Woman the dominate sex | Forum

@Beavery
Ahem...
I am no vet. Aside from a select few I don't keep many pets and I expect them to hold their own for the most part. Sick animals on my watch are culled.
(JK; partly)
I'm also knowledgeable, to an extent, in stock trading but I appreciate your need to define short selling for me.
So, in short, you find women of value to be worthy of Dominance.
Sounds the same as Dimitri.
Both arguments are subjective. Value is still relative.

Women as the Dominant sex is the topic at hand, not which women are worthy of value.
Dominance is not value.
Dominance is not superiority.
Dominance is not supply and demand.

Dominance is power. Knowledge is power. Attraction is power. Self confidence is power. Merit sustains power.
One gender can only dominate another when one is weaker in knowledge, appearance, confidence and/or merit. It doesn't matter if you value me. If I can expose your weaknesses, intellectually or otherwise, I have power over you.
Dominance is a power struggle.

I see you did not understand my post and that you have some issues.

@Beavery
Issues?
What a strange method of counter argument.

Please. Point out my issues so I can explain what you might be misreading in my words.

As far as my point on Dominance, here's another version:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressions_of_dominance

@dimitri: 

"Correction, my original take moreover implied there exist more mechanisms. Genetic superiority is but one I used as a direct counter towards Shawn's brainfart"

How did it imply there were more mechanisms? Quotes please.

Look, even if you did imply it, to make your point valid you have to qualify either this or another mechanism. Otherwise you 'countered' me with something you can't prove, thus farting in the wind.

@Padowan: Remember that beavery said:  "The only meritocracy I see going on here is by merit of ad hominem attacks." In other words, it's not him who would do such a thing. Get my drift?

An ad hominem is an attack on the person making an argument, not the argument itself. To be intellectually honest you have to stick to the facts and logic of the argument even if a dime-store tiki-totem engages you in debate. You can question your sanity later -- only the argument matters, not who's making it.

@Padowan: I think that "What issues are you claiming that I have?" needs an answer. ;) If there isn't one or clear squirming then refocus on the real issue -- the facts of the argument.

Also, give beavery some credit, under his smoke and mirrors he probably has a point. The best thing to do is to fully understand what he's saying before you begin to counter.

:: continues to eat popcorn ::

nom nom nom...

 @Dimitri

I'm arguing the point that men cannot physically bear a child, it is a power that men just do not have. It's obvious that it takes two to tango, but only one goes through the physical processes of child birthing. 

I assert that this fact can be perceived as a from of empowerment or dominance for a woman. A weak willed choice can be manipulated into an advantageous process for either person when this dynamic is understood.

@Padowan

Just pulling the definition from google.

From google dictionary.

Power

the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality. "the power of speech"

From physics
P = dE/dt

You may want to ask yourself where power comes from, is it possible to have power without value?

I would argue value is the source from which power emanates and that every manifestation of power including those I demonstrated in my previous argument (the long one) is the direct result of some form of value. Your last paragraph is a statement of different types of value from which power emanates in which you link power to various respective values for me.

A good approach to countering this argument would be to demonstrate some form of power which is not the result of some value.

As far as issues are concerned, I interpreted your statement “Sick animals are culled on my watch.” As your pet can drop dead for all I care. Which could point toward some form of antisocial personality disorder if that was the intention of the statement. I now do not believe that to be the case.

@Dimitri:"The responses which followed afterwards indicated that much. ;) "

Yours or other peoples? Your original statement of implication referred only to one post, your own, and not ones that followed. Me want quotes.  Or are you just moving the goalposts?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

"It bears to follow the discussion attentively instead of stuffing your face in proverbial popcorn..."

nom nom nom ....

Want some? ;)

@Dimitri
The only issue I entertain is your inability to recognize Dominance is the selected topic of the post, not my personal view.

Consider this. How many men give up in arguing with women because she fails to use logic and reasoning, and instead wears him down with emotional blackmail or passive aggressive behaviors? Power is held by the persistent.

Or how about this one. Only an intelligent woman recognizes a man only plays ignorant to shared household chores (I don't know how. Or, you do it better) to get out of work. The less a man shows capability the less she will request. Power goes to the deceptive.
I don't care for manipulatively gained power, ever.

I agree with you Dimitri. There is no Dominant gender. Only agile minds.
And character/merit. Instead of bowing to one, build each other's strengths as allies.

Padowan Wrote:
"Consider this. How many men give up in arguing with women because she fails to use logic and reasoning, and instead wears him down with emotional blackmail or passive aggressive behaviors?"

--I'm sure the common perception among males would be that the guy is weak willed and the woman is proficient at tapping into his will. As a man I would probably succumb to a woman that was more pragmatic (in a loyal way) rather than deceptive.

"Only an intelligent woman recognizes a man only plays ignorant to shared household chores (I don't know how. Or, you do it better) to get out of work."

--Are women any better at petty emotional mind games than men are? Or is it just a measure of intelligence? Probably the latter in this case. Relationships are full of emotional traps and people devious enough to construct them.

@Dimitri
You still, yet again, sidestep the request for a definition of Superior Genetics. Could it be you hesitate to open the door to the pseudoscience of 'superior genetics?'

Why don't you folks try limiting the scope of the problem to make it solvable in practical terms. The results will depend upon the specific society, the time period and other factors.

I'm not the mod with the popcorn, but I got coffee and a cig. Me and the other green tag dude don't have a stake in problem solving. We're simply trying to moderate a thread and keep the discussion legit.

The topic is women as the dominant sex.
Dominance in this context has been established as a form of power.
It has been asserted that there is no dominant gender.
It has been asserted that superior genetics establish dominance.

So far, a response is needed for the request of a clear definition of superior genetics. It would appear that someone has culled themselves from participation, or cannot back up their assertion. Either way this has to be clarified.

 If you're playing the home game or some shit, this is a moderator's way of commanding an informal discussion. I don't give a shit about ad hom posts or strawmen arguments.

^ That was awesome.

:: throws away popcorn, gets coffee and cig ::

Has anyone made any distinction between the 'dominate sex' and the other sex, whatever words may be used to describe it as the 'un-dominate' or 'non-dominate' sex?

I've assumed a macro level (societal level) case for this discussion otherwise a couple specific people would have to be chosen for the comparison.

To address your points.

“Dominance in this context has been established as a form of power. “

I have established power within society can be attributable to a persons value in the context of society which is an important point because it provides a basis for analysis. To successfully analyze something you have to break it down to the fundamental mechanisms by I which it works.

“It has been asserted that there is no dominant gender. “

I would argue that the specific society in which the evaluation is being performed is very relevant here. For example in Afghanistan where women have no rights, the value of physical strength which men typically posses on a relative statistical basis would seem to dominate. Whereas in a highly structured society where physical strength is of little value, I'd have to go with the emotional intelligence and inherent biological values of women as having the highest capacity to yield power.

“It has been asserted that superior genetics establish dominance.”

I'll buy that at a micro level (or within a specific relationship or interaction) but not at a macro level where norms have been established by the masses.

The only problem I have with ad hom posts is they are generally considered to be an insult to the intelligence of everyone. (ie. I think everyone here is stupid enough to be distracted from the argument such and such made because I called them a poo poo head or something.) Also I suspect that if I broke out into some serious ad hom retaliation I'm sure I would get kicked off here just like J.K. did and I don't want to be kicked off yet.

Perhaps a section where name calling and ad hom attacks are permitted to all is in order. Maybe the who gives a fuck section?

@ Beavery

Those aren't my points. They were established by the discussion at hand. There's only one that needs clarification with a solid definition to back up the claim of superior genetic dominance. It hasn't been addressed.

Any informal discussion will have shit no one cares about. Moving this particular discussion to another section is impractical. It's fairly easy to conduct a debate if you want to use swear words or personal attacks. It doesn't add or subtract from the topic, and it's easy to point out or deflect if you show some level of social grace and communication.

@Shawn

So, is Dimitri gonna back up his claim or do you buy into the science of superior genes?

Sorry, it was not my intent to credit you with those points. It was my mistake to use the phrase your points without addressing that you were restating them. Seems obvious you were, but I should have been more clear.

@sonofject:I do, sorta.

 The whole "superior genes" claim can't logically be made in the first place.  Claiming someone has superior genes doesn't determine whose genes are still in the gene pool 500 years from now. Only the fact that the genes are still around in 500 years does. Someone must have a time machine to validate the claim, so pfft.

Besides,, evolution uses the environment as the 'natural selector' and the only genes that survive are those that are the fittest for the current environment. So, different genes have been 'superior' at different times in Earths history. Again, pffft.

Disregarding evolution,  making the the claim  requires two things: 1. a clear answer to the question 'superior for what?' and 2. some hard science to back it up -- in other words, we'd have to look at the genes directly and determine their function -- the work of a geneticist. I don't think anyone's going to do years of research for to make a point for this debate.

Ultimately I don't think that Dimitri can so more than speak about what is clearly beyond anyone's ability to determine. On the other hand, I think he was trying to say something, but it really has nothing to do with science -- he just wanted it to sound scientificious.