Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Are most women naturally submissive to men? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I expect it is biological due to sexual dimorphism and the evolutionary divergence of responsibilities.
    According to feminists you're a either a virgin, a troll or a misogynist for thinking that. Probably all 3.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I expect it is biological due to sexual dimorphism and the evolutionary divergence of responsibilities.
    There is definitely studies out there that proves your point.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I have known some women who admitted being sexually attracted to "bad boys", in their own words someone not only dominant but aggressive, ultra-smooth and immoral (one actually wanted someone who did some "seriously sinister ****"). Which would make their ideal a socially adept psychopath.

    ... then in their next breath they spout feminist stuff about also wanting equality and being respected as a person. Well to someone with such contradictory desires I can say good luck getting that combo, but it DOES seem like a case of either/or.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBBQ)
    Have the feminists arrived yet
    Yea. What I don't get is why feminists get so upset when you tell men men are different from women since they blame everything on men (patriarchy, rape, domestic violence, sexism etc etc etc)? Why do they want to be the same as men when men are the Devil's spawn?
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StevieA)
    According to feminists you're a either a virgin, a troll or a misogynist for thinking that. Probably all 3.
    I don't really see why. There is sexual dimorphism and there is a divergence of biological responsibility.

    I think a more common opposition to what I wrote would be that although we might be innately predisposed towards certain roles, that this is a small influence in comparison with cultural influence (or an individual's own decision-making). This is a good argument, but even if true, the culture had to come from somewhere.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mequa)
    I have known some women who admitted being sexually attracted to "bad boys", in their own words someone not only dominant but aggressive, ultra-smooth and immoral (one actually wanted someone who did some "seriously sinister ****"). Which would make their ideal a socially adept psychopath.

    ... then in their next breath they spout feminist stuff about also wanting equality and being respected as a person. Well to someone with such contradictory desires I can say good luck getting that combo, but it DOES seem like a case of either/or.
    LOL this reminds me of that guy who was going on about his ex who was wanted him to spit in her mouth and punch her or whatever during sex.

    I think women have a tough fight between their natural instincts and what society tells them a modern, independent woman should be like. I mean men have the same issue (although the other way around: cavemen instincts vs sensitive metrosexual) but in a way I think it's tougher for women since they are dominated by feelings and they have a much stronger natural need to fit in and be part of mainstream trends.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I don't really see why. There is sexual dimorphism and there is a divergence of biological responsibility.
    That's merely according to, you know, hard empirical evidence. The "problem" is that it contradicts sacred feminist doctrine/dogma, which strongly downplays or even outright denies the role of "nature" in favour of "nurture" (upbringing), in order to ideologically oppose the notion of a fixed female nature as a supposed enabling myth of the evil Patriarchy.

    It's not possible to simply derive prescriptive/normative gender roles from the empirical data, however. That would be a naturalistic fallacy, jumping David Hume's is-ought gap by attempting to derive an "ought" from an "is". An example of this fallacy would be if one were to argue that since men are naturally predisposed to be like cavemen, men ought to be like that. (Ditto for females.)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StevieA)
    According to feminists you're a either a virgin, a troll or a misogynist for thinking that. Probably all 3.
    You forgot mentally ill, creepy, and/or a loser. Shaming and ad hominems often work against legitimate critique, hence their repeated use by the aforementioned demographic.

    I got "you must have some kind of cognitive disorder, seek help before you rape someone" once after disagreeing with a sacred tenet of the feminist faith.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    women are naturally submissive, it is biological and is certainly feminine to be like that. they will be submissive mainly to guys with masculine traits.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mequa)
    That's merely according to, you know, hard empirical evidence. The "problem" is that it contradicts sacred feminist doctrine/dogma, which strongly downplays or even outright denies the role of "nature" in favour of "nurture" (upbringing), in order to ideologically oppose the notion of a fixed female nature as a supposed enabling myth of the evil Patriarchy.
    It depends on the feminist. There is a tendency in the feminist movement to promote the tabula rasa behaviourist conception of human psychology, in which behavioural differences associated with gender are insisted to be learnt - but this typically applies to more radical feminists. I myself would call myself a feminist but I try to have scientific thought inform my ideologies rather than the other way around (which in my opinion puts the cart before the horse).

    (Original post by Mequa)
    It's not possible to simply derive prescriptive/normative gender roles from the empirical data, however. That would be a naturalistic fallacy, jumping David Hume's is-ought gap by attempting to derive an "ought" from an "is". An example of this fallacy would be if one were to argue that since men are naturally predisposed to be like cavemen, men ought to be like that. (Ditto for females.)
    I agree. I don't make any claim that society is better organised this way or that there is some moral interest in preserving traditional gender roles, except insofar as to do so would promote the well-being of conscious creatures (and I'm not convinced it would).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I don't really see why. There is sexual dimorphism and there is a divergence of biological responsibility.

    I think a more common opposition to what I wrote would be that although we might be innately predisposed towards certain roles, that this is a small influence in comparison with cultural influence (or an individual's own decision-making). This is a good argument, but even if true, the culture had to come from somewhere.
    I have heard feminists say that Victoria Secret 's models are only considered attractive because of social programming. Or that maternal instincts are socially constructed. Or that females athletes with be on par with male ones if they had enough funding. Along with many other equally amazing pearls of wisdom. Even Freud 's brain would have imploded if he were alive today.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StevieA)
    I have heard feminists say that Victoria Secret 's models are only considered attractive because of social programming. Or that maternal instincts are socially constructed. Or that females athletes with be on par with male ones if they had enough funding. Along with many other equally amazing pearls of wisdom. Even Freud 's brain would have imploded if he were alive today.
    Well, the first of those I think is true to a certain extent. For example, I think there are cultures which have found women with a bit of weight behind them the model of attractiveness, or pale skin versus the tanned look of today. But cultural influence doesn't have free reign, which we can see when we study attractive people and discover things we had no idea people picked up on (e.g. pheromones, complementary genetics, etc.).

    I'm not too critical of these kind of feminist beliefs though because they're not distinct from a lot of the other dubious things people tend to believe. For example that people have control over whom they find attractive, or that they are not prejudiced, or that the decisions they make are all rational, or that 93% of communication is body language, etc. There's tons of woowoo out there and most of it seems to be motivated by the ego (to support one's view of oneself or the ideologies and values one holds).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I am only submissive in the bedroom, or in a kinky relationship. I'm not naturally submissive to a man because he's a man or because he's powerful. I'm a dominant women who wants a fabulous career and wouldn't mind either being the joint breadwinner, having the higher paid job, or having the lower. It's not nature for a female to be caregiver, in many culture the male are the care givers. For example, lionesses are the hunters, and in the African Aka tribe the men look after the children.


    TL;DR, not all women are submissive, nor is it solely nature, at the very least
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sazzy890)
    I was coming in here to dismiss the theory outright, but having read your thread I started to doubt my dismissal because you actually have a point

    The main question now is whether this is natural (i.e. biological) or just due to a shift in society over time because for an extremely long time women were treated as weak and were not given opportunities, men were the only ones who could do a lot of things (e.g. work, vote etc) and men had to be strong and breadwinners for the family. Maybe this resulted in a shift over time of what women find attractive in a man. It makes you wonder if, had society treated men and women equally from the start, would the attractive features be different? I think they probably would be.
    not GIVEN opportunities?


    More like every single time a woman had sex in her prime she was risking being made 'disabled'. They stunted their own economic/social growth the moment they were inseminated.
    Women did not have the government who had a monopoly on force to turn to for freebies, they had to rely on their partner. The partner goes out and earns resources for himself and his dependants.

    By the time women reached menopausal age, she would have been well behind in experience/knowledge, meaning she would not be able to compete with men in the workforce.
    So if a women did not go for a strong/dominate male, then she/her children won't feel 'safe/secure'. Such characteristics are sought after today, by women who will spend a lot of their time out of the workforce nurturing her children.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Women are submissive to dominant males but beta males are submissive to females.
    This
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This thread is just sexism and opinion dressed up as 'biological fact'.

    Absolute rubbish.

    Biology and evolution play a role, but society is a powerful influence. It is dangerous to talk of being 'naturally' anything when we are all so socially produced.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Well, the first of those I think is true to a certain extent. For example, I think there are cultures which have found women with a bit of weight behind them the model of attractiveness, or pale skin versus the tanned look of today. But cultural influence doesn't have free reign, which we can see when we study attractive people and discover things we had no idea people picked up on (e.g. pheromones, complementary genetics, etc.).

    I'm not too critical of these kind of feminist beliefs though because they're not distinct from a lot of the other dubious things people tend to believe. For example that people have control over whom they find attractive, or that they are not prejudiced, or that the decisions they make are all rational, or that 93% of communication is body language, etc. There's tons of woowoo out there and most of it seems to be motivated by the ego (to support one's view of oneself or the ideologies and values one holds).
    Curves in the right places and proportions are what makes women attractive, the ultimate signs of fertility. Her height and weight are not that important unless they are over the top. The fat woman love thing in some cultures is (and I hate sounding like a feminist) a social construct , it basically shows that woman certainly doesn't lack nourishment if you know what I'm saying. It's a sign of prosperity which was incredibly important in times where starvation was part of daily life, the same way pale people in Europe were adored because it basically meant aristocrats who didn't have to do outside work and weren't exposed to the sun. Again, prosperity. The same way you can pick up a girl while driving a Lambo without even saying a word. Girls don't know exactly how much it costs but they know it's a lot. Notice how they literally submit to him within seconds.

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Am I missing something or..? Why do so many boys on this site have a problem with women and think they're better just because they have a ****?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It does explain why 50 shades of grey was so popular.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Depends on the man /woman I guess.

    There are plenty of men who want to be dominated by a woman ( I am reliably informed by the newspapers).

    Plenty of men too who are dominated by their emotions - presumably that's why they cannot stop themselves attacking their partners, children. other men?

    There must be a study here of why men who in the same way as women, when children, have lives almost totally dominated by the female sex, suddenly think they ( the women) are submissive creatures once they ( the men) are grown up. Flies in the face of experience I would think. More wishful thinking than fact perhaps.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.