Being submissive in relationships doesn't mean being silent
4. Being taken in hand should not mean being silent or silen
A shrewish woman who has completely destroyed her husband's self-esteem and emasculated him by constantly correcting and humiliating him for the last 30 years might do well to be a bit more silent on occasion, as suggested by Laura Doyle. The point of that would be for the woman to stop controlling and correcting her husband, to give him a chance to take the reins.
But in a relationship, the man is in control, and as I said in the teaser on the front page, a man in control would be wise to ensure that his woman feels ‘heard’. In my opinion, accepting a man's authority should not mean ceasing to have a voice in the relationship. If only one mind were doing the necessary thinking and problem-solving, the other would be superfluous.
I think it is important to remember that we are all fallible human beings, and as such, we all make mistakes, including men, and we all have human fears and wishes that can't just be discounted. The man might well make all the decisions; the woman might well be expected to try to obey even; but I think it would be expecting too much of any human woman to require her to keep her fears, concerns, and wishes to herself. I should have thought that the more control there is, the more important it is for the man to encourage the woman to tell him her opinions, wishes, objections, and fears. This kind of relationship should mean more communication, not less, I think.
Off topic side note: Louise, I had to chuckle when I read this:
Somebody on a yahoo group told me that she didn't think I was submissive at all, and I think perhaps she was right.
This is exactly the thought a number of other women have had. I think your post nicely illustrates why some of us occasionally wonder if “submissive” is a good label to put on ourselves. From one POV, wanting a man's control implies that we are, but there are so many things the word can mean that do not fit.