Do you believe submissiveness is an inherently gendered trait? Why do some red pillers praise submissiveness in one gender and deride it in the other?

mrpoopistan · 2013-11-26T07:25:20+00:00

Dominance is contextual, and a relationship between two people of different genders is simply one context.

At any given time, a large majority of the human race -- comprised member of both sexes in fact -- is submitting to someone else. And, in fact, this someone else tends to be a dominant male.

A huge chunk of this is just k-selected evolutionary theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory#K-selection Mind you that like any idea, you should treat that as a very rough framework and not a religious truth from which there is no escape.

Humans evolved in a very limited world. By most estimates, modern humans are descended from a handful of clusters of 50-200 people that didn't get along with each other very well.

The big leap toward modern man is a daisy chain of events that were triggered by aggressive male behavior coupled with group cohesion and innovation. We're talking hunting parties which adopt hunting dogs which yield more food which yields larger populations which yields settling and free time which yields agriculture which yields taming animals which yields horses which yields trade and large-scale warfare and so on and so on and so on until suddenly you have two adult male humans standing on the moon for the precise purpose of proving for once and for all that the competitive spirit combined with option large-scale co-operation is a superior ideology to mindless and expected co-operation.

Modern humanity is a product of a relentless series of k-selections that repeatedly amplified the dominance of men (the worst of which for women is actually the taming of the horse, which gives rise to trade, agricultural expansion, war and pretty much everything that allows a small handful of men to accumulate a shitload of power). The modern human male is, at the base of the equation, the product of a ridiculous series of winning streaks. And those wins are strung together by generations of dangerously stupid men deciding to put a serious fuckin to other dangerously stupid men.

You can't simply unwind all of those wins by unleashing a few feminist ideas on the world. Men have been winning for so damned long, and women have been favoring breeding with the winners for so damned long, that the desire of women to breed with successful men is all but a foregone conclusion.

am_thro_way · 2013-11-23T16:31:10+00:00

Submissiveness cannot be demanded (just like respect), it has to be willingly given and that can only happen when a woman meets a good alpha.

Submissiveness in a man romantically and sexually can be positive traits. A good alpha can have these traits while still remaining dominant, the point is that he is not submissive all the time.

In a societal sense, I think the strongest, smartest, and overall best candidate should always be in charge regardless of sex. I think both sexes should have to meet the same standards in regards to testing. For example, men and women both have to pass the same tests in order to become doctors - but I also think men and woman should have to qualify under the same standards when trying to join the police, military or become a firefighter.

I think some women are naturally submissive, while other women would never consider being submissive unless they met a good alpha that they were attracted to. There was a time when I would have laughed at the idea of submitting to any man I was dating. Again, submission is a choice, sometimes a conscious one, other times it just happens.

I'm not sure how being submissive enabled you to stay fit, could you elaborate? I also don't know how being submissive is a good trait when raising children, again, can you elaborate? A mother has to be in control of her kids or they will walk all over her. Children naturally test their boundaries and push their limits....if the mother has no methods for disciplining her children and remaining dominant then that's a recipe for disaster.

No one should do something that fundamentally repels them. Yes, people make sacrifices in a relationships - both parties do that in a RP dynamic. A good alpha will frequently put his partner's needs before his own. A good RPW will do everything she can to make her man happy. It's beneficial because both the man and the woman care about each other and work to make things positive and harmonious - and they accomplish this by fulfilling different roles.

I'm not sure why you think it's wrong to advocate for a captain/first mate (you used 'dominant/submissive) dynamic? One of the core beliefs of RP and RPW is that men and women are fundamentally different. A good relationship is one where the female believes and trusts the man enough so that she can submit to him.

I am confused as to how you believe submissiveness can allow you to excel in an educational and professional setting where submission is part of the structure (teachers are dominant over students - or at least should be, bosses/superiors are dominant over their employees) yet you disagree with this dynamic when it involves two adults that either decide or fall naturally into this relationship dynamic.

As I stated on the other thread that you commented on, this is not something that can be forced. You have an understanding and a truth that resonates within you, and that's fine. I had the same beliefs as you prior to meeting my SO. I had relationships that were based on equality, but I wanted the man to be masculine and myself to be feminine. Those relationships did not work. I became frustrated because little got done. Until you meet a good alpha, and know personally what it is like to feel the force and power of his personality and presence, it's really hard to explain why this dynamic works so wonderfully.

As an aside, I am still curious about the questions I asked you in the other thread, and I hope you take the time to reply.

All the best to you.

why_downvote_mods · 2013-11-23T16:26:58+00:00

dunno but ive ruined tons of relationships by being an alpha asshole

GayLubeOil · 2013-11-26T16:59:24+00:00

Submissiveness is a gendered trait. If you don't believe me add a bunch of testosterone to your body. Your not going to be acting very submissive.

RlyORly · 2013-11-24T04:09:35+00:00

I'm just wondering.. in couple dancing, traditionally the man is the one that takes the lead, and the woman is the one that follows. The question is why ?

namae_nanka · 2013-11-24T06:14:25+00:00

What people say, what they do and how they speak with members of their own sex differ considerably from how they behave when the other sex is around. Maccoby threw a hand grenade into her field of developmental psychology years ago when she showed that gender differences in children couldn't be accounted for by personality traits but rather by the gender composition of a group. Little girls aren't "passive" as some ingrained quality, for example; they are passive only when boys are present. This approach shows why traditional efforts to measure sex differences in terms of individual traits or abilities (empathy, vanity, submissiveness, intelligence, math abilities and so forth) are fruitless and become quickly dated. Sex differences that show up in any study tend to be artifacts of education, power, the immediate social context and the historical moment, which is why they wax and wane with the times. For example, "female intuition" about other people is actually subordinate's intuition: both sexes are equally intuitive when they have to read a superior's mood, nonverbal signals or intentions--and equally thick-headed, when they are the bosses, about their subordinates' feelings. Maccoby sets out to explain the great mystery of gender development: the virtually universal existence of gender segregation among children, which remains impervious to the best efforts of egalitarian-minded parents and teachers. Boys and girls will play together if adults require them to, although it's often "side-by-side" play, in which each does his or her own thing, but given their druthers, children self-segregate. The result, Maccoby argues, is the emergence of a "girls' culture" and a "boys' culture" that are strikingly different in play styles, toy preferences and ways of interacting.

http://www.amazon.com/Two-Sexes-Growing-Coming-Together/dp/0674914813

See 'brave girls, tender boys' and other feminist hijinks in sweden to reverse this 'patriarchal brainwashing' and 'traditional stereotypes', and instill their own new stereotypes.

However, one place I don't believe a dominant/submissive or authoritative/subordinative dynamic should be advocated is within the context of a romantic relationship.

Even feminists find themselves for non equality in bedroom, the one place where sexism is good.

If romantic/sexual submissiveness is a positive trait in women (a sign of strength and trust as some say), why isn't it also a positive trait in men?

Why do you think it should be?

Do you believe that women who aren't naturally submissive should engage in a d/s dynamic despite their disinclination?

I believe that women who are, which is the overwhelming majority, should follow their inclination instead of living upto feminist ideals of equality and stop ruining their lives with 'personal is political'.

submissiveness is a positive trait to have in certain aspects of life. Doing well in school

And what happened to this agonistic educational culture? After over two thousand years as the central element in education, public verbal contest died out almost completely in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Instead of the oral, argument-based, male-dominated education of the pre-1870 period, education post-1870 was much more interiorized, irenic, negotiative, explanatory. The older methods of academic defense and attack died out with startling rapidity, says Ong, because of the entrance of women into higher education. Contestive, combative educational methods that had worked satisfactorily for all-male schooling now came to seem violent, vulgar, silly.

http://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/the-feminization-of-rhetoric/

keeping a job,

indeed, that's why men like Wendell Berry wonder why is it that feminism would advocate submissiveness to an aloof boss instead to a woman's own man?

Why would any woman who would refuse, properly, to take the marital vow of obedience (on the ground, presumably, that subservience to a mere human being is beneath human dignity) then regard as “liberating” a job that puts her under the authority of a boss (man or woman) whose authority specifically requires and expects obedience?

http://www.crosscurrents.org/berryspring2003.htm

staying fit

how? Submissiveness is what prevented women from becoming strong muscular amazons and instead remain contented as dainty littler flowers.

raising children

u wot m8?

Title	Do you believe submissiveness is an inherently gendered trait? Why do some red pillers praise submissiveness in one gender and deride it in the other?
Author	juswannabeanony
Upvotes	8
Comments	103
Date	November 23, 2013 3:34 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1rafdk/do_you_believe_submissiveness_is_an_inherently/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/do-you-believe-submissiveness-is-an-inherently.286566 https://theredarchive.com/post/286566

Comments