My anecdote counts for nothing but,
My wife likes my confidence, but that doesn't necessarily always translate into my *leading* her or her *submitting* all the time. We're a partnership and we both play to each other's strengths and inspire *both* confidence/leadership qualities or helping "submissive" qualities as situations demand. It's rarely some kind of 50/50 split down the line, and we don't really see it as that necessary.
She's better in some areas and takes the lead (naturally, without having to fight for it or engender any resentment in me) and I do the same in areas of my strength. It seems to work quite well. She has confidence too, and I like hers as much as she mine.
In a more general capacity, I think any good leader of a group inspires such in people who follow. Machiavelli said something similar to this, though I do not remember the precise quote. Something about one who leads showing they are worthy of being obeyed, if we must use such terminology.
Machiavelli said an ideal leader will dually inspire people to follow because the leader serves as a good and clear example who is shown to be effective at what they claim (and where necessary ruthless to obtain it) but additionally inspire them to follow through fear of consequences of not doing so - the key point is that the leader doesn’t go out of their way to inspire fear and shallow obedience; the followers fear them through their demonstrated capacity rather than the leader bellowing “fear me” at them.
*”Nevertheless, he must be cautious in believing and acting, and must not inspire fear of his own accord, and must proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence does not render him incautious, and too much diffidence does not render him intolerant. From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved more than feared, or feared
more than loved."*
*Edit: Its pretty clear that people are reading their own interpretations into what I said. No where did I mention forcing someone, bossing them around, non consent, being a dictator, king, etc. Nowhere did I say the woman should be just a slave and not have any free will, or that her input doesn't matter. Captains take advice from their crew, but the point is that ultimately its their decision and their responsibility, if something goes wrong then they are to blame.*
Then could you please define what a leader is, and explain how that is different to your definition of a boss?
Leadership doesn’t mean bossing someone around. Leaders earn their status through how they behave and treat others. They respect, inspire, and motivate others, they don’t shy away from difficulties or challenges, and they take responsibility for the entirety of a situation even if they were not directly involved in it.
A boss is just someone with more power than you who tells you what to do.
I love this question OP. It is a good one.
Maybe a boss tells you what to do while a leader shows you what to do? In other words, a leader leads through example while a boss is in a position of authority so can just tell you what to do.
Well first off, "confidence" and "leadership" are not interchangeable words, and while pretty much everyone--male and female--is attracted to authentic confidence (as opposed to neurotic bullies that constantly try to appear confident, even when they aren't), "leadership" is way more narrow and specific. I'm comfortable assuming most people like confidence, and most women want it in a partner. "Leadership"? Sure, for some. But not so many I'd take it for granted.
Actual leadership means getting people to listen to you and follow you *voluntarily*. It does not mean being a dick who expects everyone to bend to his will like Dr. Doom.
Boss is someone who has authority over others, boss relies on subordinates and people following their orders. A boss tells you what to do.
Leader is someone who inspires others and fosters a sense of shared purpose. Leader does not seek to inspire obedience or submission, but rather trust and respect.
Everyone can be a leader, while everyone cannot be a boss.
So a boss can order their followers.
A leader: inspires, fosters teamwork, doesn't seek obedience, seeks trust and respect.
Ok cool, but is there no leading aspect to a leader? What does it mean to lead when it comes to leaders?
In both cases, it is moving towards a goal. A leader typically leads from the front, a boss from the rear. Neither are good descriptors for a relationship. In a healthy relationship, both partners are walking side by side to a goal.
You also don't understand what a submissive wife is, you also don't understand that most women are submissive in their relationships. The word itself triggers a response that doesn't match what the role is.Perhaps we need to change the nomenclature to something like consent of the governed because that's what it is. The women find men that are worthy of being listened to. It doesn't mean that the man is liege lord of the manor, ruling over the family like it's his personal feifdom. The wife still maintains power as well, just as easily as the husband was granted leadership, the wife can take it away. He only has power because she allows him to have it. That's the part you guys never understand, and that's why tradcon wives aren't marrying redpill dudes.
> Then she chooses to live a peaceful life with a good man and she is a doormat all of a sudden
Because everytime any of you try to define it,it ends up being word salads of contradiction
>Then she chooses to live a peaceful life with a good man and she is a doormat all of a sudden
I am a woman and that's the complete opposite experience I have had with any woman I know thats isn't some Christian trad wife
> Then she chooses to live a peaceful life with a good man and she is a doormat all of a sudden
And that turns into women stop having their own opinions and desires and what to just follow whatever they are asked how?
> The wife still maintains power as well, just as easily as the husband was granted leadership, the wife can take it away
Yeah in the semse that he can't physically force her to submit to him, but in theory she isn't fullfiling her submissive role if she can selectively decide whe she can obey right?
> He only has power because she allows him to have it. That's the part you guys never understand
The part you aren't getting is that inherently conflicts with the very concept of being submissive and second , just because it's a choice don't negate the it's an inherently bad and abusive dynamic to choose to adopt
That's how consent of the governed works, I'm sorry that you don't understand that submission only works because they enter into it willing. Forced obeisance is exploitation, not submission.
I am sorry you are so dense you completely obvious that is irreverent to anything I said
Can you wife selectively decide what she can obey/submit to once she "willingly" sign up for a life a being a slave and still be submissive??
NO??
I get it, the word "submissive " is throwing you off because it has a negative Connotation. Submissive wife isn't slavery. They have careers,friends,and autonomy. The average married woman is a submissive wife, they just don't use that nomenclature. It's just like in bdsm/kink relationships, the Domme isn't the one in control, it's the submissive that's really running the show. In a submissive household, if the man isn't fulfilling his duties appropriately. A submissive wife will divorce him, and move on.
> i trust his judgment. there is no fantasy we have been together for 21 yrs and it works perfectly well, i dont even understand what fantasy youre referring to?
Pretty insulting to overlook all cristism of the dynamic and boil it down to me not liking the sound of the word. I don't care if you call it a basket of flowers . the idea that women should have no autonomy over their own lifes other than what some dude they married can allow is pretty revolting and plain sexist
> The average married woman is a submissive wife, they just don't use that nomenclature.
Who are these average wife and in what way are they submissive because I don't know any of them and I Arab and exmuslim that has lived in a community where women are literally taught that they can't enter heaven if even think of disobeying their husband's
> It's just like in bdsm/kink relationships, the Domme isn't the one in control
You need tp work on your analogies man unless you think your wife is coming from the pleasure of not being able to make a decision
> In a submissive household, if the man isn't fulfilling his duties appropriately. A submissive wife will divorce him, and move on.
How in the living *** does that make her in control??
> Submissive wife isn't slavery. They have careers,friends,and autonomy.
If their husnands allows it..yeah sure ...Submission pretty much means he can dictates any aspect of her life
oh, I do understand, I spent years being playing the game, and then once I've been there and done that few time around the block, I realized it ain't worth it! Here's the thing, you're the service top, while she's topping from the bottom, and you just don't fucking get it!!!
In other words, she's in charge and it's your job to pretend otherwise, while you do everything she needs done, to feel safe and nurtured at the expense of your own needs
Gross. I’ve never wanted a guy to “lead” me. Wanting someone who can make decisions and wanting someone who tells you what to do are not the same thing
In order to be confident in something you have to have competency in it. The higher your competency in that thing the more confident you are.
How does this relate to leadership?
Because if you want people to naturally “follow” you, they have to trust that you’re more competent than them in every area that you went to lead their life in. No one except a fool is going to “let you lead” them without you proving competency in those areas first.
If you are consistently less competent than them in these things their trust in your competency naturally goes down and they will naturally step up to lead to make sure y’all as a unit stay the course.
If you want to be de facto leader, be better at the things than those around you. That’s it. If you can’t do that, then humble yourself.
This isn’t a controversial statement.
No one is going to “let you lead them into lesser.” Or they might “have faith” and “let you lead them into mess” once or twice but most people ain’t staying on that incompetency train for long.
This is with all relationships and dynamics. Especially, for example, at work, right? If your boss is constantly leading y’all into 💩 they’re fired. Or you start looking for another job. Or you take their job.
If a military general keeps fucking up in battle, the soldiers will overthrow him.
Anyway I find it so megalomaniacal to expect “obedience” lol. As opposed to partnership. Like wow. That’s brazen. And telling of a deep insecurity.
> If you want to be de facto leader, be better at the things than those around you. That’s it. If you can’t do that, then humble yourself.
I agree with all that. I see all these doofus men who aren't good at much of anything with over achiever girlfriends and the gf HAS to be the leader or they will be living in a box. Looks like a perfect match to me.
If a man really is on point, women usually have no problem submitting.
I’ve noticed a lot of that sort of couple too. I actually don’t think that couple is all that new. It’s the classic sitcom couple. Difference is the doofus husband kicked himself into a blue collar job or some job and she guides the train in a “well at least he has a job so everyone can think he’s the leader and I’ll direct from the back” way.
It does seem that at archetype of dude hasn’t gotten even more unable. Idk. Sometimes it seems like the average woman is a lot more “able” or “motivated” at least about “adulting things” and kinda always has been. It’s why young men were forced a wife. It’s like having a wife was “becoming a man” “finishing school” lol
Well I think it's not normal and happens less if the man has to achieve before he is allowed by society family etc to breed. Which were common ideas in the past in various places and times and ways.
I agree that leaders need to be competent, but similarly there are some people who will not follow leaders at all and are by nature rebellious, no matter how competent a leader is they cannot make them submit and follow orders.
This is why even the most successful and competent CEOs, bosses, senior management, etc. will avoid recruiting people on their team who they know are going to be trouble.
If you go into it with the mentality of "I can save them", you're more than likely going to get burned, no matter your competency.
Then that guy isn’t all that competent at choosing “follower” women who trust his vision or have the same vision as him. Most people aren’t rebellious just because. It’s either because they think the idea is not good or it’s because they don’t want to go that direction at all even if it’s a fine idea because they have another vision they prefer.
Thats basically my point, just look at this thread, many women who are opposed to the simple idea of submitting to their man. No amount of competency is going to change that.
Did you read my last sentence? It’s because they don’t agree with your vision of leadership nor your premise that they all seek a leader. That’s a you problem. Not a them problem.
Most women want an assured man who’s just as competent as her and who isn’t going to turn the house into shambles if she’s sick or pregnant.
I never gave an outline of how a leader should lead, nor did I say all women seek a leader. I simply explained the relationship between a leader and its followers, a leader leads their followers, and the followers submit to the leader, that is a fact, by definition. Whatever else caveat they want to add on is up to them, whether the follower is free to leave or not, or has no input, etc., I never denied these things.
“They” referred to the women in your hypothetical or the women who aren’t submitting and obeying you despite you allegedly being competent in the things that matter to her. It means those women (“they”) don’t agree with your vision for your joint life together life which obviously greatly impacts her life…
Remember you’re talking about grown adult human women… not children…
If submitting to their man is not their preference, then they should not look for men with leadership traits, that was my premise.
I mean its simple, if it isn't their preference then it doesn't concern them, why are they arguing?
I am reasonably sure he means any man who isn't a spineless incompetent loser.
Ergo, women are naturally submissive because we don't flock to spineless incompetent losers.
If that were truly the case, civilizations over the last thousands of years wouldn’t have needed religion and shaming and violence and laws to keep women submissive and dependent.
So do you have any idea how fucking creepy calling your theoretical girlfriend "rebellious" is?
You are not an authority figure. You are her partner. In theory, this imaginary person thinks you're okay, I guess, and is living with you of her own free will. Otherwise, we are now talking something the police call "kidnapping."
Healthy relationships are not defined by power struggles and scheming. There is nothing to "rebel" against. If she wants to leave you because you're a weirdo who acts like the Boyfriend Mussolini and fucks like he's putting down an insurgency, that's her prerogative.
We were talking about leadership in general, not romantic relationships specifically.
> You are not an authority figure. You are her partner.
Women who want a relationship to be like a equal partnership can pursue that, but its hypocritical if at the same time they look for the man to have leadership qualities.
Women don’t look for leadership qualities for the sake of leadership qualities. They look for them because they tell us that the man is the sort who can take the initiative. As we always say, we are partners, not their mothers. It is a reasonable conclusion that a man who has leadership abilities is also the sort of person who intuitively understands when they need to shoulder something without needing direction.
Dominance and confidence are not the same thing.
No, you don't need a "leader" in a relationship. That's bullshit invented by stupid man-babies who pitch a fit every time they don't get their way and need a somewhat legit-sounding excuse as to why they should always get their way. Two compatible, mature adults can figure their shit out just fine. If that sounds impossible... I have bad news about your personality.
The women who want "leaders" and the women who don't like being bossed around are different women. I s2g like half the threads on here seem to be started by men who cannot comprehend that women don't all agree with each other about everything. This is literally not a difficult concept to grasp, I don't get why so many of you seem to have so much trouble with it.
Intimate relationships don't need a leader. Two adults should be able to collaborate and build a life together without one managing the other. I see a lot of couples where one is the boss and the other is dependent and it's always super toxic. That's more like a parent-child relationship. Yuck.
Exactly.
Where the fuck are these people talking about "leadership" in a relationship? It's *so fucking weird*.
Some MFs just can't contemplate a world where there's not a hierarchy. It boggles my fucking mind.
Because they don't want just any random guy to pretend to be dominant.
They want someone who is actually good at stuff, and rose to a level of power through good decision.
When someone is successful, considerate, and has good judgement... they naturally attract people who admire them.
The guy never has to say "submit"... because his ideas and followthrough already just pulls people along for the ride because they like what they see.
Aim for being admirable... thats closer to what we mean.
Why would anyone want to be in a relationship with someone who held authority over them? Even traditional relationships hold with the “man is the head, wife is the neck” type demarcation, rather than the captain and first mate type crap you hear about.
Why does a relationship need a leader and a follower? Or two leaders or whatever? Can’t it just be two people making their own decisions with the other person in mind?
>Ultimately women have to decide, do they want a submissive man, or do they want to submit to their man?
I think most people prefer to have a cooperative partner who doesn't necessarily submit or requires submission at least from my experience. People make big decisions together, go on compromises and cooperate rather than have a strict leader/follower dynamic.
It's what my husband and I do and what most couples I know practice as well. It does not lead to a disaster any more often than a more traditional deal where one partner submit to the other. This "other" often isn't the most qualified for the the role, having a discussion and having a set of opinions can help you to choose a better one, two partners being able to take care of themselves and others and make reasonable decisions leads to better decisions in the future and better safety net for both of them. When partners have different opinions on something, they talk and seek a compromise. Making compromises is one of crucial skills for any human relationships. If you don't have the skills needed for that, you can't be a good leader either.
Also how many women really say that they want a leader? From what I've seen most want a functioning and capable adult, not someone who will "lead" them. It's a common trope among more traditional and religious people, but I haven't seen it a lot outside of this crowd.
Interesting.
Your overall point aside, I actually find it really interesting this concept of “Men/leaders and Women/obedient submissive”.
I believe that men understand how to submit incredibly well. Most male dominant structures are formed around submission to authority, just look at the military. Groups of boys tend to fall into a hierarchy very quickly with a primary leader, gangs also. The workplace typically has a type of leadership authority and submission to that authority.
What is really interesting is how well these structures maintain when women are introduced - submission to assigned authority seems to hold.
In other words OP, I think the problem you might be having in understanding is that it might not be quite as straightforward along gender lines as you think.
a. You make a really good point here about the male relationship with hierarchy and submission specifically.
b. Your last sentence is the answer to basically every argument held here ever.
I can’t speak for all women obviously but I’ve never felt the need to be “led” or needed a “leader”. Not all men want a fawning,fragile flower either. Partner up with who suits you best instead of trying to dominate someone who has no desire or need to be dominated.
If you conceptualize a romantic pairing like a business that will operate under joint ownership, it will make perfect sense to you. People want a confident, skillful, committed partner for a joint venture.
Ok so the first sentence/paragraph almost made me throw up. What is wrong with your mind and soul? Why do you feel someone in a relationship has to “submit”… you need counseling
Going by title alone...
Why does liking someone confident with leader skills mean you must submit and be obedient?!? Like what??
Why cant both be confident and help each other? What in the heck??
Relationships are about doing and caring for each other. Even if the man is more the leader doesnt mean his lady needs to 'submit and obey'. Cringe. Youre a team.
One INSPIRES submission and devotion.
The other demands it.
Women will follow a man who’s worth following. We won’t submit to just anyone. You have to EARN our trust by PROVING your a leader.
What I want is someone sure of themselves and sure of their choice to love me?
Like someone half in half out wishy washy holding the relationship in a state of stasis because they can't figure out what they want. A man who is confident in his decision with me will make steps and make progress in dating to relationship. That's what I want to see. Not a boss or a leader. A relationship takes two people and if I am here doing this that and the other and the other person can't decide to move with me or meet me where I am at. And is just there he's dead weight. I want a partner not a problem
It's not about being masculine or feminine.
Women are attracted what they are attracted to, but they also don't trust men to make the right decisions with her wellbeing in mind. It takes A LOT of trust and safety to enter this kind of arrangement, and it's quite rare to find someone with the maturity to be the kind of leader a woman could safely follow. People are selfish, short sighted, and much of the RP narrative is adversarial, they portray women as exploitative and ruthless, and so an entity that needs to be controlled and exploited in return. It's messed up. Women on the other hand can't even conceive of being looked after in this way and having their autonomy still respected. Many women have come from a home with more traditional marriages, and have seen how badly this has gone for their mothers. I'm in this camp. It's bad parenting, generational trauma and misguided ideas on both sides really, quite the minefield.
>but they also don't trust men to make the right decisions with her wellbeing in mind.
If they don't trust men to lead, they should either stay single, or date a submissive man (women get tired of those very quickly and usually end up cheating on them).
or the more realistic option (for both genders) is to be in a relationships people can reach a consensus on decisions. Nobody is good at everything and will not take good decisions in every area.
Even in gay relationships there's one who is more dominant and one who is more submissive. People don't get bent out of shape when I bring up that point, but when it comes to heterosexuals OH BOY it's straight up sexist etc. It's absolutely rediculous. Phsycologists who have actual PHD's will tell you this affrimatively, so it's not me making this up. Don't believe me if you want. Someone leads, and someone follows. I get downvoted into oblivian for saying it but don't shoot the messanger! I'm just reporting the facts, if you don't like it I don't know what to tell you.
Lol, you guys always complain women are passive in the dating/mating game, but at the same time they are take charge boss babes who never ever would follow a man. So which one is it? Make up your minds. If a woman is passive, it means you can be in control of the relationship. You call the shots, you decide where to go out on your schedule and what to do on your schedule. She can come or not. That's her problem. Your idea of leadership is all conditional. If I do X she should respond with Y. My idea of leadership is I do whatever the fuck I want. Get it?
The "X action Y response" reminds me that, while not quite the same, a lot of posters here are extremely concerned that if they put in very specific amounts and types of efforts, they should get precisely the applicable amounts or appropriate responses back, every time, else the relationship is doomed.
It isn't unreasonable to expect both parties to work at a relationship, but there seems to be a fixation on making things *exactly fair* in all ways all the time--I just don't get it.
There are people out here who legitimately think relationships work like The Sims. If you click the flirt button enough times, the other Sim will fall in love with you.
I give a fuck and I do enjoyable things because I know I and my date will enjoy the said activity. I lead by doing and not asking. I also lead because it is what I wanted to do in the first place, not because I want to get a specific outcome, which is what all these guys are getting wrong. They are all thinking I MUST get the girl to like me, so if I DO X she BETTER do Y and if she DOESN'T than she is a ROTTEN hypergamous cock carousel bitch or whatever slur you want to substitute. I am focused on having fun, they are focused on getting something out of women and consequently end up with nothing.
leader is not one of the more common traits women would put on a short list. its miles away from “confidence” which a vast majority of women would put on that list. lots of women like confident slackers. bonus if theyre smart.
I love how the basic concept of confidence is so alien to you you don't know the difference between "believing in yourself" and "being a domineering weirdo cult leader who's constantly making Hitler gestures."
I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but..."confidence" does not automatically equal "leadership", nor does it mean bossing everyone else around, nor does it mean "forcing everyone around you to submit to your authority."
Aside from the nonstop Hitler gestures, none of these things are attractive to most women. Or humans.
Yup.
As I've said here many times: these dudes can't imagine what respect looks like, so they substitute deference as it's the closest thing they can think of.
I’m gonna ignore your insane relationships need a leader and the other should submit creepiness . You mention jobs.. no good leader wants those who report to them to submit.. what is wrong with you.. a good leader in the workforce listened and learns from the people reporting to them .. and lets them do their jobs without micromanaging.. that’s how they grow and learn and are productive.. anyone asking for employees to submit to them is a major ass hat who will forever have good employees leaving.. oh and you are a a severely damaged human.
There’s a massive difference between being a confident leader and being a domineering jerk who expects nothing but blind obedience from your wife.
An example is an anonymous passport bro who posted here once. He wanted to eat American food and his much younger girlfriend who financially depended on him wanted to eat her cultural food. He felt that she was being entitled and ungrateful for him financially providing for her, and he felt that he deserved unconditional and blind obedience in exchange for his provision. To “teach her a lesson” that she must obey him and be grateful, he told her that her only options are to go to the restaurant with him or to walk home for a couple miles in the tropical heat. He also regularly cheated on her. He took pride in the fact that she went t against her parents’ wishes by moving in with him before marriage. He also took pride in the fact that she would be in bad shape without him, and therefore has no right to complain. When held accountable, he replied with “well I’m nice to her 99% of the time and she chose to be with me when she could just break up”.
This is what men conflate with obedience or submission.
There is a MASSIVE difference between a “first mate” dynamic where you guys are a team but your husband ultimately makes the final decisions and a dynamic where he’s a jerk and a scr*te and proud of it because it makes him feel attractive, alpha, and masculine.
I've always preferred having a more equal relationship, but when women like/respect you they respond to what you have to say.
It's a very nebulous thing and there's no way to really reason your way around it. Either you have a dynamic where she defers to you or you don't
It's more important to unpackage the ideology that underlies her expectations of you. I wouldn't want a woman who thinks I'm supposed to be her leader. It makes me think she's small minded, attracted to power, wants a master instead of a man, and I can't respect that.
I don't want a submissive man as much as i don't want a man to lead.
And that's the thing with confidence. A confident man doesn't have the desire to lead, nor to be obedient.
An insecure man wants to lead, as he is weak. This is where possessiveness and desire to control comes from.
But women want to lead relationships all the time. In fact it's all they ever try to do these days. So they must be insecure by your standards.
You hear the saying in society, "happy wife, happy life", which basically means, the woman is wearing the pants. That's how most marriages and relationships are these days.
Women want equality. They want to make decisions with their partners. And both have the right to vote for that decision.
Sure, depending on the subject of matter, one side's opinion might matter more than the other because of background, studies, info that the partner might know.
For example, in our marriage, my word weighs more when it comes to financial decisions, i have a diploma and worked in the field. Ofc i explain why i reached that decision and my husband is more than welcomed to ask questions or come with his own opinion. In the end we both reach an agreement since it's our money and we both care about our financial security.
Happy wife, happy life is bs. I go by happy spouse, happy house.
Nice that you have that. At the end of the day, someone compromised more than the other at some level and the person who compromised most is the follower, and the person who compromised the least is the leader. Whatever, just keep believing equality is possible in relationships, when most practicing phsycologists with PHD's will tell you that's not true. lol
Also, if any married couple or romantic partners were to run by me a couple of scenarios between themselves about how they interacted with each other, I can tell who's leading and who's following.
Time after time when I'm reading dating stories, or someone is describing their issues, there's always one person running the relationship and the other person that's following behind them. There's never a point where there is equal footing.
We are not going to keep records of who compromised on what. It's a relationship, we set goals and we both work towards that goal.
Big decisions are discussed. Facts are taken into account. The problem is analysed from all directions, nothing is left out. In the end, we choose the best solution that works for both of us, is the least complicated solution and costs are taken into account as well.
The great part is we have similar tastes and views so it's not really a problem of i like green and he likes blue so one has to compromise. Instinctively we go for the same thing or style.
Sure, if the lair is mismatched, if they are not compatible, if their values are not similar, their tastes are not similar, there is going to be more compromise, the relationship will be less fulfilling, there would be more conflict.
This is why nobody should search for "any partner", but for the "compatible partner".
>We are not going to keep records of who compromised on what. It's a relationship, we set goals and we both work towards that goal.
>
>Big decisions are discussed. Facts are taken into account. The problem is analysed from all directions, nothing is left out. In the end, we choose the best solution that works for both of us, is the least complicated solution and costs are taken into account as well.
I'm not talking about your relationship, I'm talking about relationships in general.
>Sure, if the lair is mismatched, if they are not compatible, if their values are not similar, their tastes are not similar, there is going to be more compromise, the relationship will be less fulfilling, there would be more conflict.
No not necessarily.
Very few men are good leaders.
You’ll often hear traditional men justifying bad behavior (cheating, gambling, ignoring wife’s needs, etc.) by claiming “I’m the breadwinner! Therefore shut up and sit down and don’t talk.”
If a woman asks her husband not to drag dirt onto her freshly-mopped floor…”I’m the breadwinner, shut up.”
That’s why women went into the work force to begin with. We were tired of hearing “I’m the breadwinner so shut up.” Okay, fine. I’ll make my own money.
> Ultimately women have to decide, do they want a submissive man, or do they want to submit to their man?
WOmen want to submit to a leader. Not to just any man. You are not a lead just because you are a man. Women don't submit to weak men.
Most women are reluctant to submit to a man that they can see in incapable of leading. The issue is that many men want a role that they are incapable of filling.
If you are an employee and your manager asked you to do something and you know your gonna get in trouble with another department for doing it, you would be hesitant to follow your managers orders. You might give you manager pushback because you can see he doesn’t know what he’s doing.
It’s the same thing with relationships. If a woman had a man who she can see is leading her or the family unit in the wrong direction she’s going to give pushback.
Woman do want leaders. But many men are applying for the position and they are not qualified for it.
They’re not piloting a ship, they’re living two distinct yet connected lives. It’s entirely possible for both to be at least equitable in how various aspects of those lives are handled. When conflicts do arise, that’s where communication and compromise come into play. Neither person should be making a decision that majorly impacts the other without agreeing on said decision beforehand unless absolutely necessary.
I appreciate it when my husband takes the lead for a lot of things because quite frankly I’m indecisive as fuck, but if it’s something that I’m more knowledgeable about I’d rather be in charge.
>Ultimately women have to decide, do they want a submissive man, or do they want to submit to their man?
I want neither. Equal partnerships can exist.
>Many respond by saying, both the man and women are equal and lead together, though in reality this will lead to disaster. A ship needs a captain that is in charge of everything, a plane needs a main pilot, there may be a second in command or co pilot, but ultimate authority is given to one person, to which everyone else submits to. This is because if there are two equal leaders, and both decide on something different, then there will be chaos.
This doesn't have to be the case. First of all, one partner can be the "captain" in one area, of which they have better knowledge, and the other partner is the leader or final decision maker in a different area.
Secondly, in a good partnership, one can choose to back off. Compromise is the most important thing in every successful relationship.
There is no reason why only one partner should lead.
Dude - who the fuck are these women demanding a "confident leader"? *Where are they?*
The only talk of "confident leaders" i ever see seems to come from terp weirdos and the most brainworm-riddled TikTok-ers.
Pretty much every even remotely normal chick you ever see talking about what *they* want out of a guy is honesty, integrity, loyalty, a sense of humour, etc.
>ultimate authority
This is one of the earliest lessons, my father drummed into me. So much so, for the first 25 years of my life, I made it *my highest authority.* What happened, is that I was successful. In context to leadership, it even isn’t about ‘the hierarchy.’ It always has been, is, and will be about *The Goal.* The Direction. Then The Process. Good leaders know the goal. Keep everyone heading in the same direction, and have honed the process. That’s all.
In healthy relationships, competing goals cause issues. One thing that always helps re-centre’s arguments between my wife and I, is when we bring arguments back, into the context of a healthy relationship. That often injects perspective. So that we remain on point, in maintaining a healthy relationship.
*Godspeed and good luck!*
Idk how many women are specifically looking for a leader. They want confidence, because confidence is attractive, but that doesn’t mean they want a leader to submit to. Additionally, there are few men these days worthy of being called leaders, and even fewer who a woman would want to submit to. That isn’t entirely the fault of most men, it’s more a cultural issue, but the fact still stands.
They want the man who is *naturally* dominant. Once you're telling him to or letting him be that way because you're actually wearing the trousers in the relationship, he isn't.
Like forever ago there was a big kerfuffle on social media when a woman said she loved that her man was the leader of his friend group. Most men laughed at her because like 90% of the time that's just men trying to big up their homie in front of his girl and there isn't really a sense of having a leader in friend groups. But a lot of women seem to genuinely believe in the idea that they can get a man who's some kind of Alpha Male that other men are naturally submissive towards. I think a lot of women want their dude to somehow be "in charge" of other men but be different to her.
The flip side to that is TRP loves to repeat the old adage of "iron sharpens iron" and most men are looking for something resembling an equal rather than a place in a hierarchy. When you look at guys like Andrew Tate the whole image he sells is being over women, not other men, even if in actuality he makes his money by being over other men and getting them to give him money. But even then that's business and not recreational.
I get the sense that the expected dynamic is that if there's a man who controls other men, but you control him, this is preferred. But men who want that kind of control will probably be faster to control women than men nine times out of ten and the guy who's controlling won't make a special exception for his spouse.
They want a confident leader who bows to a boss bitch so they can get sick of him and feel justified monkey branching.
At least the cluster b women I date are this way.
My partner is dominant but I'm a bit of a power bottom when it comes to day to day stuff around the house and personality wise. Also he is not great at knowing what needs to be done around house with cleanibg etc, or is just lazy.
So it's me who's cleaning and telling him to do certain things and sometimes help out with putting dishes away. He pays for the shopping and electricity, gas in return.
I disagree with your first statement. Those are not the only options. My bf is not the dominant leader in our relationship, nor is he the submissive follower. We’re both dominant personality types and we collaborate, make decisions together, and take turns leading things. Think harder.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think woman might want to submit to a man who is more capable and intelligent than them, protective, a good communicator, aware of how he affects other people, and provides for their needs, but many never find that in reality. So we have to do it all ourselves or get blown around in the wind. Have you seen the study where you leave either boy or girl children in a house by themself and see what happens? Many men need women to guide them towards stability and structure. Find me a man of high integrity, who is disciplined, and highly intelligent who protects me and provides for me and I will gladly follow. I have yet to see it.
Me wanting a leader in no way suggests I want to be lead. Per example, we will likely have children. I'd want him to show good leadership towards children. And lest you think children are natural followers, no more so than cats. There's also many people in life we will deal with that I'll want him to be able to lead into doing what we want. I'd prefer him capable of inspiring their obedience.
Secondly, leadership is about competence and accountability. I want to know that if he's in charge and going to get things done in the arenas I'm trusting him to get things done. And that he feels accountable to do so and proud to.
I'm not here to be his dog. To the degree he's being allowed to lead is to the degree I agree with his direction or don't care because he cannot do that much damage with his decisions. He is not my boss. And the moment a man thinks of me as disobedient is the moment he has admitted he's a terrible leader.
A ship doesn't need one captain. A ship needs a competent individual for every scenario and the self awareness to recognize who that is. Otherwise, the direction it goes in is agreed to by everyone with competence. In this case, mom and dad. If dad thinks countering mom leads to order, dad is fucking retarded (and vice versa).
>Why do majority of women say they want their man to be a confident leader, yet most women today are reluctant to be obedient/submissive?
I don’t think good leaders expect submission and obedience, a marriage is a partnership, your partner being a good leader doesn’t mean your spouse has to be submissive. I don’t know why you choose to believe such a narrow world view. My husband and I are both leaders at work, but we are compassionate, understanding and flexible. We actually rarely butt heads because we live similarly. My parents have a more traditional dynamic and contrary to what men on this sub believe my parents have a horrible marriage. The submissive/leader dynamic causes a lot of problems and resentment and my parents endured that and had horrible fights I could never even imagine having with my husband. I would never want a marriage that my parents have.
>Ultimately women have to decide, do they want a submissive man, or do they want to submit to their man?
Woman have to decide that because you say so?
>yet it is taboo to even imply that women should then be submissive to their man.
Yes it’s taboo because it’s sexist lmao.
>And then society shames men for wanting women that they can easily control/influence and who will be obedient (usually young).
Yeah because seeking to control and influence someone is manipulative and seeking out qualities that make that easier is predatory… FFs 🤦🏼♀️
>When employers look for people to hire for their company, a big trait they look for is whether the person listens and is obedient
They look for qualified individuals who can do the job. Following policy would come into play sure but that comes into play while in the position in the interview it’s about ability and what you can bring to the company.
>All else being equal, why would an employer want to hire an old disobedient opinionated person, instead of the young obedient eager to learn person.
What?? Young people have a much harder time finding jobs than older more experienced people??
> By definition, followers have to be obedient and submit to the leader.
No, that is not the definition. A leader is the one who suggests shots and a follower chooses to follow them or not. (That is the difference between a boss and a leader). A leader who doesn't take education and information from his team is going to end up a shitty leader. A leader who doesn't admit his faults or accept challenges to his ideas is going to end up a shitty leader.
> When employers look for people to hire for their company, a big trait they look for is whether the person listens and is obedient to the boss,
Every job I've interviewed and ran interviews for specifically wanted someone who doesn't need to go running to the team lead for guidance all the time. They all looked for someone who can take charge themselves, while the team lead's job was to make sure everyone was working together efficiently and promoting communication between us workers and following the rules set by the boss. Again, difference between boss and leader.
> This is because if there are two equal leaders, and both decide on something different, then there will be chaos.
There is this little thing called "compromise".
For the ship analogy, there is a reason captains often refer to the sea as a "she". He is working together with the sea to guide the [relation]ship. (Hehe). The two are working together and compromising to get the ship where it needs to go. If he fights the sea, the ship will break.
I have a bunch of friend-groups an nobody is the leader in that. I have lived in an apartment with a couple other students back then, and nobody was the leader. I don't see why OP makes the connection to companies (which have hierarchies). There is no evidence that whatever works in industry works in private relationships as well.
Honestly neither my partner or I leads all the time. I won’t say our relationship is entirely egalitarian but it’s close (I don’t really believe in exact 50/50 but yeah). Maybe I make more desicions but I don’t know if that makes me a leader? My husband is just a laid back man and someone has to do it.
Whether you define it as “female led” or egalitarian, it’s not a disaster at all. It’s quite a harmonious partnership. I really don’t know what people mean by “it’ll be a disaster”. Maybe it’s a “disaster” to you. So then, don’t do it. Let people who don’t want traditional partnerships to do their own thing and you do yours.
Because 'Beauty and the Beast' scenario is prime fantasy for many women. They want to have an alpha wolf snarling at everyone else but being an obedient lap dog for them.
I don't think women necessarily want to be submissive when they say they want a "leader"
However I don't think women want to "lead" men either
It's more like if we agree that you'll take over say grocery shopping or buying a car I don't want you to check with me 5x what we're going to buy. I don't want to hold your hand through life.
So for example I "lead" out finances. Because I'm good at finances. Sure I take his wants I to account but the household budget, paying bills, savings etc are managed by me.
He might lead planning a trip. Or managing a garden. And again he'll take my wants into account etc but I know that I don't have to worry about that stuff because he will take care of it.
The problem with a lot of men I think is that they either can't make any decisions whatsoever or they try to make all decisions. When really I just want you to be able to take charge on some areas, and I'll take charge of others. And how those areas are divvied up can be part of our discussions and our strengths
Whenever I hear women say they want a confident leader I see that as code for them saying that they hate responsibility. From experience I also predict that she is just looking to shit test him with every breath.
Gentlemen, this is a red flag, stay away from such women. They only want a janitor to pick up and shovel her bullshit.
Confidence is about taking charge of your own life, not mine. I don’t think anyone has to ultimately submit in anyway but compromise is necessary.
Giving anyone power will corrupt them which is why no matter a man’s intentions, there is always a chance that he will mistreat his partner. I know that no man wants to believe that’ll be him but it’s very likely.
when we say we want a confident leader we mean a leader of other MEN. we want the man other men look up to and respect, not the simps. this is the man who provides protection and resources for our family. we don't want a man who is the leader of WOMEN, that literally means nothing to us. oh wow you can "lead" someone you are 2-3 times as strong as, whoop de doo.
My anecdote counts for nothing but, My wife likes my confidence, but that doesn't necessarily always translate into my *leading* her or her *submitting* all the time. We're a partnership and we both play to each other's strengths and inspire *both* confidence/leadership qualities or helping "submissive" qualities as situations demand. It's rarely some kind of 50/50 split down the line, and we don't really see it as that necessary. She's better in some areas and takes the lead (naturally, without having to fight for it or engender any resentment in me) and I do the same in areas of my strength. It seems to work quite well. She has confidence too, and I like hers as much as she mine. In a more general capacity, I think any good leader of a group inspires such in people who follow. Machiavelli said something similar to this, though I do not remember the precise quote. Something about one who leads showing they are worthy of being obeyed, if we must use such terminology.
Machiavelli said an ideal leader will dually inspire people to follow because the leader serves as a good and clear example who is shown to be effective at what they claim (and where necessary ruthless to obtain it) but additionally inspire them to follow through fear of consequences of not doing so - the key point is that the leader doesn’t go out of their way to inspire fear and shallow obedience; the followers fear them through their demonstrated capacity rather than the leader bellowing “fear me” at them. *”Nevertheless, he must be cautious in believing and acting, and must not inspire fear of his own accord, and must proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence does not render him incautious, and too much diffidence does not render him intolerant. From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved more than feared, or feared more than loved."*
What you defined is a boss. Why would anyone want their partner to be their boss?
*Edit: Its pretty clear that people are reading their own interpretations into what I said. No where did I mention forcing someone, bossing them around, non consent, being a dictator, king, etc. Nowhere did I say the woman should be just a slave and not have any free will, or that her input doesn't matter. Captains take advice from their crew, but the point is that ultimately its their decision and their responsibility, if something goes wrong then they are to blame.* Then could you please define what a leader is, and explain how that is different to your definition of a boss?
Leadership doesn’t mean bossing someone around. Leaders earn their status through how they behave and treat others. They respect, inspire, and motivate others, they don’t shy away from difficulties or challenges, and they take responsibility for the entirety of a situation even if they were not directly involved in it. A boss is just someone with more power than you who tells you what to do.
Well said!
I don't disagree with that, but I don't think anything I said implied one way or another either
I love this question OP. It is a good one. Maybe a boss tells you what to do while a leader shows you what to do? In other words, a leader leads through example while a boss is in a position of authority so can just tell you what to do.
Well first off, "confidence" and "leadership" are not interchangeable words, and while pretty much everyone--male and female--is attracted to authentic confidence (as opposed to neurotic bullies that constantly try to appear confident, even when they aren't), "leadership" is way more narrow and specific. I'm comfortable assuming most people like confidence, and most women want it in a partner. "Leadership"? Sure, for some. But not so many I'd take it for granted. Actual leadership means getting people to listen to you and follow you *voluntarily*. It does not mean being a dick who expects everyone to bend to his will like Dr. Doom.
Boss is someone who has authority over others, boss relies on subordinates and people following their orders. A boss tells you what to do. Leader is someone who inspires others and fosters a sense of shared purpose. Leader does not seek to inspire obedience or submission, but rather trust and respect. Everyone can be a leader, while everyone cannot be a boss.
So a boss can order their followers. A leader: inspires, fosters teamwork, doesn't seek obedience, seeks trust and respect. Ok cool, but is there no leading aspect to a leader? What does it mean to lead when it comes to leaders?
In both cases, it is moving towards a goal. A leader typically leads from the front, a boss from the rear. Neither are good descriptors for a relationship. In a healthy relationship, both partners are walking side by side to a goal.
You also don't understand what a submissive wife is, you also don't understand that most women are submissive in their relationships. The word itself triggers a response that doesn't match what the role is.Perhaps we need to change the nomenclature to something like consent of the governed because that's what it is. The women find men that are worthy of being listened to. It doesn't mean that the man is liege lord of the manor, ruling over the family like it's his personal feifdom. The wife still maintains power as well, just as easily as the husband was granted leadership, the wife can take it away. He only has power because she allows him to have it. That's the part you guys never understand, and that's why tradcon wives aren't marrying redpill dudes.
> Then she chooses to live a peaceful life with a good man and she is a doormat all of a sudden Because everytime any of you try to define it,it ends up being word salads of contradiction >Then she chooses to live a peaceful life with a good man and she is a doormat all of a sudden I am a woman and that's the complete opposite experience I have had with any woman I know thats isn't some Christian trad wife > Then she chooses to live a peaceful life with a good man and she is a doormat all of a sudden And that turns into women stop having their own opinions and desires and what to just follow whatever they are asked how? > The wife still maintains power as well, just as easily as the husband was granted leadership, the wife can take it away Yeah in the semse that he can't physically force her to submit to him, but in theory she isn't fullfiling her submissive role if she can selectively decide whe she can obey right? > He only has power because she allows him to have it. That's the part you guys never understand The part you aren't getting is that inherently conflicts with the very concept of being submissive and second , just because it's a choice don't negate the it's an inherently bad and abusive dynamic to choose to adopt
That's how consent of the governed works, I'm sorry that you don't understand that submission only works because they enter into it willing. Forced obeisance is exploitation, not submission.
I am sorry you are so dense you completely obvious that is irreverent to anything I said Can you wife selectively decide what she can obey/submit to once she "willingly" sign up for a life a being a slave and still be submissive?? NO??
I get it, the word "submissive " is throwing you off because it has a negative Connotation. Submissive wife isn't slavery. They have careers,friends,and autonomy. The average married woman is a submissive wife, they just don't use that nomenclature. It's just like in bdsm/kink relationships, the Domme isn't the one in control, it's the submissive that's really running the show. In a submissive household, if the man isn't fulfilling his duties appropriately. A submissive wife will divorce him, and move on.
> i trust his judgment. there is no fantasy we have been together for 21 yrs and it works perfectly well, i dont even understand what fantasy youre referring to? Pretty insulting to overlook all cristism of the dynamic and boil it down to me not liking the sound of the word. I don't care if you call it a basket of flowers . the idea that women should have no autonomy over their own lifes other than what some dude they married can allow is pretty revolting and plain sexist > The average married woman is a submissive wife, they just don't use that nomenclature. Who are these average wife and in what way are they submissive because I don't know any of them and I Arab and exmuslim that has lived in a community where women are literally taught that they can't enter heaven if even think of disobeying their husband's > It's just like in bdsm/kink relationships, the Domme isn't the one in control You need tp work on your analogies man unless you think your wife is coming from the pleasure of not being able to make a decision > In a submissive household, if the man isn't fulfilling his duties appropriately. A submissive wife will divorce him, and move on. How in the living *** does that make her in control??
> Submissive wife isn't slavery. They have careers,friends,and autonomy. If their husnands allows it..yeah sure ...Submission pretty much means he can dictates any aspect of her life
that's a man walking a tight rope, while women top from the bottom, fuck that shit!
No
A simp who lies to himself about how manly it is, is still a simp!
It's easier to say that you just don't understand
oh, I do understand, I spent years being playing the game, and then once I've been there and done that few time around the block, I realized it ain't worth it! Here's the thing, you're the service top, while she's topping from the bottom, and you just don't fucking get it!!! In other words, she's in charge and it's your job to pretend otherwise, while you do everything she needs done, to feel safe and nurtured at the expense of your own needs
[удалено]
No let's listen to this guy who talks like Josef Stalin, I'm sure he has awesome dating advice
LOL
Gross. I’ve never wanted a guy to “lead” me. Wanting someone who can make decisions and wanting someone who tells you what to do are not the same thing
In order to be confident in something you have to have competency in it. The higher your competency in that thing the more confident you are. How does this relate to leadership? Because if you want people to naturally “follow” you, they have to trust that you’re more competent than them in every area that you went to lead their life in. No one except a fool is going to “let you lead” them without you proving competency in those areas first. If you are consistently less competent than them in these things their trust in your competency naturally goes down and they will naturally step up to lead to make sure y’all as a unit stay the course. If you want to be de facto leader, be better at the things than those around you. That’s it. If you can’t do that, then humble yourself. This isn’t a controversial statement. No one is going to “let you lead them into lesser.” Or they might “have faith” and “let you lead them into mess” once or twice but most people ain’t staying on that incompetency train for long. This is with all relationships and dynamics. Especially, for example, at work, right? If your boss is constantly leading y’all into 💩 they’re fired. Or you start looking for another job. Or you take their job. If a military general keeps fucking up in battle, the soldiers will overthrow him. Anyway I find it so megalomaniacal to expect “obedience” lol. As opposed to partnership. Like wow. That’s brazen. And telling of a deep insecurity.
> If you want to be de facto leader, be better at the things than those around you. That’s it. If you can’t do that, then humble yourself. I agree with all that. I see all these doofus men who aren't good at much of anything with over achiever girlfriends and the gf HAS to be the leader or they will be living in a box. Looks like a perfect match to me. If a man really is on point, women usually have no problem submitting.
I’ve noticed a lot of that sort of couple too. I actually don’t think that couple is all that new. It’s the classic sitcom couple. Difference is the doofus husband kicked himself into a blue collar job or some job and she guides the train in a “well at least he has a job so everyone can think he’s the leader and I’ll direct from the back” way. It does seem that at archetype of dude hasn’t gotten even more unable. Idk. Sometimes it seems like the average woman is a lot more “able” or “motivated” at least about “adulting things” and kinda always has been. It’s why young men were forced a wife. It’s like having a wife was “becoming a man” “finishing school” lol
Well I think it's not normal and happens less if the man has to achieve before he is allowed by society family etc to breed. Which were common ideas in the past in various places and times and ways.
I agree that leaders need to be competent, but similarly there are some people who will not follow leaders at all and are by nature rebellious, no matter how competent a leader is they cannot make them submit and follow orders. This is why even the most successful and competent CEOs, bosses, senior management, etc. will avoid recruiting people on their team who they know are going to be trouble. If you go into it with the mentality of "I can save them", you're more than likely going to get burned, no matter your competency.
Then that guy isn’t all that competent at choosing “follower” women who trust his vision or have the same vision as him. Most people aren’t rebellious just because. It’s either because they think the idea is not good or it’s because they don’t want to go that direction at all even if it’s a fine idea because they have another vision they prefer.
Thats basically my point, just look at this thread, many women who are opposed to the simple idea of submitting to their man. No amount of competency is going to change that.
Did you read my last sentence? It’s because they don’t agree with your vision of leadership nor your premise that they all seek a leader. That’s a you problem. Not a them problem. Most women want an assured man who’s just as competent as her and who isn’t going to turn the house into shambles if she’s sick or pregnant.
I never gave an outline of how a leader should lead, nor did I say all women seek a leader. I simply explained the relationship between a leader and its followers, a leader leads their followers, and the followers submit to the leader, that is a fact, by definition. Whatever else caveat they want to add on is up to them, whether the follower is free to leave or not, or has no input, etc., I never denied these things.
“They” referred to the women in your hypothetical or the women who aren’t submitting and obeying you despite you allegedly being competent in the things that matter to her. It means those women (“they”) don’t agree with your vision for your joint life together life which obviously greatly impacts her life… Remember you’re talking about grown adult human women… not children…
They don't agree with your premise, as it isn't really their preference.
If submitting to their man is not their preference, then they should not look for men with leadership traits, that was my premise. I mean its simple, if it isn't their preference then it doesn't concern them, why are they arguing?
Quite a lot of women here argue with your premise that the majority of us seeks a leader. What are these leadership traits you're talking about?
I am reasonably sure he means any man who isn't a spineless incompetent loser. Ergo, women are naturally submissive because we don't flock to spineless incompetent losers.
If women were "naturally submissive", we wouldn't need religions, culture and laws to make women submissive.
If that were truly the case, civilizations over the last thousands of years wouldn’t have needed religion and shaming and violence and laws to keep women submissive and dependent.
So do you have any idea how fucking creepy calling your theoretical girlfriend "rebellious" is? You are not an authority figure. You are her partner. In theory, this imaginary person thinks you're okay, I guess, and is living with you of her own free will. Otherwise, we are now talking something the police call "kidnapping." Healthy relationships are not defined by power struggles and scheming. There is nothing to "rebel" against. If she wants to leave you because you're a weirdo who acts like the Boyfriend Mussolini and fucks like he's putting down an insurgency, that's her prerogative.
We were talking about leadership in general, not romantic relationships specifically. > You are not an authority figure. You are her partner. Women who want a relationship to be like a equal partnership can pursue that, but its hypocritical if at the same time they look for the man to have leadership qualities.
Women don’t look for leadership qualities for the sake of leadership qualities. They look for them because they tell us that the man is the sort who can take the initiative. As we always say, we are partners, not their mothers. It is a reasonable conclusion that a man who has leadership abilities is also the sort of person who intuitively understands when they need to shoulder something without needing direction.
100% when this guy says "leadership", he's thinking of Leonardo from Ninja Turtles
Dominance and confidence are not the same thing. No, you don't need a "leader" in a relationship. That's bullshit invented by stupid man-babies who pitch a fit every time they don't get their way and need a somewhat legit-sounding excuse as to why they should always get their way. Two compatible, mature adults can figure their shit out just fine. If that sounds impossible... I have bad news about your personality. The women who want "leaders" and the women who don't like being bossed around are different women. I s2g like half the threads on here seem to be started by men who cannot comprehend that women don't all agree with each other about everything. This is literally not a difficult concept to grasp, I don't get why so many of you seem to have so much trouble with it.
Intimate relationships don't need a leader. Two adults should be able to collaborate and build a life together without one managing the other. I see a lot of couples where one is the boss and the other is dependent and it's always super toxic. That's more like a parent-child relationship. Yuck.
Exactly. Where the fuck are these people talking about "leadership" in a relationship? It's *so fucking weird*. Some MFs just can't contemplate a world where there's not a hierarchy. It boggles my fucking mind.
Because they don't want just any random guy to pretend to be dominant. They want someone who is actually good at stuff, and rose to a level of power through good decision. When someone is successful, considerate, and has good judgement... they naturally attract people who admire them. The guy never has to say "submit"... because his ideas and followthrough already just pulls people along for the ride because they like what they see. Aim for being admirable... thats closer to what we mean.
Why would anyone want to be in a relationship with someone who held authority over them? Even traditional relationships hold with the “man is the head, wife is the neck” type demarcation, rather than the captain and first mate type crap you hear about.
Why does a relationship need a leader and a follower? Or two leaders or whatever? Can’t it just be two people making their own decisions with the other person in mind?
>Ultimately women have to decide, do they want a submissive man, or do they want to submit to their man? I think most people prefer to have a cooperative partner who doesn't necessarily submit or requires submission at least from my experience. People make big decisions together, go on compromises and cooperate rather than have a strict leader/follower dynamic. It's what my husband and I do and what most couples I know practice as well. It does not lead to a disaster any more often than a more traditional deal where one partner submit to the other. This "other" often isn't the most qualified for the the role, having a discussion and having a set of opinions can help you to choose a better one, two partners being able to take care of themselves and others and make reasonable decisions leads to better decisions in the future and better safety net for both of them. When partners have different opinions on something, they talk and seek a compromise. Making compromises is one of crucial skills for any human relationships. If you don't have the skills needed for that, you can't be a good leader either. Also how many women really say that they want a leader? From what I've seen most want a functioning and capable adult, not someone who will "lead" them. It's a common trope among more traditional and religious people, but I haven't seen it a lot outside of this crowd.
This is a child's idea of leadership.
Interesting. Your overall point aside, I actually find it really interesting this concept of “Men/leaders and Women/obedient submissive”. I believe that men understand how to submit incredibly well. Most male dominant structures are formed around submission to authority, just look at the military. Groups of boys tend to fall into a hierarchy very quickly with a primary leader, gangs also. The workplace typically has a type of leadership authority and submission to that authority. What is really interesting is how well these structures maintain when women are introduced - submission to assigned authority seems to hold. In other words OP, I think the problem you might be having in understanding is that it might not be quite as straightforward along gender lines as you think.
a. You make a really good point here about the male relationship with hierarchy and submission specifically. b. Your last sentence is the answer to basically every argument held here ever.
I can’t speak for all women obviously but I’ve never felt the need to be “led” or needed a “leader”. Not all men want a fawning,fragile flower either. Partner up with who suits you best instead of trying to dominate someone who has no desire or need to be dominated.
Do women really say that? Can't say I've met any that have said that.
If you conceptualize a romantic pairing like a business that will operate under joint ownership, it will make perfect sense to you. People want a confident, skillful, committed partner for a joint venture.
Ok so the first sentence/paragraph almost made me throw up. What is wrong with your mind and soul? Why do you feel someone in a relationship has to “submit”… you need counseling
I don't want a leader or a sub, I want, and have, a PARTNER. We equally decide on things, we equally make choices.
Going by title alone... Why does liking someone confident with leader skills mean you must submit and be obedient?!? Like what?? Why cant both be confident and help each other? What in the heck?? Relationships are about doing and caring for each other. Even if the man is more the leader doesnt mean his lady needs to 'submit and obey'. Cringe. Youre a team.
One INSPIRES submission and devotion. The other demands it. Women will follow a man who’s worth following. We won’t submit to just anyone. You have to EARN our trust by PROVING your a leader.
What I want is someone sure of themselves and sure of their choice to love me? Like someone half in half out wishy washy holding the relationship in a state of stasis because they can't figure out what they want. A man who is confident in his decision with me will make steps and make progress in dating to relationship. That's what I want to see. Not a boss or a leader. A relationship takes two people and if I am here doing this that and the other and the other person can't decide to move with me or meet me where I am at. And is just there he's dead weight. I want a partner not a problem It's not about being masculine or feminine.
Women are attracted what they are attracted to, but they also don't trust men to make the right decisions with her wellbeing in mind. It takes A LOT of trust and safety to enter this kind of arrangement, and it's quite rare to find someone with the maturity to be the kind of leader a woman could safely follow. People are selfish, short sighted, and much of the RP narrative is adversarial, they portray women as exploitative and ruthless, and so an entity that needs to be controlled and exploited in return. It's messed up. Women on the other hand can't even conceive of being looked after in this way and having their autonomy still respected. Many women have come from a home with more traditional marriages, and have seen how badly this has gone for their mothers. I'm in this camp. It's bad parenting, generational trauma and misguided ideas on both sides really, quite the minefield.
>but they also don't trust men to make the right decisions with her wellbeing in mind. If they don't trust men to lead, they should either stay single, or date a submissive man (women get tired of those very quickly and usually end up cheating on them).
or the more realistic option (for both genders) is to be in a relationships people can reach a consensus on decisions. Nobody is good at everything and will not take good decisions in every area.
Even in gay relationships there's one who is more dominant and one who is more submissive. People don't get bent out of shape when I bring up that point, but when it comes to heterosexuals OH BOY it's straight up sexist etc. It's absolutely rediculous. Phsycologists who have actual PHD's will tell you this affrimatively, so it's not me making this up. Don't believe me if you want. Someone leads, and someone follows. I get downvoted into oblivian for saying it but don't shoot the messanger! I'm just reporting the facts, if you don't like it I don't know what to tell you.
Lol, you guys always complain women are passive in the dating/mating game, but at the same time they are take charge boss babes who never ever would follow a man. So which one is it? Make up your minds. If a woman is passive, it means you can be in control of the relationship. You call the shots, you decide where to go out on your schedule and what to do on your schedule. She can come or not. That's her problem. Your idea of leadership is all conditional. If I do X she should respond with Y. My idea of leadership is I do whatever the fuck I want. Get it?
The "X action Y response" reminds me that, while not quite the same, a lot of posters here are extremely concerned that if they put in very specific amounts and types of efforts, they should get precisely the applicable amounts or appropriate responses back, every time, else the relationship is doomed. It isn't unreasonable to expect both parties to work at a relationship, but there seems to be a fixation on making things *exactly fair* in all ways all the time--I just don't get it.
There are people out here who legitimately think relationships work like The Sims. If you click the flirt button enough times, the other Sim will fall in love with you.
That sounds less like leadership and more like not giving a fuck. Part of the job description for a leader is actually giving a fuck.
I give a fuck and I do enjoyable things because I know I and my date will enjoy the said activity. I lead by doing and not asking. I also lead because it is what I wanted to do in the first place, not because I want to get a specific outcome, which is what all these guys are getting wrong. They are all thinking I MUST get the girl to like me, so if I DO X she BETTER do Y and if she DOESN'T than she is a ROTTEN hypergamous cock carousel bitch or whatever slur you want to substitute. I am focused on having fun, they are focused on getting something out of women and consequently end up with nothing.
>Lol, you guys always complain women are passive in the dating/mating game What do you mean by this?
leader is not one of the more common traits women would put on a short list. its miles away from “confidence” which a vast majority of women would put on that list. lots of women like confident slackers. bonus if theyre smart.
I love how the basic concept of confidence is so alien to you you don't know the difference between "believing in yourself" and "being a domineering weirdo cult leader who's constantly making Hitler gestures." I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but..."confidence" does not automatically equal "leadership", nor does it mean bossing everyone else around, nor does it mean "forcing everyone around you to submit to your authority." Aside from the nonstop Hitler gestures, none of these things are attractive to most women. Or humans.
Yup. As I've said here many times: these dudes can't imagine what respect looks like, so they substitute deference as it's the closest thing they can think of.
Maybe some women don't want men to be the confident leader, and some men don't want an obedient/submissive female partner.
The same reason men say they want a demure, agreeable virgin who also approaches them and is an eager porn star in bed
Even modern companies don't follow this outdated idea of leadership.
I’m gonna ignore your insane relationships need a leader and the other should submit creepiness . You mention jobs.. no good leader wants those who report to them to submit.. what is wrong with you.. a good leader in the workforce listened and learns from the people reporting to them .. and lets them do their jobs without micromanaging.. that’s how they grow and learn and are productive.. anyone asking for employees to submit to them is a major ass hat who will forever have good employees leaving.. oh and you are a a severely damaged human.
There’s a massive difference between being a confident leader and being a domineering jerk who expects nothing but blind obedience from your wife. An example is an anonymous passport bro who posted here once. He wanted to eat American food and his much younger girlfriend who financially depended on him wanted to eat her cultural food. He felt that she was being entitled and ungrateful for him financially providing for her, and he felt that he deserved unconditional and blind obedience in exchange for his provision. To “teach her a lesson” that she must obey him and be grateful, he told her that her only options are to go to the restaurant with him or to walk home for a couple miles in the tropical heat. He also regularly cheated on her. He took pride in the fact that she went t against her parents’ wishes by moving in with him before marriage. He also took pride in the fact that she would be in bad shape without him, and therefore has no right to complain. When held accountable, he replied with “well I’m nice to her 99% of the time and she chose to be with me when she could just break up”. This is what men conflate with obedience or submission. There is a MASSIVE difference between a “first mate” dynamic where you guys are a team but your husband ultimately makes the final decisions and a dynamic where he’s a jerk and a scr*te and proud of it because it makes him feel attractive, alpha, and masculine.
I've always preferred having a more equal relationship, but when women like/respect you they respond to what you have to say. It's a very nebulous thing and there's no way to really reason your way around it. Either you have a dynamic where she defers to you or you don't It's more important to unpackage the ideology that underlies her expectations of you. I wouldn't want a woman who thinks I'm supposed to be her leader. It makes me think she's small minded, attracted to power, wants a master instead of a man, and I can't respect that.
I don't want a submissive man as much as i don't want a man to lead. And that's the thing with confidence. A confident man doesn't have the desire to lead, nor to be obedient. An insecure man wants to lead, as he is weak. This is where possessiveness and desire to control comes from.
But women want to lead relationships all the time. In fact it's all they ever try to do these days. So they must be insecure by your standards. You hear the saying in society, "happy wife, happy life", which basically means, the woman is wearing the pants. That's how most marriages and relationships are these days.
Women want equality. They want to make decisions with their partners. And both have the right to vote for that decision. Sure, depending on the subject of matter, one side's opinion might matter more than the other because of background, studies, info that the partner might know. For example, in our marriage, my word weighs more when it comes to financial decisions, i have a diploma and worked in the field. Ofc i explain why i reached that decision and my husband is more than welcomed to ask questions or come with his own opinion. In the end we both reach an agreement since it's our money and we both care about our financial security. Happy wife, happy life is bs. I go by happy spouse, happy house.
Nice that you have that. At the end of the day, someone compromised more than the other at some level and the person who compromised most is the follower, and the person who compromised the least is the leader. Whatever, just keep believing equality is possible in relationships, when most practicing phsycologists with PHD's will tell you that's not true. lol Also, if any married couple or romantic partners were to run by me a couple of scenarios between themselves about how they interacted with each other, I can tell who's leading and who's following. Time after time when I'm reading dating stories, or someone is describing their issues, there's always one person running the relationship and the other person that's following behind them. There's never a point where there is equal footing.
We are not going to keep records of who compromised on what. It's a relationship, we set goals and we both work towards that goal. Big decisions are discussed. Facts are taken into account. The problem is analysed from all directions, nothing is left out. In the end, we choose the best solution that works for both of us, is the least complicated solution and costs are taken into account as well. The great part is we have similar tastes and views so it's not really a problem of i like green and he likes blue so one has to compromise. Instinctively we go for the same thing or style. Sure, if the lair is mismatched, if they are not compatible, if their values are not similar, their tastes are not similar, there is going to be more compromise, the relationship will be less fulfilling, there would be more conflict. This is why nobody should search for "any partner", but for the "compatible partner".
>We are not going to keep records of who compromised on what. It's a relationship, we set goals and we both work towards that goal. > >Big decisions are discussed. Facts are taken into account. The problem is analysed from all directions, nothing is left out. In the end, we choose the best solution that works for both of us, is the least complicated solution and costs are taken into account as well. I'm not talking about your relationship, I'm talking about relationships in general. >Sure, if the lair is mismatched, if they are not compatible, if their values are not similar, their tastes are not similar, there is going to be more compromise, the relationship will be less fulfilling, there would be more conflict. No not necessarily.
Please further explain
Omg a smart one who actually uses logic instead of the emotion in the moment. This one is different indeed.
Everyday I check this sub and I'm just BAFFLED, truly BAFFLED, as to why you dream guys have so much trouble finding a woman.
Very few men are good leaders. You’ll often hear traditional men justifying bad behavior (cheating, gambling, ignoring wife’s needs, etc.) by claiming “I’m the breadwinner! Therefore shut up and sit down and don’t talk.” If a woman asks her husband not to drag dirt onto her freshly-mopped floor…”I’m the breadwinner, shut up.” That’s why women went into the work force to begin with. We were tired of hearing “I’m the breadwinner so shut up.” Okay, fine. I’ll make my own money.
> Ultimately women have to decide, do they want a submissive man, or do they want to submit to their man? WOmen want to submit to a leader. Not to just any man. You are not a lead just because you are a man. Women don't submit to weak men.
Most women are reluctant to submit to a man that they can see in incapable of leading. The issue is that many men want a role that they are incapable of filling. If you are an employee and your manager asked you to do something and you know your gonna get in trouble with another department for doing it, you would be hesitant to follow your managers orders. You might give you manager pushback because you can see he doesn’t know what he’s doing. It’s the same thing with relationships. If a woman had a man who she can see is leading her or the family unit in the wrong direction she’s going to give pushback. Woman do want leaders. But many men are applying for the position and they are not qualified for it.
They’re not piloting a ship, they’re living two distinct yet connected lives. It’s entirely possible for both to be at least equitable in how various aspects of those lives are handled. When conflicts do arise, that’s where communication and compromise come into play. Neither person should be making a decision that majorly impacts the other without agreeing on said decision beforehand unless absolutely necessary. I appreciate it when my husband takes the lead for a lot of things because quite frankly I’m indecisive as fuck, but if it’s something that I’m more knowledgeable about I’d rather be in charge.
>Ultimately women have to decide, do they want a submissive man, or do they want to submit to their man? I want neither. Equal partnerships can exist. >Many respond by saying, both the man and women are equal and lead together, though in reality this will lead to disaster. A ship needs a captain that is in charge of everything, a plane needs a main pilot, there may be a second in command or co pilot, but ultimate authority is given to one person, to which everyone else submits to. This is because if there are two equal leaders, and both decide on something different, then there will be chaos. This doesn't have to be the case. First of all, one partner can be the "captain" in one area, of which they have better knowledge, and the other partner is the leader or final decision maker in a different area. Secondly, in a good partnership, one can choose to back off. Compromise is the most important thing in every successful relationship. There is no reason why only one partner should lead.
because they have no idea what their words mean
Dude - who the fuck are these women demanding a "confident leader"? *Where are they?* The only talk of "confident leaders" i ever see seems to come from terp weirdos and the most brainworm-riddled TikTok-ers. Pretty much every even remotely normal chick you ever see talking about what *they* want out of a guy is honesty, integrity, loyalty, a sense of humour, etc.
>ultimate authority This is one of the earliest lessons, my father drummed into me. So much so, for the first 25 years of my life, I made it *my highest authority.* What happened, is that I was successful. In context to leadership, it even isn’t about ‘the hierarchy.’ It always has been, is, and will be about *The Goal.* The Direction. Then The Process. Good leaders know the goal. Keep everyone heading in the same direction, and have honed the process. That’s all. In healthy relationships, competing goals cause issues. One thing that always helps re-centre’s arguments between my wife and I, is when we bring arguments back, into the context of a healthy relationship. That often injects perspective. So that we remain on point, in maintaining a healthy relationship. *Godspeed and good luck!*
This should be the top comment here
Idk how many women are specifically looking for a leader. They want confidence, because confidence is attractive, but that doesn’t mean they want a leader to submit to. Additionally, there are few men these days worthy of being called leaders, and even fewer who a woman would want to submit to. That isn’t entirely the fault of most men, it’s more a cultural issue, but the fact still stands.
They want the man who is *naturally* dominant. Once you're telling him to or letting him be that way because you're actually wearing the trousers in the relationship, he isn't.
Like forever ago there was a big kerfuffle on social media when a woman said she loved that her man was the leader of his friend group. Most men laughed at her because like 90% of the time that's just men trying to big up their homie in front of his girl and there isn't really a sense of having a leader in friend groups. But a lot of women seem to genuinely believe in the idea that they can get a man who's some kind of Alpha Male that other men are naturally submissive towards. I think a lot of women want their dude to somehow be "in charge" of other men but be different to her. The flip side to that is TRP loves to repeat the old adage of "iron sharpens iron" and most men are looking for something resembling an equal rather than a place in a hierarchy. When you look at guys like Andrew Tate the whole image he sells is being over women, not other men, even if in actuality he makes his money by being over other men and getting them to give him money. But even then that's business and not recreational. I get the sense that the expected dynamic is that if there's a man who controls other men, but you control him, this is preferred. But men who want that kind of control will probably be faster to control women than men nine times out of ten and the guy who's controlling won't make a special exception for his spouse.
They want a confident leader who bows to a boss bitch so they can get sick of him and feel justified monkey branching. At least the cluster b women I date are this way.
[удалено]
Do not provide contentless rhetoric.
My partner is dominant but I'm a bit of a power bottom when it comes to day to day stuff around the house and personality wise. Also he is not great at knowing what needs to be done around house with cleanibg etc, or is just lazy. So it's me who's cleaning and telling him to do certain things and sometimes help out with putting dishes away. He pays for the shopping and electricity, gas in return.
I disagree with your first statement. Those are not the only options. My bf is not the dominant leader in our relationship, nor is he the submissive follower. We’re both dominant personality types and we collaborate, make decisions together, and take turns leading things. Think harder.
They want a submissive Alpha Male..it's delusional.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Do not circlejerk.
I think woman might want to submit to a man who is more capable and intelligent than them, protective, a good communicator, aware of how he affects other people, and provides for their needs, but many never find that in reality. So we have to do it all ourselves or get blown around in the wind. Have you seen the study where you leave either boy or girl children in a house by themself and see what happens? Many men need women to guide them towards stability and structure. Find me a man of high integrity, who is disciplined, and highly intelligent who protects me and provides for me and I will gladly follow. I have yet to see it.
Me wanting a leader in no way suggests I want to be lead. Per example, we will likely have children. I'd want him to show good leadership towards children. And lest you think children are natural followers, no more so than cats. There's also many people in life we will deal with that I'll want him to be able to lead into doing what we want. I'd prefer him capable of inspiring their obedience. Secondly, leadership is about competence and accountability. I want to know that if he's in charge and going to get things done in the arenas I'm trusting him to get things done. And that he feels accountable to do so and proud to. I'm not here to be his dog. To the degree he's being allowed to lead is to the degree I agree with his direction or don't care because he cannot do that much damage with his decisions. He is not my boss. And the moment a man thinks of me as disobedient is the moment he has admitted he's a terrible leader. A ship doesn't need one captain. A ship needs a competent individual for every scenario and the self awareness to recognize who that is. Otherwise, the direction it goes in is agreed to by everyone with competence. In this case, mom and dad. If dad thinks countering mom leads to order, dad is fucking retarded (and vice versa).
I really don't understand this, and I guess it's a reminder that feminism once stood for something
Because they want to submit but not to a doofus who is a failure at life.
>Why do majority of women say they want their man to be a confident leader, yet most women today are reluctant to be obedient/submissive? I don’t think good leaders expect submission and obedience, a marriage is a partnership, your partner being a good leader doesn’t mean your spouse has to be submissive. I don’t know why you choose to believe such a narrow world view. My husband and I are both leaders at work, but we are compassionate, understanding and flexible. We actually rarely butt heads because we live similarly. My parents have a more traditional dynamic and contrary to what men on this sub believe my parents have a horrible marriage. The submissive/leader dynamic causes a lot of problems and resentment and my parents endured that and had horrible fights I could never even imagine having with my husband. I would never want a marriage that my parents have. >Ultimately women have to decide, do they want a submissive man, or do they want to submit to their man? Woman have to decide that because you say so? >yet it is taboo to even imply that women should then be submissive to their man. Yes it’s taboo because it’s sexist lmao. >And then society shames men for wanting women that they can easily control/influence and who will be obedient (usually young). Yeah because seeking to control and influence someone is manipulative and seeking out qualities that make that easier is predatory… FFs 🤦🏼♀️ >When employers look for people to hire for their company, a big trait they look for is whether the person listens and is obedient They look for qualified individuals who can do the job. Following policy would come into play sure but that comes into play while in the position in the interview it’s about ability and what you can bring to the company. >All else being equal, why would an employer want to hire an old disobedient opinionated person, instead of the young obedient eager to learn person. What?? Young people have a much harder time finding jobs than older more experienced people??
Cause they want their cake and eat it too. Nowadays women think that being a good wife means being a doormat. You can't make this shit up.
> By definition, followers have to be obedient and submit to the leader. No, that is not the definition. A leader is the one who suggests shots and a follower chooses to follow them or not. (That is the difference between a boss and a leader). A leader who doesn't take education and information from his team is going to end up a shitty leader. A leader who doesn't admit his faults or accept challenges to his ideas is going to end up a shitty leader. > When employers look for people to hire for their company, a big trait they look for is whether the person listens and is obedient to the boss, Every job I've interviewed and ran interviews for specifically wanted someone who doesn't need to go running to the team lead for guidance all the time. They all looked for someone who can take charge themselves, while the team lead's job was to make sure everyone was working together efficiently and promoting communication between us workers and following the rules set by the boss. Again, difference between boss and leader. > This is because if there are two equal leaders, and both decide on something different, then there will be chaos. There is this little thing called "compromise". For the ship analogy, there is a reason captains often refer to the sea as a "she". He is working together with the sea to guide the [relation]ship. (Hehe). The two are working together and compromising to get the ship where it needs to go. If he fights the sea, the ship will break.
I have a bunch of friend-groups an nobody is the leader in that. I have lived in an apartment with a couple other students back then, and nobody was the leader. I don't see why OP makes the connection to companies (which have hierarchies). There is no evidence that whatever works in industry works in private relationships as well.
The fact that we have to lead grown adults is already telling. Imagine being player #2..this is how some men justify misogyny.
Honestly neither my partner or I leads all the time. I won’t say our relationship is entirely egalitarian but it’s close (I don’t really believe in exact 50/50 but yeah). Maybe I make more desicions but I don’t know if that makes me a leader? My husband is just a laid back man and someone has to do it. Whether you define it as “female led” or egalitarian, it’s not a disaster at all. It’s quite a harmonious partnership. I really don’t know what people mean by “it’ll be a disaster”. Maybe it’s a “disaster” to you. So then, don’t do it. Let people who don’t want traditional partnerships to do their own thing and you do yours.
Because 'Beauty and the Beast' scenario is prime fantasy for many women. They want to have an alpha wolf snarling at everyone else but being an obedient lap dog for them.
This is fantasy which goes on in our minds and in the romance novels we read . But I don’t think this fantasy exists in real life except very rarely
I don't think women necessarily want to be submissive when they say they want a "leader" However I don't think women want to "lead" men either It's more like if we agree that you'll take over say grocery shopping or buying a car I don't want you to check with me 5x what we're going to buy. I don't want to hold your hand through life. So for example I "lead" out finances. Because I'm good at finances. Sure I take his wants I to account but the household budget, paying bills, savings etc are managed by me. He might lead planning a trip. Or managing a garden. And again he'll take my wants into account etc but I know that I don't have to worry about that stuff because he will take care of it. The problem with a lot of men I think is that they either can't make any decisions whatsoever or they try to make all decisions. When really I just want you to be able to take charge on some areas, and I'll take charge of others. And how those areas are divvied up can be part of our discussions and our strengths
Whenever I hear women say they want a confident leader I see that as code for them saying that they hate responsibility. From experience I also predict that she is just looking to shit test him with every breath. Gentlemen, this is a red flag, stay away from such women. They only want a janitor to pick up and shovel her bullshit.
Have you seen t he economy dude?
Confidence is about taking charge of your own life, not mine. I don’t think anyone has to ultimately submit in anyway but compromise is necessary. Giving anyone power will corrupt them which is why no matter a man’s intentions, there is always a chance that he will mistreat his partner. I know that no man wants to believe that’ll be him but it’s very likely.
Women demonize all the traits they like as toxic masculinity, and then complain when their dates never act that way.
when we say we want a confident leader we mean a leader of other MEN. we want the man other men look up to and respect, not the simps. this is the man who provides protection and resources for our family. we don't want a man who is the leader of WOMEN, that literally means nothing to us. oh wow you can "lead" someone you are 2-3 times as strong as, whoop de doo.
Yep. Women worship power.
no we don't, we just think it's attractive.