Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not generalizing about all submissive women. But you do realize, some women are spineless and/or indifferent, right? And if a woman is spineless and/or indifferent, she might find it easy to just let the man worry about all the decisions? If she is afraid of him, she might keep her mouth shut -- but fear isn't "quiet support", though it might look like it. And if one day, difficulties arise and he needs her participation that goes beyond "quiet support", woe to the family.
Also, once again: I don't believe having an equal say in an important decision constitutes disrespect, or that merely voicing a contrary opinion is tantamount to "bullying".
Yes, I do realize that some women are spineless and indifferent and find it easy to rely on a man, but it's not always the case in submissive marriages.
I didn't mean to say that having an equal say constitutes as disrespect or bullying. It was in response to the notion that if a man is in charge in the marriage with a submissive wife, he is bullying and disrespects her and treats her as doormat (which is a very popular idea on this forum).
How did this thread get from European dating to this though? I feel like we have so many threads on this topic already.
I didn't mean to say that having an equal say constitutes as disrespect or bullying. It was in response to the notion that if a man is in charge in the marriage with a submissive wife, he is bullying and disrespects her and treats her as doormat (which is a very popular idea on this forum).
Well, I'm sure people have different definitions for such things as "disrespect", "bullying" and "doormat", and that's fine. Not all submissive relationships involve name-calling or beatings, although I believe the power play present in such relationships creates an environment more fertile for such things to develop than a relationship that's between equals. People who need a feeling of power over another, often -- certainly not always, but often -- require increasingly stronger dominance rituals and submissive displays, and that, of course, carries an enormous potential for both emotional and physical abuse. Again: not everyone does it, but the very nature of submissive relationships has a particular appeal to people who are like that.
Further, I find the idea that the wife's opinions are by definition less important and less competent, that she is less capable of understanding what is in the interests of the family, that her disagreement carries no weight, and that she serves her family best by keeping quiet and doing as she is told -- I find that idea inherently disrespectful, even if it is couched in the most diplomatic terms. I don't think the disrespect inherent in that idea can be compensated with nice words, trinkets or stable family finances -- but that's merely my own perception. Moreover, there are some things about which, quite frankly, one just can't talk out of both sides of one's mouth. "Doormat" is an inflammatory word -- but a man who expects unquestioning obedience will find that a doormat serves that function a lot better than someone who, while cooperating with the best interests of the family in mind, will not subordinate a strong and vibrant personality to conventional expectations of gender.
Quote:
How did this thread get from European dating to this though? I feel like we have so many threads on this topic already.
How do these things get started? *Shrug* Well, you know "Europe" -- the magical place where people **** diamonds.
How do these things get started? *Shrug* Well, you know "Europe" -- the magical place where people **** diamonds.
Is that why diamond engagement rings aren't the tradition over there they are here?
Wow... I thought those things came from Africa, not European poo... I'll never look at them the same.
On the flip-side, I've often remarked that were a lump of coal shoved my my MIL's arse, she's **** a diamond. If that's the norm in Europe, I now understand why discussing politics or religion with those folks is nigh impossible! They're all tight-arses!
People in this thread speak of European men and women as if folks on the continent are monolithic. Which people? Those from Iceland or Portugal? Belgium or Poland? Norway or Greece?
If you've traveled around Europe you know that international cultural differences are much greater there than between Americans in the U.S. states. Thus, speaking of a shared European culture is fraught with lots and lots of peril.
The point I made about feminism in the US is that it has been taken into overdrive. We have women proclaiming that we're so equal to men that we are in fact practically men altogether and then at the same time, those same women want the special treatment of being female (using generalizations here... naturally, I do not mean ALL women or ALL feminists). I'm just speaking for my own tastes, but I genuinely like the feminine role. (Note: This does not mean I like men who are chauvinistic or controlling.) I genuinely like men, especially all the things that make them so different from me. Women should be strong, but the definition of that word can easily be misunderstood. In my definition, strong means noble, courageous, and tough in the face of adversity. It does not mean abrasive, combative, and constantly trying to prove that you don't need or are just as good as men. I agree with max's mama that women's strength does often lie in our femininity simply because that is what makes us so different from men.
And to sum up the scattered thoughts I'm attempting to share: most men want to be with women... not men. Thus, acting like a man is counterproductive.
The point I made about feminism in the US is that it has been taken into overdrive. We have women proclaiming that we're so equal to men that we are in fact practically men altogether and then at the same time, those same women want the special treatment of being female (using generalizations here... naturally, I do not mean ALL women or ALL feminists). I'm just speaking for my own tastes, but I genuinely like the feminine role. (Note: This does not mean I like men who are chauvinistic or controlling.) I genuinely like men, especially all the things that make them so different from me. Women should be strong, but the definition of that word can easily be misunderstood. In my definition, strong means noble, courageous, and tough in the face of adversity. It does not mean abrasive, combative, and constantly trying to prove that you don't need or are just as good as men. I agree with max's mama that women's strength does often lie in our femininity simply because that is what makes us so different from men.
And to sum up the scattered thoughts I'm attempting to share: most men want to be with women... not men. Thus, acting like a man is counterproductive.
How about just not regarding men as the default or the gold standard? How about not talking about women as the other sex? A sex, to whom good character traits -- such as strength -- are supposedly so alien and unnatural, that should a member of that sex actually possess strength, she must furnish a disclaimer explaining what strength means? Notice how men never have to define what it means to be strong and preemptively acquit themselves of any suspicion that strength means asshattery. Is it because strength is considered a male virtue? I suggest we stop assigning gender to positive character traits. I always thought that would be at the center of true equality. Then women (both "feminine" and feminists) can stop obsessively comparing and contrasting themselves to men, and the usual suspects on CD can stop generating stupid posts about all the awful, intolerable ways in which women are different from men. We can simply be who we are, make an effort to be good people and good partners, and stop worrying so much about us or other people fitting into stupid molds.
The point I made about feminism in the US is that it has been taken into overdrive. We have women proclaiming that we're so equal to men that we are in fact practically men altogether and then at the same time, those same women want the special treatment of being female (using generalizations here... naturally, I do not mean ALL women or ALL feminists). I'm just speaking for my own tastes, but I genuinely like the feminine role. (Note: This does not mean I like men who are chauvinistic or controlling.) I genuinely like men, especially all the things that make them so different from me. Women should be strong, but the definition of that word can easily be misunderstood. In my definition, strong means noble, courageous, and tough in the face of adversity. It does not mean abrasive, combative, and constantly trying to prove that you don't need or are just as good as men. I agree with max's mama that women's strength does often lie in our femininity simply because that is what makes us so different from men.
And to sum up the scattered thoughts I'm attempting to share: most men want to be with women... not men. Thus, acting like a man is counterproductive.
I'd mostly agree and definitely agree that "liberal feminism" has gone over the top and I think the big mistake is the break down of roles into this unisex person, that really doesn't exist. I think men and women in a lot of cases are rather confused about what their role is anymore.
We have to come back to some rationality. Men and women ARE different. Our brains and our bodies are built differently and for different tasks.
In general, my observation as a single man is that I am not seeing a lot of femininity out there amongst women. What I am seeing a lot of is either men like women or women that just let everything go about them and are slovenly. I'm not complaining because I am not overtly looking for any relationship right now, just my observation and I don't believe there is a lot of quality women out there right now. Or at least ones that would appeal to me. I have no interest in a man like trying to be bossy corporate woman to date.
The feminist movement screwed up. They acknowledged themselves as weak by trying to be men rather than playing up their strengths. Fools.
Is that why diamond engagement rings aren't the tradition over there they are here?
Wow... I thought those things came from Africa, not European poo... I'll never look at them the same.
On the flip-side, I've often remarked that were a lump of coal shoved my my MIL's arse, she's **** a diamond. If that's the norm in Europe, I now understand why discussing politics or religion with those folks is nigh impossible! They're all tight-arses!
How about just not regarding men as the default or the gold standard? How about not talking about women as the other sex? A sex, to whom good character traits -- such as strength -- are supposedly so alien and unnatural, that should a member of that sex actually possess strength, she must furnish a disclaimer explaining what strength means? Notice how men never have to define what it means to be strong and preemptively acquit themselves of any suspicion that strength means asshattery. Is it because strength is considered a male virtue? I suggest we stop assigning gender to positive character traits. I always thought that would be at the center of true equality. Then women (both "feminine" and feminists) can stop obsessively comparing and contrasting themselves to men, and the usual suspects on CD can stop generating stupid posts about all the awful, intolerable ways in which women are different from men. We can simply be who we are, make an effort to be good people and good partners, and stop worrying so much about us or other people fitting into stupid molds.
I didn't imply any of that and I apologize if that's what you took from what I wrote. I don't view men as the default or gold standard. Both sexes bring different things to the table and without one or the other, life would not be complete. My comment about strength and it's description in regard to women was simply in reference to how some women pull the "I'm a strong, independent woman" card when actually they're just being ball-busting *******. Hey, I used to be one of them and then I realized that life's too short to be a defensive *****. I agree with your last comment 100%.
I think if you look at my response to Redisca, it may give you a clearer idea what I'm trying to say.
Of course we are all very different and categorizing people is never a good idea, however, I personally understand what Mango is trying to say. Sometimes just being a woman, just a simple vulnerable woman is an extremely attractive quality for a man.
I guess it's not all black and white.
I think that's true what you said about the vulnerability part. It feels good to be vulnerable with the right man. There is something about letting down your guard and feeling like a man is your protector. But at the same time, I think it is really sexy when a guy can be vulnerable as well. It goes both ways, so I don't think it's necessarily something that is strictly feminine.
Just like what you said with being gentle. Hell, if a guy is not gentle or tender at times, chances are he's a bad lover - and that's not very attractive. So the "softer" more sensitive characteristics are good in both cases, as long as there's complexity, like you said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
