to think that only an abusive man would want a submissive woman?(79 Posts)
Not talking about fetishes in the bedroom but a relationship where the woman submits to her husbands will even when it is against her own wants/needs/interests. I don't really care what choices adult women choose for themselves but when you're promoting the idea that 'true femininity' is being dominated by a man then you need to be challenged because you're wrong.
I think that any man who wants a woman who bows down to his every demand must be a bully who doesn't like or respect women, he wants a servant, not a wife.
Here is Gabrielle Reece trying to sell her book, advising all women that we need to learn submissiveness to our man to be happy
Sorry, accidentally sent it through too early, both times! www.salon.com/2013/04/12/gabrielle_reece_i_choose_to_serve_my_husband/
And here http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/gabby-reece-submissive
I get what you're saying but I really wouldn't be advertising this shit
Which is what you're inadvertently doing for the author.
It deserves no more than an eye roll imo.
well yes of course it's just stupid to self abnegate
I wouldn't fancy it at ALL
calling her husband abusive - not so sure
A belief in traditional gender roles does correlate with an increased risk of intimate partner violence.
Just going from the Salon article, it seems that she's the driving force behind this lifestyle choice. This is fairly typical, lip service is given to the man being 'in charge', but all the graft involved in maintaining the master/sub dynamic falls on the shoulders of the woman who must expend much effort in making her husband feel like he is her lord and master.
I know what she's trying to say and I don't think it's as bad as it sounds.
I do agree it sounds ridiculous when reduced to a few sound bites.
She's emphasising the degree to which she is prepared to put her family's needs first out of love (which is what most of us do most of the time, and what we berate our husbands for not doing on many threads here). She doesn't mean 'serve' as in 'slave', she means it as in Jesus washing his friends feet. I hope you don't find that abhorrent too.
There is an element Mumsnet that seems to feel
militantly strongly about making sure people's rights are safe-guarded in relationships (and leaving when it stops being 'great', 'because you're worth it'). It's not fair to polarise that approach against every other philosophy on the grounds that anything breaking your mould must be abusive. There are people who see something beautiful about hanging on through hard times, hoping and believing all things. Yes, it has the potential to become warped but then, so does every approach. You haven't cornered the market on the definition or condemnation of abuse. Also, I don't think it's responsible to throw around a word that needs to have the power to stop the world in its tracks.
Mumsnet is great on stamping out unacceptable behaviour. That's amazing. This thread is not so amazing.
Agree with OP.
Lets be clear, there is a vast, vast difference with deciding who does what tasks in the home (mutually) and the woman's tasks being more of the home-based variety and a grown adult deciding that she will in every way be a second class citizen to her husband and children.
The latter is extremely dangerous and I speak from having seen the outcomes of the romanticisation of such pernicious rubbish.
Its only going to be submissive women that will be willing to do what Reece advocates. As a conscious thought process of being submissive as a tool in order to make a man happy.
Other women of course view themselves as equals to men, and other men will be more attracted to women who are equal to them. Many men prefer women who stand up to them, or even dominate them. I don't know about abusive men preferring submissive women, but I certainly think quite a lot of controlling men would prefer submissive women.
I come from a very standard school-university-graduate/professional job type background, and most of the men I was at university with married women from similar backgrounds to themselves, or at least with a similar work ethic. Except I know a couple whose wives/girlfriends don't work (no DCs), have never been able to pay their own rent, and don't seem to have much in the way of a life outside the home, and I'm kind of wondering exactly what sort of men they are behind closed doors. I think you can tell a lot about a man from his choice of partner.
Then of course theres the type of man who likes to have the quiet little wife at home, and the flirting/affairs outside the home...
My DH likes me to be submissive to him, He is definatly NOT abusive!
And tbh, I'm not really sure whats in it for any woman with a means of earning her own living, or why a woman would want to do that. Its such a lot of effort for so little in return. Most men are not kind-natured billionaires, so why would you bother?
this whole surrendered wife theme is a very old one but a great way of getting publicity.
I tend to not believe the woman who say they do this.
I'd be wary about extrapolating anything from Gabrielle Reece's relationship with Laird Hamilton. They are both extraordinary people, and that's meant in a factual way, rather than as an endorsement.
He, as a small child, more or less chose his mother's second husband for her. He grew up in a school environment where he had to fight constantly to defend himself - being a white child in class full of native Hawaiians. He's also, by his own admission, absolutely intolerable if he's not surfing big waves. Probably a nightmare to live with.
Watch the film Riding Giants - not very much about her, but you'll see why a marriage that normal people would want wouldn't really apply to him (and given her achievements, probably her).
So, GoSuckEggs what would your dh's attitude be if you decided not to be submissive to him?
AllFallDown I googled them after your comments and I see what you mean. Very few men would fall into his category, in terms of looks, sporting and business success. He sounds a bit of a pain and hard work but if Reece loves him, then that's fine for her. Whether a pot bellied, balding £25k pa British man demands such submissive devotion is another question. Although I note that in Reece, Laird Hamilton has still gone for a very successful, high achieving woman and perhaps she finds that it works for her to show more "submission" to emphasise her feminity.
I don't see the point of commenting on what works in other peoples relationships. Just because it isn't a relationship you want, doesn't mean other couples cant be happy in that sort of relationship.
Now where did I read a study (not a newspaper link BTW) that both parties in relationship that broadly conform to traditional roles are far happier than those couples who have a more modern approach.
FWIW, if my parents and ILs were still alive, they would be 80+ now. In reality the women controlled the relationship because they controlled the home, the children and the purse strings. I don't actually know of a man of that generation who didn't go to work, come home and put his pay packet on the table.
My father tells stories of his youth where on a Friday night, the women would be queued up outside the dockyard to retrieve pay packets before the men squandered it on drink. One might conclude they were married to old battle axes but certainly the women were in control.
Ditto the whole concept of 'new man' - that was certainly around when I was born, perfectly usual for working men with 'housewives' to share chores and childcare. I'm sure there were indeed exceptions to that - but certainly not in my parents social group.
In fact that type of relationship still carries through to my peer group. Of 8 couples we regularly socialise with, only one has what I would call a dominant male - the female are the dominant parties in all the other relationships.
I'd also point out of our 8 couple strong social group, all the men work FT, most of the women FT, some PT. None of the men have a drink problem and need their money removing. It's just accepted that as the principle homemaker and decision maker, women do a better job. If you asked any of them (bar one couple, but they are a whole different story entirely) they would say they have a totally equal relationship - but as an outsider you can tell who wears the trousers!
I think women are equal to men and are quite capable of making their own life choices.
It's relatively rare now, for couples to assume these very traditional polarised roles, with male being the earner, head of the household, in charge, and female being submissive and taking on all the home and child responsibilities. However, in situations where it does happen, I think it's wrong to assume the man must be abusive, because it's equally likely the woman actually wants that balance of power because it suits her needs. Some women don't want to have traditional male responsibilities, such as taking a career seriously, having to make financial decisions etc. So you could argue that in such a situation, the woman is acting with just as much of a 'What's in it for me?' attitude as the man
I agree with LessMissAbs that its anathema to many of us who are educated to the same level as our husbands and have always viewed ourselves as equals. But if there are women out there who promote the submissive approach, then thats up to them; I just wouldnt feel sorry for them, or assume theyve unwittingly hooked up with an abuser - the chances are, they're doing very nicely out of the set up thank you very much!
As for the book... well, I can't stand this sort of money for old rope thing. People are out there to make a fast buck, so I wouldnt take too much notice
He just likes feeling in control, feeling like i will do anything he says. It really turns him on, even just day to day stuff.
pandemoniaa, I am not submissive by nature. It takes a lot of self control to be submissive ALL the time. If i am not submissive he might, depending on where we are and what i am not submitting to, grab my hair or hold my face to his. But if he sees that i am serious in not wanting to submit to something he will not push it.
He obviously loves having me submit, and i sometimes pretend to rebel a bit so that he gets to 'punish me' but that is playful. if i am ever serious he respects me enough as a person to not be bothered.
I've been cooking brownies because everyone else loves them. This, despite loathing the chopping of pecan nuts and personally preferring lemon drizzle cake. Thanks to this thread, I now see that I've been romanticising everything and should have given the nuts a miss.
Just looked out the window and seen DH elbow deep in shit unblocking a pipe. He looks a bit oppressed. How nice there is pernicious rubbish around that means that's still his job.
I think I must be part of social groups very similar to both Holly and janey68. Which is possibly why I was so astonished to meet couples where there is a very traditional, submissive, non-working woman (before children), being given money by her boyfriend/husband to live on. I think its very unusual.
Perhaps its an American thing. If you read any of the stuff on American dating, it sounds like the women really seem to chase after the men and be very grateful when they find one.
Agree its money for old rope.
I think you're missing the point starfield. It's absolutely up to you and your DH whether you chop pecan nuts and which of you gets knee deep in crap unblocking pipes. All we're saying is, this is the 21st century and many couples view themselves as equals. Any particular talent one may have (whether chopping nuts, unblocking pipes, changing a nappy or addressing a work conference) are not by virtue of having a vagina or a penis.
Sweet Jesus GoSuck... You think him pulling you by the hair is ok????
yes i thought someone might comment on that. taken out of context it doesnt sound too good. within context we both find it turns us on.
Join the discussion
Please login first.