Women becoming more submissive?

[Faint]

There seems to be a trend in which women are becoming more submissive and seeking traditional values opposed to the continued pursuit of female equality. Do you agree? I'm not sure myself, but certain discussions I've had recently and things I've observed make me wonder if women are moving slightly away from their own liberation.

Now, the following are just a few personal observations (including young women I've talked to in person/dated and society observed in my neck of the woods as well as through the media), so this is by no means a comprehensive study. Anyway, here are some things I've noticed:

• Girls on college campuses whose hobbies include knitting, not to mention my cousin in junior high and her little girl-friends who do the same.
• Girls eager to cook for "the boys"; eager to demonstrate their baking skills.
• Several young married women who let their husbands make almost all the decisions, offering their own input only once in a while.
• My own dates who like me to take charge of everything, like plans, reservations, directions...and dominant behavior in other ways.
• The continued (perhaps enhanced) objectification of women which they accept for the most part...the high heels, the v-string panties, the shaving of specific patches of hair, make-up/hair style obsession (nothing new), radical (unnecessary) surgeries--all of which seems to say that their sole purpose here is to look pretty for us guys.
• Female college grads seeking a husband who will "take care of them" (preferably wealthy).

If this is true, why do you think it's happening? Have they become sick of the responsibilities that come with freedom? Are they tired of dating men who are not masculine enough (note the feminization of men by media persuasion...girly-man models and skinny, effeminate rock stars)? Is this just the newer generation's rebellion against their women's-lib parents?

Or do you think that nothing really changed (aside from laws)...that women have always been naturally submissive?

 

[Willamena]

There seems to be a trend in which women are becoming more submissive and seeking traditional values opposed to the continued pursuit of female equality. Do you agree? I'm not sure myself, but certain discussions I've had recently and things I've observed make me wonder if women are moving slightly away from their own liberation.

Now, the following are just a few personal observations (including young women I've talked to in person/dated and society observed in my neck of the woods as well as through the media), so this is by no means a comprehensive study. Anyway, here are some things I've noticed:

• Girls on college campuses whose hobbies include knitting, not to mention my cousin in junior high and her little girl-friends who do the same.
• Girls eager to cook for "the boys"; eager to demonstrate their baking skills.
• Several young married women who let their husbands make almost all the decisions, offering their own input only once in a while.
• My own dates who like me to take charge of everything, like plans, reservations, directions...and dominant behavior in other ways.
• The continued (perhaps enhanced) objectification of women which they accept for the most part...the high heels, the v-string panties, the shaving of specific patches of hair, make-up/hair style obsession (nothing new), radical (unnecessary) surgeries--all of which seems to say that their sole purpose here is to look pretty for us guys.
• Female college grads seeking a husband who will "take care of them" (preferably wealthy).

Knitting is anti-liberated? Oh my Brad, I've been doing it wrong all these years!

Seriously, None of the indicators you mention actually point to submissiveness (except maybe "other ways", but I'm sure that's all in good fun), and the "traditonal values" hinted at are entirely arbitary, not really tradition at all (summoning to mind conformity to a 1950's U.S. marketing advertisement campaign to sell home appliances that presented a pseudo-ideal of women as home-bodies).

Women have never ceased, in all their years of "liberatedness", engaging in fun activities like hobbies and crafts, cooking, pleasing their partners, or dressing to look attractive. (Equality hopefully means that they've been getting as good as they give.)

I would think your lady-friends who let you do the date-arranging are demonstrating personal or locally cultural preferences, if not simple laziness. That, too, has nothing to with "female liberation".

I don't know what it's like in your "neck of the woods," but where I come from the "liberation" gained from the feminist movement was about pay equity and fairness of treatment on a government and business level. Women are still making gains in that area, and there's still a ways to go.

Or do you think that nothing really changed (aside from laws)...that women have always been naturally submissive?

I still don't see how you get "submissive" out of knitting. (This I'd like to hear.)

 

[MaddLlama]

There seems to be a trend in which women are becoming more submissive and seeking traditional values opposed to the continued pursuit of female equality. Do you agree? I'm not sure myself, but certain discussions I've had recently and things I've observed make me wonder if women are moving slightly away from their own liberation.

I don't think so. I just think that the face of this liberation has changed drastically.

Girls on college campuses whose hobbies include knitting, not to mention my cousin in junior high and her little girl-friends who do the same.

Actually, this resurgence in knitting especially among college aged girls is from the feminist movement. The knitting craze started and became popular among "young adults" mostly because of Deborah Stoller - her books and her magazine which are teaching young girls how to be "domestic" and still be a feminist. It's wonderful really. I think the resurgence in interest in handi-crafts isn't making women more submissive, but rather women are taking what used to be "women's work" and putting a new feminist face on it.
I knit, and I don't feel submissive.

Girls eager to cook for "the boys"; eager to demonstrate their baking skills.

Women are better at cooking than men, in general. Feminists aren't allowed to cook? Yeah there are some hardcore feminazi's out there who want women to stay out of the kitchen, but just because a woman likes to cook or bake cookies for her boyfriend doesn't mean she's going to grow up to be the doting 50's housewife.
Again, I enjoy cooking and baking, and I don't feel submissive.

As far as everything else, I agree with Willamena. It's all really rather aribitrary, and Ozzie and Harriet never actually existed. *shrug*

 

[Faint]

I still don't see how you get "submissive" out of knitting. (This I'd like to hear.)

It just struck me as a primative handi-craft in contrast to activities with more advanced technology or other hobbies that might be more on par with what males do. And anytime I think of knitting, I think of the typical, "oh me oh my" housewife of the old days knitting baby clothing. It's a personal perspective I suppose.

 

[Willamena]

It just struck me as a primative handi-craft in contrast to activities with more advanced technology or other hobbies that might be more on par with what males do. And anytime I think of knitting, I think of the typical, "oh me oh my" housewife of the old days knitting baby clothing. It's a personal perspective I suppose.

Like... Lego?

lol

 

[Sunstone]

The continued (perhaps enhanced) objectification of women which they accept for the most part...the high heels, the v-string panties, the shaving of specific patches of hair, make-up/hair style obsession (nothing new), radical (unnecessary) surgeries--all of which seems to say that their sole purpose here is to look pretty for us guys.

I'm not sure you can make a strong argument that "looking pretty for us guys" is a sign of submissiveness, Faint. It actually seems to me that it's very much an opposite sign, a sign that women are taking power over their reproductive choices. But why would I say that?

In the first place, it should be noted that every traditional society with a history of repressing women, represses their expresssion of beauty and sexuality. Wearing "floor to ceiling" utterly plain garb designed to hide the female body is just one example of that. Prohibitions against using make up, against "immodest" dress, and so forth are usually sold to women as ways of gaining them the respect of men, but in actuallity they are ways of limiting female reproductive choice. But why?

The reason repressing a woman's expression of beauty and sexuality limits her reproductive choice is because women typically adopt a mating strategy of attracting, via their beauty and behavior, as many men as possible, and then choosing from those they attract which one(s) to mate with. In a sense, this is a passive strategy. But not really. It's actually quite agressive, provided the women are free to make themselves look as sexually attractive as they want to look. And this strategy is as old as the hills. Evidence from the evolutionary sciences indicates that women have been doing it for as long as we've been a species.

In other words, if you are going to repress women so that they are subordinate to men, you must repress their ability to choose mates for themselves, and the classic way of doing that has been to limit or eliminate a woman's ability to attract men to her.

So, the trend you see of "women making themselves pretty for us guys" is not, in fact, a sign of submission to men, but a sign of taking power over their own reproductive choices. Put differently, the more men a woman can attract, the more choices she has, the more options she has, the pickier she can be, about whom to mate with.

 

[egroen]

It just struck me as a primative handi-craft in contrast to activities with more advanced technology or other hobbies that might be more on par with what males do.

As opposed to the uber-techno art of football and drinking beer? :angel2:

-Erin

 

[Sunstone]

It's interesting that cooking should be seen in our day and age as a sign of submission. Have you ever stopped to think what cooking amounted to during most of our evolution? Put simply, the person who did the cooking, often did the distribution of food too. And the person who distributed the food, determined who got what when it came to eating. During most of our evolution, the cook decided who lived and who died during times of scarcity.

There are probably strong evolutionary reasons why in nearly every known culture and society, the role of cook is "woman's work". For one thing, women probably fed their children first, their mate second, and themselves last. That helped insure the survival of their offspring: i.e. their genes. Males might well have lost out on the cooking role by feeding themselves or their mates first, before their children, thus failing to help insure the survival of their offspring. Hence, in every society and culture today, the women are most likely to do the cooking.

Cooking is not a sign of submission, but a sign of taking control of the distribution of food.

 

[evearael]

There seems to be a trend in which women are becoming more submissive and seeking traditional values opposed to the continued pursuit of female equality. Do you agree? I'm not sure myself, but certain discussions I've had recently and things I've observed make me wonder if women are moving slightly away from their own liberation.
I am military wife and stay-at-home-mommy so I've found myself in a rather traditional role by my own free will and choice. My husband and I chose to live a very modest life by American standards so that our daughter would be well cared for and to give the family more stability with the potential for frequent and long deployments at very little notice. It works well for us.

Now, the following are just a few personal observations (including young women I've talked to in person/dated and society observed in my neck of the woods as well as through the media), so this is by no means a comprehensive study. Anyway, here are some things I've noticed:

• Girls on college campuses whose hobbies include knitting, not to mention my cousin in junior high and her little girl-friends who do the same.

I just spent the past hour knitting a sweater while my dear friend did some cross-stitching and our children played together.

• Girls eager to cook for "the boys"; eager to demonstrate their baking skills.

I have erratic cooking abilities. The food I make is either gourmet or on fire... literally. My husband is a natural at it--it is why I am already excited about Thanksgiving...

• Several young married women who let their husbands make almost all the decisions, offering their own input only once in a while.

I take the reins while my husband is away, but he gets them back to a large extent when he is home. I excel at anything abstract and useless and my husband is amazing with anything that is practical and applied, so it makes more sense to divide the labor based on our strengths. We still make all important decisions jointly, when possible.

• My own dates who like me to take charge of everything, like plans, reservations, directions...and dominant behavior in other ways.

I actually plan quite a bit.

• The continued (perhaps enhanced) objectification of women which they accept for the most part...the high heels, the v-string panties, the shaving of specific patches of hair, make-up/hair style obsession (nothing new), radical (unnecessary) surgeries--all of which seems to say that their sole purpose here is to look pretty for us guys.

There is nothing wrong with v-strings and shaving... that's my preference. I have good skin, so I never wear makeup. My hair is short and requires very little care to look cute. I hate wearing heels because I am so clumsy. My bust is proportionate to my hips so I would never consider surgery.

• Female college grads seeking a husband who will "take care of them" (preferably wealthy).

My husbands salary is modest but it pays the bills.

If this is true, why do you think it's happening? Have they become sick of the responsibilities that come with freedom? Are they tired of dating men who are not masculine enough (note the feminization of men by media persuasion...girly-man models and skinny, effeminate rock stars)? Is this just the newer generation's rebellion against their women's-lib parents?
I turned down a big promotion to stay home with my daughter. I would rather have a great family than a great career. The most important aspect for me is that it was my choice to stay home. I was not coerced in any way.

Or do you think that nothing really changed (aside from laws)...that women have always been naturally submissive?
I tend to be a bit on the submissive side, but only with my husband--he is worthy. I tend to be rather dominant with everyone else.

 

[michel]

I am not sure about this; I don't think it is something that is represented throughout the strata of society. By that, I mean the economic/sociological groups.

There is mounting evidence that young teenage girls are actually deciding to have a baby (as opposed to having an unwanted/accidental pregnancy). Having said that, it does not point to submissiveness; if anything it is a 'liberated' way of making decisions that their mothers would have seen as very 'unliberated'.

The group this refers to is mainly the girls who are not academic, and who come from families that have traditionally fit into the 'lower disposable income bracket' (in plain language, those with less money).

I suppose women have wallowed in the pleasures and novelties of emancipation (or should it be ewomancipation?), and are now beginning to take stock of what that has achieved; in other words, is that what they really want?

I saw a 29 year old doctor interviewed on television a short while ago. She found herself confused and at odds with what her goal had been, and the reality.

Having studied medicine, and, at her age, having carved a niche for herself (and having just 'settled' into where she wanted to be (income, credentials) she explained how it was not until she had studied medicine that she realised how age does matter to a woman for starting a family.

As I say, at 29, having achieved most of her expectations for herself at that age, she was at a crossroads where the career and mothering roles were 'not in sync'. Was she going to risk leaving having children for a few more years (which would decrease her chances of being able to conceive/carry a child full term/the likelyhood of babies not being in 'a1' health...........).

I see it as" the stock taking " post achievement of the breaking down of traditional roles; "Do we really want what we have fought so hard for ?" Type of scenario.
.

 

[Faint]

I'm not sure you can make a strong argument that "looking pretty for us guys" is a sign of submissiveness, Faint. It actually seems to me that it's very much an opposite sign, a sign that women are taking power over their reproductive choices. But why would I say that?

In the first place, it should be noted that every traditional society with a history of repressing women, represses their expresssion of beauty and sexuality. Wearing "floor to ceiling" utterly plain garb designed to hide the female body is just one example of that. Prohibitions against using make up, against "immodest" dress, and so forth are usually sold to women as ways of gaining them the respect of men, but in actuallity they are ways of limiting female reproductive choice. But why?

The reason repressing a woman's expression of beauty and sexuality limits her reproductive choice is because women typically adopt a mating strategy of attracting, via their beauty and behavior, as many men as possible, and then choosing from those they attract which one(s) to mate with. In a sense, this is a passive strategy. But not really. It's actually quite agressive, provided the women are free to make themselves look as sexually attractive as they want to look. And this strategy is as old as the hills. Evidence from the evolutionary sciences indicates that women have been doing it for as long as we've been a species.

In other words, if you are going to repress women so that they are subordinate to men, you must repress their ability to choose mates for themselves, and the classic way of doing that has been to limit or eliminate a woman's ability to attract men to her.

So, the trend you see of "women making themselves pretty for us guys" is not, in fact, a sign of submission to men, but a sign of taking power over their own reproductive choices. Put differently, the more men a woman can attract, the more choices she has, the more options she has, the pickier she can be, about whom to mate with.

A very good post. And definitely valid points. I would agree completely if it wasn't for the fact that most of the women I meet are extraordinarily insecure once you get to know them. For example, I do fashion photography...the female models I work with are supremely gorgeous, and you would think that with such beauty (which does give them a huge selection of potential mates) they would be confident and formidable in their relationships (running the show as it were)...but it's the opposite. Almost all of them without exception are extremely insecure...and I don't think all of this comes from their desire to excel in a competive beauty industry. Sure, I've gone clubbing with some and they always project a kind of "b*tch-shield" or a "higher than thou" attitude to ward off unwanted attention in these places...but when they're out of that atmosphere their general frame of mind seems to be geared towards "what would a guy want me to wear?" or "how would a guy want me to act?" Asking themselves these questions in turn helps them figure out how to look sexy of course...but the way I look at it, if someone's sense of self-worth and their overall motivation for dressing a certain way stems from a desire to please someone else--that is a submissive attitude.

As opposed to the uber-techno art of football and drinking beer?

It occurs to me that the males I hang out with are not very representative of the general XY population. So I'll withdraw my comment on that matter as it was not very well thought-out. :bow:

 

[Willamena]

I turned down a big promotion to stay home with my daughter. I would rather have a great family than a great career. The most important aspect for me is that it was my choice to stay home. I was not coerced in any way.

That's women's liberation.

It's about empowerment, and that can be found in any setting doing any activity.

 

[Faint]

I see it as" the stock taking " post achievement of the breaking down of traditional roles; "Do we really want what we have fought so hard for ?" Type of scenario.
.

I was thinking along these lines too. Maybe women are happier not having the responsibility that so many men assume (both as bachelors and husbands) for ourselves. It wouldn't surprise me...I'm sure a lot of the guys here can attest to the pressure that comes with trying to be not only the primary bread winner, but also a protector, bedroom stud, handyman, and occasional therapist (to name a few).

Maybe for a little while they thought they wanted to be equal (or in charge) but in the end would rather the man dominate the relationship?

There is nothing wrong with v-strings and shaving...

This is the unquestionable truth.

 

[Willamena]

Maybe for a little while they thought they wanted to be equal (or in charge) but in the end would rather the man dominate the relationship?

What do you mean by "equal"? If you mean doing the things men do, then that's not equality, that's gender-hopping role-reversal.

 

[Sunstone]

...if someone's sense of self-worth and their overall motivation for dressing a certain way stems from a desire to please someone else--that is a submissive attitude.

Good points, Faint! A couple of things, however, might be worth noting here. In the first place, it doesn't really matter in biological terms how insecure the organism feels emotionally. What matters is whether the organism has greater or lesser reproductive choice of the best mates. So, if women feel terribly insecure about their looks, and that insecurity motivates them to try to look even more pleasing to men than they otherwise would, the only thing that really matters, in biological terms, is whether that emotional insecurity has ultimately resulted in their having a choice of mates with the best genes in the gene pool. Having a choice in mates allows a woman to be picky, and that's real power over reproductive choice.

Furthermore, insecurity about ones sexual attractiveness is by no means limited to young women. I used to hang out with a huge numebr of high school students (long story how that came about) and both the young women and the young men often nervously sought my advice about how to deal with the other sex. The only difference was in how they approached the subject with me, not in the importance they attached to it, nor in the insecurity and inadequacy they felt in dealing with the other sex. So, it might be a little one sided to think of young women as more insecure than young men. My own experience has been that they are about equally concerned with impressing each other, and equally insecure about it.

 

[Faint]

What do you mean by "equal"? If you mean doing the things men do, then that's not equality, that gender-hopping.

I mean that the vast majority of relationships I've heard of are not equal. It starts at the beginning...who plans and pays on the first date? Usually the man. Who spends most of the money on courtship? The man. Who gets to wear an expensive engagement ring? Not the man. Who does most of the child rearing? Not the man. Who usually becomes the stay at home spouse? Not the man. Who wants to date/marry a man who makes significantly less money than she does? Not most women. Who doesn't mind dating/marrying a woman who makes far less money than he does? Men. Who needs constant verification that her looks are up to par? Not the man. Who is under the pressure of winning a spouse before her beauty expires--and then retaining him once it does? Not the man. :slap:

 

[Quoth The Raven]

It just struck me as a primative handi-craft in contrast to activities with more advanced technology or other hobbies that might be more on par with what males do. And anytime I think of knitting, I think of the typical, "oh me oh my" housewife of the old days knitting baby clothing. It's a personal perspective I suppose.

Um...some of the best needlework designers in the world are men.:cover: And I made quite a reasonable amount of money during high school and uni designing and knitting jumpers. Now I do bucket loads of cross stitch...and I'm about to start a new job next week, while the other half stays home and does the home duties thing. Put it all together, am I submissive, do I wear the pants, or am I just someone who likes to do stuff that may have traditionally been seen as 'feminine' pursuits because I have a need to keep my hands constantly busy?

 

[Faint]

I used to hang out with a huge numebr of high school students (long story how that came about)

That's okay...I've heard of your cult affiliations.

and both the young women and the young men often nervously sought my advice about how to deal with the other sex. The only difference was in how they approached the subject with me, not in the importance they attached to it, nor in the insecurity and inadequacy they felt in dealing with the other sex. So, it might be a little one sided to think of young women as more insecure than young men. My own experience has been that they are about equally concerned with impressing each other, and equally insecure about it.

Hmmm...yeah. I guess I can't use this kind of concern as a symptom of submissiveness since everyone cares what other people think of them (and they especially care about the opinion of those they wish to attract).

 

[Willamena]

I mean that the vast majority of relationships I've heard of are not equal. It starts at the beginning...who plans and pays on the first date? Usually the man. Who spends most of the money on courtship? The man. Who gets to wear an expensive engagement ring? Not the man. Who does most of the child rearing? Not the man. Who usually becomes the stay at home spouse? Not the man. Who wants to date/marry a man who makes significantly less money than she does? Not most women. Who doesn't mind dating/marrying a woman who makes far less money than he does? Men. Who needs constant verification that her looks are up to par? Not the man. Who is under the pressure of winning a spouse before her beauty expires--and then retaining him once it does? Not the man. :slap:

Okay, I can have no response to your post. I like the smilie though. :rainbow1:

 

[Faint]

Um...some of the best needlework designers in the world are men.:cover: And I made quite a reasonable amount of money during high school and uni designing and knitting jumpers. Now I do bucket loads of cross stitch...and I'm about to start a new job next week, while the other half stays home and does the home duties thing. Put it all together, am I submissive, do I wear the pants, or am I just someone who likes to do stuff that may have traditionally been seen as 'feminine' pursuits because I have a need to keep my hands constantly busy?

Okay fine, I apologize to all the knitters out there. Needlework makes you powerful and liberated. Please don't stab me with your crochet needles.