In our discussion this Monday, someone mentioned that there is a Spanish word for a man who is "controlled" by a woman (sorry if I'm not getting the exact definition right). We were then trying to think if there was a word in English that meant the same, and surely some of us must have thought of the term "whipped." This is a term many people, even my friends, use jokingly; it is a term used to describe a man who is "controlled" by his girlfriend. Yet why is it a term considered so derogatory to a man? I found it very interesting that Diego said "Oh, so is there a word for a woman who's controlled by a man? Or is that just 'woman'?" This just goes to show how easily we have accepted the idea that women/girlfriends should be submissive and controlled by their male counterparts, yet we balk at the idea of a submissive man and make fun of him. Thoughts?
This notion of the "unmarked" is very important. What we associate with a certain word and the assumptions it contains: why does "man" seem to automatically include hues of dominance and power whereas "woman" must gain the adjective "strong" or "powerful" as if those were exceptions of womanhood? Something similar happens with race: is there an assumption of whiteness to the term "American"? Why must we qualify the term with an adjective such as "African-" or "Asian-" only when that American Subject in question isn't white (white as unmarked)?
ReplyDeleteI think it's a given that guys control the relationship thats why theres no so-called term for it. It is observed that men are more dominant than females thats why if a female controls a man, it seem unusual.
ReplyDelete