[JumpCrisscross]

> You do see some cultures where men play an exceedingly dominant role (where women by multiple facets of tradition play the submissive role) and there is less man-woman strife

Really? Many of them, to my mind, have endemic issues with sexual violence, honor-based violence (e.g. acid throwing) and foregone development.

[mc32]

I worded that poorly. It’s a bit of a tautology but what I’m saying is that in those relationships where the women by tradition unquestionably accept this subservient position, there is less violence than women in the same culture who protest the the subservient position. I’m doing this to illustrate why the man:dog relationship is easy. The dog automatically subjugates itself. Of course humans will find that very comforting. There is no pushback and even when the owner misbehaves the dog still shows affection as if it’s perfectly natural —and to the dog it is. However, if you take it to the extreme the dog will turn on the owner.

[watwut]

> what I’m saying is that in those relationships where the women by tradition unquestionably accept this subservient position, there is less violence than women in the same culture who protest the the subservient position.

Is it really? Because generally universally, when the bullying victim acts in the submissive manner, bullying does not stop. The bully becomes convinced he is in the right, still feels unsatisfied and escalates the bullying. There is never enough submission, there is always some perceived or real slight to spark aggression.

While the abuse can make people more submissive, being submissive does not prevent abuse.

[JumpCrisscross]

> there is less violence than women in the same culture who protest the the subservient position

To extend your analogy, is there more violence and cruelty against dogs (by humans) today compared with when wolves and men were more or less equals? Even scaled for populations, I think the answer reveals itself simply.

Being in a subservient position means being a recipient of violence. Because humans, like it or not, are a violent species. The women in hierarchic societies may quietly suffer their violence. But that doesn’t change the fact that it occurs, and in all likelihood with more frequency than in societies that treat men and women as equal. (Modern and traditional.)

[mc32]

I don’t disagree with the take. In retrospect a cult could have been a better analog. In any case the main point I was trying to make initially is that the human:dog relationship is admired by many because it is “easy”, the dog forgiving and unconditional but that mostly stems from its instinct to be subservient and submissive. If the dog were more independent and an equal in the relationship with humans there could be less warmth and affection. I think there is also similarity to people’s feelings towards toddlers and rebellious teens —by some people.

[watwut]

You have to understand, that does not count. When she tells no or protest, that is the strife. But when he beats her, violates her or insults and diminishes her, that is just valid enforcement of the authority.