THEORYReasons Why a Male Led Relationship Works Better (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by LadyLumen

I think it would be interesting if we all chipped in on why Male Led relationships work better than the inverse.

  • Female Attraction to dominance: I don't really have to explain this to you all, because I'd be preaching to the choir in this sub-reddit. But I guess I'll summarize this with a brief, women are attracted to masculine men. So if the guy takes charge, he'll obviously be more attractive to his wife/gf, who will stick around longer.

  • Male instinct to protect: we cannot deny that men have a greater instinct to protect - and even risk their life for a woman they care about, whereas women do not have this instinct for men - even a man she loves. For example, in the Aurora shooting that happened in Colorado, three guys took a bullet in the chest to protect their girlfriend's from harm.

I haven't heard a single story of a woman who would do the same for her man. Men not only have a greater instinct to protect their woman's life, but also to provide for her and give her a good quality of life. Therefore, most of the decisions he makes will be to the benefit of himself and his SO. (I'm not saying that all guys are like this because there are definitely selfish assholes out there, I'm just saying that the majority of males are like this).

Conversely, when the woman is put in charge, most of the decisions she makes will benefit herself mainly. I'm not saying that she wouldn't consider her SO at all, but probably less so because of a lesser instinct to provide and protect (this is why there are so few male homemakers in the world, few women want to work to provide for a guy to stay at home, even if he's doing something useful at home like taking care of the children or cleaning).

Therefore, it is more likely that a male will make the decisions necessary to benefit and protect the relationship.

  • Male Commitment

I believe that males are the sex who are more willing to commit to a marriage and make it work. 2/3's of all divorces are initiated by women. We also have to look at patriarchal societies where men suffer less from divorce than women do (such as the middle east). In many of these societies, a man would get the kids and only pay alimony for a short time if he divorced his wife, yet few men do so. Also, even back in the days when Western Society was more patriarchal, men still chose to protect and provide for their wives - even if their wife was getting older, less attractive, and more annoying. Since men had the money and power, they could have set up a society where women were kicked to the curb once they were old, and they could freely marry younger women - but men did not do this.

Now that women have more agency to marry and divorce as they choose, they are making the decision to kick their old/boring male partners to the curb in pursuit of better models.

That's all I got...what do you guys think?

[–]FleetingWishEndorsed Contributor 22 points23 points  (1 child)

If you put men in charge, they will make sure that the women are taken care of. If you put women in charge... They will make sure the women are taken care of.

[–]VarsitySlutTeamCpt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Great quote

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (41 children)

Spot on, and also makes me feel bad. I love my husband but I do not know that I would take a bullet for him the same as I would for my children. This really supports the theory that love pours downwards. Man for woman, woman for her children.

We both have strong protective instincts. They just flow downward.

That being said, if another woman is rude to or treats my husband badly, I will not hesitate to fuck her up. Verbally preferably, but physically if necessary. Especially if she were to try to put her hands on him.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)


    [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (6 children)

    Right on. Idealistically, I would take a bullet for my husband. But if the situation actually occurred, it would not cross my mind as he is the stronger figure. I would look to him for comfort or protection just naturally.

    [–]LadyLumen[S] 8 points9 points  (5 children)

    Agreed, I would take a bullet for my 1 year old niece. But I'm not sure I would take a bullet for my boyfriend, probably because my instinct is that he is stronger than me and can take care of himself. If anything, I'd probably get in the way and get us both killed.

    I also agree that the hierarchy of protection naturally flows downwards. Men at the top, then women, then children and the elderly. This is why there are many more support networks for women than men, because those in power (men) have a natural instinct to protect women over the interests of men.

    This is why most civilizations prepared men for positions of power and family authority, because they knew that men had a natural inclination to accept these roles. No power without responsibility.

    Many feminists today want all the power, but none of the responsibility. In the old days a man was the default authority over a family, but he was also expected to be the one who put his butt on the line for everyone involved in threatening situations.

    Now that women are the heads of many families, they don't accept this same level of responsibility, so they expect the government and the authorities to be there to put their butts on the line due to the evaporation of positive male authority figures in our culture.

    [–]through_a_ways 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    I also agree that the hierarchy of protection naturally flows downwards. Men at the top, then women, then children and the elderly.

    I think it's more complex than that, especially when you mention the elderly. Young people are expected to look out for old people, but only in instances where their youth can actually neutralize or greatly reduce a potential problem. Examples:

    • Holding a heavy door open (problem: closed door, sacrifice of young person is trivial)

    • Picking up a dropped object (problem: object on ground, sacrifice of young person is trivial)

    • Fending off a robber (problem: mugger, sacrifice of young person is substantial)

    The thing is, there are other problem scenarios where the opposite is true. When you have a problem that can only be neutralized by sacrificing lives, and the age/virility of the person is not a factor, the old people might be expected (and may often volunteer) to die first, since they've actualized the most of their potential life value. Examples:

    • Stuck on a deserted island, someone has to be a guinea pig to make sure the gathered food isn't poisonous

    • Tsunami hits a nuclear power plant, and cleaning up would mean incurring a significant dose of radiation for those involved

    The second principle applies to men and women as well. Women are inherently more valuable than men, just as the young are inherently more valuable than the old.

    However, the young are expected to help the old because they are more physically able. Women are not more physically able than men, so there's very little "expectation" for women from society.

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)


      [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      1 man can impregnate hundreds of women, one woman can only produce one child by one man a year. sperm is cheap, eggs are dear--in that sense women are more "valuable"

      [–]through_a_ways 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      Women are more valuable by virtue of existence, just like children.

      Children are valuable to their parents because they are the next genetic link, and they are valuable to society because they are the adults of the future.

      Women are valuable to both men and society because they are the limiting factor in reproduction, and have to gestate babies. They put the most biological resources into creating the adults of tomorrow.

      Men are valuable only by virtue of what they can provide irrespective of their biological existence. Children provide with a promise of being an adult in the future, women provide with resource intensive egg creation and gestation, but men only provide with a very replaceable, resource sparse bunch of sperm cells, which do not decline relatively much with age.

      So basically, the reason why children and women are valued doesn't lie in their actions, but in their biology. Not so for men. Thus, children and women are valuable by simply existing.

      Also, since the value of a man is his ability to provide/lift/fight, people don't worry about a man fighting in a war, or fending off a robber, because this is what men are supposed to do, they're actualizing their value in this way (much in the way that the value of a shovel is actualized when you use it to dig). When a woman does it, she's simply the wrong person for the job.

      [–]LadyLumen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Agreed. A society with 60% females 40% males is more likely to survive and thrive than a society with 60% males and 40% females. Every society has been developed with a goal to protect its female members. Some of these societies have used more harsh measures than others, but the instinctive understanding is the same.

      Men have greater responsibilities because of their greater physical power, but women have greater value because of their ability to create life. If I'm guarding The Hope Diamond, the Diamond still has more value than me, I'm simply just the person guarding it.

      [–]Offensive_Brute 2 points3 points  (29 children)

      Some men complain , but men as the disposable sex is a biological issue. The recklessness and self destructive behavior and violence we see in our society its because some men feel, perhaps on a subconscious level, that they aren't supposed to live as long as they have or as long as they might. War used to satisfy a mans desire to die a meaningful, timely death. Now there are just excess men with a death wish everywhere. 3.5 billion men and more born every day and fewer are dying now than when the population was much smaller.

      [–]LadyLumen[S] 11 points12 points  (26 children)

      I can agree with this. The reason that society was polygamous for a majority of existence is because all the war and dangerous activities of life killed off large numbers of men. Therefore, there was a surplus of women available for a small male population - this naturally led to polygamy.

      I think many men have a desire to live a bold, adventurous and meaningful life while women want stability and safety. You can see this in video games, men get a chance to act out this fantasy. Most women go for games like The Sims instead because their fantasy is stability, rather than bold adventure.

      The world today is problematic for the male spirit because, despite all the violence on the news, things are actually much safer today (in the west at least) than any other time in history. Only 2% of the population is utilized for warfare activities and violent crime is lower than ever. Women can succeed and thrive in a world that demands stability of empire, communication and maintenance. Yet a world without any "final frontiers" creates a sort of nihilistic death for the male spirit.

      This is why I think we need to advance certain fields, like space exploration. We need final frontiers where heroes can exist and the bold vault of adventure can seize the spirit once again.

      I feel that many of these men today who seek meaningless violence, or who lose themselves to a fantasy world of video games are a sort of Don Quixote, attacking windmills for a lack of worthy adventure. Many guys are attracted to the idea of a zombie apocalypse/social collapse, because it means that they get to be heroes once again, fighting for friends and kin in a barbaric and brutal world that demands strength and honor.

      [–]Offensive_Brute 1 point2 points  (19 children)

      I disagree with the girl video games choice point, because I know a lot of gamer girls who really enjoy war games and mmorpgs. Ithink the fantasy is perhaps even more intense for them because its completely outside of their wheelhouse. Other than that I agree with you.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children)

      The majority of women I know are far more into candy crush than Halo. :P Perhaps for women who have a slight desire to embrace masculine traits, the more adventurous games are an avenue to do so.

      My husband and I will go on hour long Halo and Resident Evil co-op binges. But interestingly enough, I will never play those types of games solo. Even with video games, I rely on him as a leader.

      **Edit: Not to mention that a lot of girls will play those types of games strictly to attract males. "Look how awesome I am, you can fuck me and then we can play World of Warcraft." As evident by the constant "Hey guys, I'm a chick." over the mic every time a female player joins a game.

      The downside is, sometimes they start to authentically enjoy it. And no man wants to compete with his girlfriend / wife for xbox time. Which is why my husband and I own two separate computers and gaming systems now. Haha.

      [–]Offensive_Brute 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      That's true. But I also hardly consider candy crusha video game.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      It's the closest thing I can come to for what kind of game all the women I know enjoy most. Unless you consider the occasional "Hey, I want to try." Pass the controller and let her waste a life on Crash Bandicoot before she gives up and says the game is stupid.

      [–]through_a_ways 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      But if Candy Crush, etc., isn't counted as a game, the population of female gamers takes a huge hit, thus proving Dustymuffin's point. The fact that there are so few "girl gamers" is indicative of the nature of most video games, which is far more appealing to boys than to girls.

      [–]LadyLumen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Very true. There was some article recently that claimed something like (half of all gamers are female!) But I'm sure this was including the women who spend hours playing candy crush and farmville.

      I think many women are attracted to MMO for the social aspect. WOW is definitely a game with a lot of female players. I think a lot of women like the social aspect of these games, I certainly enjoyed Minecraft for a while. But yeah, women don't get as into these games as men do. And I agree with you, I hardly play these games in my solo time, mostly with my boyfriend and his friends.

      I do really like RTS games like Civilization, but most of the people I talk to about this game are males.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (12 children)

      Sure there are gamer girls, but the vast majority of gamers are not women. I would be surprised if part of this wasn't a general lack of interest in the scenarios depicted in most popular games: war, strategy, exploration, pursuit of power, etc. Most games fall into these categories, and these categories are generally masculine interests.

      [–]Offensive_Brute 3 points4 points  (4 children)

      True that. Even in terms of tv and movies the choice is most often some nonsense about the beauty of the human spirit rather than the beauty of the human spirit being ripped from a tattered corpse and eaten by a demon.

      [–]LadyLumen[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      rather than the beauty of the human spirit being ripped from a tattered corpse and eaten by a demon.

      Ah, that sounds like Dark Souls.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Or God of War. A game I would never play, myself. But absolutely LOVE watching my husband play. For the story. Haha. **Edit : I think I just had a revelation as to why I'm so attracted to Kratos and Master Chief. Alphas, the lot of them.

      [–]Offensive_Brute 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Binge watching Supernatural.

      [–]vitani88 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      This is the only comment I've ever made in this sub, but I just have to throw this out there: I'm not a feminist nor do I fit in with the women of this sub - I'm in the middle. That being said, I hate chick flicks. My favorite TV shows are Spartacus and Game of Thrones. My favorite video games are Diablo and WoW. I do not play with other people, I solo. I think saying that women don't like to play a game or watch a movie about "the human spirit being ripped from a tattered corpse and eaten by a demon" is a little stereotypical. Sometimes you just need to see Vin Diesel rip someone apart.

      [–][deleted]  (6 children)


        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        That's something I haven't considered. I'm a guy, and "strategy / insanity mode" is pretty much all I play. It can get frustrating, but if I play on easy mode it makes me feel dirty - almost like I cheated myself out of a real experience. And the satisfaction of conquering a game on the hardest mode strokes my ego - knowing that I'm part of a small demographic that could do what I did.

        [–]IllDoMyBest 0 points1 point  (3 children)

        I think different girls enjoy different games for different reasons. I'm a girl gamer that is story/progress driven like yourself. However, I don't mind taking time to explore games in ways that delay the process as long as I return to the main story eventually. I mostly play JRPGs and adventure games, as I enjoy gaming the most when there is a good story. That way it's really entertaining, and it feels similar to reading or watching a movie.

        I always select normal mode (when possible) on my first playtrough. This is to ensure that I can enjoy the story while also not making it too difficult to find "extras" and do sidequests that are not necessary to finish the game. I don't know about most war/action/fantasy games, but most JRPGs I play tells how many percent of the game I "finished", and I always aim for 100%.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)


          [–]IllDoMyBest 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Oh, I see my choice of words were not the best! I didn't mean to hint at/insinuating(?) that you meant you only stuck to the main storyline. I understood the part where you wrote about filling out maps etc., but focused more on that you said grinding for more than half an hour is less fun. I'm not a native English speaker, so sometimes I don't get things across in the best of ways.... Hehe, I also do that in the Elder Scrolls! And when playing games with SO, I'm sometimes told that I'm too slow and the like.

          [–]LadyLumen[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          There are certainly women out there who enjoy adventure games. I was just saying that a majority of people who play these games are male, same as the majority of people who play The Sims are female.

          [–]through_a_ways 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Many guys are attracted to the idea of a zombie apocalypse/social collapse, because it means that they get to be heroes once again, fighting for friends and kin in a barbaric and brutal world that demands strength and honor.

          On an emotional scale, it goes back to giving meaning to life. If life is cheap, it's not enjoyable.

          On an objective scale, it's literally a matter of value. Since life is cheap, everyone can afford to live. More people are existing now than ever before, so the value of a human life is proportionally much less due to inflation. In an apocalypse scenario, large swathes of humanity die, making the value of a human life go up.

          The value of a male relative to the female would also go skyrocket, because there would be fewer interactions between people (harder to find a mate), and survival would be much harder (more incentive to find a mate).

          [–]LadyLumen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)


          [–]vitani88 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          Many guys are attracted to the idea of a zombie apocalypse/social collapse, because it means that they get to be heroes once again, fighting for friends and kin in a barbaric and brutal world that demands strength and honor.

          Okay, second post. I think I might need to let my husband know I could be a man. Because I love gaming and I love movies/books/games/shows about the zombie apocalypse, social collapse, etc, more than just about any other genre. I find urban exploration absolutely fascinating.

          [–]LadyLumen[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          I'm not saying that men are the only ones who like these things, men are just the majority in these genres. Sure, there are plenty of women who like these things too - I'm one of them. But I'm saying that men are the majority in these fields.

          [–]vitani88 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Fair enough.

          [–]little_red_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          it's not mutually exclusive, but reading your posting history you do exemplify some masculine traits. this may work for you in your relationship with your dynamic, it just isn't something shared with rpw. i play video games with my SO but i do not share masculine traits with him.

          [–]beginnerbuttocks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          This is an interesting set of points. Could you please expand?

          [–]ChromeGhost 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Somewhat of a future topic, but what are your thoughts on the artificial womb?

          [–]through_a_ways 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          Man for woman, woman for her children.

          And also man for children.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Flowing downward would include everything below him, including children.

          [–]through_a_ways 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Yeah, I know. Just making it more explicit.

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)


          [–]LadyLumen[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          I agree with this. In my sister's marriage, she says she just wanted to live in a small house by the beach, whereas her husband buys up all these large houses, resells them and makes a profit. Doing things his way, they've made a lot more money for the family. If they did things her way, they would've been stuck in a limited situation.

          [–]TempestTcup 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          Another reason a male led relationship works better is that women always urge caution and men need to risk. If the woman is leading the relationship she will usually go for safety over risk when it comes to investments, etc. Opting for caution over risk will lead to stagnation.

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)


          [–]LadyLumen[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          Very interesting. While I agree with most of the points made in this little social experiment, we should note that the teacher went into it with a bias. Biases can alter observation.

          But for the most part I agree with his observation. When men have the first pick of the resources, they make sure all of the women are taken care of. When women get first pick, they only take care of the Alpha males and leave the rest to rot. In tribal societies where there was more gender equality and power for females, polygamy was the norm because women only slept with and gave resources to the most powerful males. This caused lots of violence and competition. Contrary to what many liberal colleges assert, the ancient world was a very brutal and violent place.

          Civilization was created when there was less gender equality, but instead men getting the first pick of the resources. This happened because farming transformed the structure of human existence, and benefited those who had strong abdominal strength (males) - rather than the previous hunter/gatherer society in which either gender could collect resources.

          The males created a society in which they cooperated with each other and made sure that the women were taken care of (for the most part).

          In most societies when women gain power equal to or greater than males, collapse from within begins to occur. We're seeing this in our time right now as Western Feminized societies fall apart, and Asian Patriarchal societies rise in power.

          [–]through_a_ways 4 points5 points  (3 children)

          For example, in the Aurora shooting that happened in Colorado, three guys took a bullet in the chest to protect their girlfriend's from harm. I haven't heard a single story of a woman who would do the same for her man.

          Um, those are just anecdotes. Do you have ANY peer reviewed, legally blind, dolphin safe evidence that points to that? There is literally NONE.

          On a less sarcastic note, I find that putting the woman "in charge" doesn't just lead to more selfish decisions, but also a lot more stress, sometimes bordering neuroticism, for the woman. I've noticed it in past girlfriends, female friends, my mother, and other women.

          Anecdote: Some friends and I were going to a girls house, they were planning to bake. I asked girl if I could make a certain dish there. After much faltering and indecisiveness, she said no, that she wasn't "comfortable with it". I had previously made an even more complex dish at this same girl's house, and she'd given me no problems then. Upon looking at the text messages, I saw that I hadn't asked for her permission that time.

          [–]LadyLumen[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

          Some women can be good leaders. I've had many great female bosses. But as another commenter stated, when it comes to relationship and family, men are the better leaders, because they will prioritize everyone involved, while women will leave out the man and only prioritize themselves and the children.

          With most of the woman headed families I've seen, all the decisions about vacations, dining and purchases are things that benefit the wife and have little consideration for what the husband wants. When the man is in charge, he considers the safety and welfare of all as a priority (most of the time, there are obvious exceptions to the rule).

          [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          Um, those are just anecdotes. Do you have ANY peer reviewed, legally blind, dolphin safe evidence that points to that? There is literally NONE.


          [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

          Great stuff! Maybe good enough for sidebar. I'll talk to other mods

          [–]LadyLumen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Thanks, let me know if there is anything I should add.

          [–]noworriescc 0 points1 point  (17 children)

          The issue that I've encountered is that I want a Male Dominated relationship. I do. I try to make my man feel like I'm in his corner. I want to love my man an make hi feel stronger with my support.

          The problem arises when it's time to take charge. I encourage him to decide, to enforce, and he just sits back. I feel it hurts the relationship because we both lose, we don't get what we want, and I feel resentful because if I would've done things differently if I was a man. I understand that this is unfair and that I need to address this if I really stay with him.

          Example...It's small but I think illustrates what upsets me: BF and I are going on a road trip with several other people. We both explicitly want this to be a vacation for the two of us and we'll spend a lot of time together. There is another couple and a single person in the back (There is capacity for five). Long story short, I expect him to take the lead and get us good seats. He sits back, lets us get separated and shoved up right against the speakers with an inconsiderate driver with basic bitch tastes. I am fine but he gets himself into a rage, speaks to me poorly, and then spends the rest of the evening watching baseball to decompress from a situation that would've been avoided if he nutted up and TOOK good seats. This is one of many small decisions where I back him up but he makes a decision that fucks him, fucks me, and fucks the relationship. Never HUGE decisions...but little ones that become big ones.

          I don't want to be a nag. I'd rather be alone than nag at a man to be doing the things I would do if I had a dick (or if I was alone). Additionally, I feel like a fucking loser for picking a guy that I fear I'm slowly losing respect for.

          I don't know if there're any solutions but reading this post motivated me to describe my situation. Thanks for listening.

          [–]LadyLumen[S] 5 points6 points  (9 children)

          I think you might be taking the male dominated relationship a little too far. What we're talking about is letting a guy lead with many of the important decisions. You're talking about really small, almost petty things. You expect him to choose where you're going to sit in a car trip? Do you also expect him to choose your sandwich toppings at a restaurant or what shoes you are going to wear that day?

          For little things like this, you need to choose your own seat. He probably wasn't as bothered by the speakers like you were.

          Male led relationships are more about a guy taking the lead in things like where you're going to live, letting him be the head of the house and doing nice things for him that make him feel like a king. Yet expecting him to micromanage your life down to every last detail is unfair, and probably stressful for him.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children)

          On the other hand having that level of micromanagement may be what she wants out of a relationship and that's why she may feel she isn't getting enough out of the dynamic. I think either approach is fine provided both people in the relationship agree on it and want the same thing.

          [–]noworriescc 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          Well I really don't want to micromanage any human being, let alone a Man. But, again, I really don't want to let go because his problems are just poor execution, poor planning, and no thought even for his own self preservation.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          You misunderstood me, I wasn't saying you wanted to micromanage him rather that you wouldn't mind him not only making the big decisions but the small ones as well if he was capable of doing so, which seems to be something he isn't good at.

          [–]noworriescc 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          I think it may also be my own self-consciousness or even denial about myself. I rationally know and understand that I need to take what I want. But I don't want to be like that, I want to be patient, easy going, and not sweating the small things. When he's not good at it, it makes me feel i have to do the thinking for two. I know that's wrong and I'm working on it.

          [–]LadyLumen[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          I think balance is better. Most men don't want to micromanage every aspect of their SO's life unless they are some kind of control freak. My boyfriend makes the decisions if we come to a stalemate, but I still have a role in choosing where we go out to eat, what we do for fun, etc. etc.

          I don't expect my boyfriend to tell me what to eat or where to sit or how to breathe and poop. This is just bordering on ridiculous. I also had an overbearing father who was a lot like this. He always chose the movies we'd see, the places we'd eat, vacations, houses, etc. My mom had NO role in the decision making process. I'd say that was more of a master/servant relationship than the RPW ideal.

          The RPW ideal is a Captain/First Mate relationship. The first mate still gets to be involved in the decision making process and has valued input, but the captain is the one who gets the last word and the ultimate decision.

          For example, if Bob and Cindy are trying to pick what restaurant they are going to eat at and neither one of them can make up their minds, Bob ultimately makes the decision to make life quick and simple. Everyone gets annoyed by an endless round of "What do you want, I don't know what do you want, I don't know what do you want?" Yet if Cindy really wants sushi, and Bob is ambivalent, they will go eat sushi.

          If Bob and Cindy are choosing a place to live and they both feel strongly about two different houses, they will go with Bob's choice. However, Bob is still expected to consider Cindy's feelings and not pick a house that she would totally hate. Instead, it is up to him to find the best compromise and for Cindy to do her part as a First Mate, which involves accepting his decision.

          [–]noworriescc 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          You are right and I know I do have a problem with focusing on details and over analyzing until it is a mashed-up mess.

          However, I brought up the example because it was fresh in my mind and it was a small decision that set a horrible tone for the weekend. He was nasty and aloof. He apologized, but it made me start to question things--if something like seats lead to this, what will life be like down the road?

          P.S. he was WAY more pissed than I was. I'm quite used to being in shitty situations and dealing with it and he is not. He had a little tantrum in the car.

          P.P.S. I suppose I was not being clear (which is most likely) but my concern was how can I trust him with the big decisions when he won't even take care of himself. He waits for me to decide, I refuse to, and then he takes it out on me with passive aggressivenes. However, your greater message is received.

          [–]LadyLumen[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

          Ah, I know what you mean with the passive aggressiveness. My boyfriend used to be like this (and sometimes still is). I.e. he would expect me to make the decisions and then get mad at me for the decision I made.

          I guess it's because in the beginning of the relationship I was really over eager about helping him, so I helped him make all kinds of decisions that he really should have been making by himself. One example is he asked me if he should take medication for a certain problem he had, I said it would probably be a good idea. So he took the medication, didn't like the side effects and blamed me. I reminded him that it was ultimately his decision to take this medication and that he asked for my advice. He understood this.

          I guess the most important thing here is communication. If you feel like your boyfriend is letting you make decisions for him, but then blaming you for those decisions, you should tell him this. If you have been making the decisions for a long time, it'll take a while for him to get out of this mindset.

          One thing that can help is trying to listen to him more and asking for his advice. Do things to show him that his input and ideas are valued. Also, don't get angry and shoot down his ideas, try to consider them with an open mind.

          Sometimes when people are passive aggressive they don't even realize they are doing it. I think passive aggression happens when people feel like they have no control over the situation, so the only way they can express their agency and anger is through indirect channels.

          Did your boyfriend grow up in a family where people didn't value his input or ideas? Did he have an over controlling parent? This is my boyfriend's family history, which is why he was so passive aggressive in the beginning of our relationship.

          So what worked for me is telling my boyfriend directly he was doing this, pointing out situations where this happens, telling him that he is in control of every choice he makes for his life and that he cannot blame me when he doesn't like the outcome of his life choices. Then I've started listening to him more and going with his ideas (even if I might have some reservations in the beginning). For example, the other day we went on a trip with some friends. He suggested eating before the trip, and I suggested eating during the trip. In the beginning of the relationship I would have argued with him on this point until he cracked. Yet at this point in the relationship, I did his choice without argument and it ended up working out for the best for everyone (because we saved money via his choice).

          So the bottom line is communication (in a nice way). Tell your boyfriend your needs and concerns, but don't be accusatory, just say your feelings. Also be more willing to listen to his ideas and suggestions, even if you don't immediately agree with them at first. Over time, he may evolve into the man you need him to be.

          Yet not all guys are cut out to be leaders, you have to understand that some guys take longer to mature than others, and it may take him longer than you hope to reach maturity and leadership. If you really love this guy, it's worth waiting it out, but it's up to you to evaluate how important the relationship is to you and how much time and energy you are willing to spend to make it work.

          [–]noworriescc 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Thank you so much, I really needed to hear this.

          Amazing call on the family. Yes Yes Yes. They don't value his ideas. His father mocks him constantly because he's an architect and not a baseball player. His elder brother is given free range and carte blanche and my BF gets a shaft.

          This is a challenge to be compassionate, patient, and maturity. I feel so ridiculous to be doubting MYSELF after this nonsense. I think I may need to get some lunch. hah

          Thank you again, your words are much appreciated.

          [–]LadyLumen[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          No prob! Your boyfriend sounds somewhat like mine. My SO is the youngest of many children, and his older siblings often mocked his ideas. He also has an overbearing mother who micromanages every aspect of his existence and ridicules him constantly. The thing that attracted me to my bf is that he has an obvious desire for dominance (which is quite evident in the bedroom ;-D) and other aspects of his life. He just needed to have someone around who could value his ideas and him as a person. So, ever since I found RPW, I've been working on being more patient, compassionate and understanding towards my bf. I think it's really helped a lot.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

          It seems to me like though you're into the idea of being submissive, there's a dominant aspect in you ("What I would do if I had a dick", "he needs to nut up") And I think men sense more than women give them credit for.

          A man will stick up for and pursue optimum environments for a woman that he feels responsible for and loves, who respects him and depends on him. Even if he is passive for himself and doesn't "nut up", he will be driven to do so for you, who he deems as his responsibility.

          Perhaps the reason he is not doing so is because he can sense your resentment and entitlement to such behavior and therefor he is resentful, feels pressured by you, and ultimately deems you undeserving.

          I'm no expert on the male psyche by any means, but I do know if a man feels resented by his woman or feels that she views him with shame, you'll have a harder time getting him to care about your discomforts or feelings. It will cause push back and defensiveness towards YOU. Not towards those things that cause you discomfort. Stay supportive and stop expecting it, be cheerful and then when he does display this behavior, SHOW YOUR GRATITUDE.

          tl;dr If he feels you silently judging him or vocally judging him, he views you like as an asshole that makes him feel bad. Nobody wants to do things for an asshole that makes them feel bad. Whether it is your intention to do that or not.

          [–]noworriescc 1 point2 points  (5 children)

          It becomes a bit of a CATCH 22 when I depend on him, get screwed...I understand that any relationship poisoned by resentment and lacking respect will lead to ruin. I need to revisit my needs and give him more space. I cannot deny y needs and I cannot deny my own mind from thinking the thoughts that they do.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          It's a chicken and egg thing. You don't want to act respectful and grateful for what you have until you have all that you want out of him. And he does not want to provide for you on the level that he could until you start showing some respect and gratitude for what you have.

          It all boils down to, do you want what you want? How BEST are you going to get that? I say try a trial period of simply trying to be positive about the current relationship and eliminating judgement and resentment for him. Say, give it three months. Surely the relationship is worth that. And if in the span of three months of you being all that you can be for him and withholding judgements on what he should and should not be doing as the man in your life, he still doesn't seem interested in providing you with that feeling of being taken care of that you seek, then maybe he's simply not that interested in you or there's an off chance that he's just not a dominating type. Then you will have your answer.

          But you have to commit.

          [–]noworriescc 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          I appreciate the reply. Things really aren't all that bad but I've never been exposed to a ommunity of women who look at relationships RPW way. I wanted to get some perspective and mission successful

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          I am only able to comment on this because I am dealing with a very similar issue. Perseverance is key, I believe. I'm not to the level I need to be yet but every day it's getting better and better since I stopped expecting and let it happen. My husband goes to bat for me when he never did before when he felt that I was among his enemies, judging him.

          [–]proprioceptor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Yeah, I understand that. It can't be an easy cycle to break once you're in that situation.

          [–]box_cutter_ 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          Are men put off by the strong independent kind, preferring a women they can protect?

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)


          [–]Joelasaur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I feel as a guy I could comment on this.

          I enjoy both personalities in a girl, as long as the "strong, independent" type doesn't clash in the relationship with decision making and whatnot.

          [–]PM_ME_OP 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          Would you say that male leadership overall is better than female leadership? For example, would a male president be a better leader than a female president?

          [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

          Personally I think you can find competent leaders from both sexes especially when you're looking at different occupations. You can find a good male president just as you can find a good female president. Having said that, relationships tend to call for different dynamics. You can be a good female leader at your workplace, CEO etc however that doesn't mean your husband wants to have the same relationship with you that you have with your employees.

          I'm sure most of the ladies here are educated, strong and fairly competent at their job whether in leadership roles or not. However that's not what most of them want from their relationships and similarly those traits that may make someone a leader of a company aren't what most guys look for when they want a partner.

          So yes both sexes can be good leaders outside the context of a relationship. However within a relationship you need different dynamics to make it work.

          [–]PM_ME_OP 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          This is excellent, thank you!