Are Irish men too subservient? - See Mod warning in post 52

The Masculinist

ILikeBananas wrote: »

glad you got what you came for

Fair point. I note that the majority of posts decided to go off topic and either a) question my self-confidence or b) rant on about equal rights.

I don't understand why the question cannot simply be dealt with.

Jawgap

The Masculinist wrote: »

So, as per the question raised in the initial post, are Irish men more subservient than their European counterparts?

What does subservient mean?

In a mature relationship there is communication and compromise. Because someone doesn't conform to some stereotype it doesn't mean they are subservient - maybe they are respectful of their partner's wishes?

Likewise, give-and-take is not subservience, it's just what adults do. To use my own example, I rarely clean around the house 'cos I'm rubbish at it. But I cook all our meals - that's not subservience that's a win-win for me. I hate housework and enjoy cooking.

bee06

<snip>

The Masculinist

Jawgap wrote: »

What does subservient mean?

In a mature relationship there is communication and compromise. Because someone doesn't conform to some stereotype it doesn't mean they are subservient - maybe they are respectful of their partner's wishes?

Likewise, give-and-take is not subservience, it's just what adults do. To use my own example, I rarely clean around the house 'cos I'm rubbish at it. But I cook all our meals - that's not subservience that's a win-win for me. I hate housework and enjoy cooking.

So would it be fair that you would answer no to my question then?

In fairness, the word subservient might be a bit too strong a word and I apologise if that is the case.

The Masculinist

bee06 wrote: »

<snip>

I'm not sure if it is appropriate to discuss PI threads in detail in other forums? But fair point.

joseph brand

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps being Irish there is an inbuilt subsumtion of the prevailing ethos. This Zeutgeist seems to be a radical egalitarianism which betokens no deviation from the rather dismissive attitude to both families and men - social engineering at its finest so as to destroy the superstructure by undermining the base.

Are you quoting John Waters?

Jawgap

The Masculinist wrote: »

So would it be fair that you would answer no to my question then?

In fairness, the word subservient might be a bit too strong a word and I apologise if that is the case.

Well it's impossible to give you an answer until 'subservient' is defined.

I suspect subservience depending on how you define it may be subjective and situational. What may appear to be subservience to an outsider may be pragmatic compromise. Plus subservience doesn't imply physical proximity - if one partner tells the other to go play golf to get out of their hair, are they being subservient if they take off and spend an extended morning golfing when they enjoy golfing?

Shabra

From observing relationships where the parties are both Irish I find that it is usually the woman who is dominant in the relationship. She usually dictates the level of cleanliness that is acceptable and orders her partner around more than the reverse.

For purposes of clarification dominance is the ability with which an individual can influence other individuals.

Wibbs

Shabra wrote: »

From observing relationships where the parties are both Irish I find that it is usually the woman who is dominant in the relationship.

It depends entirely on the couple and I can think of enough Irish couples where the guy is very dominant in the relationship, but it's also not just an Irish thing. Take "macho" cultures like Italy and Spain. Sure, when young the guys seem to have the upper hand, however when older and married it's the women as likely if not more likely to be dominant. Triple that within the family home. In my experience a lot of that dominance stuff is for external show. Plus there can be a lot of passive aggressive dominance going on too. The less obvious stuff. I've seen that in some outwardly "the man wears the trousers" 1950's style male/female roles relationships involving Russian couples.

Overall I would reckon that in western style cultures there are few enough differences, but that Irish relationships tend to be more equitable. Are Irish men too subservient? Not IMH, I would say they are more easy going in relationships and quite the number of non Irish women who have experience of them have told me that.

All generalisations of course.

Pawwed Rig

The Masculinist wrote: »

I'm not sure if it is appropriate to discuss PI threads in detail in other forums? But fair point.

Mod note - No it is not appropriate

strobe

The Masculinist wrote: »

A thread in PI got me thinking. Are Irish men too subservient? I have friends from Spain, Italy, Latvia, Croatia, Hungary etc. and they all appear to be much more dominant when it comes to how they treat their girlfriends, wives and partners. Indeed some of them have even said to me that they feel Irish men are too subservient (they even extend this to British men also). Perhaps it is a cultural thing? Having dated both Irish and foreign (Spanish and Czech) women, the foreign GFs all had the same opinion. They also said that they preferred me to most Irish men because I knew how to "treat them like a woman" and didn't give in to everything they wanted.

Some examples I have seen are as follows;

Croatian friend "I would never allow my GF to hang around with her ex BFs, it is bad news!" (said relating to a friend whose Irish GF continues to be good friends with her ex)

Spanish friend "Why are you cooking and cleaning all of the time" (Said in relation to a friend who does all of the house work)

Ex GF (Czech), "I generally don't find Irish guys attractive, they spend too much time trying to please their GF and don't lead them. For example, the girls at work expect engagement rings to the value of €5k+ and they say that their BFs would buy them no problem!"

Of course this is a mass generalisation, but it appears that Irish men are a bit more subservient that European counterparts from what I have seen!

It's a strange way of viewing things I think. Not being dominant does not automatically mean being subservient, the dynamic reaches and passes through or rests at a point of equality on that scale. My experience is most Irish couples I've known rest at the point of equality, neither one orders the other around. Of course there is disagreements and sometimes one will go further in terms of compromise, but there's a equitable enough balance in that respect. My experience of couples from other cultures is a lot less but it's actually pretty much the same as far as I could see. Neither partner dominated or was subservient to the other generally.
I'd personally hate the idea of being in a relationship where either I or her were dominant or subservient, it sounds unpleasant.

I've known lots of Irish men dating European women and in what appeared to be very happy healthy balanced relationships, it's actually pretty common. I've gone out with girls from various countries and cultures, and can't say I noticed any tendency or desire for them to be dominated in the relationship. Perhaps your exs were just telling you what they thought you wanted to hear? Or perhaps you just have a tendency to attract or pursue a certain kind of woman?

The Masculinist

The Masculinist wrote: »

I have friends from Spain, Italy, Latvia, Croatia, Hungary etc. and they all appear to

I think there is a life lesson I would love to install in people. An APP I would love to download to their necktop

Mostly due to my training in sciences like Epidemiology.

But when someone opens a conversation with a generalised idea that came from their friends then instantly a red light goes off and tells you:

"What you are hearing is not a true generalisation of the group in question - but a sampling of the kind of person your source socialises with".

In other words the anecdotal opinion you are getting from your mates tells you nothing about Irish people or Irish men - but tells us everything about the kind of person you socialise with.

And this can be bad or good - but we see it very often on boards. Especially on voting threads.

Not dissing you just suggesting you watch for this. I watch for it myself and I have caught myself at it more times than I would have expected.

The Masculinist wrote: »

I knew how to "treat them like a woman" and didn't give in to everything they wanted.

Alas it seems you never unpacked this and got them to spell out exactly what that means. Could be you were doing - for example - something entirely independent of the premise you started the thread with. Would that anecdote were not so useless but from a sociological and epidemiology point of view your post is less than useless. Which again is no personal slight on yourself.

The Masculinist wrote: »

Croatian friend "I would never allow my GF

Always thread lightly when words like "allow" come into relationships. With real relationships you both AGREE to boundaries - conditions - and ideals. It is not about "allowing" the other like you correct a pet who pee'd on the carpet. When words like "allow" come into the conversation the person is probably not the best one to be taking relationship advice off in the first place. Again: simply watch for this.

The Masculinist wrote: »

Spanish friend "Why are you cooking and cleaning all of the time" (Said in relation to a friend who does all of the house work)

I am in a relationship with two girls which - mistakenly - lots of lads think makes me super masculine or something in the first place. And I positively INSIST on cooking all the time. It has nothing to do with some archaic male female boundary. It has EVERYTHING to do with cooking being my main hobby - a passion - a love - and a skill that I simply want to exercise every day. It defines me in many ways. It is a huge chunk of not just who I am - but what I do - given I have DIYed up things like a stone BBQ/PizzaOver in the back yard that I make some of my best creations with.

If we are going to generalise nations at all - by sex - then many Irish people I have met (again a personal social circles anecdote you should be wary of) have lost the notion of just how sexual a true skill with food can be. And HOW. My 5 Cheeze stuffed hot chilly meaty crust pizza would teach you a thing or two on how to be a "man"

The Masculinist wrote: »

from what I have seen!

Vicariously "seen" it seems. That might be the issue with your entire content But you have taken it to us openly and honestly - and I hope some of the corrections on the thread serve you well.

BadMoonRising

I have noticed this a lot with my group of friends. As soon as the lads committed to relationships with the girls they immediately become lap dogs and will do whatever the girl wants to do.
This isnt at the insistance of the girl either, its as if the lad becomes so besotted that they dont want to rock the boat? Its strange to observe and it may just be the age they are at (early 20's first serious relationship etc). They dont even complain when being slagged about being whipped etc, they just keep going!

To be honest I would find it difficult to be in a relationship with a man like this. I hate drama and I'm not saying I want someone that would argue about everything, but I find this subservient behaviour to be quite false, and I'd feel like I didnt know the person, their opinions etc. Just my two cents!

_Kaiser_

Interesting thread and probably a lot of truth to it.

Personally I reckon it's an extension of the "Americanisation" of Irish/English culture over the last 30 years - for decades we've been fed this sanitised, politically-correct, uniform way of behaving, thinking and acting .. it's only natural/unavoidable that it was going to find its way into relationships as well. For myself I think it's bad thing - I'm not saying that we should return to the days of "sexist wife-beating drunks" but I do think this "stray from the herd at your peril" mentality has gone way too far. The reason the OP hasn't seen it in his Eastern European/Mediterranean friends is because their cultures haven't (yet) been submerged by this influence.

It's probably also related to the legal power and status that women generally get when kids and property become involved. Again, I'm not saying that women shouldn't get their fair share in the event of a breakdown of the relationship, but as it stands it's in a man's best interest to try and keep the peace as much as possible/bearable.

Me I'm fairly easy-going in general and will go with the flow most of the time, but not to the point of becoming a doormat or vanishing off the face of the earth. As with most things it's about balance.

braddun

I will get back to you in a few days


if she allows it

Wibbs

BadMoonRising wrote: »

I have noticed this a lot with my group of friends. As soon as the lads committed to relationships with the girls they immediately become lap dogs and will do whatever the girl wants to do.
This isnt at the insistance of the girl either, its as if the lad becomes so besotted that they dont want to rock the boat? Its strange to observe and it may just be the age they are at (early 20's first serious relationship etc). They dont even complain when being slagged about being whipped etc, they just keep going!

To be honest I would find it difficult to be in a relationship with a man like this. I hate drama and I'm not saying I want someone that would argue about everything, but I find this subservient behaviour to be quite false, and I'd feel like I didnt know the person, their opinions etc. Just my two cents!

I've seen similar over the years BadMoon and it positively reeks of insecurity on the part of the men in question. I have oft noted that many "henpecked" men are actually a result of such men abdicating responsibility for many things within the relationship and basically the woman has to take over. Well because someone does if the relationship is rudderless. If I beg your indulgences and bring in a wacky anaology, a relationship can be like taking a long trip by car. You share tasks. Sometimes one is driving and the other has the map and sometimes the positions reverse. However if one is refusing to drive or read the map then to keep on the road, one person has to take charge and the other becomes a passenger, even deadweight and that becomes tiring and bloody irritating.

Deleted User wrote: »

Mostly due to my training in sciences like Epidemiology.

But when someone opens a conversation with a generalised idea that came from their friends then instantly a red light goes off and tells you:

"What you are hearing is not a true generalisation of the group in question - but a sampling of the kind of person your source socialises with".

In other words the anecdotal opinion you are getting from your mates tells you nothing about Irish people or Irish men - but tells us everything about the kind of person you socialise with.

+1000 T. Hell, I've done it myself. I've certainly sought out women who would serve to backup an existing belief I had and wonder of wonders I was proven "right" in my initial premise. As I've noted before, people would often rather be proven "right" than be happy, or indeed have to face a more objective reality.

Going back to those henpecked men I've known. They were either naive, or quite simply weak of personality and they sought out a woman who would plug into that. Never mind the Irish Mammy(tm) issues. Women can do similar(only the lesser known but equally dodgy Irish Daddy(tm) is in play). Hell I've known gay lads and lasses do it.

strobe wrote: »

I've gone out with girls from various countries and cultures, and can't say I noticed any tendency or desire for them to be dominated in the relationship. Perhaps your exs were just telling you what they thought you wanted to hear? Or perhaps you just have a tendency to attract or pursue a certain kind of woman?

Again the sound of nails being hit squarely on the head.

Though I would say S, that there can be some differences. Differences that can have a cultural tendency. EG I have found in cultures where the male/female role dynamic is more set in stone can have a touch of the submissive/dominance thing going on, if only on the surface. And even though, like yourself I've gone out with women from various countries(more than I have Irish women actually*), there was still an element of preselection going on and not just on my part. All but one were living away from their country/culture and had chosen to do so. That's a difference right there. Some cultures seem to have more of a built in wanderlust, while others tend to stay "close to home" maybe with short forays outside. For an example(in very broad strokes of course) the Irish are more "natural" wanderers than say the Spanish and have been for longer. So, IMHO of course, it would be harder to judge a native relationship "culture" going by having a relationship with someone who chose to leave that culture than by having a relationship with someone within that culture.







*the locals can spot me for a gobshíte a mile off.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Look I think like most things a bit of give and take is key.

I'd hate to be with a doormat but equally being with a control freak wouldn't be fun.

I haven't seen one of my close friends properly, apart from bumping into him on my travels, since maybe March despite the fact he literally lives a 2-3 minute drive from me, walking distance. This is despite the fact I've had a rollercoaster year of great occasions and some tough times, times when you would be around for a friend.

The reason? Back in early March he was caught cheating and although they patched things up he is severely under the thumb now, told me himself that he might not be able to meet up properly with me, or a lot of his other friends, for at least the new year until things settle down.

I used to text him to invite him up for coffee at mine, or a quiet drink in the local, I didn't even mention going into town proper. He comes up with every excuse possible so I don't bother connecting him anymore, it's always "maybe next week". Same with his other friends.

Now I know she may claim have her reasons due to his infidelity but it's getting a bit ridiculous.

PucaMama

Alden Scary Tenant wrote: »

Now I know she may claim have her reasons

yes, she does. he has to make up for his behavior.

_Kaiser_

PucaMama wrote: »

yes, she does. he has to make up for his behavior.

For how long? It was March she found out. If she's decided to forgive/stay with him then that doesn't include making him a prisoner in the relationship either.

Yes he was wrong and yes she has every right to be hurt/wary as a result, but she's also presumably decided to live with it. Time for both of them to move on from it at this stage.

PucaMama

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

For how long? It was March she found out. If she's decided to forgive/stay with him then that doesn't include making him a prisoner in the relationship either.

Yes he was wrong and yes she has every right to be hurt/wary as a result, but she's also presumably decided to live with it. Time for both of them to move on from it at this stage.

i doubt hes had no chance to walk away if hes so unhappy. sounds like an excuse.

um7y1h83ge06nx

In fairness he sometimes like to play the victim and wounded warrior a bit, but I would believe to a fairly good extent that she's putting the foot down too. Others have experienced the same attitude from him. Outside of family members on both sides he doesn't appear to spend time with anyone anymore.

Power struggles like that though are very negative, could cause plenty of resentment to build up.

I'm sure things will resolve themselves eventually.

On the flip side, I know a guy that my circle has noticed is very controlling and protective of his now fiancee. On nights out he doesn't like to have her chatting to other guys and hovers around her a lot rather than letting them both mingle.

Hard to get a decent balance.

Pawwed Rig

A man who is 'not allowed' to see/socialise with his friends is in an abusive relationship. I often see guys who will come up with every excuse under the sun not to mingle outside the marriage/her social group and each and every one tends to do it because of the 'aggravation' avoided if they go along with the status quo. This is one person being controlled by another and is a classic case of emotional abuse. Whether either party recognise it as such or not is not the relevant point.

SpaceTime

I'd hate to be in a relationship with anyone who saw it as a dominance power struggle!

In most cases, from what I can see, the Irish approach is more like best buds with plenty of sex on the side. I know in most of the couples that I know that it seems to be pretty much egalitarian in Ireland anyway.

If either party's controlling the other, then there's a big underlying problem and they should probably consider breaking up as it's meant to be a partnership, not ownership!

eviltwin

PucaMama wrote: »

yes, she does. he has to make up for his behavior.

I'm not sure how you make up for cheating but being under the watch of someone else isn't it. If he is only faithful because she has removed his opportunity to cheat then they haven't moved forward. They need counselling. It's understandable she is afraid of it happening again but he can't allow himself to be micro managed either.

Wibbs

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

A man who is 'not allowed' to see/socialise with his friends is in an abusive relationship.

I dunno PR, or at least not all the time IMH. Quite the number of men I've known have used their partner as an excuse to dial back on socialising. For various reasons. Some feel they've "grown out of that" and want to stay in as one example. That's a common enough one IME. Indeed chat to enough women and they'll tell you that current or ex boyfriends can "settle" in a relationship and don't want to go out any more. The male equivalent of piling on the pounds. Again IME a fair number of these guys partners would be only too happy if they were socialising more.

newport2

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno PR, or at least not all the time IMH. Quite the number of men I've known have used their partner as an excuse to dial back on socialising. For various reasons. Some feel they've "grown out of that" and want to stay in as one example. That's a common enough one IME. Indeed chat to enough women and they'll tell you that current or ex boyfriends can "settle" in a relationship and don't want to go out any more. The male equivalent of piling on the pounds. Again IME a fair number of these guys partners would be only too happy if they were socialising more.

But a man choosing not to socialise as much is not the same as "A man who is 'not allowed' to see/socialise with his friends is in an abusive relationship."

I'll be the first to admit I've dialed back on socialising since I got married. But, like you say, it's my own choice. If I was told I was not allowed to see my friends any more, that would be totally different and unacceptable.

newport2

PucaMama wrote: »

i doubt hes had no chance to walk away if hes so unhappy. sounds like an excuse.

That's just an excuse in itself. Using "they could have left if they wanted" doesn't wash to justify abusive or controlling behaviour by a partner. If the situation was reversed you certainly wouldn't have taken the stance that she was free to leave if she didn't want to be controlled and cut off from her friends, whatever she had done beforehand.

Wibbs

newport2 wrote: »

But a man choosing not to socialise as much is not the same as "A man who is 'not allowed' to see/socialise with his friends is in an abusive relationship."

Oh I agree NP, my point was that some men choose this and then use "she who must be obeyed" as an excuse for that choice.

newport2 wrote: »

That's just an excuse in itself. Using "they could have left if they wanted" doesn't wash to justify abusive or controlling behaviour by a partner. If the situation was reversed you certainly wouldn't have taken the stance that she was free to leave if she didn't want to be controlled and cut off from her friends, whatever she had done beforehand.

Indeed and if anyone did so in the reverse situation they'd be rapidly accused of "victim blaming".

Penny Tration

I've been in relationships where the guy was 'under my thumb,' but I wasn't trying to have them 'whipped.' As Wibbs put it, they were insecure and basically left all the decision making to me. One used to even ask what he should wear!

I hate relationships like that. They absolutely looked whipped to the outside world, but I was always encouraging them to go out, see their friends, have a drink, whatever. They told their friends they could not go out because of me. :pac:

The relationship I'm in now is better. I'm not dominant by nature, my partner is. So, when his mates invite him out, he has no qualms about going, and never asks me, just lets me know, so I make sure not to text or call him, so he can enjoy himself. Same for me and my own friends. My OH regularly invites me out with his mates (almost ever time tbh). I accept maybe 20% of the time. The rest, I leave him to it because we both need our own space.

The reason I think he's independent like me is because he's confident. He's the only very confident guy I've dated, and it works extremely well because I'm also confident, so neither of us ever feel under the thumb, and recognise the need for us each to be able to do our own thing.

newport2

I remember having a discussion with one of my friends and she was pointing out that, when considering dating, there were three types of guys. i) The ones that wouldn't budge on anything and could not be negotiated with, ii) the ones who stood their ground but could be negotiated with, and finally iii) what she regarded as pushovers, who said yes to everything. She pointed out which category the people we knew fell into and I could see where she was coming from. In a lot of cases they were this way with other men too. She said the only type of guy she would consider dating is ii) the one who stood his ground but could be negotiated with. I think the guys who allow themselves to become totally henpecked fall under type iii).