Male Dominance

1. 90

   gracenotesposted 14 years ago

   To LisaHW,
   
   Although I don't want to quote your long post, you did mention the fact that men who have lived single for a long time will many times develop household skills.  And once married, they want to delegate these tasks as "women's work."  Cooking. laundry, ironing, etc.
   
   I was in a singles group in my 20's, and recall the members hanging out in one of the guys' apartments one evening.  It was so immaculate, so organized.  He lived alone.  But I have no doubt at all that if he got married again, there would be a "division of labor between the sexes", no doubt based on what he witnessed growing up.
   
   In my marriage, I actually would not have had a problem at all with doing "traditional" women's tasks.
   
   The problem, for me, arose when my husband expected the laundry to be done, but then criticized the way I did it!  (Big source of contention, I'm afraid).
   
   I try to be efficient in the way I do chores, and in doing the laundry, I don't like to waste water and electricity.  So I do things like waiting until I have a full load of clothes (which is generally once per week).  There are other logical ways of managing the laundry to maximize the use of resources, and any woman knows what I mean, so I won't bore you.
   
   Well, hubby didn't see it that way.  Also I could never seem to wash and fold the way he thought it should be done.  I tried to come up with perfectly legitimate compromises, but he was having none of that.  ("Would you go out in public wearing jeans that look like that, Gracenotes?  Yes, I would!  I do it all the time, and people compliment me!")
   
   My husband was good at a lot of things that are considered traditionally masculine.  But I would never have criticized, for instance, his stone masonry work in the back yard, or the way he washed the car.
   
   If husbands insist that they are experts in certain areas, then they are.  But if their wives are expected to take on feminine chores, because "that's the way it's always been", then by definition, the wives are experts in *their* areas.  Period.  Continual criticism of the way your wife does a task will eventually mean that you are handed the job.
   
   I always envied the way some couples worked well together in the kitchen.  My husband and I did not do well at this.  I was happy to take care of ALL the evening meal preparation after work, because it avoided tension.  Fortunately, my husband was rarely critical of the way the food tasted.  He just loved to eat. 

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      gracenotes, I know exactly what you're saying about who is considered the "expert" in one area versus another.  I had a situation that wasn't even particularly my husband.  It was other people who "had opinions".
      
      It happens that even when I first was a parent, I'd had lots of experience with babies and children.  It was also something I'd studied quite a bit, so I had the old "book learning" thing, besides experience.  It's also an area that my mother was great at, so I just kind of picked up her understanding from her.
      
      I married a engineer who was quite a bit older than his younger sister.  Good person.  Not very comfortable with babies and young children.   Between that and seeing children as "women's domain" ; and also with his willingness to work hard and ability to earn good money, it just kind of happened that he worked long hours.  I raised my children alone for several years.  My son's birthday is today (he's 29).  To this day I can tell you how many diapers his father changed:  2 (and those were this son's, neither of the other two children's at all).  I didn't care.  I did wish he spent more time with the children.  He never held any of them before they were two, as far as I can recall. 
      
      I did everything for all of us, and the eight-room house and cleaning it was my job.  So was bill paying, grocery buying, much of the other buying (although he's sometimes get involved with other finance-related stuff).   The holidays (gifts, decorations, meals, etc. - women's department).  Birthdays for all relatives - women's department.  Decorating - women's department.   The kids' school, doctors, activities, whatever - women's department.
      
      The house was super clean, but I'm under the impression a lot of people thought it "just stayed that way" and didn't realize what it took to keep eight rooms and a yard with three young kids, a dog, a cat, and part-time work.
      
      For a long time (since I had/have the energy level I did/do) I made it all look easy ),(most of the time) (even if got 3/4 hours sleep for years).
      
      So, one would think we were being very traditional; however, I didn't stay home with my little kids because he wanted me to.  He always wanted me to work. At the time, I think he didn't realize the degree to which the kids would benefit from my one-on-one nurturing, so I wasn't respected for the fact that I was doing what was best for both of our children.  My girlfriend and I (both in similar boats) would joke, "What ever happened to guys who say, 'no wife of mine is going to work'! " 
      
      In fairness, my husband felt burdened because he had started his own company, and things slowed down in the economy (early 80's).  He thought I should be "helping him" by working.  I couldn't make myself leave my kids with the only unacceptable day care available.  I felt guilty, but I didn't want my kids' early nurturing to go to someone less skilled at it (brain connections-wise) or less able to give them one-on-one attention than I.  Anyway, it worked for us (up to a point), even if he felt I wasn't "helping him", and if I felt guilty and lazy for not finding a way to bring in a good income, as opposed to a part-time pittance.  Other than the money-earning thing, though, it just seemed to mostly work for us (although I did wish he'd pay more attention to the children).
      
      Long story made longer (sorry):  At some point I started getting remarks from people (as I said, not necessarily him - but others who knew us) about what a "control freak" I was!        The fact that I bought whatever brands I found to be at a good price and work for me (in my "women's work") turned from brand loyalty into "control freak who has to buy only the stuff she likes."    After I'd been left without any input on decorating preferences ("women's work"), that turned into "She has everything her way and doesn't even consider what he might like."
      
      I hadn't minded being the one to do all the family/house things.  I figured he was out working hard and earning good money.  I appreciated that and didn't mind that he was exhausted when he got home.  I didn't like being home and not working full-time, but I knew it was my choice and didn't resent it either.  I did get tired of the Cinderella routine, though; and I REALLY got sick of hearing from friends/in-laws hints that I "had/did everything my way".   I always sat up watching the kids when they were sick by myself. 
      
      Occasionally, I felt appreciated when he'd talk with contempt about a "career woman" at work and called her, "The Refrigerator".    That made me think that maybe the kind of person I was was someone he approved of.   On the other hand, I lived among people who said things like, "Well, everyone else leaves their kids in daycare.  I don't know why you can't."
      
      In spite of the self-consciousness I'd built up over people "accusing" me of "being a control freak" and being "selfish" and "having no ambition" and "not caring about how hard he was working"; the fact was I wasn't the one with any control in that situation.  Yes.  I selected which dishwashing detergent was bought, but control is a whole different thing, and I didn't have any.   The fact is, had I worked full-time (and I had for awhile before my first child was in kindergarten), someone (several someone's, I'm guessing) would have said I wasn't "letting him be the man".  Since I didn't, I had people saying I "had everything my way and he didn't have any say in anything".   Wrong.  Wrong.  Wrong.
      
      Since I did find a way to earn my part-time pittance taking freelance assignments here and there, what I earned was completely disregarded, and people said (I'm not exaggerating or lying here), "She hasn't worked since they got married."  I had the newspaper clips to show otherwise, but apparently they didn't count.    
      
      I don't think women can win when it comes to who thinks they should do what.  Besides, not all men want to "be the traditional man".  It makes them over-worked and over-burdened and resentful.  Even women who are happy to "be the traditional woman (sort of)" at least when children are young end up feeling like Cinderella.
      
      AND, on top of everything else, there's always the thing that someone has an opinion about the ways a woman does do her "woman's work".  (After almost always being absolutely on top of everything, one year we had a lot of problems going on, and I left the Christmas tree (which I always put up and took down myself) up an extra two and a half weeks.  That was part of the thing that got me accused of being "mentally ill" when I eventually left the marriage, and suddenly found myself facing a serious custody case.
      
      When faced with someone fighting me for custody, I told the lawyers that I not only should have my own children because of what an "excellent" mother I was, but I had "earned" them by being the one and only one to take care of them all that time.  You know what I was told?  "You can't appear to be trying to interfere with the other parent's relationship with the children."
      
      Well, after enough people were more than happy to tell lawyers and whoever else what a selfish control freak (AND a mentally ill one to boot) I was; I was kicked out of our house, and I did lose custody of my children.
      
      And here's why my posts on this thread and related threads are so long:  You know what I did when I lost custody of my children?  I didn't better at it than a whole lot of men do.  I didn't disappear and just accept that the court arranged things that were too much of a challenge for me to still be the same parent I always was.  I didn't go off and start a new family with someone else.  I refused to let what some clown wrote in a court order determine WHO was my children's closest parent, and I found ways to stay close, to still be the same mother, and to keep fighting for them; as well as ways to keep them and myself whole, as individuals and as a family.
      
      I don't "want a medal" for being able to stay the same mother I'd always been to them and for refusing to "let man put asunder" what "God has joined together", but when I was kicked out the "traditional" role I'd had for all that time, and instead was kicked out to live in my car (or whose-ever couch I could find to sleep on), I still managed to show up at the kids' school each day with make-up on, my white wool coat, and heels.  I still made sure they got their nutritious after-school snack each day, still made sure they got to play their friends, and still found ways to shelter them from a whole lot of ugliness that was going around, involving me, their father, and them.
      
      And even when I did all that, there were still people wondering why I wasn't doing something they thought I ought to be doing instead.
      
      In a world that has so many people who still have it in their heads that a woman is supposed to do what her husband thinks she ought to do (and in my case, he would have preferred I leave the kids and go earn x an hour), and even so many women think other women ought to do what husbands think they ought to do; it's pretty hard to be a woman who has done "the man thing", "the woman thing", some other "man thing" and any number of other "women things"  (and done them all well, and better than a lot of either men or women do any of them) to buy into any notion that women are not supposed to be everything they are capable of being.
      
      I'm planning this engagement party for my daughter, and engagement parties are supposed to planned by the mother-of-the bride.  Recently, I've been sending all kinds of e.mails to the future groom's mother because I've been worrying that she'll think I'm being a control freak for making one decision or another about the party.  Just yesterday I asked myself why on Earth I'm so insecure about who thinks I'm a control freak (when I'm as far from it as one could imagine).  I realized it's because, for years, I've heard people say or imply that I'm a control freak not because I try to control anyone else or "everything" - but because I simply have control of myself and expect an appropriate amount of control over my own life.
      
      That may not be "going with anyone's program", but there are people in this world (men and women) who would, without a doubt, see the sexist crap I've lived with for years (because it happens I'm not like that woman, "The Refrigator"  ) as nothing other than oppressive abuse.  (If you look like "The Refrigerator" I'd bet nobody dares to criticize you."
      
      And so, I end yet another long post (rant).
      
      Here's an interesting link to page about equal power (and inequality of power) in marriages:
      
      http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/F34.pdf

      replyreport
2. 61

   secularist10posted 14 years ago

   Mother nature is not politically correct. That is why she made men larger and stronger than women. The act of sex itself is quite politically incorrect--one person is penetrated while the other person is doing the penetrating.
   
   There is a big difference between respecting a woman and supplicating to a woman. In the same way, there is a big difference between leading a woman and ordering her around. Most women want a man who is confident and strong enough to speak up when he disagrees with her, be honest about his feelings and make the first move. That is what "male dominance" means in relationships. But a man who needs to boss her around, berate her or control her to make himself feel "like a man" is not dominant, he is weak and inadequate. The genuinely, positively dominant man simply lets his confidence speak for him, and allows the woman to WILLINGLY come to him.
   
   With some exceptions, this is just how attraction works between most men and most women. It's why women are generally much less comfortable walking up to a man and starting a conversation than a man is. It's why the woman almost never initiates the first kiss. There are many cultural attitudes behind these things, as well. But the basic biological tendencies are still quite influential over our behavior.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      meridian1960posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Very well put.

      replyreport
   2. 86

      Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Again, nobody has argued otherwise.
      
      The point is not that such things are unusual, but rather a reaction to the idea that they are NECESSARY, that no couple can have a lasting relationship unless the man is dominant.
      
      That's simply wrong, but worse, the insistence that biology REQUIRES this can be seen as an excuse for those who will physically or mentally abuse women.   Even when it doesn't go that far, this false idea can lead to expectations that may not be realized, which can cause unhappiess that would not have been present with a more intelligent outlook.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         secularist10posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         It is not strictly necessary for a man to have sex with a woman in order for her to become pregnant. It is not necessary for the two to enjoy sex in order to have a lasting relationship.
         
         But this is the reality for MOST people, as nature has created it. So in most cases, it is in fact necessary to surrender to that reality in order to attain real satisfaction. This is the rule, and there are exceptions to every rule. But people with relationship trouble should consider if they are trying to fight that rule, and if it isn't working out for them.
         
         I absolutely think that a couple can have a lasting relationship if neither party is dominant, or if the female is dominant over the male. Also, many things are possible when we introduce homosexuality into the mix.
         
         I also totally agree that the biological roots can be irrationally twisted by people to support an argument for abuse.
         
         But everybody should be aware of what the natural tendency is--the rule. If they can find happiness bucking that rule, great. But if they're not happy, they should definitely take it into account.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I wouldn't disagree, but Dawn's hub doesn't allow for alternate views of male/femaile roles.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Druid Dudeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Men rule the Castle.....By consent. Above all else, it is a partnership.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Make up your mind, do men rule the roost or is it a partnership?
                  It can't be both!

                  replyreport
            2. 61

               secularist10posted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Right, that's a flaw in her approach, in my view.

               replyreport
   3. 66

      Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      secularist, thanks for the anatomy lesson.  I wish I could reciprocate by sharing a cooking lesson here, but I'm not much of a cook.    There's sex, and then there's everything else.   Women are often a little more tuned into the fact that there even is an "everything else" more than a lot of guys are.  Maybe the tendency on the part of some men (and apparently some women) to be incapable of recognizing that there's a whole lot of "everything else" that goes on in a relationship and home than the mechanics of sex is the reason some people have difficulty separating things like picking up one's own socks, and making tea or dinner, from sex.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         secularist10posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Hey, don't blame me, blame Mother Nature. She is the horniest one of all. For her, there IS no anything else! Nature wants whatever facilitates reproduction the most. That's the reason there are 2 genders in the first place.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I think at this point in evolution (the evolution of the human intellect), there is more to furthering the species than just reproducing.  There is also the contribution intellect and spirituality.  Science has now seen that there is a part of the brain associated with a well developed spirituality; so if there is a Creator behind the whole evolution thing, it would suggest that development of all areas of the brain (including an area that would move the species toward more awareness of areas of spirituality (or even if it's merely Nature and an accident); the species and the world would benefit for an overall more evolved intellect in human beings.  There's also a part of the brain associated with having empathy and a sense of morality,and that part has been seen in brain scans.
            
            There's also more to benefit the species by having men (and women) evolve beyond just reproduction and evolve in a way that includes a higher intellect and understanding of human nature , in order to function best in the more complex society that has resulted from the continuing evolution of intellect until now. 
            
            There's lots else, even in Nature.  Again, I assert that it is fewer men than women who know that that "lots else" exists.       I would say there was a time, way at the beginning of the development of humans, when men's physical strength played a very important role (needless to say) in survival of the species.  I think, where humans are today (evolution-wise) it is only reasonable to see that the need for a different type of evolution (that of the intellect) is, in many ways, more important today.
            
            Maybe people need to consider that it may be women's intellects and sets of skills that will add balance to a world that has until now continued to have wars; and that one day, a more balanced humankind will find a way to live in a world where there are no more wars.  There is little that is more against Nature than fighting wars.
            
            No, I don't think it does much for a species evolved to the point of intellect (and requiring the nurturing of that intellect, as well as emotional intelligence) to be left dominated by only men.   

            replyreport
            1. 61

               secularist10posted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I of course agree with most of what you say. What I've been maintaining all along is simply a clarification of how attraction works between men and women, and from that how relationships are successful between men and women, in most cases. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but that is the rule, as it was created by nature.
               
               Until we develop the ability to reengineer human nature on some deep level, this is the game we're stuck with, like it or not. I notice you frequently cite men's greater emphasis on sex than women--ironically, demonstrating your awareness that there are clear biological differences between the sexes.
               
               In any case, I think it's important for people to understand that there is a difference between politics, business, career, and most other aspects of our lives on the one hand, and sexual attraction on the other. All of these other things are created by the modern world, but sex and sexual attraction has been around MUCH longer, rendering it cordoned off from the changes in human culture and human values. So even if a woman enjoys being powerful in her office, often she will seek to be less powerful in the bedroom. And that speaks to sexual attraction and romance. That's just the hand that we have all been dealt.
               
               Outside the bedroom, we can return to being politically correct, but inside, it just won't do. Again, in most cases. There are exceptions to every rule.
               
               I would love to continue this back-and-forth but for now, I have to go. See you later.

               replyreport
               1. 66

                  Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  I know you've gone for now. I'm leaving too after this post.  At least for now.    I seem to have developed "a cause" on this particular thread.  Oh well, it's interesting. 
                  
                  Anyway, I don't pretend not to see or acknowledge differences.  I live with the disadvantage of those differences (and I'm referring to day-to-day living and "general life" - not the bedroom (or the delivery room) here.  I have no "issue" with any of the bedroom/delivery-room stuff at all.  What I have an issue with is that people so often believe those differences (the bedroom stuff) MUST be associated with every task, role, and situation outside not just the house, but the bedroom.
                  
                  I've actually had this kind of thing happen "zillions" of times:  I'm with another woman.  She asks when, say, daylight savings time is going to kick in.  I'll tell her.  I will never say anything I'm not sure about without saying, "I think, x, but I may be wrong."  So I'll tell the hypothetical person the date.  I see the unsettled look on her face, and she then asks a man.  He gives her the wrong date.  She takes his word for it over mine.   
                  
                  A more substantial example:   I'm a whole lot more on top of things in life than a lot of guys I know are.  There are men who are just as, or maybe more, on top of things in life as I am; but I know plenty who are not.  It just depends on the person.
                  
                  There are lots of people (women and men) who have the ingrained belief that a guy (who may not know his foot from elbow on one thing or another) always knows better.  Some of those people (evolutionary hard-wiring, I'm guessing) will listen to a woman who seems more intimidating and "less feminine" than I am.  "Masculine traits" are interpreted as "more respectable" when it comes to intelligence and emotional strength - and that's a joke because how intelligent or emotionally strong someone is has nothing to do with whether or not their appearance and physique look, or is, masculine.
                  
                  When people want to talk about how "weak" or "emotional" or "wimpy" "America has become" they call it, "The Feminization of America".  Women aren't weak or emotional or wimpy.  Most are physically weaker, and many have a voice that doesn't sound authoritative and intimidating.  Those are physical difference, not intellectual/emotional differences.
                  
                  With three grown kids (one adopted son, one I had myself, and a daughter I had myself) I saw my only little Nature/Nurture experiment at work; and I'm convinced (because of this, as well as other reasons) that the role a person's sex plays on his personality and preferences and Nature is far less significant than many people believe it does.  I realize that my personal experience is anecdotal, but studies and research are done on people who have already been nurtured. (at least most of the time).  I got to do (I hate to use this term because I didn't treat being a mother the way it will seem) my "little experiment" from birth on with two kids and infancy on with the other.
                  
                  My aim was to raise "human beings first" while aiming to help them like whatever sex they were.  I knew that adolescence and hormones would kick in when it came to the physical stuff; and I hoped I'd end up with two secure, masculine, human beings and one feminine human being as grown kids.  It wasn't just me, though.  They had male role models who were masculine but not opposed to doing things traditionally associated with women.  They also had strong women role models and didn't come to associate strength, intelligence, and any number of "male-associated" activities/tasks with men.
                  
                  How I raised them wasn't all that unique in people raised over recent times, and they're people who are very much committed to the idea of equal partnership in a relationship.  That goes back to whole original issue of whether either men or women should "dominate" in a relationship (outside of the bedroom); and it goes back to the thing that the world is full of people who would be unhappy in anything less than an equal partnership, no matter which sex "ran the show" (even if the "dominant" person were they) and no matter which person dealt with the disadvantages of any role.
                  
                  Oh well...... out of here now.   (And I'm guessing I won't be missed.    )

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     secularist10posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Again, I very much agree for the most part. In fact, I recently wrote a hub demolishing sexism and the idea that women's independence is a negative for society.
                     
                     And I do think that greater emphasis on equality is very valuable for a longer-term relationship involving many tasks and roles over the years. This is especially true in modern relationships where we believe men and women should play equally important roles in life.

                     replyreport
3. 0

   Amie Warrenposted 14 years ago

   Being the protector and provider is o.k. I think the term "male dominance" is a bad choice. I've seen women who kowtow to their men, and it makes me sick, but something that makes me sicker is a man who is a doormat. Men should be men, but that doesn't mean being "dominant", it just means being strong enough to know who you are and not let anyone walk over you.
   
   I sort of agree that one partner has to be the leader, so technically, the dominant partner, but both partners can be strong, self-reliant people without one submitting to the other. Submission isn't necessary in any marriage.
   
   My marriage broke up, in part, because I refused to be a doormat.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Nobody should be a doormat, and nobody should try to use anyone else as doormat.  What's unfortunate, though, is that so many people equate anyone's (man's or woman's) being nice, kind, caring, nurturing (etc) with either femininity, being stupid, being a doormat, or otherwise not being strong.
      
      The world is full of people (women AND men)who are amazingly strong human beings (emotionally) and who are also kind, gentle, nurturing, and nice.  It's also got a lot of people who equate being nice with not being strong.
      
      If there are no children, I think both partners should try to be protector and provider (and whatever else a spouse ought to be) in whatever ways they can in whatever situation arises.  When there's children, both should be protector and provider of the children in whatever ways they can, within the context of what the children need, and what they believe is best for their children.
      
      Spouses come in two varieties, usually:  The kind that think marriage should be an equal partnership and who respect the other and expect the same back; and the kind who don't.   When one or both of them doesn't, it's only a stone's throw away from one, or both, of them ending up a doormat some or all of the time in one way or another.
      
      My parents' generation was the generation in which most men did most of the providing, and most mothers stayed home.  It was also the generation of people that had men dying earlier than women. (My father was 62 when his heart attack killed him.)  My sister and I are so thankful that all six of our combined kids are all older than we were when we lost our father as young as we did.
      
      There is something to be said for recognizing the kind of harm a lot of old fashioned thinking (not just when it comes to the provider thing) does to men (who are also human beings and individuals, just as women are) too.  Besides, women with young children often don't have a whole lot of choice about whether they work or don't; but women without them who let their husband support them often find themselves in quite the pickle one way or another, whether they remain with their husband or leave him.

      replyreport
4. 60

   SomewayOuttaHereposted 14 years ago

   ...i haven't read the posts....just dropping by to say hi to Gladys...i can't find my pearls anywhere.....(so don't take this the wrong way or right way  - Gladys knows where my pearls are )
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Somewayouttahere,   You know where your pearls are?  They're on little "sprays" that are on top of the 60 party favors I just finished gluing last night.     The party favors (I selected, by the way) have ribbons around them, and then little flowers with a big pearl in the center and a spray of little pearls coming out from everywhere.  Oops - I hope you don't mind that I swiped your pearls for party favors.     With all that pearl-gluing, I'd forgotten the whole pearl thing on here.  Glad you reminded me.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         SomewayOuttaHereposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         r u serious?.......i was goin' bowlin' tomorrow and needed them...goin' on a date....i got tired of ward...he's a drag...doesn't like to dance with me anymore..he .just reads the newspaper!...but if they look good on the party favours...it's all good!

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            They look great on party favors!      It turns out I may not be June Cleaver either (or Barbara Bush), but I guess I'm just a little bit more Martha Stewart than I ever realized I had in me.    (Well, actually I had the help of my ex-husband on all those favors.     )   You're right.  That Ward was pretty much a giant boor and drag.
            
            (By the way, the party that the favors are for?  June Cleaver's feet never looked as great as mine do in the shoes I bought to wear to the party.  Even my SISTER said the shoes look sexy!!    June Cleaver, eat your heart out !      )  (Of course, this remark comes after all that lengthy posting about masculine, feminine, and being equal     )
            
            The favors don't look good here, but YOUR pearls are on these.  I'll return them to you if nobody mistakes them for candy and eats them, OK?   
            
            

            replyreport
            1. 60

               SomewayOuttaHereposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               u r serious!...martha, move over....Gladys is here!  those are nice....don't worry about returning them....they've taken on new life....hope the guests appreciate all the work and glue.....

               replyreport
5. 60

   saltposted 14 years ago

   male dominance? Whats that?
   Love my freedom!

   replyreport
6. 74

   frogdroppingposted 14 years ago

   Why is there such confusion from some re the word 'dominance'.
   
   Let's nutshell it - because there is only interpretation of what the word really does mean: an individual or group's power over another.
   
   Optimum word? Power. If your partner is dominant and you acquiesce (and let's not gild the lily) you are submitting to their dominance. Therefore - you are dominated.
   
   Saying 'well, my husband has dominance ... but doesn't dominate me' is the same as saying 'well, my husband is abusive ... but doesn't abuse me'.
   
   Dominance and power are mutually exclusive - just because a man with dominance doesn't physically appear to exert his perceived right to be dominant as and when he chooses is less down to his character than it is is because the woman simply accepts it without question.
   
   This ongoing discussion about what it means is moot. Dominance is having the power over another. Period.
   
   Bed time.

   replyreport