I disagree with the statement when a woman says she's strong enough and don't long for a strong, dominating husband. If someone still deny this point, she is either very masculine or telling a lie cuz' a real woman always crave for strong and dominating partner. You can't change basic instincts!
Bhai Jit, how do you know so much about women? I can understand if a girl says "a real woman
always crave for strong and dominating partner"- not because she would be right. But atleast as a girl, she can talk about her own basic instincts and cravings. I am not sure how a guy who has even had 10 relationships with women can say that- because all these women can just be lying to please the guy's ego!
If a woman says she does not want a strong, dominating husband- why does she have to be masculine/liar as a matter of FACT?
Also you are saying that to be masculine is to be dominating. What does this domination mean? A king dominates by conquering other kings. A businessman dominates by beating the competition. A sportsman/artist dominates by excelling in his field. It is not so clear in a relationship. There are several types of domination- which one do you mean?
1. Financial: I earn money, so I decide what we do with it- go to cinema, send children to private school, etc etc.
2. Housekeeping: I run the household, so I decide what happens inside- What gets cooked, what furniture goes where, etc.
3. Physical: I am physically stronger. So I beat the crap out of you and treat you like my slave.
4. Personality: I speak all the time, decide on what you are going to do all the time. You don't challenge me or $hit is going to hit the roof (refer to the cartoon posted earlier for examples)
5. Emotional: I use emotional blackmail to get you to do "voluntarily" what you won't have done otherwise. Sort of thing Gandhi did in politics, many people do that in their homes.
6. Bedroom: You know what..
There may be more. Clearly, a woman can dominate on atleast some aspects of that list (whether you like it or not). This has nothing to do with tradition, culture, respect and other such blah blah. Traditionally, the world had kings who thought that "yuddh hi veer ka pramaan hai". But in the same history, we had Asoka who followed the buddhist principle of being a "chakravarti" samrat- ruling a welfare empire. While, in the modern world, we still have US that thinks like traditional kings. Similarly, there were always individuals in the past who didn't think that to be masculine means to dominate and to be feminine means to be dominated.
Talking about current times- forget India, maybe that's what being an Indian means to you. That men have to be strong and dominating and women have to be meek and dominated. But is this your sense of Aussies as well- that ALL women crave for strong and dominating partner? I say that because I don't think this sort of viewpoint would go down well with many Aussies, especially females.
