historical roles vs female submission

[Lizzie_Borden]

I'm a non-structure person. Structure makes me feel trapped. I have rituals, things that keep me grounded as I "float about" but that's about it. The thought of a 9-5, M-F job makes my feet itch. That's me. I agree that most people like to have structure in their lives, at least from what I've witnessed.

Also, in regards to the OP, I also dislike rules and lists, as they pertain to what a person should or should not be or how they should or should not behave. Especially based on one's gender. Pfft.

Structure makes me feel safe. Structure, order, rules, boundaries mean that I know what to expect, what's going to happen. It gives me a feeling that my space is under control, is controlled.

Without that feeling, I get anxious.

That doesn't mean I live my life militantly rigid, there's plenty of room for spontaneous fun, and sometimes the shit does hit the fan as well. But knowing there's a process to follow helps me through that.

Same here. I'm not in my relationship for structure, though I can see why someone else might want that.

I saw a discussion on FetLife the other day about submission. The OP posted something likening submission to either being tethered to a stake or penned up inside a fence. The question was, the length of the tether and the radius of the circular fence are the same, so which do you prefer?

Everyone on the thread picked the stake. All I could think was that I'd chew my metaphorical leg off if I was limited in that way. I could deal much better with the fence, but apparently, that's unusual among subs.

They never explained what each one signified, and I never figured it out myself. But that's basically how my relationship is. "Here are your [fairly liberal] boundaries; do whatever you want within them." I need him to sort of point me in the right direction and get the hell out of my way, more or less. My soul would wither away in a micromanagement situation.

/hijack

I don't mean to continue the hijack, but I'd choose the same option as you Bunny.

I wouldn't want to feel tied down, I like the freedom to make choices and decisions, I like being trusted to make the right ones and I operate quite happily within a framework. Left to my own devices, I get tangled up and confused and wander along aimlessly.

 

[Ravenwind]

* Have dinner ready.
Almost always. Usually I'm not the one who makes the list, so often, I have no clue what I'm supposed to make for dinner. But when I do, it's always ready for him within the hour he gets home.

* Prepare yourself. Take 15 minutes to rest so you'll be refreshed when he arrives.
Meh. My living conditions barely allow me the opportunity to get out of my pajamas during the day.

* Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and one of your duties is to provide it.
Indeed it is.

* Clear away the clutter.
Nope. I insist that the clutter remain... as much as he's a neat-freak, I just don't feel comfortable with my space being uncluttered. I'll clean off his part of the desk, though.

* During the cooler months of the year you should prepare and light a fire for him to unwind by.
I have no control over the heat/air... household is too big to accommodate our wants when it comes to that.

* Minimize all noise.
The kids ain't the prob. It's the mom-in-law who makes all the noise.

* Be happy to see him.
* Greet him with a warm smile and show sincerity in your desire to please him.
Is there any other way to greet him?

* Listen to him.
While I wouldn't say they are more important, they are often more interesting... even if I don't know one iota about half the things he talks about.

* Don't greet him with complaints and problems.
No guarantees on that... I mean, if the toilet's broke and flooded the bathroom, that's gonna be the first thing out of my mouth even before "How was your day?"

* Don't complain if he's late for dinner or even if he stays out all night.
We don't work that way due to mutual respect. If ever we're late doing whatever, we are certain we let one another know, so we don't worry.

* Make him comfortable.
Always.

* Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes.
Ew. He only asks that of me when he wants to torture me... no joke, we own nothing but white socks, and all of his are black, even after being soaked, washed, and bleached, because of his work.

* Don't ask him questions about his actions or question his judgment or integrity.
It is my job to second-guess him for things that is out of line, just as it is his job to prevent me from acting upon my more foolish nature. In doing so, we strike a balance where neither of us put ourselves in any genuine risk.

* A good wife always knows her place.
As does a good husband.

 

[AimeeLamis]

This sounds like the home I grew up in and I think I turned out OK. I do agree that in today's world not every relationship can allow the exchange of power, but in many cases it does work. I am a person that needs structure and boundaries. When I have structure I feel safe. I will not be with any man that cannot make me feel that way. If he wants me to serve him he has to free me to do so. I can't work a 12 hour shift, 5 days a week, and be expected to be the happy housewife with not a hair out of place.

With that being said life is unpredictable and sometimes we have to readjust as women and men. While I believe in the power exchange I think that it is something that should not be given freely by women who have not been educated and cannot ultimately take care of their emotional or financial needs. Death, divorce, and illness do happen. Besides it's always been my experience that men are more turned on when a woman with brains and a clue submits to them then just some ditsy chick who will believe anything because she knows nothing, has been nowhere, and has nothing to offer.

As far as not questioning him, that is something that has to earned as well. If the man is damn fool who constantly makes wrong choices and chalks it up to it's OK because I'm the man, then he can kick rocks. We all make mistakes, but if he is going to be the Master of the house he must guide it with love, wisdom, and understanding and not solely his ego. A good Master understands that his success is measured by the happiness of those that he leads.

 

[ownedsubgal]

subgirl by your definition, then black people would have remained slaves cause I mean it used to be understood and expected right? And back in the day all children belonged to husband as well as all the wealth and therefore even if the kids were being tortured or raped by dad, they stayed with him and not mom because that was understood and expected. I could go on and on about what was understood and expected but jaysus I can't believe I really have to.

And you have totally missed the point of choice as expressed by femininist idealogy. It is about being able to choose to be in a relationship in any capacity or not. Regardless of your "role" within that relationship.

no, you have totally missed what i have been trying to express. i am talking about life and the purpose of such beyond individual personal relationships, and even beyond a particular society in which one lives. i am talking about the big picture, the really big picture. humanity as a whole. it's frustrating to me that leopards, penguins, sperm whales, wolves, falcons, squirrels and sockeye salmon all know (sans human interference that is) what to do and how, they know their life's purpose and their place in the grand scheme of things, and they set about that course. while we humans are basically walking around like, "uh...huh..wha?" and running into brick walls. our "higher" brain function hinders us this way, makes us either forget or disregard everything we are and know at the primal level. this is what i'm talking about when i say "archaic." not some 1950s american ideal that never existed anyway, and not any particular society's decree that women are x, men are z. i do believe that at some point in our early evolution...from the time we started cooking our meat to the time we started establishing permanent settlements or "camps"...we were actually clued in. we were in accordance with what i call the natural order. that is what i wish we could re-learn.

feminism preaches independence and individual choice, and scoffs at there being any kind of natural order. there is a selfishness and arrogance in that message that i find not just unappealing, but dangerous. but whatever, i'm weird.

 

[ownedsubgal]

The human race has a million fuzzy edges, sorry. I am genderqueer; a man born in a woman's body. There are thousands and thousands of men like me. And thousands and thousands of women born in male bodies, too. Do not assign me a based on my vagina, thank you.

And you misunderstand the term "choice," in the feminist language. It's about being able to choose your life path and being able to stick to it.

i understand very well what is meant by "choice" in the feminist language, please don't confuse my sarcasm (borne of frustration) with lack of understanding.

as for you, if you believe you are a man born in a woman's body, then in my eyes you are a man. something just went wrong with the mechanics...oh well, that happens in nature. many cultures throughout history and into the modern day revere such people. i do believe there truly is a place and purpose for us ALL, but with the human desire for individuality and to live a life of self-fulfillment above all else, i don't think we'll ever find it.

 

[JMohegan]

Yes, feminism is about shifting the whole society's parameters for choice.

Right.

And hand-wringing over whether an individual 21st century woman's deference to an individual 21st century man sets back feminism misses the point entirely.

 

[ownedsubgal]

There are lots of interesting ideas there - do we really have choice or is choice an illusion? Do we really want choice? Does society function best with people acting in their own self-interest? I don't think any of that is solely about feminism though.

you're right it's not just about feminism. but thank you for having an idea of what i was getting at.

 

[JMohegan]

feminism preaches independence and individual choice, and scoffs at there being any kind of natural order. there is a selfishness and arrogance in that message that i find not just unappealing, but dangerous.

No, it presents a vision of the "natural order" that differs from yours.

And the perception of "selfishness and arrogance" in this debate depends on where one is sitting.

 

[BLoved]

we were in accordance with what i call the natural order. that is what i wish we could re-learn.

feminism preaches independence and individual choice, and scoffs at there being any kind of natural order. there is a selfishness and arrogance in that message that i find not just unappealing, but dangerous. but whatever, i'm weird.

Will you define your term: "natural order"?

I am reminded that when we talk of a beaver building a dam, we speak of "nature" but when we talk of humans building a dam, we talk of how terrible it is to the eco-system.

If we accept humanity is as much a part of nature as a beaver, then are we not also acting according to the "natural order" as it applies to humans?

 

[Stella_Omega]

And your argument was so fantastic

You have just totally discredited peer reviewed research with your 2, count them 2 personal observations.

I discredited your generalizations.

You need to be more precise when you talk about things like this; you could say; "Many arranged marriages go well, and many self-chosen marriages do not." And that would be true.

Not to mention that culture has some other influence on our behavior. Scary thought no? In a different culture, could it be you may have turned out just a little less ignorant.

In a different culture would you still be a man?

So would I.

In a different culture would you still be in College?

I probably would not have had that chance. So no, I think i would heve been more ignorant, not less.

Hey, and way to place getting beaten to death, sexism, and arrange marriages all in the same category, that’s totally not ignorant at all.

Name me one culture that practices arranged marriages where women are not endangered.

i understand very well what is meant by "choice" in the feminist language, please don't confuse my sarcasm (borne of frustration) with lack of understanding.

I did just that, actually. Sarcasm doesn't come through the internet very well...

 

[rida]

Name me one culture that practices arranged marriages where women are not endangered.

I'm staying out of the "what's better" part of the discussion, but I'd like to point out that "arranged marriages" or at least "arranged pairing" is still alive and kicking here in Japan. Both parties have the freedom to turn down the marriage, but many still go through with it as a business partnership rather than the coronation of "falling head over heels" .

 

[JMohegan]

Name me one culture that practices arranged marriages where women are not endangered.

Modern India comes to mind.

I don't necessarily see this as a women-are-property thing. With respect to India, it seems like more of a respect-for-the-wisdom-of-your-elders thing. Well, that, and caste purity.

 

[intothewoods]

no, you have totally missed what i have been trying to express. i am talking about life and the purpose of such beyond individual personal relationships, and even beyond a particular society in which one lives. i am talking about the big picture, the really big picture. humanity as a whole. it's frustrating to me that leopards, penguins, sperm whales, wolves, falcons, squirrels and sockeye salmon all know (sans human interference that is) what to do and how, they know their life's purpose and their place in the grand scheme of things, and they set about that course. while we humans are basically walking around like, "uh...huh..wha?" and running into brick walls. our "higher" brain function hinders us this way, makes us either forget or disregard everything we are and know at the primal level. this is what i'm talking about when i say "archaic." not some 1950s american ideal that never existed anyway, and not any particular society's decree that women are x, men are z. i do believe that at some point in our early evolution...from the time we started cooking our meat to the time we started establishing permanent settlements or "camps"...we were actually clued in. we were in accordance with what i call the natural order. that is what i wish we could re-learn.

feminism preaches independence and individual choice, and scoffs at there being any kind of natural order. there is a selfishness and arrogance in that message that i find not just unappealing, but dangerous. but whatever, i'm weird.

Damn, this forum is really on an anthropology kick lately. Anyway, I totally disagree that feminism preaches independence -- at least not in the way you're discussing it. I wasn't a big women's studies major, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 60s feminist movement very tied in with Marxist studies and all that? I mean, I thought Marxism was a unifying thread between a lot of the "power" movements of that time. I'm completely forgetting the name of the theory you're getting at, but it's the antithesis of all that -- this competitive, selfish individualistic view of the world. So much of feminism has to do with community. Of course, feminism is not some monolithic movement or set of ideas. There was first wave, second wave, blah blah blah. I'm not saying there hasn't been any anti-male sentiment, but that's different from independence and really not the core of feminism at all.

And why did we have all of these studies about how men and women communicate differently and test differently if there wasn't the argument that women and men are different?

As far as primitive cultures go, I don't know. A lot of people in the west romanticize primitive cultures and something about it has always rubbed me the wrong way. I'm happy that we have technological advancements and science. I don't think I want to give it all up and live on a commune.

Right.

And hand-wringing over whether an individual 21st century woman's deference to an individual 21st century man sets back feminism misses the point entirely.

I agree one thousand percent.

you're right it's not just about feminism. but thank you for having an idea of what i was getting at.

I do have an idea of what you're getting at -- you're just mischaracterizing feminism.

 

[00Syd]

Man, I'm so tired of this conversation. I just sat through a semester of this crap in the most 101 Gender class possible.

 

[intothewoods]

Man, I'm so tired of this conversation. I just sat through a semester of this crap in the most 101 Gender class possible.

Tee hee. I like it. It makes me nostalgic for college. You'll miss this shit one day, mark my words!

I never could get into the really theoretical stuff in school. Foucault hurt my brain.

 

[BLoved]

Name me one culture that practices arranged marriages where women are not endangered.

Are you saying with the instances of rape and abuse women in this society are less endangered?

 

[intothewoods]

Are you saying with the instances of rape and abuse women in this society are less endangered?

Oh come now, we hardly have the monopoly on rape and abuse.

 

[JMohegan]

Damn, this forum is really on an anthropology kick lately. Anyway, I totally disagree that feminism preaches independence -- at least not in the way you're discussing it. I wasn't a big women's studies major, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 60s feminist movement very tied in with Marxist studies and all that? I mean, I thought Marxism was a unifying thread between a lot of the "power" movements of that time. I'm completely forgetting the name of the theory you're getting at, but it's the antithesis of all that -- this competitive, selfish individualistic view of the world. So much of feminism has to do with community. Of course, feminism is not some monolithic movement or set of ideas. There was first wave, second wave, blah blah blah. I'm not saying there hasn't been any anti-male sentiment, but that's different from independence and really not the core of feminism at all.

We didn't have Women's Studies back in the day; we were living the revolution in real time.

The core message I got regarding independence is that the capacity for independence is a critical element of life as a fully-functional, healthy adult - regardless of gender. Why? Because forced dependence is stifling for many and fundamentally perilous for all.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm staying out of the "what's better" part of the discussion, but I'd like to point out that "arranged marriages" or at least "arranged pairing" is still alive and kicking here in Japan. Both parties have the freedom to turn down the marriage, but many still go through with it as a business partnership rather than the coronation of "falling head over heels" .

See-- the element of choice. Makes Japan the exception that proves the rule.

Modern India comes to mind.

I don't necessarily see this as a women-are-property thing. With respect to India, it seems like more of a respect-for-the-wisdom-of-your-elders thing. Well, that, and caste purity.

Mmmm... I am going to disagree with you on India- unless you're separating it into "modern" and "archaic but alive and well" India. It's much better than it was, for certain groups.

 

[BLoved]

Because forced dependence is stifling for many and fundamentally perilous for all.

I am not an advocate for forced dependance, but we have over 2000 years of history where women were expected to be subservient to men, in a wide variety of cultures.

Our population has grown to something like 7 billion.

 

[JMohegan]

Mmmm... I am going to disagree with you on India- unless you're separating it into "modern" and "archaic but alive and well" India. It's much better than it was, for certain groups.

Yes, that's what I meant by "modern." Urban, educated, middle class India. Not rural India, or the India that exists in tent cities.

 

[Keroin]

As someone who grew up in an area with a very high Indian population I can say that the arranged marriage situation was not so great. For the women, that is.

I can't recall how many horror stories I heard about, both on the news and from Indian friends. The local paramedics had special codes they used, for radio chatter, when there was an "accident" in an Indian home. The most common thing was the husband and/or his family would burn the soles of the young wife's feet - so she couldn't leave the house. I could go on and on.

These are modern Indians, BTW. And I'm not talking about one or two anecdotal incidents. Half my neighbourhood was Indian.

Yeah, I'll stick with choice, thanks.

 

[JMohegan]

As someone who grew up in an area with a very high Indian population I can say that the arranged marriage situation was not so great. For the women, that is.

I can't recall how many horror stories I heard about, both on the news and from Indian friends. The local paramedics had special codes they used, for radio chatter, when there was an "accident" in an Indian home. The most common thing was the husband and/or his family would burn the soles of the young wife's feet - so she couldn't leave the house. I could go on and on.

These are modern Indians, BTW. And I'm not talking about one or two anecdotal incidents. Half my neighbourhood was Indian.

Yeah, I'll stick with choice, thanks.

What decade in Canada was this?

I'm no more thrilled by the notion of abdicating choice in the matter than you are. Which could be why I'm struggling with the causality here.

Does a tradition of domestic violence and the sequestering of females necessarily follow from a tradition in which both males and females defer the selection process to their elders?

There are, regrettably, plenty of US cases of domestic violence involving females of European descent, who made the marriage decision all by themselves.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Man, I'm so tired of this conversation. I just sat through a semester of this crap in the most 101 Gender class possible.

I can just see it.

 

[Keroin]

What decade in Canada was this?

I'm no more thrilled by the notion of abdicating choice in the matter than you are. Which could be why I'm struggling with the causality here.

Does a tradition of domestic violence and the sequestering of females necessarily follow from a tradition in which both males and females defer the selection process to their elders?

There are, regrettably, plenty of US cases of domestic violence involving females of European descent, who made the marriage decision all by themselves.

Western Canada. The biggest immigration happened in the 1980's. But the problems of domestic abuse have not changed. My old neighbourhood is probably about 80% Indian now, maybe higher.

I agree that there is abuse within all cultures but the problem in the Indian community is that it is frequently condoned and covered up. There's a level of complicity that doesn't exist in cultures of choice. IMO.

I don't think arranged marriages necessarily equal abuse but I think that a culture in which females have little or no choices or power makes it much easier for abuse to occur and continue - and for the type of abuse to be much more harmful/fatal.