But to call it 'manipulation' kind of misses the point, don't you think? The purpose of Fe isn't to change anything, it's to achieve interpersonal attunement.
IF manipulation = effecting a certain outcome (does it?), I think it's pretty evident that people can manipulate (effect an outcome) in different ways, unique to their own strengths/abilities, if they have a specific outcome they're trying to reach and if they'll go all out to make that outcome happen, whether by outright dishonesty or by withholding, or purposefully targeting or belittling peoples' weak spots, or any number of other things. But if none of those negative things are done -- if the person is utterly honest, and open, and all of that, but still has a desired outcome, is that too deemed manipulation?
Whether or not this can be pinpointed to specific, isolated functions is another thing though.
While the purpose of Fe might be interpersonal attunement (is that universally true?), it's obvious that Fe-ers, like anyone, could try to achieve a certain outcome by making use of interpersonal skills to weave that outcome. Is that negative? Is that positive? Does it depend? Is it neutral? Is it only labelled manipulative if in retrospect people look back and are pissed off that the situation actually occurred or they allowed themselves to be 'manipulated'?
Or, as I said earlier, is it simply that half the time people label things manipulation if it would be utterly untrue to who they are if they did the act in question, even though if the person actually doing it has completely different motivations? Do we always label as 'manipulation' if it offends who we are, even if in reality the other person isn't doing anything of the kind and has no hidden agenda?
"...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce
I define manipulation in the bad sense (meaning: literally affecting something is literal "manipulation," but not the kind that Fe gets flack for) as "acting in a way that is not true to how you actually feel, with a purpose behind acting this way in mind." My definition is intertwined with the definition of fakeness ("acting in a way that is not true to how you actually feel").
In this definition, yes, Fe is notorious for being fake often. But the issue is the amount an Fe-er acts fake comes down to personal maturity, I think. Fe cares a lot about connecting and fitting in, and immature people can be so desperate to fit in so as to not care about subjugating the real person they are in the name of being accepted socially. I don't know any nor could imagine a person regarded as "mature" caring so little about themselves and their personal integrity, and being so desperate for acceptance on a social level, which is why I say I think it's an issue of maturity.
Additionally, Fe can be manipulative as well. Having a goal in mind is not a crime, but Fe, as opposed to like Te, has a compulsion to work in a deceitful (ta da - fake), underhanded, sly, way. The tendency to behave this way probably is logical, as sometimes people will reject suggestions if you tell them what to do but end up accepting your idea in the end if you trick them into thinking it was their own idea or however that's said to go (stated before in this thread, to boot)... but this is still manipulation in my book - "the deliberate action of being fake to achieve an end." This comes down to maturity too, though, for almost the same reason above: I just see this far less often and can't imagine this being a common trait in one who is regarded as "mature" - so, issue of maturity of the person.
I've only read up to page 5 1/2, so this post may be redundant.