(April 22, 2014 at 12:40 pm)My imaginary friend is GOD Wrote: I'm talking about people who don't want to make any decisions for themselves and want someone else to run their lives and call themselves "submissive." That's not submission, that's sheepism.

O of course it is. I think what rest of us mean is wanting to please someone ahead of yourself because it makes everyone involved happy. Huh. Didn't think this would turn into a discussion about subbing!

I don't have a problem with that. By that definition, I guess you could say I'm submissive. (Although um, I'm really, really not.)

It was not very clear to me what you meant with submissive, I can assume what you mean, but I might interpret it wrong.

Some people might call me submissive and sheepish for making my boyfriend dinner.
Some people might call me submissive for having my boyfriend do the taxes.

But that does not mean I don't make decisions for myself. (I decide what we have for dinner :p)
So yes, I was curious to what you considered submissive to a level of sheepishness.
I understand now that you are talking about people who are scared to take decisions.

And sure, I see why it bothers you that some people do not take their own decisions, but how is that a problem to you? Besides the fact that you think people should have a backbone.

It's one of the things that bothers me the most about people, that they are so scared of making their own decisions that they will let anyone else make decisions for them, be it a religious figure, a subculture, or a lover. I simply can't respect that. Most humans have brains that are capable of making decisions themselves. People should take responsibility for their lives. There are some things in the world we can't control, like the weather or the circumstances of our birth, but most things are under our control. At least people who put their lives in "God's" hands believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient. What's people's excuse for letting humans make all their decisions for them? One human is just as fallible as another.

I guess I just don't get it because I've always been more independent than that.

Women shouldn't be looked down on if they choose to be submissive in a relationship. Personally I don't believe there is a such thing as a 50/50 relationship, someone leads and the other follows. There are a lot of men today that choose to follow, it comes in the form of the "yes dear" mentality. Why shouldn't women too?

(April 22, 2014 at 7:46 am)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: Is it just me or does modern feminism seem to hate everything feminine? I like pink! That's the patriarchy! I like ribbons! That's the patriarchy! I like other more feminine women! You're not radical enough! That's the patriarchy talking! Modern feminist go on about the patriarchy and the war on women, but look down their noses at women who are very feminine. If you ask me some women have some serious self-hate going on. I thought feminism was about choice.

I don't think that modern feminists hate everything feminine. But you do have a point anyway. I feel that modern feminism has failed to a great extent in Sweden, partially because it has become too influenced by quasi-political left wing radicals who are more interested in self expression than real issues. It's all about them getting attention, really. Thus they focus on mostly superficial attributes such as gender identity, clothing, speaking and acting in a PC manner, and so on. They flit from one fad issue to another, bicker among themselves and attack their own because it is easier to get a win that way.
I believe this, and big egos, was what led to the failure of the Swedish feminist party, Fi.
Perhaps something similiar is happening in the US and other countries.
In the end it doesn't really matter if you skip around in knee socks, short skirts and wear ribbons in your hair, or if you shave your hair off and wear only unisex coveralls. This will not have any real effect on equal opportunities, equal pay for equal work, violence against women, and so on and so forth.

Nora,

I don't really have a problem with anything you've said but just a couple of points:

(April 22, 2014 at 12:05 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: I'm a "modern feminist" and I love pink. I have a pink version of anything that comes in pink.

The problem with pink is when it's pushed on little girls "because they're girls" and blue is pushed on boys "because they're boys". Why should we shove children into gender stereotypes to the point where we actually colour-code them?

I guess it comes down to the child in question. When my daughter was born she was the first grandchild on both sides of the family. Clothes poured in - most pink. She loved it. Then, suddenly, about 5 years ago she announced that she never wanted to see pink again and purple was where it was at.

No biggie - but we drew the line at re-decorating her room in purple - we compromised on a gentle shade of green.

Quote:If I have a son, he'll definitely wear pink sometimes because pink is a lovely colour. If I have a girl, she'll probably wear blue sometimes because blue can also be a nice colour. I didn't have pink things given to me all the time when I was a kid, I was left to be myself, and my love of pink has nothing to do with having a vagina. For some women, their favourite colour is pink because someone in their childhood told them that it should be.

Again see above - but I think its best to let the child choose the colour he or she wants to wear if its important to them.

Quote:There's nothing wrong with being feminine, it's the trying to make other people feminine that's the issue. Women who judge other women for not wearing make up, not owning like 10+ pairs of shoes and handbags, not owning a single dress to wear, not paying someone to do their hair and nails, etc. that's the problem. Or women who only do all that feminine stuff because Cosmo told them they're not worth shit if they're not all girly, and attractive to men. Meanwhile their feet hurt and they're broke because of it all.

I'm very glad you wrote that. I do not think the pressure comes from men at all. Cosmo's idea of what is appealing to men is probably not what is actually appealing to men.

Quote:In the patriarchy, women are meant to hang around looking as pretty as possible until a man claims her, then she's supposed to be some kind of personal slave/whore/babyvendingmachine for her husband. We see this system backfire on men who actually want to do some of the things that the patriarchy only wants women to do.

Agreed - but I think this is a problem that has largely passed its sell-by date. My wife has been a high powered professional for the last 28 years or so - rather more high powered than me actually.

Quote:Are you a man who wants custody of your kid after a breakup? Nope. L That's "women's work"!
You want to take a year off work to bond with/look after your new baby? Of course not, only mothers get to do that. We wouldn't want to encourage any kind of" role reversal" now, would we? It might lead to equality! But here, have two weeks so you can help out a bit until mummy can walk again.
Then, when people notice this crap, somehow women are blamed. Excuse me, who makes these rules again?

What rules? We never faced any rules. I run the household and have done for the last 7 years or so. When my daughter was born my wife did the first 6 weeks then I took over. Women's work? That would be no - just work and we allocate it according to who is best at it.

(April 22, 2014 at 1:13 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: Women shouldn't be looked down on if they choose to be submissive in a relationship. Personally I don't believe there is a such thing as a 50/50 relationship, someone leads and the other follows. There are a lot of men today that choose to follow, it comes in the form of the "yes dear" mentality. Why shouldn't women too?

Well, I know that relationships can be 50/50 because I've seen it before. I think it's okay to follow someone else's lead when they know more about something than you do, just not all the time on every subject.

(April 22, 2014 at 2:22 pm)My imaginary friend is GOD Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 1:13 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: Women shouldn't be looked down on if they choose to be submissive in a relationship. Personally I don't believe there is a such thing as a 50/50 relationship, someone leads and the other follows. There are a lot of men today that choose to follow, it comes in the form of the "yes dear" mentality. Why shouldn't women too?

Well, I know that relationships can be 50/50 because I've seen it before. I think it's okay to follow someone else's lead when they know more about something than you do, just not all the time on every subject.

For the most part I think a lot of relationships have the illusion of 50/50, but someone defers mainly to the other person. It doesn't have to mean they are all 99/1 but I think 50/50 is something that is incredibly, incredibly unlikely. I think banking on being in a 50/50 relationship is like scratching lotto tickets in hopes that you can retire on the winnings. Both people in the relationship are different, even if they do share common interests/goals/likes/dislikes they will eventually come across things they disagree with and one person will get it their way most of the time. It's like if your walking down a narrow hallway and someone is coming the opposite way. When you meet you both move left and right to try and get out of eachother's way but just end up moving in the same direction and blocking the path of the other. In reality the simple solution is for one person to take charge and say "You stand on this side" so you both can keep moving.

(April 22, 2014 at 3:47 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 2:22 pm)My imaginary friend is GOD Wrote: Well, I know that relationships can be 50/50 because I've seen it before. I think it's okay to follow someone else's lead when they know more about something than you do, just not all the time on every subject.

For the most part I think a lot of relationships have the illusion of 50/50, but someone defers mainly to the other person. It doesn't have to mean they are all 99/1 but I think 50/50 is something that is incredibly, incredibly unlikely. I think banking on being in a 50/50 relationship is like scratching lotto tickets in hopes that you can retire on the winnings. Both people in the relationship are different, even if they do share common interests/goals/likes/dislikes they will eventually come across things they disagree with and one person will get it their way most of the time. It's like if your walking down a narrow hallway and someone is coming the opposite way. When you meet you both move left and right to try and get out of eachother's way but just end up moving in the same direction and blocking the path of the other. In reality the simple solution is for one person to take charge and say "You stand on this side" so you both can keep moving.

Hmm this has been very interesting.

What about someone who is dominant all the time. It their career, their school, the rest of their family. They always have to take charge. Someone who is highly intelligent and won't hesitate to be a leader.
But the one most important relationship. The intimate one. They simply choose to relinquish all control to their partner. Maybe they like to be submissive all the time with that person. Maybe they enjoy it. Maybe it's just a break for them.
Are these people less respectable?

I personally don't care how others choose to live their personal lives. Whether they're submissive or dominant or equal in their personal relationships is irrelevant (unless I'm their partner :p)
I decide whether or not I respect someone base on how they treat other people. What kind of choices they make when it actually affects other people.