[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I think you guys are missing the point. A woman can be submissive and still have a strong personality. And in every relationship there is a submissive partner. When you disagree on something (can be anything from disciplining kids to making a large purchase), who gets to have the final say? My wife will have her opinion on everything and let me know what it is but I almost always decide the way we will go. And I don’t always choose my way. Sometimes I have to be aware enough to know that she is right and her way was best but even still I decided what the final decision would ultimately be.
This is not a you are my wife, you have to do what I say type thing. This is a we both communicate, but she will look to me to make the final decision because I am the man. I have never dominated my wife or ordered her to do anything, it is just the roles we naturally assumed. I think there is definitely something primal there, because I am stronger and more capable physically therefore I have the role of dominance because I am the protector and provider. Also outside of our marriage every one is equal. My boss is female and I have the same level of respect for her that I would for a male boss. And if any man thought that they were going to order my wife around I would probably have to pull her off of them. [/quote]
Very good stuff from bpick. Watch out, though, you’re about to get branded like I did a while back when I made a similar statement. I can already hear the clatter of pitchforks and smell the oily kerosene rags of the torches being lit.
*edit: autocorrect typo
[/quote]
At risk of incurring the wrath of the pitchfork brigade: I find it intriguing that Reece, athletic, dynamic, confident woman that she appears to be, sought out an uber-dominant spouse (Laird Hamilton). To imply that she is a weak, servile person because she chose to be with someone strong enough to fill that role for her is a bit ludicrous, IMO.
I really don’t buy into the idea that gender roles are or should be irrelevant in today’s society or any human society. I don’t see our ideal future as some asexual Utopia where everyone is the same. Distinctions are what make our world make sense. We identify ourselves as humans and as such associate ourselves with certain behaviours and ways of thinking that connect us to how we understand humanity. We associate ourselves with nationalistic ideologies, cultural, religious and family traditions in hopes of further defining that identity and understanding our place in the world. We tend to seek these delineations out in terms of broad generalizations that allow room for individual variance, expression and the ever present exception that proves the rule, but we like to have some broad stroke parameters to work within. Everything exists and is defined by it’s relationship to other, different things. If we eliminate the contrast it all becomes meaningless.
Why would we seek to exclude any concept of gender when we are trying to grasp who we are and where we fit? It just doesn’t make sense to me. Next to “human”, it’s the most fundamental and personal element of our identity. I mean sure, in terms of quantum physics or whatever maybe we’re all just part the same system of energy exchange and don’t exist as individuals at all and all these distinctions are constructs of our minds seeking to grasp this incomprehensible vastness. There’s a certain freedom in that, I guess. However, I, for one, don’t find it to be a particularly satisfying or utilitarian way to understand our existence or relate to others and the world around me in daily life.
Our differences define us. They always have. [/quote]
I didn’t want to let this go without saying this is one of the best posts in the entire thread. Thanks, Batman.
We are all creatures of categorization and comparison. It’s how the human brain makes sense of the world. All of us have certain descriptors that help us define ourselves and others. Our perception may be different. We all have limitations there. Others may see us very differently than we see ourselves, etc… When I say “submissive” or “blue” I might mean something different than you. People often get caught up in semantic debates about how a word is used or what a word means. In this case, what does “feminine” or “submissive” mean? That’s open to interpretation, but to think that we can get away from this, is to deny something very human. And to try to deny that other people might experience something differently, or attack them for that, just gets silly.
Perhaps being “submissive” has nothing to do with being “feminine”, or maybe it will only be a useful, but perhaps incomplete descriptor for some. “Femininity” and “Submissiveness” are both abstract constructs. Without coming up with a good operational definition, and then doing some experimental study, it’s hard to determine who is either of these things, or to what degree. That’s very subjective.
When I teach Experimental Design in the Social Sciences, we go into some of the difficulties in studying the human individual, and in defining and measuring abstract concepts regarding human behavior. Just defining these things in a way that is meaningful is difficult, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t fascinating.