Related thread: Why Women Rule the Roost
For some definition of ‘submissive’ in a culture which has changed it’s gender based attitudes over time about ‘submissiveness’ then there probably would be some difference in the numbers if there was any way to determine what the number were then and are now. So in conclusion, nobody knows.
Your choice of phrasing, that a woman “subjected to gender equality,” pretty much says it all right there.
Is there any culture in the world in which women have ***not ***wielded a considerable amount of direct/indirect power in marriage and relationships, regardless of how powerful or patriarchal the husband’s role in the marriage may have appeared to be on the outside?
Agreed.
Disagreed.
In context it seems pretty clear that the phrase meant “subjected to [the influence of]”.
Yes.
It would be nice if the OP would come back and address that point. Did he mean that women were subjected as in forced or subjected as in influenced? It reads to me as the former.
I also disagree with the premise that an increase of
somehow equates to a decrease in men’s place in the power structure, which is the message I’m taking from the focus on male submission. The goal is, again, equality. Women can gain in civil rights without men losing.
Rights are not a zero sum game. Women having more of their rights recognized does not somehow take rights away from men.
Listen, what we do in our household is our own business. Besides, he says he really doesn’t mind eating out of the dog bowl.
There is a generational decline in observed testosterone levels, though I’m not sure if this could be linked to a change in male behavior. Reactionaries blame this on feminism, but it seems more likely to be the result of hormone pollution or some chemical additive in plastics or something like that.
IME in a lot of relationships when the woman is in charge it isn’t because the guy is submissive, but because he’s lazy and she has to pick up the slack.
I’d call that “delegating”.
The key thing to my mind is that in your relationship no one forced the other party to accept the situation - you’re OK with going with the flow, so why not have the person with stronger opinions on how to do something make the decisions?
Also - another key thing - if you DID have an opinion on some household thing and went to your wife and told her your opinion and that it mattered to you do you think she’d listen to your concern and take it into account? If yes, it’s not submission. If no, it is.
Thirty years of SLIGHTLY more gender equality, causing a sea change in the entire nature of male female behavior established by over fifteen thousand years of the known organized society alone??
Yeah, right.
Op will need just a tad more “proof” of concept, before he’s going to convince anyone to reverse engines and return to the entirely imaginary world of Leave It To Beaver Land.
One sneaky related point for everyone: take care that you don’t confuse ACTUAL changes in the world, with various FADS in what reporters think people want to hear stories about. Major candidates for high office have lost elections, because they made that mistake.
By far my favourite post in this thread. Bravo, good sir.
And I would also like to add that contrary to popular opinion, SAH wives and mothers were only a thing amongst the middle to upper-middle class sect. I’m fairly certain the wives of blue collar workers were working women too.
A few generations ago, more people were farmers. So the women (& kids when they were not in school) pitched in outside the house. And housekeeping involved pumping water, building fires, etc. Even with hired help, there was little time to eat bon-bons.
My maternal grandmother had to quit school at 15; her father broke his leg & couldn’t work so she became a telephone operator. As a married woman, she handled the local telephone exchange in her living room. Then they moved to the country & she had a vegetable garden, raised poultry & slopped hogs.
Does the OP have any living ancestors? Has he talked to them?
The main issue with the OP, is that it assumes that being an advocate for equal rights requires being submissive.
This is a false dichotomy and is not required to have a partnership or to be a public advocate for equality.
Note I am massively oversimplifying to make this point, and I am ignoring important developments like inheritance rights and equitable divorce laws. My intent is not to diminish the negative impacts of these topics but rather to focus on one subject that is often lost when not discussed individually.
It is not “submissive” to allow your partner to set and maintain boundaries, and in many cases I would argue that the fact that a man can even dare appear submissive in a relationship is more related to the increase in rights than changes in relationship dynamics.
In general it seems that in these discussions “submissive” is often used as a synonym for “weak” and in general it is not the correct term at all. “co-operative” or “teamwork” would be a better description.
The fact that it is still viewed as “weakness” actually demonstrates that the patriarchal system is still very much in place. While not suffering from as many disadvantages this does have a very real and measurable effect on Men including serious health effects.
I had a non-typical childhood as we were self-employed and my Fauther came down with MS which required my Mother to step up to the plate when I was very young. I am not complaining to be superior to anyone, but when I entered adult life the things that my mother accomplished every day were supposed to be male functions and I bowed to social pressure. While I never changed my behavior or personal beliefs I did stay silent while trying to fit in with the “bros”.
As I have gotten older I have seen the negative impacts far to often to stay silent anymore and I will call out even close friends when they resort to locker room talk or make sexist remarks. Luckily for me these friends typically are actually appreciative of these efforts, but I have had to change jobs after fighting for what was right in the workplace due to sexism that furthers no goals for the company or my co-workers.
I work in the computer industry, which is one that has actually regressed to being more sexist over the past several decades. In fact if it wasn’t for Margaret Hamilton the term “Software Engineering” wouldn’t even exist. Many of the pioneers in my industry were woman and some got credit while others were almost lost to history. But the point is that there is absolutely zero history or even historical reasons for the bro-culture in today’s world.
While I have a limited dataset and an admittedly biased view it is actually the “sensitive” male ego that has lead to the current state. Basicly the men that claim to be the most manly tend to be the most fragile personalities and for them it is bad enough to be bested by another man let alone a woman.
The crazy thing is that in this industry it is impossible to be an expert in anything, and everyone is ignorant of almost everything. Learning that you are in error or misunderstand something should be as a personal victory and not some failing.
I am an opinionated person, but would prefer to know that I am wrong than to win a debate by force but these fragile traditional “manly” individuals will typically call a woman who is more than capable and qualified and who is arguing her point as being pushy, bossy or a “bitch”.
This is counter to everyone’s individual best interest as it will increase success rates, reduce workloads and obtain goals faster to just allow these women to be equals here.
The “submissive” or “passive aggressive” option is to ignore this issue and go along with the flow. It requires significantly more courage to take action and to ignore the silly bro-culture.
The fact that some men are either choosing to abdicate historical power in a relationship when they may just not care about the subject but may actually have set firm boundaries in areas that are personally important to them is still viewed as “submissive” when it is actually directly an act of power.
Maybe the problem is with how obtuse the term “submissive” is, but even in areas where this is well defined like BDSM it is the submissive participant that actually has the power, because they can withdraw consent. This is in direct contrast to very recent developments which have changed very recently. I woman who lacked the right to inheritance or even custody of her children, or which was held to a very different standard for divorce did not yield those powers, as she never possessed them.
We have a long way to go before we reach equality but we are making progress. But I would challenge you to consider that the concepts here are very different. Equality of rights is empowering for everyone. Except for those who are weak, but their “dominance” is purely a charade. While they may have had the illusion of power that was often even codified in law they didn’t have the choice to withdraw consent, they are not empowered, but are burdened.
I’m going to take the pessimistic route and say that the changes we see in gender roles are not due to the ideals of gender equality but rather the necessity of women in post-industrialized society.
Let’s be honest, human beings are pretty slow to change especially when they can conform without too much discomfort. I only have some HS experience and a college degree but I can say that ‘submissiveness’ we see in males is an adaptation to the changing needs in society as opposed to the progressiveness of being equal in gender. There’s no doubt that masculinity has been redefined to treat women fairly but the concepts of masculinity/femininity are still very important to a lot of people to a large degree and the stigmas attached by failing to adhere to them.
If we put the necessity of changing gender roles, gender dynamics in relationships, personality, interests are still pretty much the same as they were 50 years ago. The only difference is people don’t get killed or ostracized with the same frequency for being non-gender conforming.
How so?
I’ll have to ask my wife if I can participate in this thread.