BananaBender:

I'm not surprised, I know you won't give me my credit. It's okay. I don't do what I do for praise.

Nobody likes a disrespectful woman but gender roles must be abolished in homes.

We will discuss that in my next session with you

Not surprised about ya grandiose delusions. If you can claim Jesus and Jay Z - why should I be surprised?

Anyway, I've always been a team player, and I played a lot of team sports - so operating within that set-up has always been part of my consciousness. You just have know your role, and contribute. Submissiveness doesn't allow that. And no one is infallible, hence the need to always be a good listener, and be open-minded.

However, when it comes to natural roles - like housekeeper/helper vis-a-vis provider/protector/patron - that's non-negotiable.

.

SirShymex:


I just replied TV - and I explained further. Check it.

Ok seen it. I'm awww-ing all the way now

BananaBender:

Crap!

Give it time guys

Know your role especially when it comes to the food, my kids, and the house. And I'm the natural leader.

However, when it comes to other things, your ideas are welcome and will be highly appreciated in decision making. Just don't be a docile/submissive robot with no say in anything.

carefreewannabe:


In this place here, he can still comfortably be called moderate and progressive.

Lol I think he's current position is just fine (unless I'm missing something outside this thread).

BananaBender:

I worked hard for Shy to get to this point but it's still a work in progress. Give him time.

I take it you're totally opposed to gender roles.

jaybee3:

Awwwww

Honeycomb

.

BananaBender:


SMH @ natural leader.

Yes, the papi chulo, and the dominant alpha male figure. But don't fret, you won't be my slave. I hate slavery a la submissiveness. Also, I believe all human beings have to be treated with respect, regardless of race, colour, creed, sex, age etc.. And even a dead clock is always right twice a day - so why I be dismissive of everything you've to say, and make you docile? That's not my style. I'm the original black man. The provider/protector of black women. However, she must maintain/know her natural role - that's non-negotiable.

.

BananaBender:


You make me a slave when you restrict me to certain roles.

Nah, there are always assigned roles for everyone based on skill set. Women are naturally better cooks, motherly figures, and better housekeepers/home-makers than men. And most are raised/trained from early to be great at these roles, within the family set-up. So, effectively, it's just about fitting into the family set-up/partnership based on your skill set - not slavery.

However, when it comes to other things - your opinions/ideas would be highly appreciated. I need you to be part of the process and decision-making. And when two heads deliberate on something - the end result is always better than just one person's opinion. No one is perfect, and we all have something to offer, in our own unique ways.

People still misinterpreting what 'submissiveness' entails.
It's a far cry from being docile or treated like a slave.

^^^I think you're the one with a fundamental problem about understanding a simple English word.

Check your dictionary next time, before exposing your ignorance,

SirShymex:
Well, I honestly don't think there's a contradiction in my post. Relationships/marriages should be more of a partnership/teamsport, with assigned roles for everyone involved - and a team-leader/captain - without anyone being submissive.

There is a contradiction. I pointed it out the first time and you've repeated it here. Without answering my charge. Why is there a need for a leader if there is no "submission"?

SirShymex:
And in the case of relationships/marriages, men are naturally the leaders due to their innate temperament - and effectively being raised consciously/subconsciously by the society and whatever family set-up they came out from to always take the lead/initiative.

...and yet more on leaders - what do leaders do? What are leaders for??

SirShymex:
Once you start asking for submissiveness, then you've effectively made yourself infallible. And more like a God-like figure, who can never do no wrong. However, it takes two to tango, and you need the other party to always get involved, for ideas sharing. While still maintaing your different roles within the set-up. Submissiveness takes that away completely and, creates a docile robotic-figure. And the inertia is going to delegate more responsibilities to you as a leader.

I have to assume you read my post before writing this - but just in case;

TV01:
Submission does not mean silence. It means full dialogue and agreement - and where agreement cannot be reached, the buck has to stop with someone - Dadddddyyyyy !

SirShymex:
The three biggest qualities of a good leader are: listening skills, open-mindedness, and sensitivity to other people's ideas. So, when you ask for submissiveness, while in effect making yourself an infallible God-like figure - then you have negated those qualities.

First, in light of how I defined submission, none of this makes much sense.
Second, when you are in the crucible of marriage you will realise the biggest quality required from a leader is to actually lead.
Third, when shots have to be called and decisions made, or in a crises, start being all "sensitive" and see how your spouse takes it !

SirShymex:
The word "submissiveness" itself is medieval, and you can never run a partnership, team, and/or team-sport with that. Let me use team sport to buttress my point: in team sports, you can only be submissive to the coach - not team-captain. With the team-captain, you share ideas. So, are you taking the leadership position of the team coach, or the team-captain? If you want the role of the team coach - then you've to re-apply and become your partner's father. However, if your position is synonymous with that of the team-captain, which is what it should be - then you honestly can't ask for submissiveness.

Your incorrect interpretation of submission apart, I like the sports metaphors. Having both boxed and played team sports. So again, in a pinch or a clutch situation, after a huddle - or before one - what does a captain do.

SirShymex:
Anyway, I've always been the de-facto lead in all my relationships, as the male figure. However, I've never asked anyone to be submissive to me. It's always about sharing ideas, delegating roles, and me taking the initiative after effective communication/discussion with my partner. Before doing anything, it's my responsibility to ask her about what she thinks. And that's something you can't do with a submissive figure.

Presumably she "acquiesced" to your taking the initiative or did you ask permission for that !

Please stop it.

Even if the feminist push appears to be for equality, it never is. Relationships can be quite egalitarian, but there is always a power dynamic and a natural division along gender lines - even in SS relationships.

And as a man, the male/female dynamic suggests you are on shakey ground if you don't take charge. Even the crypto-feminists are wired to respond to status and leadership qualities in men.

The ones shouting for death to gender roles either don't have men or are paired with betas ! Why don't you ask them?


TV

TV01:
There is a contradiction. I pointed it out the first time and you've repeated it here. Without answering my charge. Why is there a need for a leader if there is no "submission"?

I'd say I didn't read your other post which included your definition of submission. I only read the bit directed to me. However, you're the one conflating two different words with nuanced meanings here. My opinion was based solely on being submissive (submissiveness) and not submission. The two words have nuanced meanings, once you look at the wider context, in this subject matter. Submissive is an adjective, and a behavioural characteristic - while submission is a conscious act and something you do based on compromise. Once, you understand the nuances, then you'll understand that there's absolutely no contradiction in my post.

Effectively, you can submit to a leader, based on compromise and agreement (submission), without necessarily being submissive. With submissiveness, you have no say in anything, and that's what it's naturally expected from you.

...and yet more on leaders - what do leaders do? What are leaders for??

Leaders take the initiative, and are the head/face of every team. However, to be a good leader, you have to always deliberate on things with team members, before decision making. Though you opinion is final, but the deliberation process gives room for ideas/opinions sharing with other members of the team. Once you start making decisions without the input of others, which is the space submissiveness creates, then you're a bad leader. And you honestly don't need a team, since you can do everything by yourself.

I have to assume you read my post before writing this - but just in case;

First, in light of how I defined submission, none of this makes much sense.
Second, when you are in the crucible of marriage you will realise the biggest quality required from a leader is to actually lead.
Third, when shots have to be called and decisions made, or in a crises, start being all "sensitive" and see how your spouse takes it !

Your incorrect interpretation of submission apart, I like the sports metaphors. Having both boxed and played team sports. So again, in a pinch or a clutch situation, after a huddle - or before one - what does a captain do.

Presumably she "acquiesced" to your taking the initiative or did you ask permission for that !

Please stop it.

Even if the feminist push appears to be for equality, it never is. Relationships can be quite egalitarian, but there is always a power dynamic and a natural division along gender lines - even in SS relationships.

And as a man, the male/female dynamic suggests you are on shakey ground if you don't take charge. Even the crypto-feminists are wired to respond to status and leadership qualities in men.

The ones shouting for death to gender roles either don;t have men or are paired with betas ! Why don;t you ask them?


TV

Honestly, I didn't read the other part in your post where you defined submission. So, I'll wait for your rebuttal to my new post, before giving a reply. Just so you know, I abhor feminism, and my opinion on this thread is basically what I think a family set-up should be like based on the context of the subject-matter - submissiveness. Submission after deliberation between the two parties involved, is normal. But submissiveness is medieval.

SirShymex:


Nah, there are always assigned roles for everyone based on skill set. Women are naturally better cooks, motherly figures, and better housekeepers/home-makers than men. And most are raised/trained from early to be great at these roles, within the family set-up. So, effectively, it's just about fitting into the family set-up/partnership based on your skill set - not slavery.

However, when it comes to other things - your opinions/ideas would be highly appreciated. I need you to be part of the process and decision-making. And when two heads deliberate on something - the end result is always better than just one person's opinion. No one is perfect, and we all have something to offer, in our own unique ways.

---

---

Zexten:

Alright, some of your points are plain wrong:

Women are NOT naturally better cooks. Have you seen most of the Michelin-starred restaurants chefs? Males! Besides, I know there are people with a ton of male friends who are great cooks. If anything, societal conditioning makes people seem adapted to gender roles. And it is "lazy thinking" to not want to challenge these things - don't forget, most of society is always wrong.
The role of the husband and wife should be complementary, but not assigned based on gender. Women are splendid with ideas; men are splendid with cooking and taking care of kids - anyone can serve either function. We are humans, we have the ability to adapt to anything given the right motivation and incentive. Will you learn to cook well for a million dollars a year? Most likely. If you can do that for the love of money, why can't you do that for the love of family? You're supposed to be a leader anyways. These things aren't "natural", they are "societal and cultural".

Except you think women are good housekeepers + good at everything else and men are just good at everything else, which means women > men *worried*

Well, my post was based on the black experience/culture and the uniqueness of who we're. And once you use that as a premise, females are always assigned the cooking role, from an early stage - while males are assigned other roles within the family. And generations (including my generation) have been raised in this culture. So, you can't change it now, regardless how wrong you might think the society is.

To change it - it has to be a bottom-up approach, and not top-down. Which means: it has to start with the next generation. And the responsibility still falls on women - starting with those who are girls today, and will end up as mothers tomorrow - to start with their own children. That's how you can change the cycle. Don't expect guys who were never raised to learn how to cook, to start cooking now - it's unacceptable.

Zexten:
Also, men are not "natural leaders. There are actually a lot of women leaders with great roles in government, society and business. Like I said before, it's all about conditioning and determination of a person. As humans, our brains are so well intricate and developed that we can adapt to almost any task or role if we decide to.

Also, assertiveness of personality is based on the mbti scale (an entj would most likely be a natural leader). That's human psychology, with little to no distribution along gender lines. It's funny, the most assertive and leader-oriented person I know is a woman

Men are natural leaders - we were born and raised to lead. Women are too emotional to lead, and for every successful woman that has ever taken up a leadership role - men are always the ones pulling the strings behind the scene. Women just don't make good judgement, due to emotional impulses inherently linked to their decision making process.

Primitive concerns for PRIMITIVE PEOPLE!

SirShymex:


Men are natural leaders - we were born and raised to lead. Women are too emotional to lead, and for every successful woman that has ever taken up a leadership role - men are always the ones pulling the strings behind the scene. Women just don't make good judgement, due to emotional impulses inherently linked to their decision making process.

---

Zexten:


I assume you're going to quote research for me? Otherwise I would tell you about how Hilary Clinton was US secretary of state without anyone pulling the strings. She was the face of foreign affairs.
Sheryl Sandberg is the coo of Facebook, she basically controls facebook and zuckerberg's decision making process because of her experience. Angela Merkel, Marissa Mayer, Iweala, Ezekwesili etc.

I knew you were going to cite those people, before I posted my comment.

Let's start with Hilary Clinton: what was her performance like as the US secretary of state, and why was she labelled as arguably the worst US secretary of state ever? Reference: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/hillary_clinton_americas_worst_secretary_of_state.html and http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/12/18/hillary-clintons-record/ Also, her emotional utterances during her tenure were so perpetually cringe-worthy, that you always had to expect an undiplomatic gaffe whenever she opened her mouth.

As for Sheryl Sandberg, she's just part of a group - and most of the decision making are made by men. Ditto Angela Merkel who basically can't do anything without the German parliament, which is dominated by men.

How Nigeria's being governed, especially when it comes to the economy should be enough premise to judge Iweala's performance. And she has been an utter failure, and a disgrace to her CV.

I don't know the rest.

Kanwulia:
Primitive concerns for PRIMITIVE PEOPLE!

You have said it alllllllllllllllllllll!
I wanted to reply the rubbish OP statements and following ones, but I won't waste a single brain cell on it. Too much productive energy would be wasted doing that.

SirShymex:


Well, my post was based on the black experience/culture and the uniqueness of who we're. And once you use that as a premise, females are always assigned the cooking role, from an early stage - while males are assigned other roles within the family. And generations (including my generation) have been raised in this culture. So, you can't change it now, regardless how wrong you might think the society is.

To change it - it has to be a bottom-up approach, and not top-down. Which means: it has to start with the next generation. And the responsibility still falls on women - starting with those who are girls today, and will end up as mothers tomorrow - to start with their own children. That's how you can change the cycle. Don't expect guys who were never raised to learn how to cook, to start cooking now - it's unacceptable.

---

Zexten:

How can you say this? It is our responsibility to change wrong. Imagine if those during the civil rights era or during colonization said: this is how we were raised, we can't change. Its a bad argument to say we are raised in a certain way and society is structured as such. If something is wrong, we call it wrong.

It takes only a few weeks of cooking twice a day, four timed a week to learn how to cook a variety of dishes well. Men can learn how to cook quickly and easily. That's not about "upbringing". Like I've said several times, we are adaptable. We learnnon the job and get perfected quickly.

I recognize the black (I suppose you mean Black African) experience. Its respectable but its also available for change. In shirt periods, we've adapted to computers, phones, internet, education etc. We (you) can adapt to anything. The upbringing excuse is lazy - not to forget that it's a discriminatory upbringing.

Don't you think it's utterly disrespectful to compare the struggle against the generational dehumanisation of a race of people - to basic gender roles within a culture and/or an experience? And was that based on societal structure - or wicked, malicious, devilish, inhumane treatment of a race of people?

And no, I mean BLACK EXPERIENCE - both African black and those in the new world. That's the experience. Women cook and they have their natural roles within the family structure! I can't be ar.sed with everything else you posited, too simplistic and somewhat off-point.

Tallesty1:
I laughed............


Cocoa-candy abi butter is the type of woman that answers "sir" to the snoring sound of her sleeping husband.

But she is a tiger online.


She is a good story teller thou.

Not only the snoring o.
Even the fart and belch has me standing at attention with a salute screaming military style Sir yes Sir!

Are you jealous?

SirShymex:
^^^I think you're the one with a fundamental problem about understanding a simple English word.

Check your dictionary next time, before exposing your ignorance,

What is the difference between 'submissiveness' and 'submission' in the context of marriage genius?

im also interested in this.. how submissiveness is not a quality of submission

crackhaus:

What is the difference between 'submissiveness' and 'submission' in the context of marriage genius?

pickabeau1:
im also interested in this.. how submissiveness is a quality of submission

The rate at which 'self-acclaimed intellectuals' spit comments without pause for sound thought on here never cease to amaze me.

The other day it was one telling me she's a supporter of post-feminism

everyone be like spitting intellectual mish mash around these boards

who knows

crackhaus:

The rate at which 'self-acclaimed intellectuals' spit comments without pause for sound thought on here never cease to amaze me.

The other day it was one telling me she's a supporter of post-feminism

@SirShymex.

I have found your posts on this topic very interesting and agree with you that change may have to come with the next generation, It is 'tough' to break a habit. We are the 'Transitional' generation and I beleive that is the reason for the many marriage failure.

I do not fully agree with you that men are natural leaders if they were, we would not have an issue with submision (whatever the variance of definition!) in relationships, believe me, if you lead a woman right today and lead her right tomorrow, she will follow you forever!

This is not even limited to women alone, be an obvious leader, leading people to solutions and you will always have followers.


There is a question I'll like to ask you, you have mentioned how you expect people to stick to the established roles and how ready you are to be the provider etc, what happens if for some reason you are not able to play the roles you mentioned in your marriage, how will you cope?

No wonder the marriages then last longer and also worthy of emulation!

crackhaus:

What is the difference between 'submissiveness' and 'submission' in the context of marriage genius?

Lmao, the fact that you had to wait for 24 hours to find your voice is laughable. And also, the fact that you've got three dunderheads cosigning you just adds credence to what I've always said about folks on this forum not being able to comprehend basic use of English. I was going to call you a stark illiterate, but I'll refrain from that because you've shown a little bit of wit in the past. So, your problem might be that English language isn't your first language - and I'll give you a pass for that.

The English language is pretty much straight-forward. And even when certain words look alike, and are either synonyms or from the same tree - there are always nuances. Just because both words are from "submit" that doesn't make them the same thing. That's like saying: "creation" and "creativeness" are the same because they're both from the word "create."

Submissiveness even in the marriage context is a quality and behavioural characteristic of whoever is submissive in the marriage. With submissiveness, you have absolutely no say in whatever the authority does. And you're basically a docile entity and perpetually so, with no opinion whatsoever.

However, with submission - it is an act not a characteristic, of compliance/compromise/understanding. And with this, you're not perpetually docile/passive - and you can have a say and opinions.

crackhaus:

The rate at which 'self-acclaimed intellectuals' spit comments without pause for sound thought on here never cease to amaze me.

The other day it was one telling me she's a supporter of post-feminism

Intellectually, I'll flog you like a slave on the plantation - and crack ya head open.

When you're ready, you can get in the ring - and bring ya homoerotic partner - the only male that picks-a-beau with you.

Two for the price of one - buy one get one free.