Domination or Commitment Governance - 1
I have been writing a lot about dominance. But not all acting on behalf of another person is domination, so I better define the meaning of domination:
1. The dominator is ignorant of the needs and wishes of the dominee.
1.1. His ignorance is a consequence of selfishness, indifference, disregard and lack of consideration.
1.2. His ignorance is a consequence of disrespect and depreciation. He firmly believes in his assumptions, prejudices and projections and he cannot be corrected.
2. The dominee is under the power of the dominator and has no influence on how she is treated.
2.1. The dominator coerces, threatens and intimidates the dominee to get his will against her resistance. The dominator uses situational power (entry 212), whenever he has it.
2.2. The dominee has no choice but to submit without resistance, because she is aware, that otherwise the dominator will inflict some disaster upon her.
For a couple of egalitarians their consent about their shared commitment governance (entry 185) is a method to prevent domination.
1. In commitment governance, each partner knows exactly the needs and wishes of the partner. Both partners communicate, until they both have that knowledge.
2. Whatever one partner does on behalf of the couple, he first checks, if his action or decision is in accordance with the partner's needs and wishes and in the very least is in no way harmful.
3. They both feel bound by the commitment governance and never use situational or other power.
Example:
One partner takes all the initiatives to suggest and organize Sunday activities.
This is inside the framework of commitment governance, when and if the other partner is content and agrees with the arrangements and would have chosen similar activities. It can be a form of the division of labor between people with different skills and interests.
But it is domination, when and if only one partner decides, what he wants to do on Sundays and coerces the other to participate in activities, that she does not like.
I have been writing a lot about dominance. But not all acting on behalf of another person is domination, so I better define the meaning of domination:
1. The dominator is ignorant of the needs and wishes of the dominee.
1.1. His ignorance is a consequence of selfishness, indifference, disregard and lack of consideration.
1.2. His ignorance is a consequence of disrespect and depreciation. He firmly believes in his assumptions, prejudices and projections and he cannot be corrected.
2. The dominee is under the power of the dominator and has no influence on how she is treated.
2.1. The dominator coerces, threatens and intimidates the dominee to get his will against her resistance. The dominator uses situational power (entry 212), whenever he has it.
2.2. The dominee has no choice but to submit without resistance, because she is aware, that otherwise the dominator will inflict some disaster upon her.
For a couple of egalitarians their consent about their shared commitment governance (entry 185) is a method to prevent domination.
1. In commitment governance, each partner knows exactly the needs and wishes of the partner. Both partners communicate, until they both have that knowledge.
2. Whatever one partner does on behalf of the couple, he first checks, if his action or decision is in accordance with the partner's needs and wishes and in the very least is in no way harmful.
3. They both feel bound by the commitment governance and never use situational or other power.
Example:
One partner takes all the initiatives to suggest and organize Sunday activities.
This is inside the framework of commitment governance, when and if the other partner is content and agrees with the arrangements and would have chosen similar activities. It can be a form of the division of labor between people with different skills and interests.
But it is domination, when and if only one partner decides, what he wants to do on Sundays and coerces the other to participate in activities, that she does not like.
