Increase in "calzonatos"

donfers

In Spain "calzonato" means sole of the shoe but it is more commonly used to describe men who have domineering wives who bicker and nag at them constantly and order them around. The calzonato dolefully accepts his fate and refuses to fight back, indulging each whim and fancy of his spouse, grateful that any woman, no matter how vindictive will have him.

Here in Ireland we'll often have the debate "who wears the pants in the relationship?" meaning that usually there is a hierarchy or chain of command in a relationship. (This exists almost always despite those who protest "Oh our relationship is great, we treat each other as equals bla bla platitude bla bla....Note: people saying this usually are the domineering ones only their spouse is too wimpy or lacking in confidence to speak out).

I have no problem if it is a man or a woman being at the head of the chain/hierarchy as long as they treat their partner with respect and dignity. What is key is not to abuse the position and to always acknowledge the worth of your partner and encourage them too to acknowledge their worth (some gladly or willingly submit to a lower status position).

Anyway, getting to the point, I have noticed that women often are not so good at being in the power role and ironically almost resent their partner for not taking the position themselves.

Obviously my evidence is not scientific but anecdotal but is worth speculating on nonetheless. I have seen and witnessed careerist high powered women treat their boyfriends/partners with absolute disdain, I have seen and witnessed politically-minded feminist women openly and publically abuse and humiliate their partners and I have seen liberal educated women from wealthy backgrounds absolutely slander their partners for everything from their pay packet to performance in bed. Now I know this behaviour can occur in any person but I have noticed it particularly and most intensely amongst the "power women".

My conclusion is that I think they desire the power position in a relationship (just as they seek control over other aspects of their lives) and thus subconsciously choose a meek or laidback or non-confrontational mate and then of course they proceed to disrespect and abuse their partner for the same reasons they chose him, to empower themselves by disempowering another (it's like watching a SWAT team being called into action to take down a jaywalker i.e. unnecessary and more a reflection on the insecurities of the empowerer (SWAT team) than the hardly formidable target (Jaywalker) who wasn't even a threat in the first place).

It's almost a new form of acceptable socio-cultural bullying and what I really don't understand about it is the men who are prepared to accept it. Are these men so emotionally castrated that they will be willingly walked on like the sole of a shoe (calzonato)? If so then both parties deserve their miserable fate, I hope they're happy together, they certainly deserve each other.

helimachoptor

In the relationship, I take the lead in somethings, her in others.

I cook for myself, but not for her as she doesnt like my style of cooking. I will happily iron clothes for an hour but she likes stuff to be clean i.e. germ free while I hate clutter, so both of us doing that results in a good situation.

She does stuff she doesnt like that I do and vice versa, but every now and again i put the foot down about something I dont want to do...

Pherekydes

donfers wrote: »

In Spain "calzonato" means sole of the shoe but it is more commonly used to describe men who have domineering wives who bicker and nag at them constantly and order them around. The calzonato dolefully accepts his fate and refuses to fight back, indulging each whim and fancy of his spouse, grateful that any woman, no matter how vindictive will have him.

Here in Ireland we'll often have the debate "who wears the pants in the relationship?" meaning that usually there is a hierarchy or chain of command in a relationship. (This exists almost always despite those who protest "Oh our relationship is great, we treat each other as equals bla bla platitude bla bla....Note: people saying this usually are the domineering ones only their spouse is too wimpy or lacking in confidence to speak out).

I have no problem if it is a man or a woman being at the head of the chain/hierarchy as long as they treat their partner with respect and dignity. What is key is not to abuse the position and to always acknowledge the worth of your partner and encourage them too to acknowledge their worth (some gladly or willingly submit to a lower status position).

Anyway, getting to the point, I have noticed that women often are not so good at being in the power role and ironically almost resent their partner for not taking the position themselves.

Obviously my evidence is not scientific but anecdotal but is worth speculating on nonetheless. I have seen and witnessed careerist high powered women treat their boyfriends/partners with absolute disdain, I have seen and witnessed politically-minded feminist women openly and publically abuse and humiliate their partners and I have seen liberal educated women from wealthy backgrounds absolutely slander their partners for everything from their pay packet to performance in bed. Now I know this behaviour can occur in any person but I have noticed it particularly and most intensely amongst the "power women".

My conclusion is that I think they desire the power position in a relationship (just as they seek control over other aspects of their lives) and thus subconsciously choose a meek or laidback or non-confrontational mate and then of course they proceed to disrespect and abuse their partner for the same reasons they chose him, to empower themselves by disempowering another (it's like watching a SWAT team being called into action to take down a jaywalker i.e. unnecessary and more a reflection on the insecurities of the empowerer (SWAT team) than the hardly formidable target (Jaywalker) who wasn't even a threat in the first place).

It's almost a new form of acceptable socio-cultural bullying and what I really don't understand about it is the men who are prepared to accept it. Are these men so emotionally castrated that they will be willingly walked on like the sole of a shoe (calzonato)? If so then both parties deserve their miserable fate, I hope they're happy together, they certainly deserve each other.

Congratulations. Here is your M.A.

Bottle_of_Smoke

My friend was talking about this. Some guy buying his wife a chicken baguette at a deli and when the counter assistant asked did he want spicy or plain chicken he actually rang the wife in a timid voice(with a massive queue behind) to ask her!

Another one where a guy was buying orange juice and actually rang her to see if she wanted orange juice with "bits" or "smooth" :rolleyes:

I'd imagine this kinda thing has always gone on though, doubt its actually to do with the "modern woman". A friend of mine is terrified of his girlfriend, always running off on us if she calls him etc but to an extent I think its actually because there's an imbalanc in the relationship and hes terrified she'll break up with him

OP you seem to be blaming the women here but to be honest I have a lot more contempt for the guy who'll allow some bitch walk all over him.

donfers

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

My friend was talking about this. Some guy buying his wife a chicken baguette at a deli and when the counter assistant asked did he want spicy or plain chicken he actually rang the wife in a timid voice(with a massive queue behind) to ask her!

Another one where a guy was buying orange juice and actually rang her to see if she wanted orange juice with "bits" or "smooth" :rolleyes:

I'd imagine this kinda thing has always gone on though, doubt its actually to do with the "modern woman". A friend of mine is terrified of his girlfriend, always running off on us if she calls him etc but to an extent I think its actually because there's an imbalanc in the relationship and hes terrified she'll break up with him

OP you seem to be blaming the women here but to be honest I have a lot more contempt for the guy who'll allow some bitch walk all over him.

No, no I blame both and let me stress that although all relationships have hierarchies and power struggles, it is only a minority that have the type of woman and man described above but I am noticing it more (doesn't mean it's happening more in the world, just in my world).

Hazys

Was anybody else thinking pizza when reading the title?



I think its more natural for the man to be in charge, by the way of human nature and hence why its way more common that the man wears the pants.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hazys wrote: »

Was anybody else thinking pizza when reading the title?



I think its more natural for the man to be in charge, by the way of human nature and hence why its way more common that the man wears the pants.

I dunno. I have a cousin where the husband bosses the wife around telling her to do this and that. It creates such an awkward feeling and loads of the family have commented on it.

equality and respect all the way if you ask me

Hazys

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I dunno. I have a cousin where the husband bosses the wife around telling her to do this and that. It creates such an awkward feeling and loads of the family have commented on it.

equality and respect all the way if you ask me

I'm not offering an opinion on what is right or wrong, i'm just saying its basic subconcious human nature for the male to be more dominate over the female.


Over the thousands of years of humans have existed, the male female relationship has been that the male's main roles are bread winner, main decision maker and protector of the family while the female's role was to raise the kids and look after the home. Its only in recent years that women are starting to become fully equal to men but still this is in only first world countries the vast majority of the world population still operates with male domination.

The fact that the male will always be physically be bigger than the female also plays into who wheres the pants. Im not saying the man phsyical could beat his wife but subconciously if the couple is physically threatened the male will protect.

Take chatting people up in a pub or club for example. The men initate 90% of chatting up. Is there a social taboo of women chatting up men? No (every guy wishes this was equal!) But its human nature at its basic instincts for the male to seek out the female.

As women become more equal in society (which is still imo 50 years away from being true equality) the gap of dominence of lessens, we will see more and more Calzones in society but as long as women are smaller and still bare children, human nature and basic instinct will remain which will mean on average men still will always be more dominate than women.

krudler

The media shows this idea a lot, in nearly every ad aimed at women, men are feckless, clueless and to be mothered and shown how to do things properly like use the washing machine, do the ironing, feed the kids, housework, etc etc. Its feeding the stereotype that men are useless without a good woman behind them, and women will agree on this, usually while watching Sex and the City and dreaming about Prince Charming coming to rescue them from singledom instead of sitting at home eating icecream on a weekend, its all a big cliche that people buy into.

CDfm

Hazys wrote: »

I'm not offering an opinion on what is right or wrong, i'm just saying its basic subconcious human nature for the male to be more dominate over the female.

My ex was barely 5ft and was Hitler in knickers. My girlfriend is probably physically stronger than me and can lift me-same height as me and probably could hog-tie and brand me if she wanted too -but wouldnt.

Its like the major criminals like John Gilligan -small bloke -but made up for it in pure aggression.

copacetic

I thought this thread was some kind of tasty new widely available calzone variant. Hence I clicked it. Now me sad:(.

CDfm

copacetic wrote: »

I thought this thread was some kind of tasty new widely available calzone variant. Hence I clicked it..

With anchovies -blah . I dont like anchovies :rolleyes:

Hazys

CDfm wrote: »

My ex was barely 5ft and was Hitler in knickers. My girlfriend is probably physically stronger than me and can lift me-same height as me and probably could hog-tie and brand me if she wanted too -but wouldnt.

Its like the major criminals like John Gilligan -small bloke -but made up for it in pure aggression.

Again I'm not talking in individual cases, im talking averages over the whole human race.

CDfm

Hazys wrote: »

Again I'm not talking in individual cases, im talking averages over the whole human race.

But the research does not support that but demonstrates that women are as aggressive or more aggressive . This analyses of studies was conducted by the California State University

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 271 scholarly investigations: 211 empirical studies and 60 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000. [URL][/url]http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Here is a further study by the University of British Columbia

http://www.amen.ie/reports/28004.pdf

What they are saying that there is a conflict between the data and feminst theory.

In my language -its a con.

Spanish Eyes

Where there is dominance from one side or the other, I think it is often because the subserviant person fears losing the partner. The dominant one has the power.

IMV respect is everything. Difference of opinion is OK, natural. If one side feels uncomfortable with the behaviour and attitudes of the other it needs to be said. It doesn't mean superiority, just good communication. If the recipient of this over reacts, well then, there is not much communication about what ticks.

Hazys

CDfm wrote: »

But the research does not support that but demonstrates that women are as aggressive or more aggressive . This analyses of studies was conducted by the California State University




Here is a further study by the University of British Columbia

http://www.amen.ie/reports/28004.pdf

What they are saying that there is a conflict between the data and feminst theory.

In my language -its a con.

Something suprised me when i looked online at domestic abuse, the figures i got where for the US which wouldnt be vastly different to Ireland http://new.abanet.org/domesticviolence/Pages/Statistics.aspx

Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.

I was suprised how close the figure was, especially considering a lot of men would not be as forthcoming to report that they got a assaulted by a girl.

But i dont think aggression has to do with dominence in a relationship and what I am talking about is not to do with abuse either mental or physical of a partner.

My father wears the pants in my home, but he is in no way aggressive or that doesnt listen to my mother or let my mother make decisions. Its just natural that my dad makes the financial decisions, makes the reservations for where we are going out to dinner, and other stuff like that.

Stheno

Hazys wrote: »

My father wears the pants in my home, but he is in no way aggressive or that doesnt listen to my mother or let my mother make decisions. Its just natural that my dad makes the financial decisions, makes the reservations for where we are going out to dinner, and other stuff like that.

Do you mind if I ask why?

I'm just curious not looking to jump down your throat or anything

As an example when it comes to going out, I pretty much always decide where myself and my bf will go out. He's not much of a party animal and neither am I, and we tend to stick to the same old haunts, all of which he loves, so unless I want to try something new, I'll just say "I fancy "x" tonight" and unless he's shattered or sick he'll agree. Nothing to do with dominance or anything it simply saves an endless half hour of tooing and froing about what we are doing and means we have that half hour to enjoy.

CDfm

Hazys wrote: »

Something suprised me when i looked online at domestic abuse, the figures i got where for the US which wouldnt be vastly different to Ireland http://new.abanet.org/domesticviolence/Pages/Statistics.aspx



I was suprised how close the figure was, especially considering a lot of men would not be as forthcoming to report that they got a assaulted by a girl.

Nowdays you deal with grown ups and if a man in a domestic violence situation doesnt speak up in the system he is likely to be accused.

But i dont think aggression has to do with dominence in a relationship and what I am talking about is not to do with abuse either mental or physical of a partner.

I am sure you have female friends who ag school were bullies, or captains or the hockey team, or at college got mad drunk and messy. Same thing -they dont become domestic goddesses on marriage.

My father wears the pants in my home, but he is in no way aggressive or that doesnt listen to my mother or let my mother make decisions. Its just natural that my dad makes the financial decisions, makes the reservations for where we are going out to dinner, and other stuff like that.

Thats your family and world view and couples get into routines and I am sure they love each other and tolerate the others eccentricities and faults and failings.OLd fashioned a bit -nothing wrong with that.

But you wouldnt write public policies or social theories based on what happens in your house.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hazys wrote: »

I'm not offering an opinion on what is right or wrong, i'm just saying its basic subconcious human nature for the male to be more dominate over the female.

What exactly do you mean by more dominate? I'm half afraid we're not talking about the same thing.

Over the thousands of years of humans have existed, the male female relationship has been that the male's main roles are bread winner, main decision maker and protector of the family while the female's role was to raise the kids and look after the home. Its only in recent years that women are starting to become fully equal to men but still this is in only first world countries the vast majority of the world population still operates with male domination.

Well we don't know that for sure. Certainly in the last few thousand years its been true but humans have been around a lot longer than recorded history. You're also looking at this in western world terms. In many cultures women feel proud to be the homemakers and don't see the position as not being dominant.

The fact that the male will always be physically be bigger than the female also plays into who wheres the pants. Im not saying the man phsyical could beat his wife but subconciously if the couple is physically threatened the male will protect.
As women become more equal in society (which is still imo 50 years away from being true equality) the gap of dominence of lessens, we will see more and more Calzones in society but as long as women are smaller and still bare children, human nature and basic instinct will remain which will mean on average men still will always be more dominate than women.

Bit simplistic to be honest. Its hard to compare because we're such a complex animal compared to our nearest cousins. I mean I don't know if there's much evidence to suggest early females behaved like females do today. I think its quite likely they hunted just as much as men, the tribal structure would have allowed grandparents/other members of the tribe to look after children.

However look at lions for example. Females do the hunting yet the males are far far bigger than them. Ok we're not big cats but look at our closest cousins - bonobo chimps. There are alpha males but the alpha female will usually have the last say! Are we physically bigger to dominate? I don't think so, I'd say a better explanation is that in the ancient past the concept of marriage didn't exist and the "better" males had two or three female "wives" We're perhaps bigger to fight off other males.

Take chatting people up in a pub or club for example. The men initate 90% of chatting up. Is there a social taboo of women chatting up men? No (every guy wishes this was equal!) But its human nature at its basic instincts for the male to seek out the female.

I don't think this is relevant, and probably down to men having a higher sex drive/less to lose from a one off encounter.

Hazys

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by more dominate? I'm half afraid we're not talking about the same thing.

Ya i think i need to clarify what i'm saying. By dominance (which is appearing to be a very strong word and even the term "wearing the pants" brings up images of domestic abuse) I mean leader of the relationship. Its very hard to see a relationship that is completely 50-50 between the two because its near impossible. All I'm saying its more natural and from basic instinct for the man to be in the majority of case more dominent whether thats 99-1 or 51-49.

Also i havent expression my opinion of what i feel it should be. I'd like to to be 50-50 because i'd like to respect the woman in the relationship as much as i'd like to respect myself.

Well we don't know that for sure. Certainly in the last few thousand years its been true but humans have been around a lot longer than recorded history. You're also looking at this in western world terms. In many cultures women feel proud to be the homemakers and don't see the position as not being dominant.

Irish women 50 years were proud to be home makers and the vast majority were but now that they have more freedom a lot less women see their career as a home maker, i can see the same happening for more oppressed women in other countries once they get their freedom. But i still feel once women are 100% equal in society, we will still see the majority of women taking the homemaker role over a career (a lot less than we see now but still the majority).

Bit simplistic to be honest. Its hard to compare because we're such a complex animal compared to our nearest cousins. I mean I don't know if there's much evidence to suggest early females behaved like females do today. I think its quite likely they hunted just as much as men, the tribal structure would have allowed grandparents/other members of the tribe to look after children.

Simplistic yes, we may see ourselves as a highly intelligent mammals but humans do follow basic animalistic traits. We have thousands of years of habit and animalistic traits built into our genes. In our simplist terms, Humans are biologically animals.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13860-six-uniquely-human-traits-now-found-in-animals.html

However look at lions for example. Females do the hunting yet the males are far far bigger than them. Ok we're not big cats but look at our closest cousins - bonobo chimps. There are alpha males but the alpha female will usually have the last say! Are we physically bigger to dominate? I don't think so, I'd say a better explanation is that in the ancient past the concept of marriage didn't exist and the "better" males had two or three female "wives" We're perhaps bigger to fight off other males.

Different species are different. The female black window spider finds a male mate, gets pregent, then kills the male...what a bitch!

I don't think this is relevant, and probably down to men having a higher sex drive/less to lose from a one off encounter.

Men have a higher sex drive alright but is it really that men are 9X as horny as women? i doubt it, women are pretty horny creatures also.

.

CDfm

less than 40% of mothers are in paid employment


http://www.herald.ie/lifestyle/parents/homework-hoovering-and-hot-meals--meet-the-stay-athome-dads-1869583.html

Khannie

Hazys wrote: »

Was anybody else thinking pizza when reading the title?

I sure was. I'm on a diet at the moment. God damn I love a good Calzone.

Khannie

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Another one where a guy was buying orange juice and actually rang her to see if she wanted orange juice with "bits" or "smooth" :rolleyes:

I think that's just courtesy and I would "wear the trousers" in my relationship with my wife. Of course the notion of wearing the trousers is only a partial thing for most people. She makes decisions that affect me without consulting me all the time and I appreciate that. Hell...she buys my clothes and I appreciate that (she has great taste and I find clothes shopping unbelievably irritating. I mean 10 minutes in and I'm getting very *very* cranky. Jesus. Even thinking about it now is getting me wound up).

Bottle_of_Smoke

hazy wrote:

Ya i think i need to clarify what i'm saying. By dominance (which is appearing to be a very strong word and even the term "wearing the pants" brings up images of domestic abuse) I mean leader of the relationship. Its very hard to see a relationship that is completely 50-50 between the two because its near impossible. All I'm saying its more natural and from basic instinct for the man to be in the majority of case more dominent whether thats 99-1 or 51-49.

Ok, I was more talking about the abusive side of things - "In Spain "calzonato" means sole of the shoe but it is more commonly used to describe men who have domineering wives who bicker and nag at them constantly and order them around. The calzonato dolefully accepts his fate and refuses to fight back, indulging each whim and fancy of his spouse, grateful that any woman, no matter how vindictive will have him"
I mean if the genders were reversed there I don't think it would be one bit acceptable. One partner taking charge, that's ok as long as the other person doesn't feel uncomfortable with the situation.

Simplistic yes, we may see ourselves as a highly intelligent mammals but humans do follow basic animalistic traits. We have thousands of years of habit and animalistic traits built into our genes. In our simplist terms, Humans are biologically animals.

Oh I compltely agreee we're nothing but apes with big brains but it needs to be noted our brains are significantly larger than nearest cousins - chimps. Even adjusting for brain to body ratio theirs is only a third the size of ours. And even in chimp cultures females have been observed hunting, in one case using a makeshift spear on a monkey!

Different species are different. The female black window spider finds a male mate, gets pregent, then kills the male...what a bitch!

This is kind of what I'm saying with the above point. Even though we are apes, we're very unique on this planet in brain size(probably because our ancestors murdered the nearest rivals, left the chimps and gorillas cause they weren't interested in their habitat) - so its hard to compare other species with dominant males because the massive brain could mess about with us. And as I was saying there are plenty of species where the smaller female does the hunting too.

Also there's an even more interesting spider where the male has actually evolved to allow the female eat her. Due to such poor nutrition available he sacrifices himself to help with ger laying the egggs(should really get dad of the year, every year:D)

Men have a higher sex drive alright but is it really that men are 9X as horny as women? i doubt it, women are pretty horny creatures also.

Not just down to sex drive. Men lose a few sperm from a casual encounter. Women potentially lose their reproductive organs for 9months+. Also, even if men were only say 1.5x times as horny, it would still lead to women realising they can punch above their weight and sit around waiting for males to come to them.

All in all I do kind of agree with you it seems more likely men will become "dominant" by your definition but I'm just not convinced its instinctive or social conditioning.