Statistically speaking? Yes. Women are most happiest when experiencing "benevolent sexism" i. e. what was considered how you treat a woman historically speaking i. e. her being submissive while you take charge. Why do you think women go on and on about not liking nice guys, that their "boring"? Its because they are not assertive enough hence women going after the assholes in hopes that he will be more dominant. That's why women seem to have an overwhelming common sexual fantasy of rape, again the idea of being submissive to a man, hence women always being submissive to a guy wanting him to take charge. Statistics show that women in traditional roles are happier as well as women who are treated with "benevolent sexism"(nothing sexist about it) are happier. Clearly yes, they would be far happier if they where submissive to their husbands. Now I will state that this does not mean every woman obviously, their are always exceptions however in general women want a man who takes charge and to be submissive to him.
I'm sure if a submissive woman marries a man, is because he is a good leader. Vice versa, If a dominant man marries a woman, is because she was submissive enough to let him live comfortably while still being a good leader for her. Bottom line, if the duo combination bends well, it will be a happy marriage. Sometimes a woman is submissive to the wrong man; bad leader. When that happens, the woman is emotionally and mentally stuck in an toxic relationship.
true after she sues her husband for physical abuse and walks away with his house, car and bank account while he vacations in prison. been there done that god bless male chauvinist wimps that can only beat on some weak girls
Not necessarily... I'm submissive and I often do things that I hate to make my family and partner happy. I'm no saint of course but yeah. I wouldn't like being dominant though.
I do lots of different things like if my back hurts and his back hurts, I'll clean so he can sit down... or if I hate the food he wants I'll still cook it and eat it. You know, stuff like that 😊 or I might say he's right sometimes in stead of arguing (not every time though!).
love is a component a balance and compromise. submission is playing by a fantasy; that once it broken, will into something dark. It's fun to role play, but in reality, a woman need care and compassion, not assertion.
This is debatable. If she chooses to be submissive, I would think she's quite satisfied with what she has but it does not mean that she should be seen less than her partner.
@DinaM Why? I mean if your going to claim they where "afraid" to speak the truth, then why? You have to have a rational for it. Why would a woman be afraid to speak her mind, in a society that punished severly any one who would do harm to her? In a society where a man was expected to defend her to the death regardless of whether or not he even knew her (in fact the reason Al Capone got the scars on his face was because he hit on a guys sister, she didn't like it, he walked away but a few hours later came back, her brother who knew Al Capone's reputation (at this time he was a bouncer and an enforcer for a mobster) had to defend his sisters honor even though Al Capone was bigger and stronger and had a lot more resources to have him hunted down and killed so he attacked him with a knife. That's what was expected of men at the time).
@hellionthesagereborn Fear of displeasing the men, mostly. I mean, the OP has an ad for a book called "Why You Should Beat Your Wife," for crying out loud.
Yes, the men were expected to protect the women, but in return the women were dependant on those men, and expected to wait on the men hand and foot.
The men were the breadwinners, so they controlled all the money, because the ignorant and uneducated women (women getting a higher education was nearly unheard-of back in those days) couldn't be trusted with money; a husband would give his wife an "allowance" for household expenses and otherwise if she wanted something else she had to ask her man for it.
Just as society expected the men to defend the women, the same society expected the women to forego any and all independence, and be demure and obedient homemakers who never complained and never disagreed with their men.
@DinaM Well one, the survey's where anonomous as per the usual, two that "ad" is a joke and its funny you mention that because again not only was it wrong to hit a woman it was perfectly acceptable for a woman to attack and assault a man and he would just have to accept it, how often have you seen in a movie or tv show where a woman smacks a guy in the face? Its pretty often, now imagine if the genders where reversed, would it still be useful for comedic affect? would it be acceptable? Hell in the 50s a man was publicly flogged in the US (Maryland or rhode island I believe) for spousal abuse, if a man was beaten by his wife it was just considered funny and he was pathetic for letting it happen (not unlike today). In fact historically he would be dragged out beaten and publically humiliated and shamed (it was called riding the donkey backwards). So again, claiming it was abuse which was a divorcable offense and was extremely frowned upon is an absurd claim. Might as well claim men
lie about their happiness in relationships because wives are able to beat them without repercussions (hence 70% of nonreciprocal violence being perpetrated by women against men, according to the CDC/NCVS). I mean look we allow women to slap men and what are men suppose to do? Stand their and take it. Clearly women where not afraid of men beating them, this is not something that just magically popped up within the past ten twenty years or so. https://youtu.be/pyJXAallsyY In fact its really twisted that you would suggest that men beat women on a regular basis at all really, I mean are we not people? We are just all horrible human beings?
@hellionthesagereborn It suggests even more that you seem to think that violence is the only thing a person could ever be afraid of... or that women weren't afraid of it in the first place...
But, this newspaper clip from the time period might interest you.
From the 1950s, four separate men, complete with picture and full name, answering the question "if a woman needs it, should she be spanked?" All four of them say yes -- the women need to be spanked to be reminded that it's a "man's world" and to be shown who's boss; one guy says "most of them have it coming anyway" and the barber speaks warmly of hitting them with a hairbrush.
Hitting a woman in PUBLIC was a big no-no, of course, but what happened at home was another matter.
Hey, if I or any other woman have to explain ourselves over such a simple two-dimensional subject as sexism, then you either can't be bothered to educate yourselves through /extremely/ accessible means, or you are looking for an argument.
There is no room for standing by 'your own opinion', because you're advocating not only abuse against another human being, but a sexist and a tired and pathetic ideal that men are somehow superior to women. I can't be fucked to explain the logistics for you, but if you honestly think that 'women were happier' when treated like household accessories, women should stay away from you because you need help.
Okay, but I showed a considerably greater knowledge on the subject then you did? In fact I gave references, even an anecdote, plus common sense, and social/media standards which justify, glorify and mock a man being abused while simultaneously showing how the exact opposite is considerd never justifiable even when its in self defense? So, how is it that you don't have to explain anything or that I am sexist? Is it because I didn't tell you that your the perpetual victim despite all evidence, historical, statistical, and even anecdotal showing the exact opposite? Because if that's the case that's just you refusing to accept facts not me being sexist as at no point did I suggest men where superior, in fact you have suggested that women are superior to men, morally speaking, which is what I was arguing against, that is that women are not any more moral then men, that men are not as a whole or in general bad people despite what you where trying to say. So, that makes you sexist not me.
Further more at which point in time where women treated as house hold accessories? You would have to be completely oblivious to how the world works, currently and historically and quite honestly a bit brainwashed or brain dead to make that claim. By your reasoning men where treated as paychecks and workhorses as for most of history men where doing all the hard physical labor and where expected to fight and die on a woman's behalf, in fact the reason why 1348 men died on the titanic vs 100 women was because the men stayed on the ship to die so the women could live, clearly they where not treated like property as you don't sacrifice your life for property, and those women, clearly they where fine with it as they readily abandoned their fathers, husbands, lovers, uncles, brothers, and sons to die. If anything we have a much stronger argument that men where treated like things not women, hence women having significantly more privileges historically and more rights and privileges today.
no, i mean a wife who obeys everything her man says like sex, where to eat what to cook. not things like making her your slave or making her commit crimes
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
Most Helpful Opinions