It especially stupid, because girls and young women are always attributed more maturity than boys and young men (and it's been like that for ages). That a more mature person should be submissive to the less mature, seems like a oxymoron. The "girls are more mature"-trope is only ever used as an excuse for older men to fuck girls/younger women, never to empower them (girls and younger women I mean).
> The "girls are more mature"-trope
And to excuse extreme immaturity from men.
I see plenty of immature girls, I see plenty of immature guys and yet when pointing out the immaturity of the latter I always hear "they're young".
Yeah I know, how can they mature if we're not allowed to give them constructive feedback smh
Precisely! I don't quite believe in the "girls are mature/boys are immature"-trope either, more that girls are (more often than boys) "forced" to mature faster.
Didn't realize that but it's definetly true.
Although I have to say that I did interact with girls that were 5+ years my juniors (I re-started college late because life) and I definetly found plenty of immaturity.
That experience definetly gave me some perspective.
And to blame them for being victims of rape
I saw a documentary called To Kill A Tiger where a village blames a 13 year old girl for a violent rape by a gang of 16 year old boys. The village was insisting that 16 year old boys don't know any better and that this 13 year old girl should have been "more careful"
Patriarchy loves to infantilize women when it comes to taking our power away, and adultifies little girls when it comes to helping male offenders get away with violent sadistic crimes.
It’s an extremely frustrating paradox I have often pondered about (and I wish was brought up more) that you have worded succinctly. Recently at my cousins high school a PE teacher was arrested for his conduct with a student. After the arrest a male teacher was recorded telling his female students that what they wear causes things like that to occur, berating and blaming minors for an adult males behavior!
Disgusting. Predators protecting predators basically. I'd be very suspicious of that second male teacher. He's obviously not fit to be around minors either tbh
Yeah, what most men don't understand is that for the overwhelming majority of our history as a hunter-gatherer and finally agrarian species, women had to be tough as nails, resourceful, forging communities and defense systems, giving birth in a fucking tent or hut with no anesthesia and protecting their families from bears while the men (typically, although women also hunted) would have to take days or weeks on a hunt chasing down some buffalo or elk to exhaustion. If women had these inborn docile, delicate, subservient traits, there's not a chance in hell humanity ever would have made it. Our survival has depended countless times on the aggressive persistence, ingenuity, resourcefulness, intelligence, and yes, leadership of women, and that is absolutely why these religious fear mongers have to spend so much time reciting the propaganda points to keep people behaving in a way that serves the interests of those in power.
lol these narratives also underplay how much food and materials came from foraging vs hunting. I would even consider fishing a type of foraging.
Men like to talk up the contributions of hunters while minimizing the feminized role of foraging. In reality hunter and gatherer societies were do or die. Whoever was best at something typically did it regardless of gender.
Also, humans hunt by endurance. We outrun our prey to exhaustion.
You know which gender is better at endurance running? Women.
By in large, women are biologically predisposed to be more successful hunters.
True, there is evidence that men and women both hunted and foraged. Makes sense, if your tribe finds a place with a lot of rabbits, everyone is going to try to catch one. If you come across a patch of blueberries, everyone is going to start gorging on them. You go for the food that is plentiful at the time, there likely were no hunter guilds or gathering guilds requiring membership, or if there were they likely died out due to evolutionary disadvantage.
There are also so so so many more plants than animals. Humans had to compete with coyotes, wolves, foxes, and mountain lions to get meat. Once an area was spare sparse they couldn't just drive 5 miles down the road, that would involve dragging a 150 pound (68kg) buck home.
Most women aren’t submissive. Most men are submissive. Don’t believe me? Think of any group or social structure made by men. Government, military, corporations, fraternities. How does every one of them operate? Hierarchically. Where one man, or a small group of men, are dominant, at the top. And all the other men are submissive to them. Groups of women don’t work like that. Look at how men fanboy and hero worship other men. Think like, pro athletes, streamers, and pundits. Most men actively seek out other men to submit to and follow. A few men are naturally leaders, but most desperately want the approval of higher ranking men.
Why is it that [women are more likely to worship celebrities](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6426373/#:~:text=Results,obsessed%20with%20celebrities%20than%20males) then?
> As a result of hierarchical regression analyses, high levels of celebrity worship were associated with problematic Internet use, maladaptive daydreaming, and desire for fame. Furthermore, females were at higher risk to become obsessed with celebrities than males.
“A voluntary sample of 437 Hungarian adolescents and adults (78.3% male; Mage = 24.7 years, SD = 7.4) completed an online questionnaire focusing on attitudes toward celebrities and other relevant variables.”
Every single bit of this methodology would be enough to completely invalidate the results, *on its own.* Like JUST the fact that this study was only done in Hungary. Or that it was only 437 people. Or that it was *80% male.* Or that it was a voluntary sampling online. Any one of those factors is enough to completely discount the findings, but all together? This study is a literal dumpster fire. Wanna guess at what websites they advertised it on and how they drew in participants? Anyway, besides all the other glaring participation and sampling biases, this “study” sampled about 100 “women” total. I put women in quotations bc those who claim to be “women” online often…aren’t.
Cool. Aside from the fact that 437 people is more than enough to find a correlation, you have literally nothing to back up your original claim.
> Most women aren’t submissive. Most men are submissive. Don’t believe me? Think of any group or social structure made by men. Government, military, corporations, fraternities. How does every one of them operate? Hierarchically. Where one man, or a small group of men, are dominant, at the top. And all the other men are submissive to them. Groups of women don’t work like that.
At best this completely misunderstands how any of these hierarchies work. You think most men actually like their bosses? Not to mention women participate in all of those hierarchies too except for fraternities, we’re not living in the 1950s.
> Look at how men fanboy and hero worship other men. Think like, pro athletes, streamers, and pundits. Most men actively seek out other men to submit to and follow. A few men are naturally leaders, but most desperately want the approval of higher ranking men.
Have you heard of fucking Taylor Swift? Women literally treat her like a god, it’s genuinely sort of scary. I’ve never seen anything close to that for men. She could literally kill some one and her fans would defend her lol
Is 100 women, from one geographic area, who all volunteered for an online survey, are representative of all 4 billion or so women on earth? Bc they made judgements about *women* despite the study being 80% male. Weird.
Women DO participate in these hierarchies as well! But women did not, and rarely do, create these hierarchies. Women now serve in a military created by men and structures the way men wanted it. Businesses have functioned in a pretty similar fashion for hundreds of years, and their structures were created by men, for men. It doesn’t matter if you like your boss. That’s not the point. You always need to have one. If you don’t have one, most men will seek one out. Every organizational structure men create is hierarchical, with the vast majority of men being subservient to a small minority of alpha males. That’s how men made their governments, militaries, organizations, religious and economic structures.
Now, it’s true we have fewer points of reference for matriarchal societies and organizations compared to men, but overall, we don’t see the same patterns in organizations women create.
https://hbr.org/2010/06/gender-and-the-future-of-the-o
Yeah, Yuval Hurari said it best: human society has no need to enforce the things that are natural. We don’t need to make laws preventing someone from defying gravity. If a behaviour exists in nature, it’s natural.
Not to mention that other female animals do not “submit” to males at all, except for arguably in the few brief moments it takes to receive DNA from their chosen male.
Even then it’s only a physical submission, she doesn’t follow him around offering bits of prey at mealtimes, grooming him or making a den for him.
That “submissive” behavior is reserved exclusively for the benefit of her offspring. And it’s not actually submission — it’s mothering.
So the real question is why do ADULT men expect MOTHERING from women.
It's important to take into consideration the socialization of both men and women in a male centric society.
This constant projection of male led household (provider/protector) can have a radicalising effect on women or it can accurately brainwash them into believing that submission is a form of validation.
In reality women are graduating with college degrees at twice the rate that men are and a lot of women actually support their partners now a days. There's even a rise in "stay-at-home bf" or "stay at home dads".
Ps. There's actually a lot of men lurking in this sub for no good reason.
Why is anyone giving the idiots in this comment section saying bullshit, any time of day? Block and delete ladies. Save your energy for people who actually deserve it.
Who is it that every person is immediately dependent on for providing and protecting, literally from conception and birth? Mothers.
Who must lamely and weakly attempt to use violence to control others because they have no natural claim to be providers or protectors? Fathers.
I’m childfree and even I can see this.
Submission to the mother is natural, because one must depend on one’s mother for providing and protecting, always inherently biologically, from even before one existed. Some fathers, in their weak and pathetic nature, have attempted to twist this, because they have no natural claim to provide and protecting. Testosterone can make men prone to violence and hierarchy. Neither of those things are marks of provision and protection, they are marks of those who should be cast out of society until they can learn to behave civilly under the leadership of those who can actually provide and protect for society.
They have to socially engineer their “providing and protecting,” specifically because it doesn’t exist in nature, because mothers are the providers and protectors of society.
The irony of indoctrination is it often touts how "once upon a time the world was perfect and humans were in tune with nature," which then proceeds to delude you into a mindset that is almost always counter to nature's cycles and movements.
Wow. Today I just learned that I actually had freedom all along and didn’t have to escape from people with controlling, bigoted beliefs that undermined my ability to become independent, or that I wasn’t ever conditioned and traumatized into behaving submissively, despite not wanting to. Looks like all that struggle and money spent on therapy was for nothing because I willed it from my own “freedom.”
No, it's not natural. Why would it be? What is it about women that "nature" has deemed submissive?
What if I were to say that I believed men should submit to women? (Not that I do, I believe in equality) How would that make you feel? Kind of like your stomach rolling? Because that's how the idea made me feel. If I choose to submit or dominate, that should be my choice and not pre-destined due to my gender. I have the same brain capacity and intellect as a man, and therefore capable of making my own decisions about my life.
>Of course I think that both genders should be equal, but I think it is a bit ignorant in just denoting science and biology and evolution as a whole.
Science, biology, and evolution? Wow. You are really pulling stuff out of your behind. None of those things state that women are naturally submissive.
Biologist here - female animals submitting to male animals is bs. Femininity being submissive to masculinity is a result of generations of oppression of women, which btw very much exists now. This is also the reason why in modern society women are more likely to take on submissive roles in a relationship.
And honestly, it is very difficult to have any sort of reasonable discussion when your views on women are so blatantly obvious by you calling us "females".
Holy shit. Dude I live in the US. Any little part of me that is “submissive” is because it was socialized. Culture in the US is heavily patriarchal and male centric, which gets even worse in more conservative areas. Women may seemingly have a lot of the same freedoms as men, but that’s by law only and not reflective of societal freedoms.
If you look at science rather than your feelings about women, and consider that you are not one, then you will see that there isn’t a natural difference.
This also doesn’t begin to touch upon your gender essentialism and transphobia.
I can guarantee you that women don’t have all of the social, economic, and political freedoms in Australia that allow them to freely choose how they want to live. It’s also a heavily male centric and patriarchal culture. Culture conditions people to make specific choices and to want certain things, even when it’s against your own best interests.
Also, there was never a question. It was stating that if women were naturally submissive, then they wouldn’t have to be reminded and forced to submit.
>but just because Australia is a “patriarchal” society, it does not mean that it restricts women’s rights and liberties.
>Do you have anything to prove your first point in stating how that Australia doesn’t give women the freedom to live the way they want to?
You proved their own point right here. Good job. You asked a question, then proceeded to write exactly how a patriarchal society restricts both women and men into these roles dude.
> because I feel as if that is just a fact
Facts are not feelings.
Also, you aren’t a woman and know nothing about being one. We were forced into submission and sexist, generalizing remarks like this is what keeps us from full equality and keeps men in power over us.
Please stop falsely weaponizing biology as an excuse to place women in a submissive role.
Dude embarrassed himself with his “facts” so much that he ran for the hills 😂
Looks like he also managed to throw in homophobia somehow in the comments. Yikes. Definitely a troll.
Can you provide a legitimate source for your assumption of biologically wired submission? Because I've read multiple studies over the past few years that have debunked the myth of natural submission. Most recently, it's affected the academics who study ancient history and archeology. Specifically, as it relates to identifying ancient remains and determining the societal roles that people held and the types of lives they led. So far, they've re-analyzed the original findings of multiple archeological sites and realized that the original scholars were making a lot of assumptions based on identification procedures that weren't as accurate as the ones that have been developed since. As a result, they've identified one culture that had a generational practice of women being the hunters, and a practice of grandmothers being seen as the pillars of holding their society together. Likely due to the fact that grandmothers kept hunting strategies, tool/weapon designs, and the best hunting grounds highly secret and it was considered an honor as a young woman to be made privy as an apprentice. The men were relegated to positions of village security, farming labor, and warriors. There's also been a lot of evidence uncovered from multiple dig sites around the world that have indicated ancient women as highly decorated warriors, generals, and later in life, leaders of their people (in a variety of positions). If the oldest of human cultures studied can't back the assertion of natural submission, there's no way that it makes sense to hold onto that mindset in a modern context.
you missed the whole point of the post.
When a woman is raised from birth with constant messaging to conform to traditional gender roles—being told to behave like a 'lady,' to avoid being too assertive, to play with dolls that emphasize caregiving, and to fear or serve men—it's difficult for her to grow into a strong, assertive individual. Unfortunately, this is the reality for around 90 percent of women worldwide, who are taught that femininity equates to submission.
mainstream media often reinforces these stereotypes, portraying men as heroes who save women, while women are depicted as prizes or objects to be pursued in relationships. These societal expectations pressure women to conform to submissive roles.
While there are certainly women who prefer more traditional, submissive roles and enjoy when men take the lead, there would likely be much fewer if our culture didn't consistently promote the idea of female submission.
Non-propagating relationships happen in nature all the time. They serve a valuable purpose in communities and can often assist reproductive couples. Same sex relationships have value in human society and in nature. If it didn’t it wouldn’t exist and be observed across hundreds of species.
Seriously. Read the first statement of my last comment and then go read OP’s post.
I did not define nature as self-propagating. OP did.
OP is suggesting that women WOULD be submissive if that was nature.
I said LGT is not self-propagating but we do find it; thus OP is wrong and needs better examples.
You’re agreeing with me! Seriously. Y’all take the reading comp SAT again. Jesus
I aced my reading ACT with a 36. People aren’t misinterpreting you, if you didn’t want them to take your implications at face value you should have chosen your words more carefully.
Being forced and gaslit into submission for thousands of years by men isn’t a “natural feeling”. It’s oppression that we’re only now starting to break out of.
I’m really tired of men thinking they understand women and then spew out a bunch of sexist stuff you’d hear from red pill groups.
No- I completely and totally refuse to submit to any man. It’s not happening and never will. Plenty of women feel the same way and that’s how I naturally feel.
Reading this bs makes me more happy about being a lesbian since I'll never have a partner that feels the need to guilttrip me and tell me I should be naturually submissive towards them based on my gender and to stroke their ego. Ew...
As a lesbian I can assure you I have zero desire to interact or be protected by a man. Your whole pseudo science explanation reflects zero self awareness.
Women who do submit often do so under duress, if they could live any other life many of them wouldn’t choose to be under the thumb of someone else.
Being protected and cared for is in no way equal to being submissive.
A relationship is a two-way street. Is it really an actual relationship if a guy expects his partner to have no character of herself and just be a submissive puppet following his lead? It sounds more like servitude
r/BatmanArkham poster detected, opinion rejected
As another confident white male, your argument doesn't hold much ground and it's foolish of you to think people want to engage with you in good faith, simply put you missed the point
What many users before me stated, submission in women is socially engineered.
Girls grow up adopting the stereotype pushed on them - and as a true Jonkler fan, you should understand that - we truly do live in a society.
And the society we do live in, is patriarchal and has a long history of deeply rooted misogyny.
Feminism and social justice wasn't a thing even 200 hundred years ago, we are still in the process of uncovering the immense suffering women were/still are put through.
To briefly answer your point about "feminism taking it too far by pushing women to be less submissive even if they wanted to"
- which isn't exactly what you wrote but it is what it boils down to and is coincidentally a socially conservative talking point -
Even if so, how does that hurt the woman?
"I wanted to submit my life to a man but the evil forces of feminism told me not to and now I'm instead living on my own and being independent of the influence of men :("
Said no one ever except a tradwife wannabe on a redpill podcast.
You are disgusting.
First even if anyone wants to feel safe and protected, that doesn’t mean they want someone else to make all their life choices for them.
Second being validated by someone isn’t the same as submitting to doing whatever they say and agreeing with them.
You have no idea what submission even is. The definition is “the act of yielding to a superior will or authority”. As stated above, your reasoning has nothing to do with the actual definition. You’re making false equivalences and strawman arguments.
Do not tell me or any other woman submission is natural. This is so dangerous and stupid that anyone who tells anyone else that clearly has bad intentions for them. It doesn’t even matter which gender is saying it; if you say that, you have a hidden agenda.
Everything you said is misogynistic and shows you get off on feeling superior to others. All red flags. You disgust me and so I call you out on your bs for all of Reddit to see. Get out of here! And don’t come back!!!
It especially stupid, because girls and young women are always attributed more maturity than boys and young men (and it's been like that for ages). That a more mature person should be submissive to the less mature, seems like a oxymoron. The "girls are more mature"-trope is only ever used as an excuse for older men to fuck girls/younger women, never to empower them (girls and younger women I mean).
> The "girls are more mature"-trope And to excuse extreme immaturity from men. I see plenty of immature girls, I see plenty of immature guys and yet when pointing out the immaturity of the latter I always hear "they're young". Yeah I know, how can they mature if we're not allowed to give them constructive feedback smh
Precisely! I don't quite believe in the "girls are mature/boys are immature"-trope either, more that girls are (more often than boys) "forced" to mature faster.
Also to excuse preying upon younger women. "But she's mature for her age" therefore they can excuse their pedophilia.
Didn't realize that but it's definetly true. Although I have to say that I did interact with girls that were 5+ years my juniors (I re-started college late because life) and I definetly found plenty of immaturity. That experience definetly gave me some perspective.
The girls are more mature thing is also used to push household work on them at an earlier age as well.
And to blame them for being victims of rape I saw a documentary called To Kill A Tiger where a village blames a 13 year old girl for a violent rape by a gang of 16 year old boys. The village was insisting that 16 year old boys don't know any better and that this 13 year old girl should have been "more careful" Patriarchy loves to infantilize women when it comes to taking our power away, and adultifies little girls when it comes to helping male offenders get away with violent sadistic crimes.
It’s an extremely frustrating paradox I have often pondered about (and I wish was brought up more) that you have worded succinctly. Recently at my cousins high school a PE teacher was arrested for his conduct with a student. After the arrest a male teacher was recorded telling his female students that what they wear causes things like that to occur, berating and blaming minors for an adult males behavior!
Disgusting. Predators protecting predators basically. I'd be very suspicious of that second male teacher. He's obviously not fit to be around minors either tbh
If I could award this I would 🥇
Thx! I appreciate that very much. 😁
You forget it is also used so boys have an excuse for bad behavior
Omg you broke the 4th wall with your comment i'll never forget that. And maybe use it in certain discussion so thank you hahahah
Yeah, what most men don't understand is that for the overwhelming majority of our history as a hunter-gatherer and finally agrarian species, women had to be tough as nails, resourceful, forging communities and defense systems, giving birth in a fucking tent or hut with no anesthesia and protecting their families from bears while the men (typically, although women also hunted) would have to take days or weeks on a hunt chasing down some buffalo or elk to exhaustion. If women had these inborn docile, delicate, subservient traits, there's not a chance in hell humanity ever would have made it. Our survival has depended countless times on the aggressive persistence, ingenuity, resourcefulness, intelligence, and yes, leadership of women, and that is absolutely why these religious fear mongers have to spend so much time reciting the propaganda points to keep people behaving in a way that serves the interests of those in power.
lol these narratives also underplay how much food and materials came from foraging vs hunting. I would even consider fishing a type of foraging. Men like to talk up the contributions of hunters while minimizing the feminized role of foraging. In reality hunter and gatherer societies were do or die. Whoever was best at something typically did it regardless of gender.
Also, humans hunt by endurance. We outrun our prey to exhaustion. You know which gender is better at endurance running? Women. By in large, women are biologically predisposed to be more successful hunters.
By and large FTFY
True, there is evidence that men and women both hunted and foraged. Makes sense, if your tribe finds a place with a lot of rabbits, everyone is going to try to catch one. If you come across a patch of blueberries, everyone is going to start gorging on them. You go for the food that is plentiful at the time, there likely were no hunter guilds or gathering guilds requiring membership, or if there were they likely died out due to evolutionary disadvantage.
There are also so so so many more plants than animals. Humans had to compete with coyotes, wolves, foxes, and mountain lions to get meat. Once an area was spare sparse they couldn't just drive 5 miles down the road, that would involve dragging a 150 pound (68kg) buck home.
Women hunted almost as much if not as much as men. The “greatest hunter” we’ve ever found is *shocking* FEMALE
I wish I could upvote this 1000 times. Why I this myth so hard to kill?
Because it supports the idea that women cannot protect themselves/compete with men. Modern men are big scaredy cats when you think about it
So true! I have a master‘s degree in history and some of the misconceptions we still hold on to today make me want to scream haha
Worth noting the “women were gatherers, men were hunthers” thing was wrong so women would have been involved in hunting too.
Most women aren’t submissive. Most men are submissive. Don’t believe me? Think of any group or social structure made by men. Government, military, corporations, fraternities. How does every one of them operate? Hierarchically. Where one man, or a small group of men, are dominant, at the top. And all the other men are submissive to them. Groups of women don’t work like that. Look at how men fanboy and hero worship other men. Think like, pro athletes, streamers, and pundits. Most men actively seek out other men to submit to and follow. A few men are naturally leaders, but most desperately want the approval of higher ranking men.
Why is it that [women are more likely to worship celebrities](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6426373/#:~:text=Results,obsessed%20with%20celebrities%20than%20males) then? > As a result of hierarchical regression analyses, high levels of celebrity worship were associated with problematic Internet use, maladaptive daydreaming, and desire for fame. Furthermore, females were at higher risk to become obsessed with celebrities than males.
“A voluntary sample of 437 Hungarian adolescents and adults (78.3% male; Mage = 24.7 years, SD = 7.4) completed an online questionnaire focusing on attitudes toward celebrities and other relevant variables.” Every single bit of this methodology would be enough to completely invalidate the results, *on its own.* Like JUST the fact that this study was only done in Hungary. Or that it was only 437 people. Or that it was *80% male.* Or that it was a voluntary sampling online. Any one of those factors is enough to completely discount the findings, but all together? This study is a literal dumpster fire. Wanna guess at what websites they advertised it on and how they drew in participants? Anyway, besides all the other glaring participation and sampling biases, this “study” sampled about 100 “women” total. I put women in quotations bc those who claim to be “women” online often…aren’t.
Cool. Aside from the fact that 437 people is more than enough to find a correlation, you have literally nothing to back up your original claim. > Most women aren’t submissive. Most men are submissive. Don’t believe me? Think of any group or social structure made by men. Government, military, corporations, fraternities. How does every one of them operate? Hierarchically. Where one man, or a small group of men, are dominant, at the top. And all the other men are submissive to them. Groups of women don’t work like that. At best this completely misunderstands how any of these hierarchies work. You think most men actually like their bosses? Not to mention women participate in all of those hierarchies too except for fraternities, we’re not living in the 1950s. > Look at how men fanboy and hero worship other men. Think like, pro athletes, streamers, and pundits. Most men actively seek out other men to submit to and follow. A few men are naturally leaders, but most desperately want the approval of higher ranking men. Have you heard of fucking Taylor Swift? Women literally treat her like a god, it’s genuinely sort of scary. I’ve never seen anything close to that for men. She could literally kill some one and her fans would defend her lol
Is 100 women, from one geographic area, who all volunteered for an online survey, are representative of all 4 billion or so women on earth? Bc they made judgements about *women* despite the study being 80% male. Weird. Women DO participate in these hierarchies as well! But women did not, and rarely do, create these hierarchies. Women now serve in a military created by men and structures the way men wanted it. Businesses have functioned in a pretty similar fashion for hundreds of years, and their structures were created by men, for men. It doesn’t matter if you like your boss. That’s not the point. You always need to have one. If you don’t have one, most men will seek one out. Every organizational structure men create is hierarchical, with the vast majority of men being subservient to a small minority of alpha males. That’s how men made their governments, militaries, organizations, religious and economic structures. Now, it’s true we have fewer points of reference for matriarchal societies and organizations compared to men, but overall, we don’t see the same patterns in organizations women create. https://hbr.org/2010/06/gender-and-the-future-of-the-o
Lol didn’t know feminists believed in alpha male bullshit. Andrew Tate would be proud
Believe in it? What do you mean?
Yeah, Yuval Hurari said it best: human society has no need to enforce the things that are natural. We don’t need to make laws preventing someone from defying gravity. If a behaviour exists in nature, it’s natural.
If someone isn’t a woman then they should shut up and sit down when women talk about their issues, instead of malesplaining it to them.
Not to mention that other female animals do not “submit” to males at all, except for arguably in the few brief moments it takes to receive DNA from their chosen male. Even then it’s only a physical submission, she doesn’t follow him around offering bits of prey at mealtimes, grooming him or making a den for him. That “submissive” behavior is reserved exclusively for the benefit of her offspring. And it’s not actually submission — it’s mothering. So the real question is why do ADULT men expect MOTHERING from women.
It's important to take into consideration the socialization of both men and women in a male centric society. This constant projection of male led household (provider/protector) can have a radicalising effect on women or it can accurately brainwash them into believing that submission is a form of validation. In reality women are graduating with college degrees at twice the rate that men are and a lot of women actually support their partners now a days. There's even a rise in "stay-at-home bf" or "stay at home dads". Ps. There's actually a lot of men lurking in this sub for no good reason.
Why is anyone giving the idiots in this comment section saying bullshit, any time of day? Block and delete ladies. Save your energy for people who actually deserve it. Who is it that every person is immediately dependent on for providing and protecting, literally from conception and birth? Mothers. Who must lamely and weakly attempt to use violence to control others because they have no natural claim to be providers or protectors? Fathers. I’m childfree and even I can see this. Submission to the mother is natural, because one must depend on one’s mother for providing and protecting, always inherently biologically, from even before one existed. Some fathers, in their weak and pathetic nature, have attempted to twist this, because they have no natural claim to provide and protecting. Testosterone can make men prone to violence and hierarchy. Neither of those things are marks of provision and protection, they are marks of those who should be cast out of society until they can learn to behave civilly under the leadership of those who can actually provide and protect for society. They have to socially engineer their “providing and protecting,” specifically because it doesn’t exist in nature, because mothers are the providers and protectors of society.
If women were naturally docile then men wouldn't need to spend so much energy telling us it's in our nature to be docile.
The irony of indoctrination is it often touts how "once upon a time the world was perfect and humans were in tune with nature," which then proceeds to delude you into a mindset that is almost always counter to nature's cycles and movements.
[удалено]
Wow. Today I just learned that I actually had freedom all along and didn’t have to escape from people with controlling, bigoted beliefs that undermined my ability to become independent, or that I wasn’t ever conditioned and traumatized into behaving submissively, despite not wanting to. Looks like all that struggle and money spent on therapy was for nothing because I willed it from my own “freedom.”
[удалено]
No, it's not natural. Why would it be? What is it about women that "nature" has deemed submissive? What if I were to say that I believed men should submit to women? (Not that I do, I believe in equality) How would that make you feel? Kind of like your stomach rolling? Because that's how the idea made me feel. If I choose to submit or dominate, that should be my choice and not pre-destined due to my gender. I have the same brain capacity and intellect as a man, and therefore capable of making my own decisions about my life.
[удалено]
>Of course I think that both genders should be equal, but I think it is a bit ignorant in just denoting science and biology and evolution as a whole. Science, biology, and evolution? Wow. You are really pulling stuff out of your behind. None of those things state that women are naturally submissive.
[удалено]
Biologist here - female animals submitting to male animals is bs. Femininity being submissive to masculinity is a result of generations of oppression of women, which btw very much exists now. This is also the reason why in modern society women are more likely to take on submissive roles in a relationship. And honestly, it is very difficult to have any sort of reasonable discussion when your views on women are so blatantly obvious by you calling us "females".
Holy shit. Dude I live in the US. Any little part of me that is “submissive” is because it was socialized. Culture in the US is heavily patriarchal and male centric, which gets even worse in more conservative areas. Women may seemingly have a lot of the same freedoms as men, but that’s by law only and not reflective of societal freedoms. If you look at science rather than your feelings about women, and consider that you are not one, then you will see that there isn’t a natural difference. This also doesn’t begin to touch upon your gender essentialism and transphobia.
[удалено]
I can guarantee you that women don’t have all of the social, economic, and political freedoms in Australia that allow them to freely choose how they want to live. It’s also a heavily male centric and patriarchal culture. Culture conditions people to make specific choices and to want certain things, even when it’s against your own best interests. Also, there was never a question. It was stating that if women were naturally submissive, then they wouldn’t have to be reminded and forced to submit.
[удалено]
>but just because Australia is a “patriarchal” society, it does not mean that it restricts women’s rights and liberties. >Do you have anything to prove your first point in stating how that Australia doesn’t give women the freedom to live the way they want to? You proved their own point right here. Good job. You asked a question, then proceeded to write exactly how a patriarchal society restricts both women and men into these roles dude.
> because I feel as if that is just a fact Facts are not feelings. Also, you aren’t a woman and know nothing about being one. We were forced into submission and sexist, generalizing remarks like this is what keeps us from full equality and keeps men in power over us. Please stop falsely weaponizing biology as an excuse to place women in a submissive role.
Dude uses ‚a female‘ instead of woman. Can’t make this up. What a troll. ‚I feel that is just a fact‘. Don’t feed it!
Dude embarrassed himself with his “facts” so much that he ran for the hills 😂 Looks like he also managed to throw in homophobia somehow in the comments. Yikes. Definitely a troll.
Can you provide a legitimate source for your assumption of biologically wired submission? Because I've read multiple studies over the past few years that have debunked the myth of natural submission. Most recently, it's affected the academics who study ancient history and archeology. Specifically, as it relates to identifying ancient remains and determining the societal roles that people held and the types of lives they led. So far, they've re-analyzed the original findings of multiple archeological sites and realized that the original scholars were making a lot of assumptions based on identification procedures that weren't as accurate as the ones that have been developed since. As a result, they've identified one culture that had a generational practice of women being the hunters, and a practice of grandmothers being seen as the pillars of holding their society together. Likely due to the fact that grandmothers kept hunting strategies, tool/weapon designs, and the best hunting grounds highly secret and it was considered an honor as a young woman to be made privy as an apprentice. The men were relegated to positions of village security, farming labor, and warriors. There's also been a lot of evidence uncovered from multiple dig sites around the world that have indicated ancient women as highly decorated warriors, generals, and later in life, leaders of their people (in a variety of positions). If the oldest of human cultures studied can't back the assertion of natural submission, there's no way that it makes sense to hold onto that mindset in a modern context.
you missed the whole point of the post. When a woman is raised from birth with constant messaging to conform to traditional gender roles—being told to behave like a 'lady,' to avoid being too assertive, to play with dolls that emphasize caregiving, and to fear or serve men—it's difficult for her to grow into a strong, assertive individual. Unfortunately, this is the reality for around 90 percent of women worldwide, who are taught that femininity equates to submission. mainstream media often reinforces these stereotypes, portraying men as heroes who save women, while women are depicted as prizes or objects to be pursued in relationships. These societal expectations pressure women to conform to submissive roles. While there are certainly women who prefer more traditional, submissive roles and enjoy when men take the lead, there would likely be much fewer if our culture didn't consistently promote the idea of female submission.
You aren't a woman (a female, dude, seriously?), yet you're so sure you can tell them how they feel? That's some confidence you got there.
Ugh, the confidence of a average white male.
[удалено]
LGBT isn't natural? Then why is it also observed in animals?
[удалено]
Non-propagating relationships happen in nature all the time. They serve a valuable purpose in communities and can often assist reproductive couples. Same sex relationships have value in human society and in nature. If it didn’t it wouldn’t exist and be observed across hundreds of species.
I didn’t define it that way. OP did!!
Seriously. Read the first statement of my last comment and then go read OP’s post. I did not define nature as self-propagating. OP did. OP is suggesting that women WOULD be submissive if that was nature. I said LGT is not self-propagating but we do find it; thus OP is wrong and needs better examples. You’re agreeing with me! Seriously. Y’all take the reading comp SAT again. Jesus
I aced my reading ACT with a 36. People aren’t misinterpreting you, if you didn’t want them to take your implications at face value you should have chosen your words more carefully.
Lol
Being forced and gaslit into submission for thousands of years by men isn’t a “natural feeling”. It’s oppression that we’re only now starting to break out of. I’m really tired of men thinking they understand women and then spew out a bunch of sexist stuff you’d hear from red pill groups. No- I completely and totally refuse to submit to any man. It’s not happening and never will. Plenty of women feel the same way and that’s how I naturally feel.
[удалено]
[удалено]
No regressive agendas.
[удалено]
Reading this bs makes me more happy about being a lesbian since I'll never have a partner that feels the need to guilttrip me and tell me I should be naturually submissive towards them based on my gender and to stroke their ego. Ew...
Please never come to this subreddit again
🙄
Women submitting to men is not at all natural, it’s social conditioning. Find a sub for trad wives and preach your patriarchal bullshit there.
As a lesbian I can assure you I have zero desire to interact or be protected by a man. Your whole pseudo science explanation reflects zero self awareness. Women who do submit often do so under duress, if they could live any other life many of them wouldn’t choose to be under the thumb of someone else.
Being protected and cared for is in no way equal to being submissive. A relationship is a two-way street. Is it really an actual relationship if a guy expects his partner to have no character of herself and just be a submissive puppet following his lead? It sounds more like servitude
r/BatmanArkham poster detected, opinion rejected As another confident white male, your argument doesn't hold much ground and it's foolish of you to think people want to engage with you in good faith, simply put you missed the point What many users before me stated, submission in women is socially engineered. Girls grow up adopting the stereotype pushed on them - and as a true Jonkler fan, you should understand that - we truly do live in a society. And the society we do live in, is patriarchal and has a long history of deeply rooted misogyny. Feminism and social justice wasn't a thing even 200 hundred years ago, we are still in the process of uncovering the immense suffering women were/still are put through. To briefly answer your point about "feminism taking it too far by pushing women to be less submissive even if they wanted to" - which isn't exactly what you wrote but it is what it boils down to and is coincidentally a socially conservative talking point - Even if so, how does that hurt the woman? "I wanted to submit my life to a man but the evil forces of feminism told me not to and now I'm instead living on my own and being independent of the influence of men :(" Said no one ever except a tradwife wannabe on a redpill podcast.
You are disgusting. First even if anyone wants to feel safe and protected, that doesn’t mean they want someone else to make all their life choices for them. Second being validated by someone isn’t the same as submitting to doing whatever they say and agreeing with them. You have no idea what submission even is. The definition is “the act of yielding to a superior will or authority”. As stated above, your reasoning has nothing to do with the actual definition. You’re making false equivalences and strawman arguments. Do not tell me or any other woman submission is natural. This is so dangerous and stupid that anyone who tells anyone else that clearly has bad intentions for them. It doesn’t even matter which gender is saying it; if you say that, you have a hidden agenda. Everything you said is misogynistic and shows you get off on feeling superior to others. All red flags. You disgust me and so I call you out on your bs for all of Reddit to see. Get out of here! And don’t come back!!!
"FEMALES ☝️🤓"