Is there a double standard for being submissive? (date, marrying, guys)

[smartalx]

Black Jack22, you're awesome. Totally repped.

Originally Posted by Anneee

BIGGER does not equal SMARTER, Jack.

LOL. Yeah, smarter equals smarter. And guess which sex is smarter. LOL. Not that this is true all of the time and of course the IQ advantage is slight. Just pointing it out because it's funny..

And a submissive partner cheats their spouse by withholding their own knowledge, experience and intuition.

Obviously the submissive spouse advises the leader and the leader takes her position into consideration.

Originally Posted by mommytotwo

hm. funny, but it seems to me there are a lot more men that are submissive to their wives, and no one seems to find that offensive

Women do not respect submissive men. Men call other men who are submissive "whipped."

and fewer women that are submissive to their husband, and when they are it causes an uproar.

Not true at all. That was my point when asking the question in the OP.

We need spouses working together, each at what they are good at, for couples to succeed.

Agreed.

There is no point in either submitting to to the other when the other has no idea what they are talking about or the first would have come to a more intelligent conclusion.

How about submitting to common sense, experience, etc. on a case by case basis.

And what happens when they can't agree?

Originally Posted by spinx

I had a neighbor down the street growing up with a father who was dominant. All the kids got whipped if one kid did something wrong. The mom was told she was being a bad wife because she worked instead of having every meal on the table at the right time when her loving husband came home. She quit her job so she didn't get "in trouble" for not completing her wifely duties as prescribed. Do you know how common this scenario is in your own backyard??

That's not the way it's supposed to work. Cases like this one give the rest of decent husbands a bad name but they are not the norm. They never were.

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

Hi Braunwyn,

Insisting on being regarded as an equal is a good start.

One can not INSIST on being equal. That first requires you to take control. Equality must be given. It can not be taken. It's impossible. Ladies in the past 40 years have been TAKING control then GIVING guys what they (the women) call equality. One of the big arguments is over the definition of equality. Sometimes equality is unfair. Like I had a girlfriend who weighed half of what I weigh. She would make dinner sometimes and our portion sizes would be exactly the same! Equal but unfair. When men walk with women, they slow down to her pace. Not equal, but fair. It seems that men are better at being fair than women are. Not just because of my two examples. Just historically speaking. Yes, some women might feel oppressed if they submit. But for the greater good, that's how it works. It's how we are wired, generally speaking of course. Men consider the big picture more than women do. That's important to this argument.

Originally Posted by Kele

I have a son. I hardly dispute the fact that boys are sometimes being shortchanged in today's society. But historically speaking, for the last 3,000 years, women have been on the short end of the stick. To deny the validity of this statement is to deny the existence of reality.

So does that make mysandry ok? Are you ok now that the pendulum has swung the opposite way?

The problem here is not that women are ruining society by their failure to subordinate themselves to men. It is that for years little boys were artificially inflated while little girls were relegated to home economics classes.

That's not true at all.

The time has come for gender equality in education for ALL (and I'm not just talking about the so-called two Western society recognized genders).

Equality doesn't mean sameness. Both genders have equal value but their roles are different.

Originally Posted by GTOWN_REPRESENTA

submission in my mind, is a two-way street. a man submits to his wife and/or family to love, protect, and provide for them and to always make the right decision for his family and not for himself. a woman submits to respect and trust the decisions of her husband are in the best interest of their family. only a no-good husband will make decisions without the input of his spouse and rule over his family like a dictator. both parties have to be willing to give a little bit of their own happiness and comfort in order to ensure everyone is happy within their household. if both parties are fulfilling their end of the bargain, then submission is ultimately a win-win.

Agreed and repped.

Originally Posted by Kele

Gender roles corrupted?

Exactly who laid out these gender roles?

Evolution. Or God. Take your pick.

Men are getting a tiny taste of women have endured at the hands of a patriarchal society for thousands of years and women are at fault how? Women have been marginalized, the subjects of physical and sexual abuse, and have been on the receiving end of economic and societal inequality

Again, does that make mysandry ok?

for since the advent of the big three male centered religions.

Um, I'm pretty sure patriarchial societies did not begin with Christianity nor with Judaism.

Now a few scholars outside the mainstream of gender thought start crying about how used and abused men are and women are supposed to go back in to the cave and submit themselves unto men to rectify the unfairness of it all?

Puleeze....

Well, women haven't really proven that they can lead very well. Look at what feminism gave us. Weak passive boys who would rather play video games than do schoolwork. Whipped men who are afraid of telling their wives their opinions. And most critically the slow but clear deterioration of our God-given constitutional rights. Do you think men in the early twentieth century would have stood by to allow the patriot act to pass? No effin way! Women prefer security over freedom and their political power now overshadows the opinion of men who value freedom over security.

Originally Posted by mango tango

The neglected needs of men? Seriously?

Let's take a quick perusal through the wonderful world of history, shall we, and see just how neglected the men were.

Who is talking about history? We are talking about today.

Originally Posted by Kele

Again, another concept from a male-centered, patriarchal religion.

And again, patriarchy did not start with any of today's popular religions.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by smartalx

One can not INSIST on being equal. That first requires you to take control. Equality must be given. It can not be taken. It's impossible. Ladies in the past 40 years have been TAKING control then GIVING guys what they (the women) call equality. One of the big arguments is over the definition of equality. Sometimes equality is unfair. Like I had a girlfriend who weighed half of what I weigh. She would make dinner sometimes and our portion sizes would be exactly the same! Equal but unfair. When men walk with women, they slow down to her pace. Not equal, but fair. It seems that men are better at being fair than women are. Not just because of my two examples. Just historically speaking. Yes, some women might feel oppressed if they submit. But for the greater good, that's how it works. It's how we are wired, generally speaking of course. Men consider the big picture more than women do. That's important to this argument.

You're going to start this off with charges of intelligence between the genders, and mid-post throw in a word-salad with doses of equality?

And men, over women, consider the big picture? What planet do you reign from?

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by Kele

Again, another concept from a male-centered, patriarchal religion.

{shrug} Might makes right.

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by mango tango

The neglected needs of men? Seriously?

Let's take a quick perusal through the wonderful world of history, shall we, and see just how neglected the men were.

Seriously? There have been studies examining how some men have been denied education because they didn't know how to teach them adequately.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Who is whining in this conversation, besides the salsa king and crew? The fact remains that these conversations never get down to brass tacks. Why? Because when the smoke clears, and all the gg settles down, there isn't much to go on. Submit to the male...submit to the male...submit to the male...it's a broken record that doesn't culminate. It's nonsensical.

Hi Braunwyn,

I agree feminism is all about whining these days from men and women. Men whine about women and women whine about men. Its because we are legislating equality instead of allowing a free society.

As to the latter that is because you are not reading my post and reading something else. In mating, with any mammalian species the reproductive burden is such that the burden to raise young is the female's. Therefore it is an act of submission to give up this resource to a male. When females do not act submissively to men it is basically saying go away. If you are a woman and you are not interested in a man, don't submit. Same goes for a man. if you are not interested in a woman, don't try to make her submit and stay in the corner. By all means do not be assertive. Therefore I believe there is biological hardwire that tells men to split when women are not submissive and women to split when men are not assertive. What does generation after generation of selective pressure bring?

Given that women are hypergamous in nature they tend to engage with their mate with the view the mate is superior. If we were straight polygamous then it would mostly be true since only the best males would mate with all females. Since we are semi-polygamous what will I conclude but that attraction is linked to the man seeming to be superior. The reason is women don't mate with those they see as inferior. Men on the other hand will, and the oldest profession is that evidence. Is that brass tacks enough?

Now, if there is some higher reasoning I'm missing, I'm asking, as usual, for it to be spelled out clearly - with the absense of mythological dieties if at all possible.

I am more or less from the school of Schopenhauer which was appropriated by Freud. Our mind works for primitive desires not the other way around. Each and every time we use our intellects to suppress those drives, it will be an extreme challenge, and its the primary failure of our moral sense.

Deferring to expertise and submission aren't the same thing to me. I suppose it can be viewed that way, but it's flat. I may want to use some penut butter, but if my husband tells me he bought it back in June, even tho there is no tag on the bottle, I'll throw it a way. We don't have to use the charged word submit for common sense. The desire to, OTOH, is speaking of other issues imo.

Deference essentially means submission. Its semantics. You either assert your own resource or defer to a superior one.

I work in a lab where each instrument probably costs more than your house and is more complicated than standard autos. Most of our fire fighters (we call our tech ops engineers figher fighters lol) are women. Where the heck are you (general men)? Are you guys techicnally challenged? For that matter, most of the women, and the men, aren't American. They're Chinese and Indian. Are Americans technically challenged? Of course not. The lack of presence indicates a lack of interest or a lack of exposure. You married a woman that has no interest, so the both of you rely on your ability. If you, instead, married an automechanic, you would defer to her. Where gender comes into play here, I'm not sure.

I have never seen a woman auto mechanic, and I rarely see women interested in tech from computer hardware to Unix shell scripting. Unless it is pragmatic, women tend not to be interested by an overwhelming margin. If you don't like it then you have little chance to prosper. Have you heard of a site called Slashdot? If not, you are probably a women.

If my dh's HPLC goes on the fritz at work (uni lab), he's not going to come here to get the mens opinion. He's calling his wife.

yes, that is the point of these threads. I suppose at this point you guys are crossing over to voyerism lol.

The prototypical house wife used vacuum cleaners. Women use technology because it is pragmatic. Women tend to be far more pragmatic by my estimation.

The medical sciences have a strong female presense. Medical school admissions are now dominated by women as well. Will other sciences and computer gaming follow? Who knows. Tho, as a person that works in science, there's an umbrella that's impossible to avoid.

I doubt they are attracted to the research arm in the same numbers. What is even worse for your argument is that the medical field is naturally inclined to nurturing in women. You are making a hole in your own schooner. I think they will be good at it BTW.

I have not been exposed to Linux. I've played with DOS a bit, but that was the extent to my non-windows experience. I clicked on a couple of the links you provided, which were links to other links in blog-type format. Perhaps you guys need to clean up the display, present a clear format, and go from there. The introduction is poor. Sorry.

Since its running this site and many others , I think the problem is with women. Men seem very comfortable with it. The internet was born on Unix and keeping up with Unix means keeping up with its free OSS clone. Men have been with the process for 40 years.

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_rep....city-data.com

For example, the first sentence in the intro -

"Clearly, people in the Linux community would like for more women to be involved in Linux, but most people don't know why so few women are involved or how to change that. This HOWTO is an effort to summarize the explanations, recommendations, and opinions of the women who already are interested and active in Linux."

This doesn't make much sense to me. The Linux community would like more women involved, but they are addressing women already using linux? Or those who have left? So, gwyn, if you want to make a point here, provide a source that actually discusses what linux is, and why it would be or not be attractive to women.

So lets spoon feed it to you to show how we are all the same? Since its a high paid profession, you would think spoon feeding is not necessary. Yes some women use it. Its usually a girl friend.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by smartalx

One can not INSIST on being equal. That first requires you to take control. Equality must be given. It can not be taken. It's impossible. Ladies in the past 40 years have been TAKING control then GIVING guys what they (the women) call equality.

Hi smartalx,

It should read "not insisting upon equality." The context of my post was that women asking for equality implies women are not equal. So woem should stop asking for it and simply achieve it.

[Kele]

Originally Posted by smartalx

And again, patriarchy did not start with any of today's popular religions.

Yeah, it pretty much did. The archaeological, mythological and historical records prove it.

Before 1800 BCE....pretty much Goddess worship...i.e.; a matriarchal or egalitarian society....after 1800 BCE, the beginning of the Hebrew soon to be Christian soon to be Islamic religions and the advent of hardcore patriarchy. Sorry if you don't like it--I only report the truth, I don't make it up.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

Hi Braunwyn,

I agree feminism is all about whining these days from men and women. Men whine about women and women whine about men. Its because we are legislating equality instead of allowing a free society.

I don't understand this either. Ok, allow a free society instead of legislating equality. That's pretty general and loaded. I cannot read your mind gwyn.

As to the latter that is because you are not reading my post and reading something else.

I read your posts. I just don't always understand them.

In mating, with any mammalian species the reproductive burden is such that the burden to raise young is the female's. Therefore it is an act of to give over or yield to the power or authority of another to give up this resource to a male. When females do not give over or yield to the power or authority of another to men it is basically saying go away. If you are a woman and you are not interested in a man, don't give over or yield to the power or authority of another . Same goes for a man. if you are not interested in a woman, don't try to make her give over or yield to the power or authority of another and stay in the corner. By all means do not be assertive. Therefore I believe there is biological hardwire that tells men to split when women do not give over or yield to the power or authority of another and women to split when men are not assertive. What does generation after generation of selective pressure bring?

I've fixed your post here by posting the first definition of submit. Guess what? Women do not give over or yield to the power or authority of another and still marry. I'm living proof. You can keep your Black Jack, your smartalx, and whoever else, and have a party. I don't want to go. A lot of women don't want to go. Honestly, based on the track records of many on this forum who desire a woman to give over or yield to the power or authority of another, the selective pressure isn't in their favor.

Given that women are hypergamous in nature they tend to engage with their mate with the view the mate is superior.

This is how I felt when I was girl. I was swooned over scientists thinking they were all that (in a sense), tho, it was more about respect. And the fact that I was too uneducated to know any better. I loved their intellect. In the end, I have simply found that this view is shallow. It lacks depth. And perhaps most people do. If the selective pressures only allows for non-thinking ninnies to out breed the prized among us, so be it. If idiocracy is our future lol, well, that's pretty sad.

If we were straight polygamous then it would mostly be true since only the best males would mate with all females. Since we are semi-polygamous what will I conclude but that attraction is linked to the man seeming to be superior. The reason is women don't mate with those they see as inferior. Men on the other hand will, and the oldest profession is that evidence. Is that brass tacks enough?

Brass tacks is that all of the men I know at work except one, all accomplished scientists, are married to other scientists. The one outlier is married to a teacher. Sure, that's a small sample, but it's telling. Every friend I have that is educated is partnered with a like. As well as the few friends I have that are not, are partnered with likes. Statistics show that educated men marry educated women. This is no secret, and it does not fit with your assertions. Your brass tacks here is another quip in the male erotica theme you guys have going.

Deference essentially means give over or yield to the power or authority of another. Its semantics. You either assert your own resource or defer to a superior one.

Yes, you are correct. The thing is, being male does not make one superior. It once did. Those days are over in the west.

I have never seen a woman auto mechanic, and I rarely see women interested in tech from computer hardware to Unix shell scripting. Unless it is pragmatic, women tend not to be interested by an overwhelming margin.

It is rare to see a female auto mechanic. I can't imagine that changing any time soon. But, as stated, women are entering college in droves. They now out number men in medical school, and have a significant presence in the biolocial sciences. And these superior women, as you would say, will marry and do. They simply will marry men at their own level.

If you don't like it then you have little chance to prosper. Have you heard of a site called Slashdot? If not, you are probably a women.

Don't like what? I'm not concerned about unix. If it's something I need to learn for work, it will become a priority. And not prosper? I think I'll manage.

The prototypical house wife used vacuum cleaners. Women use technology because it is pragmatic. Women tend to be far more pragmatic by my estimation.

So, when a man fixes a car, it's a nature element. When a woman does the same, it's a nurture element. Gotchya. What you don't realize is that to fix a machine in the lab, you have to grasp the chemistry. An auto mechanic, OTOH, does not have to grasp how oil is rendered, or the physics of his machine.

I doubt they are attracted to the research arm in the same numbers. What is even worse for your argument is that the medical field is naturally inclined to nurturing in women. You are making a hole in your own schooner. I think they will be good at it BTW.

Again, when men do it, it's something entirely different. That's so lame.

So lets spoon feed it to you to show how we are all the same? Since its a high paid profession, you would think spoon feeding is not necessary. Yes some women use it. Its usually a girl friend.

If the introduction states a desire for women to enter the arena, logic tells the introduction would actually include an introduction. If you are interested in exposing women to the subject, which I suspect you really aren't, an introduction is a reasonable request. Instead, you're huffing and puffing out your corner of the world. Excuse me while I'm not impressed.

[smartalx]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

Hi smartalx,

It should read "not insisting upon equality." The context of my post was that women asking for equality implies women are not equal. So woem should stop asking for it and simply achieve it.

Impossible without a man voluntarily giving it to her.

I say again, you can not decide that anyone else is going to treat you as an equal. Claiming equality for yourself simply goes against the definition of equality. Claiming anything is a dominant act. Equal people do not assert dominance. Therefore it is logically impossible to "achieve" equality.

[smartalx]

Originally Posted by Kele

Yeah, it pretty much did. The archaeological, mythological and historical records prove it.

Before 1800 BCE....pretty much Goddess worship...i.e.; a matriarchal or egalitarian society....after 1800 BCE, the beginning of the Hebrew soon to be Christian soon to be Islamic religions and the advent of hardcore patriarchy. Sorry if you don't like it--I only report the truth, I don't make it up.

Hmm... Interesting... Ever heard of Zooastrianism? It and Hinduism are the oldest religions in the world. Though there is admittedly some debate as to whether or not there were older religions. There was apparently a discovery of people that worshipped a serpent 70,000 years ago. Definitely not "goddess worship" there. Anyway all of that is beside the point. Both zooastrianism and Hinduism were older than Judaism and both were patriarchal in nature. Kind of contradicts your "truth" doesn't it? Even the Egyptian religion goes back further than 1800 BC.