This hub by DawnM disturbs me:
http://hubpages.com/hub/how-a-man-can-g … s-marriage
I like Dawn. I follow her, I read her hubs. I don't always agree with everything she says, but this is the first time I have had a very strong negative reaction.
How do others feel?
By the way, for those who don't know, I am a 62 year old male, married to the same woman for the past 43 years. You might expect me to be old school conservative and agree with her, but I definitely do not.
I like a man that can take charge, someone that can handle me and put me in my place... wimps I eat alive! I'll take my pleasure out of them and cast them aside! LOL
I'd have to say that I like my husband wearing the pants too. It actually took me many years to find him and I had to import him from Boston in the USA. But heck, I hate making decisions though I do like to be included in the decision process, I'd rather he be the one to make the final choice. To be perfectly honest, if I could stay home and bring up our 2 year old and be a wonderful, perfect house wife and have dinner ready for him when he gets home from work, then I would. The mortgage and other bills say otherwise, however we have an agreement that if he can earn more than twice as much as now, then we'll consider it!
PS. No religion here - just personal desires.
PPS I also do love my work......
Just to set the record straight at the top of this forum Pcunix not only commented on my hub, but wrote one about putting mine down and then created this post. All because I stated the word dominance, not dominating or controlling but as a term describing a biological male dominant trait. The hub is geared towards married couples that are having problems in their intimate lives. Not once did I ever use the word submissive or controlling.
When I talk about gender roles in my hub, and a man earning more money that his wife, yes I applaud men who want to work and take care of their wife and children and a woman who appreciates that in her husband, but you will notice throughout this forum how Pcunix continues to put me down for believing in a healthy marriage that promotes respecting each other and keeping a family together. He states that I think that everyone has my views, people are people some will agree and some will not but putting me down and tearing me apart and saying that I am submissive to my husband is rude and not very gentleman like on his part.
So before commenting, why not take a look at whom I am and what my hubs are about and how I promote family values, not cheating and abuse in marriage! By the way if I believed in abuse why would I write a very powerful hub on husband that rape wives? By the way take a look at his hubs.
Watch out if you write something that the almighty pcunix doesn’t like he has no qualms of ripping you apart… by the way I did not comment on his hub out of respect as a fellow writer.
Dawn, you continue to misrepresent both what I say and what you yourself say.
People here HAVE looked at your hubs and agree with me: your insistence on how things must be is sexist and potentially dangerous.
I once again point out that I have consistently stated that I believe you mean well. I will even stipulate that your advice may be useful for some couples - maybe even the majority of couples.
But your advice does NOT fit everyone and your insistence that every marriage that ignores the "DNA" (as you put it) is heading for trouble is the problem.
I have to keep repeating this because you keep misrepresenting this and try so very hard to paint a very different picture.
Dawn, Some seem to overlook the fact it is wrong for anyone to write a hub to put a person down. Putting someone down is more than a simple disagreement. None of your hubs promote abuse. All of them promote great family values.
So you are suggesting that if any of us see a hub that seems to suggest, say, gargling with concentrated Sodium hypochlorite, with no explanation of what Sodium hypochlorite actually is, it would be abusive to point out that con. Sodium hypochlorite is better known and used as household bleach!
And what a lily-livered bunch of wimps we would all be if we were too afraid to give our opinions for fear that somebody might see disagreement as abusive!
The word male dominance maybe is confusing - major decision maker for major decisions in the house? like buying major appliances who decides? both or the man or the woman, then in each own domain for example like the kitchen the women is the major decision maker there in that area of the house.
In my own opinion, men and women should have equal status but the family, education and the society by which the people belong give them set of values to follow -- like religion etc. social expectation (it is still expected that the man is the major decision maker in most areas). it is the will of both women and men to transcend the social expectations and come into terms what will work for them. Like, I would like for example my bf or hubby to ask my opinion concerning us but then if we don't agree, we will weigh it and it depends on the domain, my kitchen is my domain for example.
Biology well, there are biological implications for example the division of labor in the household is dependent on it,
I still want my man to decide and be the steward of the ship with proper collaboration with me..
I think it is written more for those of a religious faith who believe in male dominance in a marriage.
the couple decides how they want their marriage to function.
I don't think it's ever wise to stereotype certain groups of people.
divorce has been around for a long time and I'm sure in some marriages, it was because of this male dominance way of thinking.
I certainly agree that if both WANT male dominance, they should have it, but I agree with you that some divorces probably come from a male asserting power he should not have.
CLEARLY That Is NOT the case in My Case!!
She wrote me a note in 12/12/2005 saying that if I don't wash my own socks.... she's gone!!
Spud and Mulloch!!!
well in some culture the man just throw their clothes anywhere even if it is one foot away from the hamper, it is understandable because they work hard in the farms...or double jobs, give and take,
In reality, there is never really equal footing, just approximation, men still rules in majority of households, the shift in economic modes will change that...
Well I'm Not Sure about that.... She's had a fine old time swanning around on holiday for the last 5 years....
I think she could have at least turned the shower off before she left.. I've just found the whole bathroom has been washed away!
I wondered what the neighbor was yelling at me for in 2006, before that river running through his garden washed him away!
Bugger... that was a good toothbrush I had back then and I was going to have a shower next week too
@Mikeydoes... that's BS!
shows how much you know about women mate
PD, thanks for the big laugh LOL! You gotta be just kidding,
.....i'm still waiting for someone to cut the grass....i'm gettin' lost everytime I head out to the backyard.....
....and where's my dinner?.....I ask...but I don't get a reply anymore....
...too bad about the BR disappearing PD......I gave up trying to change the vaccuum cleaner bags...
...i finally figured out where the light bulbs were....my place was getting pretty dark...i was runnin' out of candles......
I'll tell you this right now if you were to say "mate" in front of girls where I lived, you wouldn't have a chance to get a date.
What am I getting at?
You have no idea about girls around here, or millions of other girls who will not work a day in their lives. You don't know me, don't roll your eyes at me or say anything unless its valid and has a point.
I'll roll my eyes where I like mate!!
Of course you have overlooked the fact that we were talking about WOMEN and....... I believe you were the one with the immaturity problem... in that your references are of Girls... you know.. apprentice women... Son!!
sorry, I'm going off topic..but hi PD. Remember when I first met you, I said "fish don't have any feelings"? and it was lyrics from a song..well..right now that song is on my radio. I have not heard it in years and its funny it's on right after reading a post from you. anyway.. good to see ya!!
I have been waiting for 5 years for my woman to dominate me and then she could have whatever she wanted for the laundry!!
Spud and Mulloch.... She must have left!!!
Her note is dated 2005
I think it might be interesting to correlate to political views.
Again for those who don't know, I am a raging liberal, adamantly opposed to almost everything in conservative philosophy (except gun control).
Most guys want to dominate, just like many girls want to be dominated.. to be taken care of
NONE of the men I am friendly with and know well want to dominate - or if they do, they sure hide it well.
But I don't hang with typical sports loving, beer guzzling men, so you may be right.
When did I say your friends did?
You would be lying you yourselves if you said this isn't a male dominated world and men don't want to dominate.
Whether its buying drinks, in bed, or as far as taking the Man's last name.
You guys have to understand that you guys are a minority. You the people who work for yourselves and are a capable dominant male or female and I am sure your spouses are the same way.
What I said is not wrong, but it is reality. Do I dominate women or go and try to dominate them? No, thats not me.
A man wants to be a provider and a protector. A woman wants to be a nurturer and lover.(what fits you better)
A man with out a job is a man that feels worthless, even if the woman can pay for it. And you can't say the same the other way around.
I agree times are changing and I want them to.
But there is no way you can disagree that
most men want to dominate
and most women want to be dominated (at times for sure)
I just told my wife that I will be dominating from now on.
Once the swelling does down, I will be able to use my right eye again.
When did I tell you to go do that?!?! What were you thinking? You're lucky to have an eye.
oh, phew...its your eye. I saw "swelling" and well..I was a little concerned.
OP...I quit reading after the word "dominance" I do understand what she's getting at...(but it could be worded slightly better, although I have to say I personally am not sure exactly how to do that...)
Dominance should not be in there...relationships are best when each partner has equal importance, and each realizes they have different roles. Different "jobs" to do. Equal importance, respect, understanding, compassion...that will get you alot further than dominance.
very well said.
This also has a lot to do with divorce rate.
Outside of the internet world, I am the only girl I know who hasn't been divorced. I am thankful for my marriage lasting, every day.
Well mine lasted ummmm.....just long enough to leave me with a hot plate
ah, well. Like I said, I am thankful mine has lasted, but it has nothing to do with me being "good" ...I got lucky. or I am stupid. depends on who you talk to.
Yes, I told my wife too, she didn't black my eye but agreed that in future I could make all the important decisions.
So now I decide if we should continue the war in Afghanistan, how much teachers should be paid, whether the governments fiscal policies are good or bad, what players MU should put on the pitch etc, while she deals with the minor things like what we eat, where we go on holiday, which school the kids go to, when the house gets cleaned etc.
I don't know where you live, but I do know that in the Deep South, a lot of women enjoy being the "meek little housewife" while the husband earns all the money and makes all the decisions. Perhaps it's Biblical, or maybe it's just part of the old Southern culture.
I have a great marriage, and we share dominance in different areas. I would never decide on what tools or appliances we need, and hubby never tells me how to handle the bulk of the finances. A lot of stuff he leaves up to me simply because he doesn't want to deal with it! lol
Odd. I worked in Central Louisiana as a bodyguard for the better part of two years. Drove my boss all over the South, meeting people from every walk of life in all the Big Cities and rural farm communities.
Where were all those "meek little housewives" you spoke of, kemosabe?
Mostly they were hard-core Liberal Democrat Womens' Rights types with a chip on their shoulder and a Rebel Yell attitude. Hatred for Ronald Reagan seemed to be a unifying theme among the Richer southerners, too.
I don't know what MOST men think. You may be right. The men I know and like do NOT think that way. That's what I said before. I do not know about "most" because, honestly, I can't stomach most men. So, I agree: you may be correct.
But being a majority doesn't make it right, as this election will probably show, as most of the gay rights votes show and so on and so on.
Nobody should dominate. Again, unless it's something both people want, but even then I'd argue that at least one of them has psychological problems.
pcunix, All men in a marriage should desire to be dominate by taking charge of things that is required of him. Dominate doesn't mean the husband should have dominance over the wife, by abusing and controlling her. This is a big difference. If a man doesn't take charge, most will women will stand up and take charge for him. We are all equal, but the man role is to be the head of the household.
have you ever been married?
to be taken care of doesn't equal male dominance. it implies being cared for with respect.
I guess for some it means give me a house, food, kids, car, jewelry, etc., and I'll be your maid.
there are so many stories about how women confess to having lost their identity when they married because they took on a submissive role. no woman should be a man's servant IMO. both should treat each other with respect.
Mikey there is a very real difference between being dominated and being taken care of.
I don't think anyone should offer one approach as *the* approach to marraige, it is an agreement between the two people involved and no one else.
Yes, absolutely. Though I would hope that few women WANT domination!
I agree with your comments Pcunix. I don't want to be dominated. My parents are "traditional"; my father refused to learn how to cook - if my mother was away, I had to make his lunches & cook his meals (when I was living there).
My husband and I consider ourselves to be equals (although he jokes I wear the pants!). My husband actually dislikes the pressure of earning most of the money. There is a huge chasm still between male and female incomes and I work part-time (because I will go nuts if have to play housekeeper all day). I worked full-tme before we had our child.
We would have been happy for him to stay at home with our child, but he couldn't cope with baby poo, plus my health issues over the years meant my income was unreliable.
Some people are comfortable with 'traditional" roles (which seem to come from the bible). We do what suits our family best. Both of us hate being controlled - so all that male domination stuff is a load of rot to us.
I had a boss that said to me (before I married) that women shouldn't be in the workforce - they should be at home. I felt like telling him he was an idiot - a lot of women don't have partners to "look after them", "rescue them" "financially provide" etc
I was quite surprised to learn that one of my important roles as a woman is to bring home a good take-away. Now I know where I have been going wrong all these years! LOL
But there are lots of different views on marriage out there, and it's just a matter of amicably and fairly working out what works for you as a couple. Being a 'submissive' or 'surrendered' wife wouldn't be my thing, but whatever floats your boat I suppose
I think dawnM chose an intentionally provocative title to draw attention to her point. I think she's advocating essentially for respect, but she is giving a nod to the Biblical subservience thing, where "we're all equal but the man is the leader" thing. It's a really fine line on whether that really means, "Shut up b!@tch and get back in the kitchen" or if it means, "When reason and thoughtful discussion as to a course of action come to an impasse, for the sake of progress, God assisgned the role of benevolent final say to the male."
I do agree with her point about biological imperatives/expectations. I don't think a woman can be attracted to a man she does not respect (aka, a man who demonstrates skills necessary for success in AN environment, be it jungle or financial or etc.), whereas a man can be attracted to anything with bosoms and the appropriate plumbing downstairs.
I pretty much agree with this comment.
My husband and I have the "both of us have equal say in major decisions, but if we absolutely can't agree, he gets the final word" agreement going, but we've been married more than seven years and I can't remember ever having had to use it. Maybe once or twice, but it obviously didn't leave much of an impression! We are both pretty good at picking our battles and recognizing when the other is more qualified to make a decision, or more invested in the outcome.
I've known other families with - supposedly - the same agreement where the husband invoked that clause all the time. Most of those marriages either ended up divorced or with the wife behaving like a total doormat and, frankly, an abuse victim, even if the marriage was not outwardly physically or emotionally violent in any other way. Men like that confuse respect with fear. The former is the foundation of a healthy marriage; the latter is the foundation of tyranny.
I know several marraiges where the man is the leader, amny where it is fully egalitarian and some where the woman is the leader. Biological *preparedness* is often trumped by individual variability. Also the notion of the male as the leader is largely a modern construct. The degree to which it has been true in our evolutionary past is really not clear. Matriarchal power is certainly very important in many primates.
Well, the wife says we have to go now..
Just kidding about "the wife says", but we do have to go food shopping. I'll be back later,
This is exactly why I prefer not to be married - too much trouble to figure it all out. When I was married we could never decide who should decide on some things, so they didn't get decided. Now I take care of myself - I do all the deciding, nobody to blame but me, but I like it that way. I think the arguement about dominance could be easily solved if people just agreed that nobody dominates and all things get decided based on common sense. good luck with that!
First I know nothing about girls and now I'm immature? I haven't said one thing about you. Thats 2 personal attacks.
Once again you don't know me and you have nothing relevant or useful to say please stop.
It is obvious I am thinking about the topic in a different light than you, but no need to pull out the insults on me. I don't even know you so I can't call you immature. If you are a ladies man how would I know? But for some reason you know all about me.
Mikey - I have to side with you. I know a few woman that love dominant men and there are certain ways to be dominante. First of all women who love men that take control are not unusual and the men have to be gainfully employed, someone they respect and admire or it simply doesn't work. This is not some guy who is just a control freak. There are rules to this game and usually domineering men and submissive women know exactly what they are. There are even places where people with this preference meet each other. It is not uncommon at all. I don't understand why these women think it is some kind of insanity. It is merely a preference and personally, I have been with a guy like that in the past and it was pretty awesome. I just have a passive/submissive personality and by the way that does not make me a doormat. It is a choice I made in that relationship. I do notice these women are younger than I am....
I refuse to be dominated by a man, or anyone for that matter.
However, if a woman is going to have kids, she needs to stay home with them and take care of them and the house while the man provides for the family.
Unless of course the financial situation is in crises, then of course the woman should work. But not if she doesn't have to.
So you think the two couples I know where the woman works for a salary and the housekeeper man watches the children are "bad" or "wrong"? If so, why? They and their children seem very happy to me.
But I'm glad the children are happy. I just think it's the woman's job.
But in their situation, it's better than nothing, at least one of them is making the kids their focus.
Eh, my grandmother never wanted kids and let her kids know it directly or indirectly pretty much every day of their lives. My grandfather did want kids and is great with them - my mom would have had a far happier childhood if he'd been the one to stay home with them.
I agree that in general women tend to be better at childcare than men, but that's far from universal, and every individual family needs to make their own decision based on their own situation, without people being judgmental about what are or are not "proper" gender roles.
That's the nub of the matter. To use another example, it might be true to say that IN GENERAL men have better mathematical skills than women, but that doesn't mean to say that all women are crap at maths, or all men are good at it. Nor should it be used as an excuse not to teach women maths. It's the same with childcare. Women might IN GENERAL be more "wired" to act as nurturers, but that's not true of all women by any means.
The idea of dominance is supposed to engender respect. However, most people don't really understand what it means. Most of dominance is about control and manipulation, not setting healthy boundaries. It's the healthy boundaries of dominance that are supposed to engender respect, which in turn is supposed to facilitate healthy boundaries for any of the Dominant Person's circle.
Dominance is not about always being at the front. It is about modeling so that those in the circle will also not how to model in healthy ways to promote healthy boundaries, and those in that circle also lead out by encouragement from the Dominant person.
To understand this correctly, it's supposed to be founded in love and respect, not in ego, arrogance, control and manipulation. Dominance is role modeling in healthy ways. Nothing else.
Excellent Daniel. Thank you for clearing that up....
Daniel, You got it! You are absolutely correct.
I don't think there's anything wrong with dominance itself, and long as it isn't forced on anyone. I think it's a necessary part of human relationships and society.
Some people are followers, and some are leaders. It's when it's forced on people or used in a way that is detrimental or manipulative that it becomes a problem. There are many people who would NEVER want the responsibility of a leadership role in any way shape or form, and those people want someone to lead them.
In other words, "Dominance" has been given a bad name, when in fact only some abuse their power.
You are right, I think this is why some view " Dominance as a threat.
So you don't consider somebody having power over you as a threat?
It depends on whether the person with power uses it wisely, don't you think?
OK for the sake of discussion and agree there is no immediate theat in being dominated by somebody wise.
What happens on the day they present you with something unwise. Would you still have the ability to recognise it as unwise?
Would you still have the power to make a wise decision?
We all know that women in violent relationships often collude with the perpetrator, blaming themselves for the violence, can't leave for the sake of the kids, he loves me really, he just wors so hard to provide for us all, if I were a better person he'd have no reason to beat me up and rape me. . . and how many say "but he was so kind and gentle before we married"
So I'd ask why any woman would willingly put her self in a position where she was dominated by anybody, however wise.
And I'm not taking about the women who dream of the knight in armour picking her up and carrying her off into the woods to ravish her either. There are plenty of non dominant men who can do that as well if not better as being more able to think beyond their own needs are more able to "read" the wants of the woman.
Nope, I'm at a loss to understand why any woman would want to be dominated when there are plenty strong and self confident men around.
All people need to find the strength to stand up to tyrants, wherever they are found, in the home or outside it. How is this different?
Yes but should that involve putting yourself in the hands of tyrants in the first place?
How they behave when they have power determines whether they are tyrants.
I'm getting rather bored with this debate, please find a source that gives a definition of dominate, dominance, dominator etc that describes as something gentle and friendly and not as having power and authority over others, controlling etc. I'd be interested to see it when you find it cos' I can't.
John, Dominance does not mean to use power to have control over a person. It's only a threat if someone is controlling me, and this is not happening in my marriage.
Dominance does mean using power to control. If you say power isn't being used to dominate you then you aren't being dominated.
Rather than try and change the meaning of the word why not find a more fitting word?
I've written a hub to explain the difference between dominance and bullying. The person with the power is dominant, even if he uses it to show deference. I even gave bonobos as an example. Check it out and see what you think.
John, My post stated: Dominance does not mean to use power over a person. Did you even read the entire first sentence? I don't need to change the meaning of the word. It fits pretty well as it is. You are right. I am not being dominated. A husband can be dominate, which is taking charge of things without controlling his wife. A man has power and a woman has power to do things. It is only abusive if one spouse starts to contol the other. I will not go around in a circle on the same subject with you.
Male Dominance in marriage is a joke. Marriage is an equal effort.
To have male dominance in any aspect defeats the purpose of equal effort. A woman must maintain her identity of self, otherwise, she is only productive to the male and not others or for self.
Male dominance in religion is only for control. Pure and simple.
Wow Pcunix, I love all of this attention for using the word dominance, I should have used it a long time ago…lol
Daniel Carter, you got what I was saying and that is dominance in a marriage is about love, respect, friendship and used that way. I am proud to be a woman, I want my husband to be the king of the home and I want to be his queen. I don’t however want my husband to be the queen because, that just doesn’t do it for me in the bedroom. I like my man to be all kings….lol
By the way if you actually took the time to really understand the article Pcunix you would see that when a wife allows her husband to be the man, she really trusts him enough to take care of her, she is allowing him to be the man in the marriage and respecting him for that. This is not about power or control, this is about celebrating a man and a woman’s difference and appreciating what qualities each can bring to a marriage. What is so wrong with a man acting like a man and a woman acting like a woman? I don’t want the responsibility of being the dominate mate in my relationship and physically I am weaker than my husband, mentally is another story…lol
I agree with some of that. A man who's passive in the bedroom is boring.
I don't get why all these people have such a problem with men being...men.
maybe that's what's wrong with this country, if the majority of men are wusses, and the women are all bull dogs
Damn. Three "Hub Crushes" I've developed, just in the one Forum. P-Unicx? I do believe I owe you flowers or something, for posting this delightful conversation starter.
Start another one titled "Older Bearded Men: Why Do You Find Them Irresistibly Attractive?" Then talk about how your wife makes you shave all the time.
I'll promise to be less dominant, at LEAST 7 hours out of the day!
If I took the time to understand the article??
I understand it. I don't agree with it. I don't agree with its premise of genetic origins (and according to Wikipedia, most psychologists don't either) and I do not like it. I think it helps perpetuate the concept of women as a form of property and causes much abuse and even murder. I think it is very, very wrong.
I do understand that you believe it and think that your ideas will help people, so I certainly don't condemn you. You mean well.
So, just out of curiosity, PC, are you saying that you don't believe there is ANYTHING, not even a grain of truth, in the idea that human females (on the whole, not outliers or one-offs with psychological variation based on trauma, disease or etc.) respond to powerful, dominant males (physical power or wealth/social power)?
If I understand you correctly you are actually saying that if a woman sees a powerfully built, charismatic man, an Adonis if you will, who also, say, happens to be a Wall Street banker and the president of MENSA, she will not be attracted to him... In fact you seem to be saying that women almost universally will NOT be attracted to him? Am I reading you right?
(I realize DawnM is taking this idea somewhat farther down the road than I am, but I'm trying to get your take on evolved social behaviors that are engendered by the hardwiring that was a precondition for those social behaviors and consequently/incidentally further shaping pair-bonding dynamics.)
Oh, I absolutely agree that some women respond that way. I would even agree that it could be a majority.
That doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean that they couldn't use some help to get over what cultural imprinting has done to them.
But, if you were a woman, and you had that guy I just described hitting on you at a bar, funny jokes and stuff, buying drinks etc., and then some dumpy, bald guy waddles over and tells an equally funny joke, and buys you a drink, though his American Express is green not gold like Mr. Adonis, would you even consider the fat guy? Honestly?
And if so, why? What possible benefit could come from it if in all other things they were equal except money, physical power, and aesthetics? (This is, I believe, where my argument is signifcantly different than American Tiger's.)
I don't see how this has any relation to dominance.
He would be physically dominant, intellectually dominant, finanically dominant and probably socially dominant. He could hardly help it unless he fell over backwards to pullback on everything at all times. He might not be capable or willing to even try. This perfect specimen would simply dominate everything by nature of who he was. He's not egotistical, he's just a force of nature. His answers would come faster and be steeped in wider learning. He could run faster, fight harder, climb steeper slopes. Make wealth, carve out greater advantage for his family, etc.
And I believe most women would be attracted to him, even knowing in advance how it would go. Only insecure women who couldn't handle it would choose a lesser mate to make a family with.
I am tall, strong, very bright and damn good looking. Quick, witty, great earner, all that.
That doesn't make me dominant. i have a PARTNER, not an accessory to my male magnificence.
I don't control my wife in any way and she doesn't control me. We work together for our mutual benefit. We do not have roles and nobody is dominant. As I said earlier, whoever notices that the dishes needs to be done, does it. Because she has some physical disabilities, she does do less than I do around the house, but that doesn't make her dominant. The work needs to get done, we both do what we can when we can. No roles.
Partners. Friends. Not "equal", but not unequal either.
My concern is that some people see this genetic junk (and it is junk) as an excuse for abuse. That's wrong and nothing makes it right.
Ok, I think we have come to the crux of it!
YOU are talking about "control" when you say "dominance." You can dominate without controling. The Adonis in my scenario is simply dominant by nature of his attributes. He is not "controlling" as in, "I demand you do this." He suggests, and she follows. Willingly.
At least in my hypothetical.
Again, I agree that some women may do that. My concern is that Dawns hub says they SHOULD. That's wrong and can lead to abuse and worse by men.
In that case you are using dominance wrongly as it means nothing more or less than control. Dominant people don't take to mutual decisions and agreement. As soon as they do they fail to be dominant.
I disagree with your singular definition of dominance. The word is far more nuanced than that.
The San Francisco Giants dominated the World Series this year. They completely overwhelmed the Rangers. And yet, they did not control Texas at all. They did not tell them whom to play, whom to put on the mound, when to swing, etc. They were dominant but not controlling.
We are in the context of marriage, not sports.
No, he accused me of using a term "wrongly." I am defending my usage of language in the conversation about marriage: in this instance, to prove that dominance can be something that is not control, despite it having an impact on the behavior of another.
I really don't think we should rely on the press, especially the sports press, for the true definition of words.
In terms of personal relationships domination continues to mean one exercising power over another without consent. Actually it means the same in government, war, and virtually every walk of life outside sport.
Well, do you really expect intelligent vocabulary from sports?
Respectfully, I must continue to disagree. It has NOTHING to do with the press at all. It has to do with the assertion that the term dominance is simple, singular of meaning or use, and 100% synonymous with control. Ironically, by attempting to force dominance into the exact same definition as control you are trying to dominate language in order to control the conversation. If you look at the similarity between what those two words are doing in that sentence, yet see how different they are, then you will catch my meaning, and we can get to the actual point I'm trying to make rather than being stuck on a word (albeit, clearly, a critical one).
If not, and to prove it has nothing to do with sports or marriage, but about precise communication and the exchange of ideas, here are other examples of how the two terms are neither identical nor singular of use/applications:
The sun is the dominant body in our solar system, but it does not control anything.
English is the dominant language in commerce, yet it does not control commerce.
The iPhone is the dominant product in the smart phone market. Yet it does not control Blackberry, Droids etc.
Mt. Shasta is the dominant landscape feature in Northern California.
My neighbor's St. Bernard is the dominant dog in his backyard, but the St. Bernard does not control the Australian Shephard.
Nope, I didn't. See above.
Regardless of how you define it, Dawn's assertion that dominance is necessary for a good marriage is false. Worse, it can give an excuse to cave men who interpret dominance to mean control.
THAT is fact.
I fail to see how two people can relate and not have some impact on the behaviour of the relationship. For instance, I live on my own but when my friend comes to visit I modify my behaviour for her, and she no doubt modifies hers. Neither one of us is dominating the other, or being dominant in anyway.
If you look at my examples from above, in particular the sun one, you will see how it is possible to dominate without controlling. Just because one is not cognizant of the dominant force in the room (or solar system) does not mean that that force does not exist.
And the only point I was trying to make in all this, is that, given a chance for a woman to marry the hypothetical Adonis from my earlier post, I believe a confident woman would be biologically programmed to gravitate towards the sun of that man.
Shadesbreath, your remark about "only secure women" is worth noting. A lot of women are, in fact, secure women. They aren't thinking about what a guy can may be offer them in terms of money, and they aren't interested in whether or not he's more or less intelligent than they are. It's not a matter of "who can handle it" (the guy who may not be what would be considered by the shallower among us as a "perfect specimen".
Implying that that Adonis-guy type is going to attract women more than the other guy is also implying that the majority of women are not "secure enough". I think the Adonis-guy may attract more shallow, dumber, women who are out looking for a protector or a trophy; but smarter, secure, well adjusted, women (first, wouldn't be interested in a guy at a bar anyway, because survival instinct includes wanting to meet someone through ways other than at bars) would be looking for less superficial traits in the guy (both in terms of what they would want for themselves and as far as what they'd want in a father for their children, as well).
Honestly, if I saw an Adonis-type I'd think, "Too much time concentrating on your muscles. Probably not much going on upstairs."
If I saw the high-powered business-type I may think, "How much of the rest of your life and your self did you give up to get there? How much of your soul did sell in order to get where you are? How secondary is family to you, as compared to someone who has a job that doesn't involve spending a lot of time away from them?"
If I know he has a high income I'll probably think, "So what?" or else "I'll have my own income, thanks. I don't want or need your money," or else, "I like money as much as the next person, but it means little to mean in terms of what is the measure of a person."
Dawn makes reference to "show biz" marriages where the woman earns more than the man and implies that this is a recipe for unhappiness.
I can't imagine the psyche of someone who would be bothered by that. Well, I can imagine, but I don't like what I see.
I know couples where the wife makes more. In fact, one of my daughters is in that situation. I think her husband has gained some ground recently, but the discrepancy is still large enough that plenty of families could get by on that alone. It's not an issue - except that her income will help them both meet their retirement dreams a little earlier!
I hear what you're saying, but you are responding to a hypothetical guy that is not the one I presented, so, while interesting to follow your thinking, unfortunately, it completely misses the scenario I was describing.
In short, my Adonis character is a strong physical specimen, yes, but I also said he is highly intelligent (president of MENSA), highly charismatic, friendly, out going, genuine, and not inclined to be rude or pretentious at all. In short, he is the "perfect male." And my point was that confident women would be attracted that perfect male, regardless of their knowing up front that was smarter than they were, more popular, more out going, more socially adroit, faster, stronger, etc.
But, as Aya said, they couldn't all have him for marriage, so most would have to settle for a lesser male. Which is fine, since we are all lesser males (except me, obviously), but the point being, dominance is actually an attraction factor for females that I believe is rooted in human biology.
It's a fairly common phenomenon that women reproduce with one mate, and then raise their children with another. It isn't a matter of insecurity over dominance issues. It's a matter of what functions. Especially in monogamous cultures, it's not possible for every woman to land the dominant male as her exclusive consort, but it is possible to use him as a sperm dispenser.
Yeah. Lions eat the cubs of other males I believe. lol. I think it depends on the species as to whether a lesser male wants to expend energy preserving the genetic material of someone else. The animal side of me says, "No way, I'm with the lion." But the human says, "Well, if I really loved HER, then I'd be fine with the kids." However, she better not ever say to me, "Hey, you're really not breeding material, and I like that other guy way better than you; however, I need help raising his kids and he's too good for me, so, congrats, you can help me feed his bastards. Oh, and no, not tonight. I have a headache. I expect I will have it for a long, long time. Try porn." That would be problematic.
I'd also add that I see a big difference between physical attraction and the rest.
That's "American Tigers" argument over at Dawn's Hub - because men find certain body shapes attractive, somehow that says men should dominate. That's an absolute non-sequitor.
Unix? Please disabuse me of the notion that all liberals take any conservatives' words completely out of context, and purposely misquote them, by retracting this statement.
That is quite possibly the most inept, inaccurate, imbecilic description of what I said, humanly possible. You've taken one small part of a much larger argument, and said it was the focal point of my post. A "somehow -based" illogical "non-sequiter."
I was discussing the validity of genetic predetermination in mate choice among primates, at the time.
In that I know you to be neither stupid nor illiterate, my only conclusion can be that you had every intention of painting me the neadratolithic buffoon, in the hopes that I wouldn't catch you at it. Is this the kind of intelligent discourse your "equal partners" marriage engenders?
Take it back.
Or, do you intend to re-assert that I'm little more than a ill spoken, ill written knuckle-dragger, beating my chest in puerile ineffectuality?
Well Pcunix, I like you too even though you didn't like my article...lol
I tell you what the next article I will write will be on female dominance and dedicate it to you, I think that there are a few men out there that maybe need a little of that in their marriage, what do you think....lol
so Greek One "Facts of life does it for you"
Pcunix you have gotten your rainbow hair in an uproar, over a simple term, domination.........
Infact you have dominated my hub on domination, so I quess that makes you a dominator over my hub, and I am just a helpless female........
Princess, I have to say that you are so right on about a man being pasive in the bedroom, that is a major turn off!!
LET ME BE CLEAR I am not taking about control, just roles of a man and a woman. The last time I looked men didnt have babies and woman dont have a penis. so to say we are the same is crazy.....
Let me be clear: I don't believe in gender roles.
I can vacuum. I can dust. I can wash dishes.
I can't give birth and my wife can't lift half the weight I can. I'm taller and stronger. She's a better cook. I'm better at math. She's more patient. We can do that all day, but none of it needs any dominance. My wife doesn't "dominate" the kitchen. We help each other in the kitchen and everywhere else.
Again, I believe you think you are being helpful to others, so I do not want to condemn you, but I think you are very, very wrong.
Of course we aren't the same.
Several people have tried to say that you don't mean "control". Forcing people into gender roles IS control.
My wife does most of the food preparation and I do the heavy work in the garden. Those aren't gender roles; they are based on capacity. If I became disabled, she'd need to assume what tasks she physically could. If she became unable to stand in the kitchen, I'd have to take over the cooking.
If I became unable to "provide", she'd do what she could. We are PARTNERS, not people assigned to specific roles.
Dawn I am concerned about your choice of using the word domination that you claim to be 'a simple term'. The dictionary definition for domination is control. So the minute you use that word you are talking about control.
What you want is fine, but it should not be mistaken for a universal truth that all people do (or "should") want the same.
but let's face it, dominance is about power and control. perhaps there's a better word to describe what you refer to which I would call respect.
Dawn, I did read the article, and I didn't really get what Daniel said in your article. I get the love and respect, but I don't think male dominance determines if a woman is sexually attracted to her husband.
both male and female have feminine and masculine characteristics. I think respect comes from loving the person for who they are, not so much a role they're performing. There are plenty of women who handle the finances, pretty much run everything except the man's work.
That isn't wrong or right, but it is right if it works for the couple. The same as it's right if the man prefers to stay home and raise the children.
perceptions are not truth, they are simply perceptions. I don't think we can say, this is what marriage should look like. it should be what works for the couple, with love and respect.
some couples are happy in those stereotypical roles but that doesn't mean anything different is wrong.
To quote from the Hub..."A man when married to a woman still needs to feel his male dominance..."
I feel my male dominance all the time... usually when the wife is sleeping and I'm watching old reruns of Facts of Life. mmmmmm Blair and sometimes Jo Polniaczek
I disagree with you when you say 'knowing in advance how it would be'. women are smarter than the days when finding a 'perfect' specimen was expected.
I think there is confusion in the concept of roles. we are not our 'role.' we take on different roles throughout our lives, but that is not who we are as a person.. wife, mother, teacher, grandmother, widow, husband, father, firefighter, grandfather, etc.. I have had to take on the role of father when my husband died. I did not become a father, but I had duties to perform that a good father would have performed.
I want to be treated as a person, not for the role I may perform.
I wish there were a clapping icon, because you deserve applause.
Yes, we take on roles. That does not mean they are predetermined by anything other than circumstance.
My hypothetical scenario was not about gender roles. It was about dominance of "having the right idea" all the time. As in a scenario wherein, for the purpose of establishing an idea here, he would always have the quicker solution, faster. So, in effect, whatever he "said" she would "do." He would, to an outsider, always appear to be "giving the orders" because his ideas were always "correct" or "the most reasonable" etc.
Gender roles have nothing to do with this scenario. The only gender role implicated by it would be who would be carrying the child if they decided to have a family, as he would not have that option.
All that said, I think a strong woman would be biologically predisposed to finding him attractive and programming in her genetic makeup would fire off breeding responses steeped in evolved survival and gene-spreading behaviors.
Yes, I don't think women should be compelled to do anything at all (and my Adonis hypothetical would never be abusive... just right all the time lol, a la "dominant"). I'm just working out the biological imperatives as you see them or deny them as existing at all.
I don't find Dawn's words at all disturbing. I find them enlightening.
There's a difference between the sexes. Maybe it wasn't always that way, but it is now. Genetical, sociological? Who knows. There's definitely a male dominance thing going on.
I've engaged with those differences all my life in personal, professional, and political ways, mostly winding up with my head banging against walls.
We as a culture are nowhere near equality among the sexes when it comes to business or the personal. It's a man's world.
I envy women who know that and use it to their advantage; I also envy your and your wife's relationship. As I said a long time ago, when I first started reading your Hubs, I wish there were more like you.
I like Dawn.
My concern is her implication that it should be that way.
It's not an implication, it's a statement of fact. That's the way it is. You just happen to transcend that fact in your own way while perhaps thinking that other men think the way you do. They don't.
You surely are not saying that it is fact that men SHOULD be dominant???
Not at all. But the fact is that boys are raised that way, society nurtures that raising, and that's the way it is.
As far as I'm concerned, it's mothers who instill this dominance into their sons by their ... well that would be an article in itself.
There's realty and then there's wishing.
Not all boys are raised that way. I wasn't and if my male friends were, they managed to escape their conditioning.
I need to say this again for those just joining us.
I understand that male dominance exists. I understand that some women expect it and some may even be attracted to it.
I object to Dawn's strong implication that you SHOULD have male dominance for a good marriage. Not only is that untrue, but I think it can be used as an excuse for abuse by men who believe it.
[QUOTE]The sun is the dominant body in our solar system, but it does not control anything.[/QUOTE]
you are joking, it controls everything, take it away and how long will we last?
[QUOTE]English is the dominant language in commerce, yet it does not control commerce.[/QUOTE]
Again, you jest, try doing business in any other language, you won't get far.
[QUOTE] The iPhone is the dominant product in the smart phone market. Yet it does not control Blackberry, Droids etc.[/QUOTE]
No, but it sells more and controls how others behave
[QUOTE]Mt. Shasta is the dominant landscape feature in Northern California.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps your point would be clearer if you explained your point, I have no reason to believe it isn't.
[QUOTE]My neighbor's St. Bernard is the dominant dog in his backyard, but the St. Bernard does not control the Australian Shephard. [/QUOTE]
Then it clearly isn't the dominant dog.
It controls nothing. Control is an ACTIVE thing; it’s something you DO. The sun is not DOING anything on purpose. It just IS. It is the dominant body in the solar system, but it does not control anything. The sun was created at the same time the rest of the solar system was. It has a critical EFFECT on the solar system, but it doesn’t control anything. It has the trait of dominance, but not the agency of control.
Yes, but you notice you said “you won’t get anything done.” As in, me, the business man. I won’t get anything done if I don’t use English. I am the one controlling the fate of my business, not English. English is the dominant language (passive), I am the one doing the controlling of my conversations (active). Neither the iPhone nor Apple control Blackberry. They INFLUENCE the directors of Blackberry with their market dominance, certainly, but nobody at Apple is calling up Blackberry and ordering them to do anything. Nobody at Apple is "controlling" those other guys.
I’ll give a little ground on this one. Dog’s, like people, are social creatures, and there may be some dog-commands that can be given in dog-speak/body language, etc. that force the little dog to do something. But mostly the big dog just kicks the little dog’s ass, so, if the little dog doesn’t go for the hot dog that gets tossed out the back door, it’s not because the big dog is controlling it but because it doesn’t want to get its ass kicked. It doesn’t want to be dominated, but that is not the same as being controlled.
I just mentioned this to my youngest daughter (she was on her way to vote). Her response to the idea that male dominance is needed in a marriage was just three letters. I quote.
Male dominance is not needed in a marriage. It often simply seems to exist there.
I don't think Dawn ever said that this kind of dominance was necessary; rather, as I read her words, it's there and there's a way of dealing with it, living with it, where you, as a woman, allow that dominance to be there for your love of the man. That's quite a gift for him...one I've never wrapped up and put a bow on.
My response too (although only because your daughter thought of it first ).
OK - here comes a post I've apparently been bottling up for a long time:
I'm about as strong a woman as there is, and that hypothetical individual you described is pretty unappealing to me.
I've been reading this thread and thinking I wasn't even going to comment (because everything I see here, except what PC has said) is just amazing and infuriating to me.
I'm a woman, and that man you described, shadesbreath, is someone I wouldn't have a shred of interest in. I'm not particularly impressed by "powerful builds". In fact, I find them unappealing. I'm REALLY not impressed by the money/banking career thing. As far as intelligence goes, I'm no shrinking violet myself (and the only reason I mention that is to point out that there is such a thing as women who have good intelligence); so I'm not impressed by that either.
Just about all the women I know expect to be respected as an equal and have no interest in dominating anybody else or in having someone else think he has a right to try to dominate. Mature, well adjusted, individuals want to have that equal and healthy partnership.
I really think that a strong woman (at least I know this is me and the women I know who are similar) is, herself, looking to be able to provide for her own children. The maternal instinct is so fierce that she isn't looking for some brutish looking individual to take care of her children, because she wants to be strong enough and smart enough to care for them herself and knows her fierce maternal instinct will help her rise to any occasion. She also doesn't want her children to be that hypothetical person you describe (genes-wise), because she's smart enough to understand the intellectual and emotional needs of children and is likely to be looking for a "genetic mate" who is likely to offer her children an example of the kind of person she hopes they will be (which is intelligent, kind, emotionally strong).
It always bugs me when people talk or write about "what women think" or "how women or men think" or "what one sex or the other wants", because there is complete and utter disregard for differences that exist among individuals, regardless of what sex they are. I read that foolish "Mars/Venus" book years ago, and - honestly - just about all the ways of thinking and communicating described in that book for how men think would have me fall under the category of men.
I'm no not some weird, anomalous, woman. I'm pretty much like a whole lot of the women I know and (strange point as this will be) pretty much identify with every Disney Princess that has ever come down the pike. (My point is that I'm not a man-ish woman or trans-gendered or anything other than "the run-of-the-mill, "standard", kind of woman like so many other women are.) The men in my life (or boys in my life) haven't particularly been people who fall under those Mars/Venus categories of "how women think" and "how men think" either.
Statements like, "All women really want a guy that dominates" are out and out baloney; because I'm a woman, my sister is a woman, my friends are women, my mother was a woman, my daughter is a young woman, etc. etc. - and I"m here to tell you that (at least the women I know) want to be respected as an equal partner (and I don't mean "respected as a nice or smart but still less" person; I mean viewed and respected as an equal).
I have two sons and a daughter. When they were little I raised them as "human beings first" and let their sex take care of itself once they got old enough for it to start playing a bigger role in their identities and lives. They were all very similar in behavior and thinking. They grew up the way I hoped they would - human beings first, their sex second. I tried to help all three like whatever sex they happened to be, and know that both sexes are valued and equal.
PC, farther down on this thread I see your post about a stupid man interpreting the Hub as a license to be physically abusive. I don't even think that's the main problem. The main problem is the suggestion that intelligent, strong, women compromise their own strengths/abilities (there is also the possibility it will be the woman who has the best reasoning and decision-making ability) and instead settle for just handing over all decisions to someone who may be far less knowledgeable or skilled about some decisions.
The person who is better at one thing or another is, I think, the one who should have a little more weight given to his/her ideas on any matter. What a gross disservice to children, for example, to just sit back and let the father make all the decisions for them if it is their mother who has the more advanced understanding of their emotional, intellectual, academic, and/or physical needs. Or, sometimes it is the wife who is far more skilled with understanding and/or managing money than the husband. Again, why let the family suffer because someone is "married" to the idea that the guy ought to make the decisions?
We may have made a bunch of progress with laws and corporate policies about women's rights and women's role in the work place; but I can tell you, as a woman, living a day-to-day life in a world where so many women and men would love to make sure I don't have the power over my own life, or else who expect me to essentially shut up and hand over power to someone else who deems himself superior to me; trust me - it's obnoxious, and I often feel like Cinderella when the step-mother locked her in the room so she couldn't get to the ball.
We still live in a world that understands so little about what strong, capable, well adjusted, mature, women (or men) want in relationships. We still live in a world that tends to see women as something less than men or people who are adults who have no interest in being less in any way. We still live in a world that forgets all the unmarried women who raise strong, capable, smart, loving, sons and grandsons; who would be willing to go to war to protect their own children, and who are the strength and guidance for whole families.
Divorces happen when men haven't been raised to realize that maybe, just maybe, their wife DOES know better about some things than they do; and when they resent a wife who isn't willing to just let the least capable of the two make the decisions. They also happen when wives find themselves being resented for not being willing to just "go with the program", and so decide that the only way to live their life as an adult is to live it without a husband (or anyone else who doesn't seem to get it when it comes to the fact that women aren't little girls, morons, sissies, fluffy-heads, or in particular need for a husband who doesn't understand that they are equal partners and adults).
As a woman, and as one who seems to attract more than my share of people (men and women) who think I need their protecting and their help and their advice and their general "knowing more" and "being more" and "being older, bigger, better, smarter, wiser, etc. etc." than I apparently am in their eyes; I can tell you that there's nothing more obnoxious than being suffocated by someone's thinking you need their advice and protection and whatever else it is men are said to offer women. I'm just fine with a broken down car, thanks. Good Lord. After a lifetime of being a woman who apparently looks dumber or younger or shorter or gentler (or whatever the problem is with looking and sounding like a woman), I am truly, truly, both suffocating to death and about to lose my mind with people who try to "protect" me, offer advice, "educate" me, "inform" me about things I've known since I was three, etc. etc.
I'm sick to death of a world that doesn't even see the strength and power I have, as an individual. For once and for-freaking-all, I'd love, before I die, to get the idea that the world has finally gotten a clue about what it is like to be a woman, what women want in and from men, and the fact that the last thing I'd tolerate or consider a healthy marriage would be anything less than an equal partnership.
The Hub essentially says that either the man should dominate or else it can work with an equal partnership, but the woman never should. Well, I don't think anyone ever should dominate. I once read that the only kind of love that is genuine and healthy includes respect and admiration for the other person. Dominance always boils down to less respect for one person than the other. If some woman is delighted to have someone change her tire, fine; but I've known more than my share of women with "protector" husbands who were in extremely, extremely, unhealthy marriages and situations. There is often a price to be paid for sitting back and letting someone be the one to change the tires, and it's a price smart, strong, women aren't usually willing to pay.
Besides, if people want to look to the animal kingdom for evolutionary hard-wiring, a whole lot of female animals are out getting the food for their babies, raising them, and being prepared to claw off the faces of anyone trying to harm them, long after the father has gone off and found himself another mate.
"I'm sick to death of a world that doesn't even see the strength and power I have, as an individual."
People see what you show them. Women like Sarah Palin and Oprah Winfrey do not require the world to define them by their gender, and they have obvious strength and power. Their "Equalness" is patently self-evident.
Lisa, for all that I'm sure you're a nice lady, I feel it an obligation to a fellow human being to point out that this lonnnng rant of yours comes off as quite whiny.
Respect is COmmanded, not DEmanded. You just burnt up almost five pages of screen, TELLING us that we should find you powerful and such. I'll let you in on a trade secret I often charge young men to learn...
Rich people never have to TELL other people that they're rich, and confident people never have to TELL other people that they're confident.
American Tiger, it was bound to come across as either "whiny" or "b***hy"). That's what happens often happens when women speak up and try to "demand" and "command" respect from a world that often (not always, of course) isn't going to respect anything said or done by a woman; and that, instead, will see all attempts to voice how things really are for women as either whining or "the b thing".
Apparently, the post above gave off some vibes that I may at least lean toward being "a nice person", which is what got it that "whining" critique, rather than the other one.
I very much agree with you that people like the two women you mentioned base a whole lot (maybe everything) on the fact that they're women. I'm not one of them. I don't have that power they've managed to get because they were either willing not to have a family or else willing to hope that whoever spent most of the day with their family would do a good enough job.
Whether it's men or women, when someone reaches certain levels of power something else in life has often been sacrificed; and it's no different for either of those two women. Yes, they are examples of women who managed to "get there". They (or any man who has compromised what a lot of people believe is one of the most important things in life, which is children and family) don't represent those people who aren't willing to "do what it takes, no matter what it costs my family" to "get there" (at least when "there" is a high-powered place such as the place both of those women inhabit).
I have no problems being respected as a nice and "fine, upstanding" human being; and I often don't even had problems being respected as an intelligent and capable human being. What I had problems with is that even people who see what a "wonderful" person I am (in any of those ways) have a tendency to think, "But I still know more than this 'wonderful' and 'kind' 'little person' knows." People are either taller or older or a man or a teenager (when I'm now middle-aged). It is in people's nature to respect the loud, booming, voice and (apparently) larger stature as "the one who knows better" about any one thing or another. That's not everyone, but it remains a lot of people.
The fact is there's only one thing I could do to "command" and "demand" respect as a "completely equal" person would be tell people off. Well, I'm great at politely telling people off in a civil way and in the work setting. Where the problem for so many women is in the personal-relationship setting. That's where the price of telling someone off "well enough" to "sober them up" is going to involve seriously hurting them and hurting the relationship.
It takes verbally hitting below the belt, and anyone who cares about personal relationships knows that hitting below the belt verbally amounts to emotional abuse. If some nice old lady means well and thinks she's my mother, I'd have to really let her have it to stop her underestimating me. If I manage to "beat her" verbally, I would be being hurtful to, say, an 85-year-old person who thinks she's being maternal and kind.
People can say, "Women worry too much about keeping the peace, and about whether relationships that shouldn't be destroyed will be damaged; but the fact is when women are dealing with people in personal relationships not hurting someone else IS something to worry about - unless, of course, the woman just wants to "let everyone (who loves her and cares about her) "have it", and head off to be around strangers where she can take the kind of power it often takes to make anyone sit up and take notice. The workplace, however, is often not the biggest problem (if at all) in the first place. It's the "general world".
And, you know what happens when SOME women try to "command" and "demand" that some (a lot of) men see them as every bit as equal in capability and intelligence and emotional strength (and sometimes more so) than that man or some other man? They get seen as "whiny" or "b**hy" or "cute" or "funny" or "having PMS" or anything else that lets the guy believe this is someone is still has no right or grounds to expect to be see as absolutely equal as a human being.
I'll let you in on a little trade secret: I am far more powerful in my own life than my presence here on HubPages would seem to indicate. The fact that I took up all those screen pages to assert that people need to figure out that women can either be equal to, or superior to, men in any number of ways is not a matter of my "trying to" convince anyone else why they ought to see me as equal. This is a classic misinterpretation of the motives of women that so often takes place when women speak up on behalf of women.
The fact that I risked making myself look like a pompous, verbally over-bearing, forum-poster who cares whether anyone on here has respect for me as a woman or not; has been misconstrued; because the reason I did all that posting was to speak up on behalf of a whole lot of women who don't have the time, inclination, or speedy writing/ typing skills to do just that.
I don't have to tell other people I'm confident, but you know what happens when some people know that I am? They automatically assume I have no right to the confidence I do have. They think I ought to "get with their program", which is that I listen to them and live my life according to them; because if I don't, I'm expecting more in this life than anyone "like me" or any woman (depending on how "bad" that other person is as far as ignorance goes) has a right to expect.
I don't let anyone who tries to tell me what to do or how to do things, but - you know what? - it gets really, really, tiring to have to be fending off people who even think they have a right to try after the first few decades of living life as an adult. Many women who aren't Oprah or the other one are the ones who will determine whether or not their whole family (including people beyond just their own kids) stays whole and functional. They're also the ones who often make the difference between whether kids grow up to feel as if their mother was or wasn't supportive, was or wasn't kind, and was or wasn't someone who betrays the trust kids place in mothers as far as mothers not hurting them go.
When dealing with a husband who doesn't see them as equal (and who isn't going to unless someone he respects tells him he ought to respect her more than does), women's choice is to live with it and stay married to someone who doesn't respect them or else leave him. Many don't want to leave a husband just because she's the only one he doesn't respect, because he may actually be otherwise a decent, kind, father and person.
This is yet one more issue that involves a person needing to live with it over a long time for him to be able to actually see how things go on. Not all women have as a big a problem with it as others do.
Trust me. I know all the "tricks of the trade", and I've used them whenever I can. I know, too, that sometimes women need someone else to "let someone have it" on their behalf, because, if they try to use those tricks of the trade in their personal (not work) relationships and everyday dealings with people those tricks don't particularly work.
The voices people need to hear, and the words people need to read, aren't the voices and words of people like Sarah Palin and Oprah Winfrey when it comes to what "everyday" women deal with on a sometimes everyday basis. The women who need their issues raised are the ones who don't have some high-powered woman presuming to "represent them" or speak for them.
The women who need other women to speak up and "represent" them are those who have found that they can either use those tricks of the trade that work in the workplace, not use them and remain less powerful than they otherwise would have been, or try using them and see that when dealing with some people those people will work even harder to make sure women are "kept in their place" one way or another.
If the woman is dealing with someone mean he'll resort to bullying. If it's someone arrogant, they'll deal with put-downs and more subtle anger. If they're dealing with someone who means well but just doesn't know they exist, they'll resort to more manipulative techniques. Either way, situation by situation and person by person, it can all have a cumulative effect and result in a woman's not being able to fight it all off and have the life she could/would have in a world that understand how this all works better than it now does.
Nobody has to read all the screen pages I've filled up, but I think screen pages from the Internet are often filled with a whole lot of stuff that is far less worthy or important than this subject.
Lisa, I love you. I get the "awww isn't she cute" thing ALLL the time. When that makes me mad, eventually, it "must be her period." Thank you for speaking up.
DorrMattnomore, thanks. I love too. (Mutual love fest). Women just need to keep speaking up, even what works best is when the conversation is kind of general.
There are people who say things to some women, especially wives or other people in personal relationships, that they'd NEVER say to, say, a man they work with. That may be the guideline people ought to be using: Ask themselves, "In the same situation only with a male co-worker, would I have just said that same thing?" I'm not talking about intimate or private conversation. I mean day-to-day interaction and conversation - driving, being out and around somewhere, working on a project, anything that someone might do with any companion.
Example: You're in the store and someone decides he'll pull your shopping cart in the direction he thinks it ought to be; or you're crossing the street and someone thinks you don't know enough to look both ways on your own, so they'll act as if you're going to be hit by a car you can't possibly know is coming - regularly (not just the rare time when that kind of thing might happen). Just a general telling you what to do kind of thing, as if you're three. There are zillions of incidents and things people do. If they asked, "Would I just have done that same thing with a guy I work with?" chances are they'll know there's NO way in "heck" they would be that overbearing/insulting to a male co-worker, friend, or neighbor. Men and women can equally guilty of treating a woman this way.
I always enjoy your posts and I generally find thoughts I can agree with.
Yes, absent a partner or spouse, which is where I am now, we women are still going to have to deal with clueless people in our society. I agree, I'm not going to put up with teenagers who think they know more than I do.
A few weeks ago, I finally got irritated enough with my niece, who is a college student, that I expressed some irritation. That girl is probably headed to law school -- enough said right there. The only reason I did not make a big deal of it, and explain my reasoning in drawn-out detail, is because I know that she is suffering from depression, and the docs don't have her meds right yet.
And, yes, there are some real pieces of work among elderly women, too. I won't provide details.
Lisa, you spoke about someone's physical size, and I think that can be a factor, too. Are you petite? I'm kind of small at 5'4". Hillary Clinton can't be much taller than that, and she has said that her husband has it easy, because at 6'4", he can tower over the speaker's podium and look authoritative with no effort.
Now, as to a relationship in a marriage, I have to agree in principle with the DawnM hub, and with American Tiger, about male leadership, dominance, or whatever you want to call it. This is the way God made men, even if they don't believe in a personal deity. It's the truth. The truth is often times quite boring. I don't have to like it, but "it is what it is."
The problem is, who were their role models? And why is it so hard for women to build up their men in the most effective ways?
I had a failed marriage. Had I ever met my mother-in-law, who died before I ever knew my husband, I would have been able to see where hubby got some of his traits. His mother was controlling and had to have her way all of the time in her marriage, and that's inside information from family members.
Especially, if men learn how to disagree and harangue from watching such a mother, their wives are going to find themselves confronting what one of my male friends calls "male bitchiness". That is, the husband attacks you using feminine techniques. If they get angry enough, they'll berate everything from your hairstyle to the way your parents raised you.
I'm naturally disinclined to talking a lot, and I resembled a harangued and henpecked husband, even though I was the wife. I'm afraid, in an argument, my inclination is to stonewall, shut up, close down, and go anywhere to get away -- just like many a man. (Stonewalling isn't a very desirable trait, by the way) Some of my husband's remarks bordered on abusive, and that's one reason why I'm not married anymore. Not to pat myself on the back, but I exhibited as much self-control as was humanly possible during episodes like this.
So, yes, there was some role reversal in my marriage. My husband had a number of jobs during our marriage - jobs that he either quit or was fired from. I did some of the very things I vowed never to do in marriage. It wasn't all bad. My ex-husband is the last man who'd ever engage in locker-room talk with other guys. He surely had a sensitive side. When we were engaged, he purchased for me a family of teddy bears, and he found clothes for all of them LOL. He was very good at art, and fabulous at interior design, and I let him have a free hand decorating the house I'd lived in as an unmarried woman for so long. But I'm sorry to say, he's gone on to personal ignominity in another failed marriage. Let it be.
As American Tiger said, young men do not have many role models on TV or in the media generally, and, of course, we can't discount what they picked up from their nuclear family. This I learned in the most painful way. I offer no solutions.
gracenotes, thanks. Yes, you're right. I'm 5' 2", but one chart shows average height for women in the US at 5 3", with average women in North America at 5' 4". With the exception of (I think) Sweden and the Netherlands, average height for women is either 5' 4" or under (with 5' 2" and even 5 1" average). With heels I'm not all that "uneven" with people who may be as tall as 5 5" or 6", so it isn't like a Mutt and Jeff situation with most other women for someone my height. Average height in India is 5' 1" or 5' 2". 5' 0" in China and 5' 1" average for Japan.
Here's a chart in case anyone happens to be interested:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/average- … woman.html
This means that an awful lot of women across the globe would be considered "petite" either because they're an inch or two under "average" or else because they would be considered "average" for their nationality/country.
If people are equating not being over 5' 3" or 5' 4" with being "inferior" or being like a child, how dumb is that!! If being short/petite is the main reason for how women are so often seen as "inferior" or as children, imagine the scope of that problem. (Besides, a whole other group of people who are often either treated without a shred of respect or else under-estimated are children - but that's a matter for another day. )
Shade, you mean all these years I've believed that the Sun controls the growth of eg plants, the ripening of the fruit the decay of the waste and all that, I've been wrong!
I really think you struggle to defend your definition of dominate, next you'll ask me to believe that dominant genes control nothing.
The important thing is that a stupid male can interpret Dawn's hub as justification for violence.
That is what bothers me.
More frightening is the inability of many males to recognise domination as any sort of abuse at all even before it turns to physical violence.
I suppose so. Intimidation even without violence is wrong.
But Dawn is not suggesting that. She is wrong, but she is not directly advocating bad behavior. Unfortunately, the dumbos can draw their own conclusions and they will.
The kind of guys that may read her hub and draw that conclusion are not (trust me) thinking of becoming abusive. Her hub won't even validate their behavior - that's already a done deal.
I wouldn't worry about it over much. Your personal perspective is not everyone else's.
As for the dominance aspect - that's probably present in every relationship to some degree. Who's got it though? Depends on the characters involved, not necessarily the gender.
So violence against women will stop, if only we never mention dominance in writing? More to the point I think: Violence against women might increase if we even mention masculine dominance, in writing. Best we strike the word from our collective vocabularies, because everyone knows men never behaved badly, until the day that word was coined.
I bet you think the Rodney King verdict caused the riots in Los Angeles. Bad news on that issue, Unix: RIOTERS caused the riots in Los Angeles. The "Rodney King Verdict" started no fires, flipped no police cars, stole no expensive electronic equipment, nor was it ever arrested & jailed for the violence.
NO ONE reading Dawn's Hub can use it as justification for violence against women. Stupid, smart, or otherwise. The mere fact that you said that out loud causes me to question both your reasoning, and your personal courage, Unix. Your world-view doesn't seem based in Reality. It's as if you're totally self-involved, yet patently NOT self-aware. And that explains much.
I think you are just not seeing or acknowledging my point (or perhaps I am too inarticulate to make it clear) that one (control) is an active thing that something consciously DOES and the other (dominance) is (or at least CAN be) a trait, an ambient state of being that has a passive relationship to those around it.
If you don't see this, then I give up and will just allow that you and I aren't going to see this one on the same plane and tilt a beer at you respectfully and move along.
Unfortunately, Dawn is now quite angry and thinks that I have "attacked" her. She doesn't want disagreement in her comments, which is unfortunate on many levels.
(For one thing, some of my highest traffic and biggest earnings pages are those where a lot of disagreement has taken place in the comments.)
I applaud Lisa HW's comment - that is how the world should be, not the anachronistic cave man mentality of the oh-so-very-special male.
Ancient attitudes die hard. The majority of people (especially the majority of men) may very well agree with Dawn, but like so many other things, what is commonly believed isn't necessarily what SHOULD be believed.
I do want to reiterate that I do believe that Dawn means well. She's a victim of her own subservience and if that were the end of it, it would be regrettable but nothing more. Unfortunately, she is advising others that they should follow her lead and THAT, I think is very unfortunate.
I was a little uncomfortable even posting, in view of the fact that a specific Hub is involved; but, as you say, the Hubs that get the attention and comments are also the ones that do best. Besides, I would hope that differing opinions just contribute to a good discussion (whether that discussion is here or on the Hub). The forums are so often pretty short on solid discussions. This one was hard to resist.
I think you're right that the majority of people may agree with ideas presented in the Hub. Also, though, as a Hubber, myself, I'd hope that any writer of any Hub not take differing thoughts/opinions as directed at the writer and, instead take them as directing at specific points.
If someone didn't respect that a writer offers "good discussion" there's less chance he'd find the writer's discussion worth even pondering and debating.
Goodness knows that as a woman, I've lived with enough lack of respect for my opinions, thoughts, and decisions that I know how people don't even bother arguing when they don't think you're worth listening to.
I think I may expand on this subject in a Hub, but I'll make it a point not to call attention to anyone else's Hub that has a differing take on some points. The world is full of different opinions that are as individual as people are. One-size-fits-all doesn't usually work when it comes to opinions, and that, I think, may be the more important point.
I hope you do expand on it.
I felt I had to reference her hub because I certainly couldn't reference my own but I did want to get people's opinions. Besides, sending her traffic should be good for her : most of the visitors probably agree with her and think I am a fool (hardly an unusual opinion anyway).
As to my comments at her hubs, she can delete them if she really feels attacked, I think that would be extreme, but they are her hubs, and again, I do think she has nothing but good intentions so I do not dislike her in any way.
Based on the offline work Dawn mentions in her profile, I'm guessing she's a grown-up and has a healthy respect for honest communication/debate/conversation in general; and also knows that opposing viewpoints are just part of communication/discussion.
My main area of disagreement with the general assertion about the Hub in question is not with how Nature has designed how things generally go on in a bedroom, but with the idea that how things work in the bedroom naturally extend out to the separate sexes beyond the bedroom. Things like who greats whom with a nice dinner (or who surprises whom by bringing home nice take-out), or who makes soup for whom when s/he is sick aren't, to me, associated with either sexuality or pre-ordained roles in marriage.'
To me, bedroom-related stuff is one area of a marriage. Everything else goes into a different category. Even then, though, from what I've heard (any of us who aren't sexologists usually only know how we are and think when it comes to bedroom stuff), there can be quite a bit of variation in what any one individual or couple prefers in the bedroom.
To me, (and maybe I just don't "know anything"), those two areas need to be addressed separately, and if one or both partners believes they are linked then maybe addressing the individual's belief that they are connected is what the couple needs to do.
I know our sexuality is not separate from what/who we are outside the bedroom and the house, but I think how it plays a role outside is more related to things like whether or not we prefer a pink coffee mug to a navy blue one (and even then it often doesn't play a role). It plays a role in whether we move more like a ballerina than a football player (usually). It may even play a role in whether we like chic-flicks better than violent movies.
I don't think if Fred stays home and minds the kids all day while Mary goes out to her high-powered job that should, in either of their minds, be seen as reflection of their sex (or not a reflection of it). Fred may be a better "mother" to the children than Mary is. He may be less skilled as a "stay-at-home". If he's a better "mother" then they're both doing what's best for their children. If he's not at great with children as Mary would be, maybe they both need to address that issue and re-think what they're doing.
Either way, 7:00 p.m. comes and the work-day and family dinner time is over. I think what Fred and Mary need to know is how to shift (both as a couple, but also "mentally" as individuals) and transition from what goes on during the work day to what goes on in the bedroom (eventually ) - not find a way to extend bedroom roles into the rest of life.
If Fred has issues with being a stay-at-home "mom" those issues are (or should be) the very same issues intelligent, ambitious, strong, women must deal with when they're home with their children. Fred also gets (or should be getting) the benefits of being the one who home with the children, the same way Mary would. If Fred's issues with being home are solely related to his manhood then Fred is the one who has an issue to be addressed. Secure men and fathers with the right bond with their children wouldn't have this manhood issue, and would (or should) be able to separate what needs to be separated between "the rest of life" and the bedroom (or else would know that some things don't need to be separated because nurturing one's own children is, in fact, what men should do too).
I think I'll expand on this in that Hub I'm planning to, but I don't want to add yet more length to a post here. I do, however, have a reasoned argument that backs up my assertions above.
Lisa, just had to throw in discussion of side as a side note, I am only 5 2" myself.
anyway, first off I am a marriage counselor with extra schooling in sexology which is just more schooling on how sex affects marriage, sexual dysfunction due to illness, and also how to improve sex and the psychology of sexuality. The number one complaint that I see over and over again is men and women not having sex in marriage. The majority of those couples have had a child or children. Sex very much takes on a life of its own in marriage when it is lacking, otherwise it really is not an issue and for the most part those couples do better when the sex is frequent and enjoyed by both husband and wife. The main problem that happens for men is when a woman does not want to have sex or keeps putting her husband off, he becomes passive aggressive, most but not all do and that can play out in many ways. On the flip side if a man is no longer dating his wife outside of the bed room and remembering to still flirt and treat her like a woman outside of the bedroom then yes problems will arise there as well.
With economy the way it has been, yes many husbands and wives are both working to survive, if a man can make it possible for his wife to stay home and take care of the kids than I think that the wife should make dinner or have it ready and take care of the house and kids (which by the way is harder than going out and working), if he not able to work for a short time than she will got out and support the family....The bottom line statically is when a woman becomes the breadwinner and the man does not the sex life of the couple becomes compromised at some point not necessarily by the man but by the woman, because she feels like she does not need him anymore, the masculinity of the dominating male traits that were an underling sexual turn on will go away. This is statically speaking does not happen with everyone but is more common than you think.
So we can disagree on all of this stuff here on hub till we turn blue in the face and still the statically data research and even the average married person will agree on a marriage where the man is bringing home more the woman and the man feeling like a man in the marriage promotes better sex in the bedroom.
The one other thing to add is the assumption that I like to be dominated and I think that is sexy is a joke, who wants to be dominated, I am talking about a man getting his shi-t together and being the man of the house for his wife and kids and the woman appreciating that.
It is interesting to me how you always start off sounding reasonable and yet always revert to overt sexism very quickly.
At the poll I have at my hub, 83% disagree with your theory of necessary male dominance. Yes, of course it is a small, self selected sample, but even that ought to tell you that your view is not the view of all.
very true and wise words.
because people fail to understand that is one of the reasons there are so many divorces and failed relationships. no one should conform to another's expectations, I think the better word is adapt through understanding and negotiations.
Would now be a bad time to point out all the marriages that failed because the man absolutely abandoned masculine dominance in his life, and the wife became disgusted with his blatant wimpiness?
Women don't cheat on strong men, with weak and wimpy ones.
You must move in very different circles to me LOL - the causes of marriage breakdown I've observed include:
1. Financial problems
3. Lack of interest on the part of one spouse
4. Cheating - either in response to 3., or just because the opportunity's there (reminds me of that joke: "why do dogs lick their b******s? Because they can.") More men seem to do this than women but it's not totally a man thing.
5. Domestic violence/overpossessiveness
6. Boredom/lack of things in common/incompatible values.
Of the reasons I've given, only 3. or 6. (and very possibly by extension 4.) might (and I mean *might*) tie in with what you've said. That leaves an awful lot of marriage breakups that are probably nothing to do with the reason you've given.
Would now be a good time to point out all the marriages that failed because the women got fed up with being dominated by men who think themselves the big I am and expect their wives to act as their personal slaves.
If you really believe that women with strong masculine, mind you don't trip over my libido men, don't cheat you must have led a very sheltered life. Or else have such a large ego that you just couldn't believe that any woman would ever want to cheat on you.
Felicity, you've made some good observations and I'm not in disagreement. If each of those reasons accounted for exactly one sixth of all divorces each, you would have me completely.
I'm not about to contend that all marriages fail as a result of lost masculinity. I will submit that a large number of marriage failures, Can be tied, directly or indirectly, to that state. None of the young men I consult have told me their ex-girlfriend broke up with them because they were too Manly. None of the women I train tell me they're looking for a guy they can boss around.
I only point this out because it seems nobody else on this forum wants to admit that.
John? You'll forgive me if I cannot imagine a woman will date, fall in love with, then marry a man who will, over time, become too Masculine for her to "put up with." If her boyfriend was too dominant for her taste, he would have been that way from day one and she never would have married him. Do you have a special Hat you pull these arguments out of?
Within the D/s community (Dom/sub, for those of you from Rio Linda) there is a running joke about the sub-girl who left her Dom for the vanilla guy down the street. It's a common joke because it NEVER happens that way.
Your profile says that you run a consultancy to encourage male "maturity and masculinity". I'm guessing that from your publicity, any woman who actually *is* looking for a guy they can boss around (and such women do exist!) isn't going to be signing up for your services any time soon.
In other words, you're using a biased sample.
Certainly there are women who want a man to boss around. They are the exception (by a huge measure) not the rule. Interestingly, there are plenty more guys looking for THAT woman than there are guys who would laugh in her face for even trying. Consequently, there are more women looking for a (pardon the expression) real man, than there are real men to go around.
I even went so far as to ask women which kind of guy they preferred in a Hub forum, a month or so back. Only one or two respondents said they wanted a less than masculine guy, as their man.
The women I "train" come to me for a Rape Proofing course I teach part time. I get all kinds, believe me. Even the kind who hate men or only date women. It has zip to do with Man-Up E. C.
You seem to have a very narrow view of the human state apparently seeing people as either dominant or wimp with no other options. I know many men who are confident and assertive and happily in a long term relationship without any need to dominate. I've also known many relationships were the dominated, be it male or female, is desperately unhappy, even near suicidal.
Do you really see relationships in terms of who bosses who? No chance of a relationship where both are confident in their roles and fully able to assert themselves without resorting to bossing the other around.
It's a pity you can't imagine that a man might become more dominant as a relationship develops because it does happen.
Yes, my special hat is called experience and observation, I've seen the devastation that dominant males cause to those who should be able to depend on them.
My sincerest condolences to the people in your life then, John. Not enough good role models for those people to emulate. Dominance is not about abuse or neglect or a failure to meet your spouse's needs. Ever.
A lack of dominance will create a vacuum which WILL be filled, and if the personality which rises to that occasion is insufficient to the task of leadership, the weight and burden of said leadership will crush and twist the poor soul.
Power corrupts submissive personalities ill suited to it's use and application.
The reason we're seeing such a misunderstanding and misapplication of genuine dominance is because there are fewer and fewer genuinely masculine role models for young men to learn from.
The unintended consequence of attempting a social engineering campaign to weed out dominance and masculinity is the rise of stupid boys behaving badly. And people like your friends, suffering needlessly.
Why do you think that anybody who doesn't dominate is submissive?
My daughter, a single parent after getting rid of the dominant male asked me if I'd be a role model for my grand son as she didn't want him to end up like his domineering father.
Masculinity is not dominance and dominance is not masculinity and no matter how ever many times you claim they are the same things, they never will be.
Masculinity is being male, perhaps a virile male. Dominance is the exercise of power and control.
Perhaps the realisation that both men and women can dominate but only men can be masculine should give you a clue.
Dominance stems from recognized self assurance and confidence, and is an irreplaceable tool for leadership. Leadership isn't about being domineering or bossy, it is about guidance and support.
During a naval battle, half of a Captain's job is to look calm and in control, so the people under him can gain assurance from his presence and Do Their Jobs. In all my years, I've yet to meet a submissive ship's captain.
Power and Control are necessary to the development of discipline, and discipline is necessary in any functioning adult. Children CRAVE it. Your ex son-in-law is a perfect example of someone who lacked the discipline which a genuinely Dominant role model might have instilled in him.
Dominance is integral to Masculinity. Why do you fear to let a man be a Man?
Moreover, why do you continually define dominance by the actions of obviously scared little boys, acting the tough so you won't see how internally weak they actually are?
Genuine Masculine Dominance encourages love and tenderness. It protects the weak and the frail. It supports and aides and Husbands. It Romances. It does not rape.
When you remove Genuine Masculine Dominance from a society, and thereby the Railings it provides, you will naturally see a rise in all those negative behaviors you sought to curb.
"There is nothing so strong as gentleness, and nothing quite so gentle as True Strength."
Oh Tiger, for an otherwise articulate man you do rather struggle with language and meaning.
Dominance doesn't stem from self assurance and confidence, it stems from fear.
Then suddenly you're spot on "leadership isn't about being domineering and bossy" I've been saying that for how long, despite the fact that it has little to do with male/female relationships!
I can well understand that the crew of a ship has to believe that their captain will and can beat them to the ground if need be, I'm sure most captains would rather that the crew followed them because they trusted and respected them.
Dominance is not integral to masculinity and I have no fear of letting a man be a man, he just doesn't have to show it with power and control.
Nobody have ever accused me of being dominant and no woman has ever accused me of lacking masculinity because the two don't go hand in hand. I could go further in that direction but it would be too much like sexual self agrandisment.
I continuously define dominance by the actions of obviously scared little boys because the scared little boy, like the scared little adult, needs to act the tough to show he's tough and can control his environment.
Genuine masculinity encourages love &C, it supports and romances it does not rape, it protects all women, children and weaker males. It does not desire to exercise power or control over other. It guides it's children by example and shared love, it does not seek to exercise power over children or dominate them in any way.
A gentleman will act in a gentle way to those around him, he will not seek to control or exercise power over them. Genuine masculine dominance discourages love and tenderness unlike chivalrous masculinity.
Come on, you must be bright enough to know that when you see a street fight or a fight at a sporting event the object is dominance, to prove that As supports are more powerful and controlling than team Bs. If that isn't negative behaviour then I have no idea what is.
I prescribe a good read of an english dictionary for starters, here's Merriam-Websters
: rule, control <an empire that dominated the world>
: to exert the supreme determining or guiding influence on <the ambition that has dominated his life>
: to overlook from a superior elevation or command because of superior height or position <a hill that dominates the town>
Collins says, to rule or control by superior power or influence, to tower over.
Nothing about being nice to the wife and kids or helping old ladies across the road or even being manly or masculine.
Your problem is then a fear of Rule and Control, by virtue of your continual use of those concepts as examples of Bad Behavior. You equate Power with "abuse," Control with "push around," Rule with "subjugate." It's no wonder you fear dominance. Dictionaries can only give brief descriptions. I've written volumes on the acquisition, application, and scope of Dominance, and I've years of writing left to go.
Genuinely Dominant Men do NOT get into fights. Street or otherwise, unless its in a ring or on a mat. I've been a bar-owner and a bodyguard. A good bark and an unwavering stare will usually quell most potential violence. When staring down idiots, I was ABSOLUTELY exercising Dominance, Control and Command.
Never once have I had to knock a Genuinely Dominant Man down, and drag him out of my bar. They don't need liquer for courage, nor do they need to beat their chests to prove themselves. Never mistake that to mean they Cannot crush your skull, if you threaten those they love.
George Washington was by all accounts a civil, pious, well spoken, well written Gentleman of his era. He was negotiating trade agreements at 14. He built a farm and expanded his influence, as a businessman, throughout his young-adulthood. He showed courage and steadfastness during a number of bloody defensive battles in his 30s, earning the love of his men and respect of his enemies. He was perfectly comfortable with command and control. He Fathered the greatest Nation in the history of mankind.
George Washington is the very Model of Genuine Masculine Dominance.
I have no more than normal fear of rule and control, I just don't see the place in a relationship between man and woman. I do not want the woman I am with to feel either controlled or in fear.
In a relationship between man and woman power is often abuse and control is to push around, and to subjugate is to rule. Dictionaries may only give brief descriptions but they do give the root of the word and therefore a much fuller meaning.
Why would you want to give your partner a bark and an unwavering stare?
Is your partner really an idiot in need of dominance control and command or is that just your opinion? f that is the case can I recommend divorce?
I would suggest that you've never had to knock a genuinely confidant man down, the dominant man will be unable to resist trying to dominate you.
I would call George Washington a confident and self assured man who was free of the need to dominate anybody.
You totally fail to understand the difference between dominance and confidence.
I think I mentioned that nobody regards me as dominant. When my business went bust I gathered my workers and put them in the picture, told them it could be months before I could even pay them. My foreman suggested that I should f off and make tea. When I came back they were all at work. When I asked what was going on the foreman shrugged and said as I'd always treated them well they though they should give me a few weeks.
According to your reasoning that should nothave happened because I am not a dominant male!
Wow. Damn. Did you read in there somewhere that women offer me violence? Barks and stares are for drunken tough-guys, and other lesser men.
You're a patently Good Guy, John. You come to some fascinating conclusions about my meanings, based primarily on your misunderstanding of the proper use and application of the concept we call Dominance. But a Good Guy. We live in a polite society where good guys can and do finish first.
Not as often or as tellingly as Dominant Men, but often enough that it bares mentioning in a positive light. I'm also willing to bet that no one has called you Dominant, simply because it wasn't a part of your familial group's general lexicon. You've got it stuck in your head that dominance means a whole host of negative things, and I'm patiently attempting to disabuse you of the notion.
You DO also suffer from a lack of military understanding. A ship's captain is NOT necessarily the toughest guy on the ship. There are Marines on board who can most likely crush the Skipper, AND the XO, without even looking.
"I'm sure most captains would rather that the crew followed them because they trusted and respected them." Trust and respect do indeed enter that equation. But what actions and attitudes did the Skipper display, LONG before the Navy entrusted him with a ship and crew?
Comfort with Power. Ability to Control others, under pressure. There is a whole gamut of Alpha Male traits that a ship's captain MUST display, or he will never make it to a Command Rank.
Guys who attempt to lead the rather aggressive personalities who become Officers in any military service, by using, even internally ~just to themselves~ such soft statements as "would rather", will be eaten alive.
All of this is academic, however; MOST women, by a huge wide massive margin, LOVE Dominant Men. Crave them. Worship them and perform acts upon them their previous boyfriends felt they would NEVER do. Willingly and without protest. Eagerly, desperately hoping to be found pleasing.
Dominance, in Men, creates deep throbbing uncontrollable desire in women, FOR those Men. You can debate semantics, site statistics and even produce women who will argue that point. If doing those things makes you happy, by all means knock yourself out.
I, on the other hand, can produce metric tons of evidence that Dominance is neither Evil, nor even particularly bad. In fact, about 130lbs of proof is whispering in my ear as I type, attempting to seduce me away from the debate.
Submissive little fellow that I am, she appears to be winning...
Male dominance? Hmmmmm....yes, please DO walk 6 paces ahead of me that way I can bite you in the hind end when you take the wrong step.
Other people have probably already said this so sorry if I'm repeating points they've made, but surely there's a distinction between enjoying male dominance in the bedroom (if that's your cup of tea), and being on the receiving end of male dominance in your everyday married life.
The former sounds like it could be fun (as long as you pick the right bloke, like you say). The latter sounds dreary in the extreme.
I agree with you - these things are a preference. The trouble is that most of us aren't consciously aware of their preferences. You are, which is great.
From what I am reading it seems there is much confusion between strength in a man and dominance. To be dominant means to take control or exert power over another. What woman could possibly want that from a relationship?
On the other hand and from a woman's point of view, to have a man in my life who cares for me, treats me with respect and offers his strength when I need it (you know those times when I am being physically threatened by someone bigger than me or when I struggle to lift 30kg of whatever up the stairs) means I can retain my feminism without being submissive.
You might want to read http://hubpages.com/hub/Do-women-need-m … -dominance
Grace, all teenagers know more than their elders, always have done, always will do.
Why, I remember when I was about 14 I was constantly dismayed by my fathers ignorance, I wondered how he got through the day without written instructions.
By the time I was 24 he had improved considerably, learnt a lot and turned into a fairly intelligent human being.
You just don’t get it Punix, have you ever heard of reverse Psychology? Do you know how many men are abusive to women? They would hit my title get into the site read it maybe one or even two may have a better understanding of how to treat a woman. As I said this is global, you just are so blind......now you are mocking it which sends me to the roof, this is not a joke. Three women get abused in the united states every minute, what do you think happens in other countries? I have a very large reader population from other countries where male dominance is the norm, they will click on my title and hopefully learn from it, but thanks to you making a mockery out of the whole thing you have just exasperated the whole point of abuse. As I said you are so naive. I have spend years working with abused women, if you think for one minute that we don’t live in a male dominated society you are blind, What we need to do is educate people not drive them away. I could care less what you think, but the fact that you are posting this and making a mockery out of it is so immature. You think that because one word in a title is going to make a man an abuser. I know for sure that the men who are on the abusive side have viewed my hub and maybe just one of them will have understood a little better about what is attractive about a male being dominant and it is not controlling or being abusive but about being support and loving to your wife.
So I hope that you are satisfied with yourself! Good job Punix
Oh, my...........! The issues between men and women. I've been married twice and in long term relationships, including now, where I'm not married. Currently I find my man very warm and cozy in bed, a strong physical feel about him. We wrestle playfully and I enjoy his strength. He knows how to fix things mechanically and he is very knowledgeable about a lot of things like politics and what's going on in the world. I like that. We're both retired and sort of Dutch treat. But, he is Catholic and I am atheist. He tells me he will turn off my Internet if I don't get away from my atheist blogs. I tell him that I am a person in my own right and can make my own decisions about what I will think and write. Obviously he hasn't turned off my Internet, but this is a big issue between us. Although he can generally fix things, sometimes I know how to do it better than he, which he won't let me make a suggestion. He is very "manly" in a lot of ways. He likes to sit in his chair reading his paper or watching his football while I cook and clean For my part I keep the house and home. He pays his bills. I pay mine. He double checks me that I do it correctly. Well, we're both on Social Security, but he also gets a pension so his income is greater than mine. He puts in the majority of the money. He's sort of a "pappa". I am strong enough to set my own course and he knows it, but I kind of find it sexy to be his woman. And I think he finds me kind of sexy being a homemaker and being in his face if he gets to be too much.
Dawn, though I'm a man I do have some experience of domestic abuse, a daughter who lived behind bars for several months to protect her from an abusive dominant man.
She's OK now, settled down well with a gentle gentlemanly and chivalrous man.
I have no doubt he would go to any length to protect her and my grandson, he shows no urge to want to control her in any way.
Just as there is no such thing as a bit pregnant or almost unique there is no thing as domination without power and control. Claiming women need and want dominant men is akin to saying women want rape!
Haven't there been enough apart from PC and I that think you are using the wrong word for you to think that even if most readers view it the same way as you if one man understands the word the way me, PC and others do you are going to make one poor woman's life totally miserable. Is that a price worth paying to prove yourself right and insist that we've all got the meaning wrong?
Wouldn't it be even more productive if you told men how positively women responded to chivalry? Always works for me.
I think that's the whole crux of the issue - the fact that on this thread, "dominance" appears to mean different things to different people, and is a very emotionally-charged word to boot.
It would have been better if Dawn had come up with a completely new word to describe what she meant, or used an existing one like "chivalry" or "manliness".
Sorry Dawn, bit rude of me talking about you in the third person LOL.
It's more than just the word. Look at the whole hub, the idea that the man must be the breadwinner and if his wife does work, she better not make more money or Lord and Master won't be happy with her.
It is NOT just a misused word.
But the point is that in a group where the members are familiar with the way the group uses words it might well be ok to use words in ways that don't reflect their true meaning, for example wicked might be used to mean very good in that group, anybody without access to that groups etymology will assume that they think that wicked thing is evil or sinful.
So if I'm say writing a hub to be read by a wide and diverse group of people and want to express something I have to use a standard and universal etymology, there is no point in describing something I recommend as wicked when I want to portray it as something good and desirable and I should not then argue that those who understand wicked to mean evil or sinful are in the wrong and should understand it the way I mean it.
If your government said it intended to dominate the poor and unemployed, would you immediately assume they meant to take care of and protect them?
That is absolutely the point I was trying to make. If I were a cynical person, I would say that the use of the word "dominant" by some of the people here is a ploy to generate controversy (and therefore publicity), knowing the word's potential to act as a "hot button".
But then again, I'm not a cynical person. At all.
Dawn did NOT use the word to generate controversy. She believes it, as does American Tiger.
You really need to READ what she says. Strip out that word and I would still object to her hub and her insistence that good marriages need "take charge" males who "bring home the bacon" and his little help mate should wait on him with a cheerful smile and never, never make the mistake of seeming more powerful than he (for example, by earning more money).
She thinks this is ordained by DNA. SHE SAYS THAT. She doesn't take it to the extremes American Tiger does in his new hub, but she definitely is advocating a diminished role for women.
READ her hub. Ignore the word. The message is still loud and clear,
OK, so I re-read the hub (properly this time ). I see what you mean about the DNA thing. And the "if you earn more money than him, it's curtains for your marriage" thing as well.
Actually, talking about earning more than your husband: I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that some marriages do split up because the wife starts to outstrip her husband on the earnings front. But then again, I'm sure there are just as many marriages that withstand this "disaster" quite easily.
I think that the one of the keys to a happy, long lasting marriage/relationship is whether each person feels needed and valued by the other. These days, a woman who's capable of earning money for herself doesn't have to value/need a man for his financial acumen - there could be all sorts of other reasons why she admires/values/needs him.
I know several happy marriages where the wife earns more.
One of the best was a dear friend who unfortunately died a few years back. They suffered many difficulties in their marriage, including the suicide of an adult child.
Low income was another problem. It was obvious to both that she had the most potential for education, so she went back to school full time while he held down the money side as best he could. She eventually attained her Masters, got a sales job in the pharmaceutical industry and started climbing fast.
Their adoration for each other never faltered. I saw them frequently as he often subcontracted me for computer help and because I played in their weekly poker game, You knew you were in the presence of two people who worked as partners. Her income was then many multiples of his, but nobody was "dominant".
He had lung cancer and died slowly. She cared for him while continuing her high powered career and never skipped a beat. Beautiful people.
Pcunix I cant help but laugh at this comment.....When a man and woman gets married, if the woman makes more than the man so what! My contention is that when they have children, I think that a woman staying home in the first five years of her childs life is a blessing!!!!!!! If her husband can support her and take care of the finances than, she will want to kiss him when he gets home and make him dinner. Let me be clear, it is eaiser for a woman to go out and work than it is to stay home and raise children, it is a hard job, but when those little faces look up at you and say mommy I love you, because you have just put a bandaid on the same scrape for the fifth time than you know you have done well. so YES I do believe that if a man in this economy can support his wife and kids so she can stay home and care for them, then he is a hero! For all of you dads out there that are supporting your wife and kids, hats off to you!!! If that is supmission to Punix than so be it.
Dawn, once again I understand you believe you are helping people. Sadly, you are apparently incapable of understanding what so many here are trying to tell you.
I am not going to shut up when people try to promote ideas that can be used to justify abuse. I cannot do that.
It is a woman thing, Pcunix. Women like this sort of stuff. They probably know they are in charge anyway if a man goes overboard. All they have to do is put the asparin bottle on the dresser for about 5 nights and things will settle down, if you know what I mean.
I finally read the hub because I wanted to see exactly what was going on here. And left a comment - don't believe that men have to be "real men" or women have to be all "feminine" - when I see pink I want to hurl and its unfortunate that color is associated with breast cancer awareness now. I hate that little girls are given dolls and boys are given trucks. The gender bias in our society is a big detriment to all kinds of actual progress - scientific and otherwise. It is good that people are getting the message and adjusting and adapting themselves to the fact that the "manly/girly" dichotomy is a fallacy - entirely. Some few women I've met in my life are really very feminine - outwardly, but in other ways not so much. Making generalizations about how marriages SHOULD be and how people SHOULD strive to be either dominant or submissive is just loony. IMO I can't believe anyone would want to go back to the 50s (except there were some really exceptional cars then)
it is hard sometimes to get the balance between, dominating and being caring. My husband is kind, sees it as his role to care, but sometimes he can come accross as controlling.... like he may go to the shops on the way home, and do all the shopping, thinking he has done me a favour. I am not working at the moment, a bit bored and would have liked to have shopped myself..... silly little things like this happen a lot. I put my foot down when it gets out of hand and i am being totally controlled.
Tiger, why, when discussing dominance in personal relationships, do you constantly refer to men in occupations where dominance is a major attribute. How often do a family have to engage in combat with an enemy ship or repel a group of drunks out to cause trouble?
As I've said several times, and you've finally seen, I'm not a dominant personality but that does not make me a whimp or submissive. If somebody attacks or threatens my family I'm not going to stand there wringing my hands and begging them to go away. If my partners body language suggests that she wants a bit of rough sex then that's what she gets.
I come to conclusions about your meanings because I read what you say and don't try and second guess you.
Maybe I'm a pedant but I believe that it is important to use words I ways that reflect there true meaning, especially amongst strangers. Imagine that I'd never heard the word dominant before and decided to check its meaning in a dictionary or other reference work. I would never find any of the meanings you and Dawn attribute to it.
You are wrong about my familial group, my father was one of those who saw his role as that of the family controller who dominated my mother and tried to dominate me and my sister and his grand children. As a result I do not attempt to control though I have worked as an effective manager.
Again, you say I have no military understanding. I ask you, what the heck does that have to do with the relationship within a family group?
Anyway, I'll leave you to your misguided ideas and your one woman, can I recommend being dragged off by two women? Will your congress involve the issuing of naval commands, full ahead there, Japanese frigate off the port bow skipper, run up the blue peter!
Tiger's latest hub asserts
A Hunter’s females are as much his property as his spears, his gear or his food & shelter.
I was impressed by the expensive hair styling displayed on the head of the typical cave woman!
I would have thought that in prehistoric times it was less a case of
and more a case of
I just joined this site, so I am a bit late to this conversation.
Could it be that it’s just the word “dominate” that is controversial here?
I believe that a husband and wife should be equal’s in their marriage.
But that a man should be the “leader” of his family. He leads by his strength, compassion, understanding, and values. A woman should be able to trust that her husband has the best interest of his wife and family at heart and let him lead.
“Dominate”, NO, just be the leader.
When it comes to sex, it’s been my experience that desire is much higher when there is sexual polarity. A masculine and feminine presence, the stronger the polarity, the stronger sexual desire, it does not matter which partner is which, as long as there is a masculine and feminine difference. Again, one person leading and one following.
Just a small clue, the one on the lead at heel is being dominated.
Why should a women NOT be the leader? Why does ANYONE have to lead?
You strip out the word, but propose nothing that is any different from what Dawn says.
Once again, let me just chime in here about that crazy word "should" - you all are saying "should" like you own this place! Settle down now, and realize that none of us is after telling those girls and boys how to act in their homes. None of us is equipped to set up a system of behavior for all the couples in the world! Let's just see how ridiculous all this is sounding: leaders, dominance, "equal but different" - people have to create their relationships out of how it feels for them. Maybe some women do like to have a man make the decisions and "rule". I have never met one. But come on now, you start saying "the man SHOULD this, and the woman SHOULD that", on any side of the issue, you're straying from reality and sounding very dominating! I humbly make this suggestion so your blood pressure will go down and you'll get something else done on this glorious Monday!
Exactly. Among other things, that is part of my objection to Dawn's hub. People can have dominant/submissive relationships IF THEY BOTH WANT TO and it is up to them who is on top.
One dynamic does NOT fit all.
Yesterday we were at the gym. My wife was on a stationary bike, which is about all she can do now because of her joint deterioration.
I walked by and our eyes locked and my heart melted just like it did when I first saw her. I have been in love with her for 45 years now. Those "melting heart" moments never fail to amaze me.
Neither of us is dominant. Sometimes (rarely) that leads to decisions we cannot make because neither of us will compromise. Those situations are extremely unusual, though. Almost always we can talk or scream or beg our way to agreement.
When we cannot, we accept that someone has to give in. Sometimes it is me, sometimes it is her. We get by.
A man can “lead” by placing the importance of his wife and marriage above his own selfish needs. He “leads” by continually finding the solutions that better the marriage as a whole. Not what’s best for him, or for his wife? What’s best for the marriage?
To me, “dominate” means “my way or the highway”, that’s not my idea of a marriage, by either husband or wife.
I'm not telling anyone how to live their marriage. Just sharing my opinions. The original hub made a lot of sense to me.
So only a man can find solutions to problems?
Wow. So incredibly blind.
That's not what I said.
Your free to have your opinion, as am I, as are all the others here.
Do all the people on this site resort to putting other opinions down, or is that just how you operate?
It is what you APPEARED to say.
Questioning you is not "putting you down". You sound like Dawn, who insists my disagreement represents an attack.
If you didn't mean that, then what was your point? Do you think Dawn is correct or not?
I agree with Dawn.
I respect your opinion. "Wow, incrediby blind" is not respectful of anothers opinion. It comes across as an "attack".
I will respect you, I would appriciate the same.
I don't respect anyone who believes male dominance is necessary for a good marriage if that's what you mean by agreeing with Dawn.
I'm sorry, but that is just an excuse for abuse. No, I don't mean that everyone who believes that is an abuser, and again I agree that two people can willingly agree to any roles they desire, but presenting that idea as NECESSARY gives a ready made excuse to cretins who do abuse women.
I believe that Dawn’s hub is referring to sexual polarity. When a man and woman are equal in there masculine/feminine roles, sexual polarity is not achieved. The sexual nature of the marriage will result in one partner or the other not being sexually inspired.
Hence, the marriage may incur problems in the bedroom. I believe that it is more natural for the man to take on the masculine (dominate) role. It is the man that penetrates the woman. Those roles can be modified inside of every marriage. Whatever works between couples is fine, as long as they both agree. Clearly, a man should NEVER dominate a woman in any other regard. I don’t believe that that’s what Dawn was eluding to either.
So if you look at it from that perspective, you and Dawn are both correct.
Do you agree?
Then you simply did not read her hub.
Does earning money have anything to do with sex? Does being the "provider" or the "homemaker"?
She most definitely is NOT just talking about the bedroom, but even if she were, she'd be wrong in insisting that ALL marriages must have male dominance there.
Did I miss something?
http://hubpages.com/hub/how-a-man-can-g … s-marriage
In my own humble opinion, what Dawn is referring to is the masculine/feminine traits that every man and woman has, in a happy marriage, both husband and wife will toggle between both the masculine and feminine roles.
A man can certainly cook, clean, and do the dishes. Just as a woman can mow the yard, jump start the car, and shovel the snowy side walks. These traditional roles were formed in the cave man days; surely they don’t have to be lived by in today’s world. But this polarity sure makes for a better sex life.
As a couple, you each do what you are best suited for; you make adjustments as needed to keep a happy marriage. No one has to dominate the other.
When it comes to sex in the marriage, there is normally masculine and feminine polarity; this can also be changed back and forth between husband and wife. But for there to be a strong sexual attraction, the two opposites usually exist. A feminine woman is rarely sexually attracted to a feminine man, as a masculine man is rarely sexually attracted to a masculine woman. They may be capable of living a happy marriage, but more often then not, their sex life will suffer. I could give several examples of this, but the easiest one to see is in the gay and lesbian community. How often do you see a couple that is either equally masculine, or feminine? Not very often, the sexual polarity is what draws them together. Same thing can be said in a male/female marriage. Again, I believe that this was all that Dawn was pointing out in her hub. A woman will not be sexually attracted to a weak, do anything to make her happy, man.
There are several comments from women here that state that same feeling.
I don’t feel that any person should “dominate” over another. But I don’t feel that taking on a masculine role with my wife is a bad thing. I have been married for 30 years myself. I have lived both side of this discussion. My wife is clearly sexually attracted to my being masculine. My guess is that most women would agree as long as it stays in the bedroom.
I do not disagree with anything you assert, but that most definitely is NOT what her hub preaches.
Again, what does making money have to do with the bedroom? Why does the man HAVE to be the breadwinner and why does the wife HAVE to greet him with a happy smile and a hot dinner? Why does a women have to be the one who comforts the children?
So yes, you missed a lot. But maybe that's how you see things. That's fine if your wife sees it the same way, but it is NOT everyones view of the world, in or out of the bedroom.
By the way, I am done here. This is getting repetitive. Some people see it and agree, some see it and disagree, some just don't see it. I have said everything I need to say more than once, so I am done.
Hi meridian, it is pointless to argue with him, I am sure that your wife is lucky to have you and yes you do get me. I have stated this many times, that when children are born it is a blessing for the mom to stay home and be able to care for them. When there are no children who really cares how much a woman or man makes, but having a baby and then putting the baby into day care when your husband has the ability to take care of you, why? I just dont get it.
But that is NOT what your hub says, is it? Your hub says that when women make more money, the marriage suffers.
I don't want to keep this going, Dawn, but I'm not going to ignore ridiculous straw men.
Nobody, NOBODY, who spoke against your hub said ANYTHING even vaguely related to what you argue against here. The problem is your insistence upon proper male roles and your statement about money, not some imaginary positions you falsely attribute to us.
Let's drop it, Dawn.
Unless you're gay, I'm guessing that by virtue of your being a guy you ARE masculine. I'm also guessing that because you said you wouldn't be attracted to a woman who isn't feminine, and by virtue of the fact that she's a heterosexual woman, your wife IS feminine. I'd think that ought to pretty much do it as far as the masculine/feminine thing impacts what goes on in the bedroom.
You seem more level-headed and sensible than some people seem, but do you really think that if a guy cooks (either regularly or occasionally) that places him in a "feminine role"? Do you really believe your wife may find you less attractive if you cook?
I can see how a guy who happens to have grown up thinking that cooking is "traditionally associated with women" might feel less than masculine if he sees cooking (for example) that way; but (call me an oddball-woman) you know how I'd see a guy who cooks? As someone who is a grown up and who makes sure he doesn't sit passively around, waiting for a "mommy" to make his dinner (or else as someone who doesn't have such a blown up ego he has no problem feeling as if someone he supposedly respects acts like a cook, servant, or waitress at home. Maybe I'm odd, but I find a man who acts like a grown-up far more appealing and attractive than one who doesn't. (I'm honestly NOT implying anything about you, personally, here. I'm only giving a hypothetical example of "the cooking issue" and how I, personally, would find the guy who cooks more attractive because he acts like a grown-up.)
Actually, I'm not a big fan of cooking or food because I think "the whole world" puts too much emphasis on food (beyond whether people get basic nutrition and don't feel hungry). So, to me, a guy who has a little interest in food would actually even be more attractive.
As far as whether a woman finds the guy who will "do anything to make her happy" attractive or not goes, I think that depends on the woman and on what "anything" is. No well adjusted, decent, mature woman would want the person she cares about to sell his soul or commit crimes "just to make her happy". That kind of woman wouldn't be someone who was awfully challenging to "make happy" either. People "with issues" are the ones who "aren't happy with anything you do".
Any time someone tries to make a well adjusted, mature, person happy that person appreciates it and feels as if the other person does care. People who are good at relationships know that aiming to do things that "make the other person happy" in small ways is what people who love someone do. The guy who cares enough to bother doing things that he thinks will make his wife happy is, in a lot of women's eyes, a very appealing guy and one who knows that relationships are supposed to be a 50/50 thing - not a matter of "How can we both work together on making me happy, and I'll just assume that since you have me for a husband that's reason enough for you to be happy."
Your post is pretty reasonable, and I"m not generally disagreeing with it (for the most part). It's just that I, as a woman, don't see cooking (or any of the other things people associate with women) as something that would make a guy less masculine if he did it. With so many "women tasks", if a guy is well rounded, grown-up, and secure enough to just do them because he knows he's a human being who may do any number of things, that can make the guy even MORE attractive and masculine - not less.
I can see how if doing those kinds of things makes a guy feel feminine, that's not going to be great (at least if he does them so often he's feeling "feminine" more than his own sense of masculinity can tolerate. That's where individual differences between different men come in, though. Some guys are going to feel emasculated more easily than others. If someone is married to one of those less than secure-in-his-masculinity guys, then I suppose she ought to be sensitive to that if she doesn't want to make him miserable. The trouble may be, though, that while she's "being sensitive" to his lower threshold of feeling emasculated, she may be someone who actually finds the guy who is secure in his masculinity more attractive. I'm guessing her interest in him could be at risk of dying out if she's a strong, grown-up, woman who would hope a guy is equally "grown-up" and secure.
As others have said here, I think that one size doesn't fit all when it comes to what may damage the romance and/or bedroom matters in a marriage.
The funny thing about some men is this: Some may live alone for years, taking care of their apartment or house, doing their laundry, coming up with meals for themselves or their girlfriends, sewing their own ripped jeans, etc. etc. I don't know what they're thinking when they do this stuff, but they do it; and they often have better "romance lives" than married guys do.
Then they get married - and all of a sudden all that stuff they've been doing for themselves, because their mothers raised a competent human being as a son, "turns into feminine work". To me, the guy who does what needs to be done in his day-to-day, grown-up, life as a single guy; and then who suddenly is willing to give up his competence and somehow convince himself that some tasks are "feminine", isn't really that "strong, masculine, leader-type" of person women tend to find very attractive. But again, we're all different.
Masculine to me means that I am a strong, confident, provider and leader for my wife and family. I know what my values are, and I live by them. I do not compromise my values for the happiness of others. Why? I dont need to. Because my values are based on being understanding, compassionate, loving, respectful, and honorable. I expect the same from the people in my life.
I cook, I clean toilets, I keep my home to my wifes standards, I make every effort to meet ALL of my wifes needs. emotionally and physically. I ask for the same in return. There is no need for either of us to be controlling. We do this for each other out of love and respect.
I have no problem with what most men would consider feminine, I have no problem when my wife takes on something considered masculine. We both toggle back and forth.
But when it comes to the bedroom. I am the masculine, my wife is the feminine. we both respect our roles in that manner. As a man, I do not have sex with my wife, I make love to her, I share my strength, my masculine presence, my passion for her. She knows that she was "made love to by a man". Thats my idea of "dominate".
Did I explain that in a way that makes sense? I appologize, my writing skills are not the greatest.
Fine. But that isn't what I and others have been complaining about, is it?
As you say, there is no need for either of you to be dominant in your daily life. You share responsibilities.
Dawn, however, insists that the lack of male dominance will cause problems in the bedroom and the marriage. Please read what she says carefully: she is not talking about sex play, she is saying that dominance is necessary in everyday life. The wife must earn less, she must cater to her big, strong bread winner., go READ her hub!
I respect your "passion" for your beliefs. However, I do not agree with your perseption of what Dawn is saying.
You are intitled to your opinion, as I am mine. You have made your point. now, Please allow me to have a conversation with others.
Just let it be! Man or woman why bothering creating a hub or anything to about who should dominate whom, natural is the best, isn't it? There's no right or wrong, but it would be so dead wrong if people think one way has to be right. Personally, I hate to be told man is who dominate (I'd step that person to flat, haha)
Male dominance is mostly physical as women are a better introspective view of the world than men.
I bet Hana Yasmeen Ali can mop the floor with most men and remain cool enough for a bit of introspection while doing it.
I guess that from Dawn's point of view, she's a poor marriage choice unless you are big enough and fast enough to take her on.
I suppose I'm undecided on the domination thing....on one side I might dominate my mrs, on the other she dominates me, although I wish she'd wear a bit more leather now and then and cook more often....so......yeah.
I'm not trying to be rude at all and maybe It's just me but I find this kind of inappropriate. The topic is fine but due to it being a persons hub, I guess I feel it's a bit mean. I wouldn't like it, I guess that's all I'm saying. Maybe I'm over reacting, who knows.
With a nice smile like that, you are definitely not over reacting!
Let me say this once more: I truly believe Dawn means well. I KNOW she does not condone abuse of any kind.
She simply does not understand that her hub can be used to justify behavior that MOST of us would be very unhappy with.
MOST? While living in Seattle, back about 2004, I overheard a conversation between three men who you would have been most comfortable with, Punicx. All mid to late 60s, and unquestionably Democrat.
The thrust of their conversation was the "landslide defeat" they predicted for Gee Dubya. "He'll be lucky to get 30% of the vote!" Indeed, had just the four of us been the voters, Gee Dub would only have gotten 25%.
They based their arguments on the fact that "everyone they knew" hated all things Republican, and King George was so reviled that NO ONE outside of the RNC top brass could possibly vote for him. Naturally, being Me, I asked them if they'd predicted similar landslides for Mondale or Dukakis.
You tend to only communicate with people who completely agree with you, Punicx. All others you talk down to, and show contempt for.
The heavy-brow woman in your picture; She was around & breeding 8 or 9 thousand years ago? Or, do you intend to contend that civilization, and the exit from the "caveman" lifestyle, happened 60000 years back? OR, let make a third guess: The very same day agriculture was invented, heavy-brows immediately receded!
Because obviously, by you and John's reckoning, modern humans were NEVER Hunter/Gatherers. They sprung into being with a tech base which lead immediately into the Bronze Age. That about right?
As for her teeth; Larger jaws with room for ALL our teeth started shrinking about 6000 years back, for most races. When we all were on the 80% animal protein diet, out teeth lasted our whole lives, and looked GOOD. No "crowding."
So, all straight smiles and no snaggley-toothed southern democrat women. Processed sugars and a softer Grain/bread based diet has caused our jaws to shrink, and Orthodontists' bank accounts to grow.
There are modern humans who are hunter/gatherers still.
Er, actually it wasn't PCunix who posted that pic of the "heavy-browed" woman... it was me.
I'm not quite sure what you've said in your first three paragraphs above has to do with the discussion at hand; it seems to be an extended ad hominem along the lines of "PCunix is a Democrat, therefore everything he says is wrong."
Yes, the woman whose picture I posted was probably was doing her Neanderthal thing some 40,000 - 60,000 years ago, so what? While we're on the subject though, your pics of the lovely Raquel Welch on that hub of yours come from a film called One Million Years BC... no WAY is that an accurate portrayal of hominid womanhood of the time LOL. Your average female hominid of one million years BC would probably have looked more like this:
OK, so it's a male - you'll just have to imagine the boobs.
BTW, your Caveman Love hub has some very disturbing and unpleasant overtones:
"The odd custom of thinking that children are “grown up” by the age of 12 or 13 won’t come into vogue for many thousands of years later. Still, girls often physically mature faster than boys, so it’s not uncommon for a girl to be stolen from her father’s Fire, before her older brother has even sprouted sideburns.
Sometimes, a young Hunter will raid no farther than his own clan’s camp. Many a young girl has found herself bound hand & foot, staked out next to the new Fire of a young man she'd grown up in the same Clan with. Her own feelings on the matter carry little weight. Protest too much, she might even be whipped."
Hey. I tried to warn you that you weren't gonna like it.
Do you actually believe the sex-slave trade just popped into being yesterday? Or have you perhaps hidden yourself from many of the uglier truths surrounding human nature, and the evils much of the third-world contends with? "Harem" is an Islamic concept, and it was old when they put a name to it.
I don't condone it, promote it, or even stand for it. I've got four daughters, a sister, and any number of nieces. I teach Rape Proofing for women and girls. I make them dangerous to the average idiot.
Ignoring or not mentioning a reality, doesn't make it go away.
And it's not my fault that "One Million Years BC" was a catchy title. There is evidence that some dinosaurs ~as we understand them~ were still alive and kickin' as few as 300 years ago. There is a Hub on it that goes into great detail. And No, it's not my Hub.
The hub had pictures of etchings, paintings, sculptures, pottery and such with obvious stegosaurs, ceretops, pterosaurs and the like. All drawn by people who could not possibly have seen them, if they had died out 65 million years ago.
It is patently imprudent to think we know everything there is to know. New discoveries which require total re-thinks of entire scientific disciplines, happen almost every day.
I have to admit that your caveman love hub did make me assume that you *do* condone it. I'm reasonably intelligent and have a good antenna for detecting irony, so if I come to that conclusion, then there are probably other people out there who would too.
I understand human nature only too well; that's why my hackles tend to rise whenever I read anything that appears to provide justification for some of humans' less appealing traits (the naturalistic fallacy in other words. "It's hardwired into our brains from caveman times - therefore it MUST be morally right!")
Hmmm. I don't want to pass judgment until I've read the hub in question, so maybe you could post a link/title?
Hi, if you go to American Tiger's profile and Caveman Life, Caveman Love, Dominance & submission.
This is to a fascinating Hub on giants. VERY exciting stuff, which might tend to bite Darwin on the butt, or give better evidence in support. I'm looking for the Modern Dino link, and will post it soon as I find it.
John? Felicity was speaking about my Caveman hub. The more you speak, the less I believe you've read. Perhaps you might engage the gears in your brain, BEFORE popping the clutch on your tongue?
Most of your message is irrelevant and hardly worthy of comment but for form I'll make a couple of comments.
I hardly think you are in a good place to accuse PC of only communicating with people who agree when you frequently insult and censor any one who doesn't share your narrow and biased view of life. I've never seen a post of PCs that shows contempt whereas talking down and showing contempt is you natural mode of communication.
I have never suggested that modern humans were never hunter-gatherers, you'll find that many Australian Aborigines are still hunter-gather as are many in Africa and other parts of the world. You might also remember that it was you, rather than PC or me who claimed that primitive women would have bodies comparable to Miss World.
Do try to keep your own house in order before criticising others and claiming knowledge and expertise you can not possibly have.
I think this is a case of someone who's trying to dress up his dodgy sexual fantasies as universally-applicable laws of human behaviour, and then moving the goalposts (i.e. narrowing the discussion down to 10,000 years ago or less) when he's shown that the real facts don't conform to his fantasy.
There does seem to be problems in separating fact from fantasy and a tendency to attribute his own flaws to others.
He accuses PC of talking down and showing contempt for others, something that I've never noticed but have just read ATs response to a comment of mine. His response is patronising and full of contempt!
I think you're right, we are players in his sexual fantasies, yeuk!
Calm down John.
It is certainly true that sexually unsuccessful men often resort to non human objects - blow up dolls for example or film star posters as objects of sexual fetish.
I was disappointed to read American Tiger's "Cave woman" hub and see such posters - taken from Hollywood B movies and consisting of Botoxed women in wigs - touted as real examples of archaic humanity. This does indeed suggest confusion between fantasy and reality and may presage a pschosis.
I am also getting worried about the so called "female following" on AT's hubs. My professional contacts tell me that there is a bunch of harmless lads - members of the drama society of the Seattle "Gay Pride" movement, who regularly meet, dress up in women's clothing, make up, photograph each other and then play pranks on local homophobes. I would hate to think that they had targeted AT.
I have written to their secretary in the strongest terms, voicing my objections.
S'ok, I'm calm, can't type when I'm not.
I suspect there is some underlying psychosis there, he really seems to believe he knows how primitive men talked and thought and can't believe that primitive man did not share the drives and desires of modern man even though he is faced with the evidence that man's drives and desires change over tens of years, never mind tens of thousands.
Still, I should care.
I do think it was rather tacky to post a photo of his partner in her underwear, does show bad taste and a lack or respect. I hope it wasn't intended to inspire envy or jealousy.
I agree Pcunix this is a crrappy subject.........blah
Yes the guy has to have a spine
nuff said ?
He doesn't need a superior attituede thou
by Dawn Michael6 years ago
Do you think that a marriage works when a woman is the dominant partner? I am not talking about domination, but dominance meaning dominant traits.
by Emunah La Paz2 years ago
After all this time some women feel that male authors still receive more attention than female authors. According to Bustle online magazine, J,K. Rowling using a male pseudonym could show sexism in the publishing...
by stacies299 months ago
I feel that some women are just scorned lovers who are out 4 revenge.
by Jamie Gates7 years ago
And that's what this is - strictly my opinion and everyone has the right to agree or disagree. I wouldn't take offense because we all feel strongly in our beliefs.Here's the deal. First of all, I'm a female. After 57...
by lovelylovergirl3 years ago
It is my unfortunate insecurity speaking. My past boyfriend would make it seem like he could get any girl he wanted. I always so lucky to have him. Not just him, I have had a history of boyfriends who made me feel...
by pisean2823115 years ago
does bible state that? ...if yes then it must be stating something for husbands too...what if husband himself doesnot know what he it talking about?...if wife expected to obey husband even if husband is irresponsible?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.