Some people are naturally submissive, I just don't think it has anything to do with sex.
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
263 points (100.0% liked)
WomensStuff
513 readers
250 users here now
Women only trans inclusive This is an inclusive community for all things women. Whether you're here for make up tips, feminism or just friendly chit chat, we've got you covered.
Rules…
- Women only… trans women are women, and transphobic or gender critical talk isn’t allowed. Anyone under the trans umbrella (e.g. non-binary, bigender, agender) is free to decide whether a women's community is a good fit for them.
- Don’t be a dick. No personal attacks, no aggression, play nice.
- Don’t hate on groups, hatefilled talk about groups is not allowed. Ever.
- No governmental politics, so no talk of Trump actions etc. We recommend Feminism@beehaw.org for that, but here is an escape from it.
- New accounts or users with few comments may have their posts removed to prevent spam and bad-faith participation.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
On men being natural leaders, I've read that the stereotype of "men as hunters" is somewhat ahistorical when it came to actual hunter-gatherer societies. So it makes me wonder, when exactly did that idea come about?
Victorians. They had a rather jacked up view of history
It's worse. Much worse than that.
It's the 1960s.
The 1966 books Man the Hunter is pretty much the origin story of the whole assumption of an evolutionary division of labor where males hunted as providers and females gathered and cared for children.
For a change we can't even blame the Victorians. We can blame the Age of Aquarius.
Why would anyone ever blame the Victorians for anything?
They brought us wonderful things such as steamships and child labour!
don't forget the drugs. oh the drugs
I know, it was a shock to me too. The people who originated most of the toxic "sciences" that put white men on top weren't actually to blame for an incredibly toxic faux-scientific theory. Very rare.
I've been reading "Daily Life in Victorian England" by Sally Mitchell recently and everything I read as a big social improvement necessarily implies that this is not how it worked beforehand.
Factory Act limits working day to 12 hours for people under 18. Employment of children under age 10 is prohibited. Textile mills could no longer employ children under the age of nine.
That's really interesting
The answer is usually around the Industrial Revolution, but I feel like this was way earlier.
It's kind of crazy how much baseline pop history can be traced back to "some Victorian dude made it up".
Personally I think this is wayyyyy more nurture than nature. And I also think most people are not purely a leader or purely submissive - I think we all have aspects of both.
And how much is overwhelming societal pressure…
Excellent point. I'm sure many men feel they have to go into leadership positions that they don't want, and many women are pressed not to (think of your kids!)
I'm literally a domme, so my very existence proves all those alpha male dudebros wrong about women being ~naturally submissive~. Not that they care about evidence.
Sometimes I really wonder just how much both get pushed into these specific roles, like for example when boys are given toy soldiers and girls are given baby dolls. Its kinda scary just how early this starts
It's why Babrie dolls are so significant. They were the first doll that didn't have some kind of gimmick of constantly needing care (being a literal baby, needing to be fed etc.). Barbie was marketed as a fully independent woman.
I agree but Barbies could still enforce traditional gender roles. My Barbie had a washer and dryer, ironing board, vacuum, and a fridge. Other accessories existed too but these are the ones I was given. It would've been nice if my Barbie had scrubs, a briefcase, a basketball & hoop, paints and an easel, a bike or kayak... anything other than just housework to do!
About 99.93% environmental, 0.07% genetic if we go over all genes (as genetically we are basically related to animals in the primate family) as all humans are effectively clones (when compared against the genetic diversity in other species) so although there are genes that increase likelihood of aggression and ambition; their expression is usually a subset of the outcome.
There is no gene for female submission to males in humans (or any other species of which I am aware); the closest genetic thing to that is the genes for homosexuality (literally a spectrum of heterosexual/homosexuality)
Is your argument that because only around 0.07% of our genes are different between individuals, their effect can also only be 0.07%? Because that doesn't convince me, a small difference can have a large effect.
Not that you need to convince me of your claim, just wondering if I understood the argument.
Excellent deduction (and spot on).
Fair enough, it only takes a few genes to have childhood leukemia or sickle cell anemia but even with genetically identical individuals (twins for example) there are also significant examples of behavioral differences (suicidal bomber, pedophiles, etc) between them.
So it is hard to find a good number that wasn’t just a feels good number and so my entirely rough guess was based on how clonal humans are (genetically speaking).