior is highly indicated.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/ 

We do associate high testosterone aggression with dominance with primate troops.  Given humanity's history of offering leadership roles to the most violent among us, I daresay it is not surprising that elevated testosterone is associated with leadership roles.

Feminism interrogates and challenges the value of controlled violence as a leadership trait, questions the value of stockpiling devices exclusively designed to end the world, questions the value of spending half our GDP manufacturing killing devices.  I have no doubt that were we to test Trump and Putin we'd find elevated levels of testosterone but Feminism asks whether those dudes are offering worthwhile leadership.

One distinct advantage of putting the majority gender in charge is the devaluation of aggression, risk-taking, violence, and criminality as leadership traits.

Instead of saying women are insufficiently violent to lead why can't we prefer leadership that is less apt to violence?

One thing is to believe women are more important, which is true, and other thing completely different to believe women can lead this world, which I really doubt.
And yet we've never tried.  My original point was that so many of place a high value on democracy and majority rule but in the big picture- not one government has ever really tried it.  If we really believe in majority rule and women are almost always the majority in any culture, then we must give the women the reigns sometime and discover what that's like.

There are several studies that have shown women with leadership capabilities have a bit more of testosterone than the average woman.
Please provide three.

I'm just saying that a man can be greater than any woman could ever be.
I'm just saying that tells me more about your willingness to be dominated than about the nature of  men vs. women.

Both, of course. If you don't supervise women at work, it could be a mess.
I think supervising a woman's work exclusively because  some  man thinks any woman can't go unsupervised is illegal discrimination & deeply creepy.

And talking about tech and CEOs, the number of executive females have decreased last year. Why could it be?

This is an Indian talent agency. What do scientists say?

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
sorry for the double post
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,266
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@oromagi
It's everywhere, dude. For instance:


And this one.


As to women, I remember a program in Discovery Channel that found out women with higher leadership skills have more testosterone. Eventhough women have lower and perhaps insignificant testosterone levels, it's easy to know what could happen to them if their testosterone levels increase a little bit. They very likely become like Xena, the warrior princess. Lol. I would like to know how americans call this kind of girls.

And yet we've never tried.  My original point was that so many of place a high value on democracy and majority rule but in the big picture- not one government has ever really tried it.  If we really believe in majority rule and women are almost always the majority in any culture, then we must give the women the reigns sometime and discover what that's like.
I've just found out you're gay checking out your profile. Geezis, you should have started with it. Now I get it why you're so naive in regards to gender equality.

Il Diavolo
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@IlDiavolo
not science & also not science.  got any science?

As to women, I remember a program in Discovery Channel that found out women with higher leadership skills have more testosterone. Eventhough women have lower and perhaps insignificant testosterone levels, it's easy to know what could happen to them if their testosterone levels increase a little bit. They very likely become like Xena, the warrior princess. Lol. I would like to know how americans call this kind of girls.
What do you got against Xena? tho I'm pretty sure she's New Zealandish.

I've just found out you're gay checking out your profile. Geezis, you should have started with it. Now I get it why you're so naive in regards to gender equality.
non-responsive ad-hom & bitch u don't know my life.  It is true that gay rights are inextricably linked to women's rights so my alliance is more natural than conversion.  so what?  Is it so naïve to talk about majority rule?  Is it so naïve to talk about new paradigms in leadership when the present paradigm is to shove world-ending weapons into the hands of the most violent?  Isn't the best of humanity found by overcoming our primate destinies?

Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,025
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
Testosterone does not have to only equal heightened "aggression" but also "ambition" and "drive". To attribute the comparative want of these things among women simply to a sexist culture is pretty naive. That obviously plays a big part in it, but the reverse is true as well: a general lack of ambition makes them more likely to allow others to make important life decisions for them. One things reinforces the other, but heightened testosterone among women would break the cycle.
That is to say, men are overrepresented among pioneers/innovators and felons for more or less the same reason. Too many on the left consider masculinity/malehood itself to be a moral evil with no redeeming qualities. It's in some respects akin to the Christian doctrine of original sin, except that, unlike the universal scope of the latter, the former singles out 50% of the human population as potential devils and hagiographizes the remaining 50% as victims of devils. This idea can go by any name it so pleases but at its core it is sexism and misandry.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,025
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
In the Jim Crow era South, there was the kind of attitude where any provocation by blacks, real or perceived, was taken as justification for vocal outrage. They might as well have been looking for stuff to stay mad about instead of just trying to live their lives.

That's the impression I get from the feminist commentators for extremist media outlets:
"I posted a selfie of myself online in a revealing outfit, and some small, negligible percentage of the comments said not nice things about me? OUTRAGE! It's not evidence that there are people on the internet in general who troll, or that some people have religious sensibilities and/or more conservative fashion senses that are offended by what I do pretty much for a living, it's about men being pigs who must be shamed!"
"Some male Senator (always Republican because Democrats can do no wrong) interrupted something that a female Senator said in some context? MANTERRUPTING! It's obviously physically impossible that a man might interrupt another man, or that a woman might interrupt a man, because we are all Martians instead of humans and so the normal rules governing human interactions with each other do not apply at all!"
"Some MAN took a picture of AOC while she was at a public rally? CREEP!"
"I am a woman born with hirsutism (beardedness) and some of the guys who I date say 'Just so you know I'm okay with that'? HOW DARE THEY! Whatever they say about the matter will trigger me so they must read my mind with their ESP powers and know not to comment at all on it! In fact, if they even notice that it's a thing then the fact of them wanting to date me is offensive!" (Yes, there was some dumb*ss who wrote something to this effect, and it was published on some news site.)
"Some MEN in New York are kind of rude and bump into people slightly as they pass by? This is obviously a sexist conspiracy against women and I will respond by deliberately slamming into every filthy man I pass by!"

I swear, some of these people's parents should've used rubber back in the day. But these kinds of opinions are, unfortunately, given mainstream "respectable" platforms, which proves that the system we live under is run by extremists.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
This is the second thread that I see you open about the same subject. I don't think this is that serious, this movement is going nowhere.
Feminism is going nowhere? Have you never turned on a T.V. or been to a university campus?

What I can say though is that if you are fed up with these women, go MGTOW.
So because there are some female feminists you don't like, all women should be avoided?

You're doing exactly what you're complaining about: tarring groups with the same brush. Not the first time I've seen a Mgtow make an idiotic comment.


IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,266
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Feminism is going nowhere? Have you never turned on a T.V. or been to a university campus?
Feminism have long been fighting agaisnt the treatment of women as sex objects. What have they attained so far? NOTHING.

So because there are some female feminists you don't like, all women should be avoided?

You're doing exactly what you're complaining about: tarring groups with the same brush. Not the first time I've seen a Mgtow make an idiotic comment.

Yes. That is "la raison d'etre" of this movement. MGTOW is a response to feminism, evidently. Besides, It's not necessary for a womam to be feminist to behave like a feminist at her convenience.


Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
Feminism have long been fighting agaisnt the treatment of women as sex objects.
That's not accurate, albeit it would only be a part of feminism either way. Women enjoy being treated as sex objects, but only by attractive men. That's why we bother so much with clothes and makeup. It's quite annoying to have a constant slew of unattractive men catcall or hit on you, unless you've got a fragile ego or low self-esteem. It's also REALLY annoying to have an unattractive guy continue to hit on you, despite your polite attempts to tell him you're not interested. To give you some perspective, it would be like gay men approaching you in a flirty way -- you're not attracted to them, but they're attracted to you. It's slightly amusing and awkward the first time; it's downright infuriating the 1000th time.

Basically, feminism is female group interest weaponised, initially under the guise of equality. That's why you'll have women fighting tooth-and-nail for quotas on powerful/high status positions (e.g. politicians, lawyers, doctors), but won't hear much more than peep about inequality in manual labour/dirty jobs. The "treatment of women as sex objects" (in the accurate version I described above) is the surface.

Yes. That is "la raison d'etre" of this movement. MGTOW is a response to feminism, evidently. Besides, It's not necessary for a womam to be feminist to behave like a feminist at her convenience.
So you acknowledge you're a hypocrite. Fantastic.

I think Mgtow is largely comprised of men whom wouldn't have a chance with women anyway. In fact, and I'm not saying that Mgtows cannot be attractive, but I've never seen a Mgtow whom I thought was attractive. Just a funny coincidence, don't you think?



IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,266
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
That's not accurate, albeit it would only be a part of feminism either way. Women enjoy being treated as sex objects, but only by attractive men. That's why we bother so much with clothes and makeup. It's quite annoying to have a constant slew of unattractive men catcall or hit on you, unless you've got a fragile ego or low self-esteem. It's also REALLY annoying to have an unattractive guy continue to hit on you, despite your polite attempts to tell him you're not interested. To give you some perspective, it would be like gay men approaching you in a flirty way -- you're not attracted to them, but they're attracted to you. It's slightly amusing and awkward the first time; it's downright infuriating the 1000th time.
I disagree. This is not the reason women want to continue being sex objects. Rather, the reason is much more evil and unexpected. Women know how powerful they can be if they use their vaginas at their advantage. Esther Vilar already pointed that out in her book, "the manipulated man". Women have everything calculated, they use their sexual appealing as a tool to manipulate men. It doesn't matter how attractive the man is, what really matters is that the man has all the resources the manipulative woman needs. It's a sad truth, but very useful for men out there trying to understand the real nature of women. And this is the main reason I turned MGTOW, not because I'm ugly, because I'm not, but because I know now very well what women are up to.

I decided to take the red pill and now I can see.

At any rate, eventhough women still manipulate men whenever and however they want, it's awesome that women keep showing themselves as a sex object, obviously because we can still enjoy such spectacle, especially in the sex market in the shape of pornography and prostitution.

So you acknowledge you're a hypocrite. Fantastic.

I think Mgtow is largely comprised of men whom wouldn't have a chance with women anyway. In fact, and I'm not saying that Mgtows cannot be attractive, but I've never seen a Mgtow whom I thought was attractive. Just a funny coincidence, don't you think?
I can say the same thing about feminists, that they're horrendous, bitter, filthy, and unactractive persons as YOU can imagine. Lol.

These are just stereotypes that don't have anything to do with the reality.


Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
I disagree. This is not the reason women want to continue being sex objects. Rather, the reason is much more evil and unexpected. Women know how powerful they can be if they use their vaginas at their advantage. Esther Vilar already pointed that out in her book, "the manipulated man". Women have everything calculated, they use their sexual appealing as a tool to manipulate men. It doesn't matter how attractive the man is, what really matters is that the man has all the resources the manipulative woman needs. It's a sad truth, but very useful for men out there trying to understand the real nature of women. And this is the main reason I turned MGTOW, not because I'm ugly, because I'm not, but because I know now very well what women are up to. 
Lol you're actually attempting to demonise persuasion? Not to mention the fact that "evil" is a loaded term, but lets consider some examples:

What of the man who goes to concerts with his shirt off, showing his chiselled body? Is that "evil" manipulation? It's manipulation, but it's good in that he gets to show off what he has, and girls get to enjoy looking at it (and perhaps pursuing it further).

What of the child with large levels of neoteny? Is he/she "evil" for manipulating his/her parents through a sense of helplessness?

What of me when I give classroom rewards to a child for pro-social behaviour? Am I "evil" for manipulating him/her into doing societally beneficial things?

Your criticism of women is non-unique -- the entire world constantly engages in manipulation. Your argument is inconsistent because it only targets women's methods of persuasion.

I decided to take the red pill and now I can see.
See what? See that some people use what they have to persuade others? How evil!

At any rate, eventhough women still manipulate men whenever and however they want, it's awesome that women keep showing themselves as a sex object, obviously because we can still enjoy such spectacle, especially in the sex market in the shape of pornography and prostitution.
Ha alright. Enjoy having no fulfilling relationships and dying alone without a legacy.

I can say the same thing about feminists, that they're horrendous, bitter, filthy, and unactractive persons as YOU can imagine. Lol.
I find it quite incredible that there are people, such as yourself, who will rave about the shortcomings of feminists and how lowly they are, yet readily admit that you're just like them. You must be very fit from all the mental gymnastics.

These are just stereotypes that don't have anything to do with the reality.
The truth is the exact opposite: reality births stereotypes.

But what I've suggested isn't borrowed from stereotypes, but rather constructed on my own. All Mgtows I've seen are not attractive. A lot of them are balding. I've seen plenty with poor facial adiposity. I've never looked at a Mgtow and thought, "Damn, women are missing out on that". I think it's inductively sane to say there is a chance these men are Mgtows not by self-determined volition, but because women rejected them.



IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,266
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
Lol you're actually attempting to demonise persuasion? Not to mention the fact that "evil" is a loaded term, but lets consider some examples:
It's evil in the sense that this behaviour is profoundly inmoral. This is what I think, but let's say it's just inmoral so you don't get it wrong.

What of the man who goes to concerts with his shirt off, showing his chiselled body? Is that "evil" manipulation? It's manipulation, but it's good in that he gets to show off what he has, and girls get to enjoy looking at it (and perhaps pursuing it further).

What of the child with large levels of neoteny? Is he/she "evil" for manipulating his/her parents through a sense of helplessness?

What of me when I give classroom rewards to a child for pro-social behaviour? Am I "evil" for manipulating him/her into doing societally beneficial things?

Your criticism of women is non-unique -- the entire world constantly engages in manipulation. Your argument is inconsistent because it only targets women's methods of persuasion.
This is the same strategy you use in all your arguments, trying to conflate definitions so it looks as if you are right. I won't let it happen here.

There is a tremendous difference between persuation and manipulation, this last usually involves something inmoral, which is the case for manupulative women. Persuation uses rational arguments and actions in order to influence people to do right things. By contrast, manipulation is the influence intended to benefit oneself at the expense of the other. How could I define the woman who lies in the bed and wide open their legs in order to take advantage of a man that she doesn't love? Persuation? This is manipulation at its best. I'm not saying this is the case of every woman, but the cases are increasing exponentially. When they see the man running out of resources, they start looking to another man with the same or more resources. And this is not just a theory, I've seen it, women that just get tired of her partner (because she found another man, more attractive or wealthier) and asks for the divorce. Eventually, the woman keeps half of the man's wealth and the custody of the children. And I saw some cases in which the man is not the father of one of the children.

So, yeah, it's true that women want to be with the alpha males (the most attractive), but they also want to be with the wealthiest. With the former she uses persuation, with the last manipulation.

Ha alright. Enjoy having no fulfilling relationships and dying alone without a legacy.
This is clearly an insult to the millions of people that decided to live alone. There is nothing wrong with not having a partner.

But what I've suggested isn't borrowed from stereotypes, but rather constructed on my own. All Mgtows I've seen are not attractive. A lot of them are balding. I've seen plenty with poor facial adiposity. I've never looked at a Mgtow and thought, "Damn, women are missing out on that". I think it's inductively sane to say there is a chance these men are Mgtows not by self-determined volition, but because women rejected them.
It's funny that in other threads you criticise others for giving opiniated arguments, but here you do the same thing.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
It's evil in the sense that this behaviour is profoundly inmoral. This is what I think, but let's say it's just inmoral so you don't get it wrong.
I'll assume you meant immoral, seeing as "inmoral" isn't a word.

Nevertheless, morality is an expression of your feelings, so I'm not overly concerned with what you feel about this.

This is the same strategy you use in all your arguments, trying to conflate definitions so it looks as if you are right.
Prove it.

There is a tremendous difference between persuation and manipulation, this last usually involves something inmoral, which is the case for manupulative women.
This is a non-starter because I already don't agree with the implications of your morality, in that it's just your feelings. There isn't anything substantive to build upon, when you use your feelings like this. In other words, you're arguing from pathos.

Persuation uses rational arguments and actions in order to influence people to do right things. By contrast, manipulation is the influence intended to benefit oneself at the expense of the other.
These are not intersubjectively accepted definition, at least on a global scale (i.e. dictionary usage), but I'll argue the semantics rather than the attribution of semantics to particular words, so that we can have a worthwhile discussion.

How could I define the woman who lies in the bed and wide open their legs in order to take advantage of a man that she doesn't love? Persuation? This is manipulation at its best.
What do you mean precisely by "take advantage?" What's the context to this?

I'm not saying this is the case of every woman, but the cases are increasing exponentially. When they see the man running out of resources, they start looking to another man with the same or more resources. And this is not just a theory, I've seen it, women that just get tired of her partner (because she found another man, more attractive or wealthier) and asks for the divorce. Eventually, the woman keeps half of the man's wealth and the custody of the children. And I saw some cases in which the man is not the father of one of the children.
Please provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that occurrence of this is happening "exponentially"; several anecdotes are insufficient to argue a macro-societal rule.

IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,266
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Nevertheless, morality is an expression of your feelings, so I'm not overly concerned with what you feel about this.
Morality has to do with our feelings? No way. It has more to do with rationality since it comes from our culture and beliefs (namely religion) as society. Eventhough we see reality very different and have certain individual principles, we share a set of values that is common to everyone, like for example "not to lie".


Prove it.
I don't have to prove anything. I'm not a lawyer. In any case, your previous post is a proof.

This is a non-starter because I already don't agree with the implications of your morality, in that it's just your feelings. There isn't anything substantive to build upon, when you use your feelings like this. In other words, you're arguing from pathos.
We can see here again that you're trying to conflate definitions so to benefit yourself. I made the definition of morality clear already.

These are not intersubjectively accepted definition, at least on a global scale (i.e. dictionary usage), but I'll argue the semantics rather than the attribution of semantics to particular words, so that we can have a worthwhile discussion.
The dictionary is clear saying that "manipulation" is unscrupulous, unfair, and dishonest. Persuasion doesn't have any negative connotation.

What do you mean precisely by "take advantage?" What's the context to this?
I'm saying that a woman uses sex in order to control a man at will and for her benefit.

Please provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that occurrence of this is happening "exponentially"; several anecdotes are insufficient to argue a macro-societal rule.
So, now you're asking for evidence. Lol.

Well, some scholars argue that hypergamy has more of nurture than nature. Either way, hypergamy is prevalent everywhere, you can find lot of studies on the web.

Moreoever, last year there has been an increase of cases people call "the sugar daddy", which is when a mature man (more than 50) dates a very young woman (an eventually have sex) in exchange for an economic compensation or gifts (like apartment, cars, and the like). At least this kind of relationships are honest.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don't have to prove anything. I'm not a lawyer. In any case, your previous post is a proof.
You think, somehow, that this doesn't have to be proven: "This is the same strategy you use in all your arguments, trying to conflate definitions so it looks as if you are right."

Even if I granted you that my previous post was an example (I don't), then you've failed to prove all the instances.

No rational, thinking person could claim something so wildly slanderous, and then feel he/she doesn't need to prove the claim.

You are not sufficiently intelligent to converse with me. Do not respond to anything I write on this site. This conversation is over.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,266
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->@Anal-gesic.Spectre
Whatever, woman. The facts are there so anyone can draw his own conclusions.