What is that understanding? How do those hormones work?
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.
unsubstantiated, unsubstantiatable, and blech.
I said average. Are you putting forward Alexander as an average male leader?
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?
Testosterone is what makes the difference. Some biology reading can enlighten you.
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.
There are several studies that have shown women with leadership capabilities have a bit more of testosterone than the average woman.
I'm just saying that a man can be greater than any woman could ever be.
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?
Testosterone is what makes the difference. Some biology reading can enlighten you.
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.
There are several studies that have shown women with leadership capabilities have a bit more of testosterone than the average woman.
I'm just saying that a man can be greater than any woman could ever be.
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?
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.
--> @oromagiIt'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.
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.
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.
What I can say though is that if you are fed up with these women, go MGTOW.
Feminism is going nowhere? Have you never turned on a T.V. or been to a university campus?
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.
Feminism have long been fighting agaisnt the treatment of women as sex objects.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Ha alright. Enjoy having no fulfilling relationships and dying alone without a legacy.
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 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.
This is the same strategy you use in all your arguments, trying to conflate definitions so it looks as if you are right.
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.
Nevertheless, morality is an expression of your feelings, so I'm not overly concerned with what you feel about this.
Prove it.
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.
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.
What do you mean precisely by "take advantage?" What's the context to this?
Please provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that occurrence of this is happening "exponentially"; several anecdotes are insufficient to argue a macro-societal rule.
I don't have to prove anything. I'm not a lawyer. In any case, your previous post is a proof.
