Why don't women want to be wives anymore?

Greetings, Masked_Masculinist, and welcome to the Taken In Hand forum! If you stick around here, I think you may find quite a few people who are sympathetic to your viewpoint. However, you have mixed quite a few different ideas together here; personally, I can relate better to some of them than to others.

I do think there are deep and significant natural differences between the sexes, both physically and psychologically; and especially when it comes to their sex drives and how they experience sexual love. I believe that men, on average, are naturally inclined to be more aggressive and dominant -- or at least to have the desire to be dominant; while women are the opposite, and tend mostly to be attracted to more dominant men. And I think that feminism has done a lot of harm in denigrating and trying to repress those innate differences. I am concerned with the apparent disappearance of true masculinity under the onslaught of feminism, just as you seem to be concerned with the disappearance of femininity; although we might well have different conceptions of just which qualities are essential to masculinity or femininity.

I totally support your right to hold out for what you really want in a wife; and I would bet that if you make your desires and intentions clear, then you have a good chance of finding it. The Taken In Hand website might be very useful in helping with that; especially in the sense of picking up ideas on what sorts of things you might do to meet compatible women. Also, I think your anger might become somewhat abated if you were to view the rude or mannish women you have run into, in somewhat different terms, as the victims of feminist ideology run amok.

It might be hard for you to understand why women would buy into feminism at all, unless you can truly appreciate that the previous millennia of patriarchy (for lack of a better term) really did do some damage to women's psyches, in terms of keeping them boxed into a very rigid role model that may not have fit their individual personalities, and also denigrating them as lesser beings. And the injustice of their situation made many women deeply angry.

To understand why, consider this: many men today will complain about affirmative action, especially when women or ethnic minority members who are less qualified than they are get some kind of preferential treatment in college entry and hiring and job promotions. I happen to agree that that is unjust; but really, it is only a small, pale shadow of the sort of injustice that women and minorities endured for hundreds and thousands of years. Just imagine that you're growing up as a child, and it's evident to everyone in the family, and all of your teachers, that you are much brighter than your brother. Indeed, you're the brightest student in all your classes, and you're fascinated by everything: math and science and history, etc. You want to learn as much as you can about everything. But your dull brother is the one who is encouraged and rewarded and given the funds to go to college; while you are ignored, discouraged, and generally pushed to the back. Why? Because he has a penis and you do not. Would not the raw injustice of that make you very angry?

So there is a reason why women responded in such an overwhelmingly approving way to early feminism, and to being freed of the rigid constraints that had oppressed them for thousands of years. And there is also a reason why women had a lot of pent-up anger over the way they had been treated all throughout human history. Human beings, by nature, desire to live in freedom and to have the liberty to make their own choices. Women are no different in that way, and since women were well aware that they were just as smart as men are, there was a huge injustice felt by most women, in being compelled to always take the back seat, and play the part of a second-class citizen.

So I would say that feminism in its early years was a wonderful and much needed thing, and way overdue. However, when the good and reasonable goals of early feminism were won, the feminists just kept on pushing for more and more; so feminism, merely in order to continue existing as a movement, of necessity had to become more and more radical, until they were pushing for things that were totally ridiculous. And that radical and extreme and ridiculous edge is what defines feminist thinking today, unfortunately. (For example: pushing for women as combat soldiers and policemen and boxers and football players, etc.) Along with that increasing radicalism came an increased venting of anger at men; until feminist rage became a thing that just fed off of itself, with no real misbehavior on the part of men being necessary to sustain it. Thus the man-hating feminist was born, the sort of malignant creatures who stood and cheered for Lorena Bobbitt because she cut off her own husband's penis.

That rage against men became a war on masculinity itself, a determination to try and stop men from acting like men. Everywhere today -- and especially in academia, from where it can most impact the culture as a whole -- men and their innately masculine ways are demeaned, denigrated, and demonized. There has also come a complete denial of the very real and natural differences between men and women; which is utterly irrational, in the face of the facts we actually know to be true. But women today are encouraged to more like men, and men are encouraged to be more like women; and the obvious end goal of that is total androgyny. That, in my opinion, is a very sick and twisted thing; and it has unfortunately infected our society in almost every aspect. So the problems with feminism today are many and deep, and it is urgent that we begin to restore some sanity to society. However, trying to turn the clock completely back to the days of women not being allowed to make their own choices in life -- that will never do. Those days are long gone, and good riddance to them.

There are many women today who have been "through" the feminism thing, and who eventually came around to rediscover their own innate femininity, and their own desire for a masculine and dominant man. From what I've seen, it often takes several years (or many) for women to come to that realization. Younger women without much life experience tend to see things in more black-and-white terms; so they often seem to draw more simplistic lines of "feminist equality = good" and "male dominance = bad." It's only with many years of self-discovery that they begin to understand the complexities and subtleties of human nature, and to acknowledge their own deep desire for a dominant man. But it can be a very sweet awakening when they do. So don't write all women off just yet; there are some out there who might be very compatible with you, and you have every right to try and find them.

With regard to some of the specific things you mentioned, however, please realize that some of those things are your own personal preferences, and not necessarily the way that all women "should" be. I'll bet you can find a woman who will wear skirts and dresses if that's what you prefer; but many women -- even women who love and adore dominant men -- prefer the ease and comfort of slacks. That does not make them any less feminine, really; just as men who wear skirts (kilts, yay!) are no less masculine for that.

As for saying that "maybe women WERE meant to be housewives" -- just which women are you talking about here? It's clear that some women really love being housewives; but it's just as clear that many do not. Maybe they're totally enthralled by biology or anthropology, maybe they love tinkering with cars or flying airplanes, maybe they feel a real calling to be a doctor or a nurse. Life is full of possibilities, and people are fascinated by very different things. Surely you don't expect that all men will want to have exactly the same kind of job -- let's say, being an auto mechanic, or an accountant. So why would you assume that all women would want to hold exactly the same kind of job -- namely, that of a housewife? Personally, I was always most intrigued by math and science, ever since I can remember; I loved it with a passion, and I also had a real gift for it. Would you suggest that I should have repressed that passion? Perhaps I should have aimed at being a housewife, and confined my interest in science to the chemistry of window cleaning solutions, and baking the perfect oatmeal cookie? No, thanks. Can you see how oppressive that is, this ideology that "all" women should want one particular thing? We are all very much individuals, just as men are. So the answer to the question "what do women want?" is obvious: we all want something different.

(People can and do change, however. After working in science and engineering for about twenty years, I became ready to give it up; for reasons that had partly to do with the social dynamics of those fields, and also because I found an even deeper passion in serving my religion -- Wicca -- and my Gods. When I took several years off work, I found that I really enjoyed being the homemaker, cooking and gardening and decorating and all that. Now I would be glad to stay out of the work force, and have a husband who would support me in that. But even though I enjoy homemaking now, my interest still is not mainly in being a housewife; now it's mainly in doing research and writing on pagan religions and philosophy and science. I would dearly love to be able to do that at home, without having to struggle at making a living out of it, which is not nearly as easy as making a career in engineering. If somebody writes books as a career, then it kind of limits what they can write about, because they need to sell books and write the stuff that people want to read. If you don't have to worry about selling your writing, then you can be more original and creative.)

A few more things with regard to what you're looking for in a wife. You wrote:

"I want a girl who's as sweet and caring as she is docile and submissive."

Well, good luck in that. I think you will find that there is quite a range of behavior and inclinations here at Taken In Hand. Some women here are a lot more feisty than "docile" and really want a strong, assertive husband who can aggressively take charge and make them submit to his rule. But there are others who are more obedient by nature; and there is a whole range in between. Also, some women are prone to be more resistant and feisty at the beginning. The woman may initially feel a need to "test" the man to ensure that he actually has the innate strength and assertiveness and dominance to put her under his control even when she resists him. But if he proves his strength and his dominance, then she may feel that she can just relax and let herself melt into that; she doesn't feel the need to continually challenge him, if she can feel sure that he can and will prevail over her resistance. In a way, knowing that her man can actively conquer her is a very sweet thing for some women; it makes them feel secure and loved. Some men welcome that challenge, and relish the chance to very actively dominate a woman. Others seem to want women who will not give them any challenges, but only obey from the start. So it's very diverse. There are many ways to live a Taken In Hand romance, and there are all kinds of men and women involved in this. Your chances of finding a woman who is compatible with you may be very good.

One more thing to keep in mind, though, is that the woman you meet at first might not seem much at all like the ideal woman that you have in mind; but she may, over time, blossom into your ideal woman. Taken In Hand is all about the man's leadership, so in the long run your preferences may prevail in many areas; even if that's not what the woman seemed to be like in the beginning. That's not because her own interests and individuality get repressed; but more because there will be many areas of behavior where she feels that pleasing her man is the most important thing. For example, she might prefer wearing slacks; but when you get involved in a romantic relationship and she begins to submit to your leadership, she may be delighted to start wearing skirts and dresses to please you. If you want to check for that kind of compatibility early on, then it's best to just make your preferences known in a friendly way. (When you call her up for a date, say something like "I'm really looking forward to seeing how you look in a pretty dress; I'll bet you look smashing." That's much better than keeping your mouth shut and then feeling all grumpy and frustrated when she shows up in slacks.)

I don't mean to suggest that women are infinitely malleable, or that it doesn't matter what the woman is like so long as she is willing to submit to you; because a Taken In Hand romance is all about making both partners happy, and most women will have some innate preferences and inclinations that may or may not be compatible with your own. However, there may be quite a few things that the woman is doing just out of habit or whatever, where that particular habit or way of doing things is not at all important to the woman, and she's willing to give it up to please her man. There may even be quite a few areas where she knows that she could be doing things better, and she might welcome the leadership of a strong dominant man to help her change. (This might even be the case with a woman who gets snippy with you; if you just firmly let her know that you are not willing to tolerate that. And you might even spank her if her bad manners continue. Again, different women will need different degrees of assertiveness from a man, before they submit to his dominance.) So don't overlook those "diamonds in the rough" -- one of them might polish up and shine just the way you want her to. Good luck!

I am one of the many women who don't "giggle and smile" at strange men when they pass me on the street. Why would I do that? I would save that kind of flirtatiousness for a boyfriend or husband.

I do believe SOME women were meant to be housewives, myself included, but I'm only figuring this out at the age of 44, and if there are in fact any men out there willing to fully support a wife in these expensive times---especially a wife who is too old to have children---they are keeping themselves well hidden. I certainly wouldn't go around telling everyone that I want to be a stay-at-home wife; I have no desire to look like, or BE, a gold-digger or parasite.

The_Masked_Masculinist: Have you found your sweet wife yet?

To the original poster:

It seems to me you are judging based on appearances, and you may be overlooking wonderfully feminine ladies who would enjoy keeping house and having your babies. The characteristics you dislike may simply be in keeping with their current circumstances in life. Especially if a woman is sweet, docile, and submissive (as you prefer), she may not be the type to buck current conventions without the support of a strong man.

If you make a habit of approaching a woman in a kind, friendly, interested manner, you may find the perfect one for you - and she may be wearing jeans when you meet! She may eventually, out of love for you, switch to wearing dresses. I wore dresses for several years because my husband wanted me to do so for religious reasons. We are no longer christians, and he now likes to see me in jeans. He enjoys me dressing in a fashionable way now. I used to wear dresses for him; now I wear jeans for the same reason. I've been a housewife in both skirts and pants. That has made absolutely no difference to how I cook, clean, and care for our children.

Just as you are turned off by initial appearances, the perfect woman may be turned off by your seeming inflexibility. Please try to look beyond appearances to the girl she is at heart. When you discover that girl, please treat her with love and gentleness. The type of lady you are looking for would be easily wounded by impatience and harshness.

Perhaps it may help you to read David's post http://www.takeninhand.com/watch.what.she.does.not.what.she.says. His wife is very obedient to him and tries to please him in every way. Yet she was a feminist when they met...

Mrs. KISS

The "nature vs. nurture" debate goes way back, of course. But it's not an either/or thing; it's always some of both. The argument that some gender qualities are in the "natural order" is more convincing with regard to aspects of life that we share with other mammals, such as physical aggressiveness and sexual behavior.

Males are more physically aggressive due to hormonal sex differences; that is known science, not "cultural conditioning." Males are also sexually dominant among most mammals, except for some strange behavior among domesticated animals. But with regard to other aspects of life, it varies a lot from species to species. Among lions, the females do most of the work, even though the male lion is dominant in his pride. They surely are not feline equivalents of housewives!

When it comes to things like which sex should be repairing machinery or programming computer code, or which sex should be cooking or sewing -- really, we can't know what's natural there, because those are not activities that other animals engage in. And if we look to other human cultures, we also find a wide variety in terms of which sex does what kind of work. In hunter-gather tribes, the men do the hunting because they're stronger, while the women mostly gather fruit and other plant foods. (And with that division of labor, it also makes sense that very young children stay closer to home, with the women. But young boys soon join their fathers on the hunt, often by the age of eight or nine.) But with agriculture and civilization, that changes things up a lot. There are cultures in which farming is seen as women's work, and there are cultures in which cooking or sewing is seen as men's work.

So let's not generalize things as being part of "the natural order of things" when they might be just artifacts of culture. But the converse also holds: people should not keep dismissing natural sex and gender differences as "cultural constructs" when they are sex differences that hold not only throughout almost all human cultures, but also among most other mammal species as well. There is much to be learned from evolutionary psychology and psychobiology regarding natural and innate sex differences.