In all the talk of feminism giving women equal rights with men, why is it that women get annoyed with passive men when they are no less aggressive than men?
In my first relationship, I was passive and my girlfriend at the time was naturally aggressive in all positive sense of the word. Yet she wondered why I wouldn't take the initiative.
Perhaps some women are so afraid of taking the leading role in a male-female relationship that they resort the principle of sharing responsibility in a relationship and get annoyed when a man doesn't take his responsibility seriously.
I know that my passivity is a trait that helps me in a relationship because it helps me to determine how aggressive the woman is. From my experience, it appears that some women think they are doing all the work in the relationship and forget that in most traditional relationships, it is the men who do most of the work by initiating most activities they share together.
As for being totally passive, I would deny this because my aggression is channelled into my passivity. This is not passive-aggressive behavior. This is passivity moderated by aggression into a creative aspect of the relationship. In a sense, it is a role reversal in that I am behaving contrary to the traditional male role which is contrary to the ideals of post-modern society.
While I may behave passively in a relationship, my passivity is not used as a weapon but as a tool to facilitate change in the few women I have dated. As well, it may well be that the reason why my relationships were short-lived is because my passivity is effective in meeting my needs.
For the whole purpose of role reversal is to help both men and women to see that not all men and women are traditionally bound to the myth that "all men are dominant and all women submissive."
YMMV
No comments:
Post a Comment