I JUST CAN'T NOT

(Or More Ranting on That Respect the Wife Thing)

A while ago, I commented on that article  about showing respect to wives. Now, somebody commented on my post, and due to too much influence from tumblr, I found myself unable not to respond to it in a post.

Here's the comment:

"It appears to be a question of belief. Otherwise he would deny this opinion in public, Even so, it looks even horrible to me. Reminds me of those dominant women who'd be happy to have a dog instead of a man."

(Note: to the person who wrote that—thank you very much for commenting. This is not a critique of your comment, let alone your opinion. I'm simply using this as inspiration for a another rant.)

1. "It appears to be a question of belief."

Yes. Yes, of course it is. After all, that article was all about gender roles, which differ very much depending on what society you focus on. The ideas are different, the arguments and reasons for certain behaviouristic patterns are different, and while I have my opinions, I can't presume to know what is right and what is wrong, objectively speaking; my own reasoning has been moulded by the society I live in.  The reason I did comment on that article was because it had been produced by a member of Western society, somebody who lives in conditions not unlike ours and whose values are similar to mine. In other words, I understand the world she lives in well enough.

As far as opinions go—the author of that article is perfectly free to believe in what she wrote, and if that kind of lifestyle suits her, then lucky her. The problem is that there are thousands of women out there who might read a similar article and beat themselves over it because they wouldn't be able to live up to its expectations. Perhaps they could follow the 'guidelines' but would find they gain no satisfaction from such behaviour. Perhaps they would feel guilty for disagreeing, for not wanting to conform.

There are so many negative reactions that article could inspire. It also works the other way around: if somebody read my commentary, they may think their opinions attacked, too, and feel the need to protect them.

I had a pretty bad reaction to the article, even more so because I found the link after a friend of mine had shared it on facebook. I simply wanted to get my emotions out. But I also wanted to show that there are two sides of that coin, that living like that is not the only way. I wanted to tell people that they don't need to agree with everything they read, or allow themselves to be judged. Perhaps there was/is somebody out there who needed/needs to hear that what they felt/feel is okay, and if I made a single person feel better about themselves, then ranting was more than worth it.

That’s what this is all about, really. "A matter of opinion." That should automatically imply that both agreeing and disagreeing are okay and don't make a person any better or worse.

2. "Reminds me of those dominant women who'd be happy to have a dog instead of a man."

I think I understand what this was meant to mean, but I have to add it is a very careless comparison (it's an upsetting comment to me, so forgive me if I rant too much).

It seems to be a common notion that dogs can be used as a symbol for somebody who can be ordered around all the time, and indeed properly trained dogs do obey a certain number of commands. Still, there is a world of difference between a dog and a person, and saying somebody treats another person like an animal should not be done lightly.

"Dominant" can have more meanings, too. I'll assume in this case it was supposed to mean the nagging wife/girlfriend who constantly corrects her husband/boyfriend and seems to commandeer him around. Perhaps the better expression in this case would be "lack of respect," a description of somebody who is never satisfied with anything but what they have done themselves. That sounds rather immature.

So what is a "dominant" person like, then? Somebody who prefers to organize everything? Control things? Somebody who is good at being a leader, at issuing commands?

Some people (men and women) prefer to have things planned and organized as opposed to being spontaneous. If I put it like that, such behaviour doesn't sound very dominant to me.

Some people like to have control of the situation, not because it would thrill them to do so but because they are afraid of what would happen if they didn't stay in control. Yes, afraid.

Oxford dictionary defines dominant as 'having power and influence over others'. To me, this implies control, not fear.  It also implies the other side—somebody who has less power. Somebody who is influenced. If a person is to be dominant, they need somebody to dominate.

Going back the quote, to the woman and the dog. In my understanding, having a dog would make the woman dominant; without the dog, there can only be a tendency to dominate. The problem is, though, that all humans who have a dog have power and influence over their dog—but nobody would goes as far as to describe them all as ‘dominant’. Perhaps because "dominant" carries a negative connotation with it for so many people?

This might be very far from what the commenter had in mind, but real dominance requires real submission, period, and I find it offensive both towards people who want, or have, dogs, and people who enjoy actual dominance, not to mention towards those who might have actually experienced being treated as a dog (and by that I mean being thought of and respected as much as a dog, too) to compare people with animals merely because we want to express somebody's annoyance.

How careless we are all with words...

Let this be enough for now (lest I write something stupid and make everyone uncomfortable...).