/lit/ - Literature

>>11230360
>What, exactly, is inherently inferior about being “submissive”, which is merely a word.
Exactly, you're doing this:
>>11230310
>The feminist mistake is trying to avoid this issue by pretending it's just a social convention
There is a word, but the word isn't the entirety of reality. "Pointing finger isn't the moon."
That said if you want to make this a linguistics thing, "inferior" is baked right into the word "submissive." That's what the "sub-" part is for. Below. Less than. Much like inferior (infra-), also "below." The two words are really talking about the same thing when you get back to their roots, though "submissive" has more specific behavioral baggage attached to it and "inferior" is more generalized, as in you could call a machine program "inferior" for taking longer to do the same task but you probably wouldn't call it "submissive."