|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Feb 8, 2017 17:52:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by baza on Feb 8, 2017 20:51:09 GMT -5
Interesting enough read.
FWIW I agree that 'most' partnerships work best the way she has described, with a full discussion of a situation, then one person making the call necessary and the other backing it up.
But those roles have to be interchangeable too.
Sometimes they lead, sometimes you do.
Sometimes they follow, sometimes you do.
I do NOT agree with her assertion that these roles are gender specific.
Women can lead - or follow - just as well as men.
Back in the day of my ILIASM deal, my missus was far from an alpha female. Indeed she was the antithesis. Indecisive, a constant plan changer, a procrastinater, a ditherer, an 'un-doer', a second guesser.
It was a fucking nightmare trying to negotiate anything. Because as soon as one had negotiated a plan it started to get undermined and "un-negotiated". But, although not a good 'follower', she absolutely would NOT step up and take a turn at leading either.
It was chaos.
Things that yesterday were "agreed" were "un-agreed" today.
I'd prefer to negotiate with an "alpha" type (either sex) any day of the week.
At least you know exactly where they are coming from.
Ms enna and I have a "leader / follower" sort of thing happening. But the roles are interchangeable (she's a good leader when it's her turn) and I reckon that about half the time (mebbe more) she tends to lead. And she has the score on the board, so when she suggests something, it is invariably well thought out and makes sense - and that makes it easy to follow.
She is, by nature, more imaginative than me, so she tends to come up with more suggestions than me.
(incidently, "alpha" people tend to give me the shits, and if at all possible I give them a wide berth)
|
|
|
|
Post by obobfla on Feb 8, 2017 20:55:27 GMT -5
I think women are strong in different ways. Always have been, always will be. It isn't feminism or any new philosophy. The most powerful women I know are those who have so-called "dominant" husbands. They know how to play the husband's ego so well, that they are really in control, not the husband.
Human existence depends on the strength of females. They have to handle the pain of passing something the size of a bowling ball down a much smaller orifice. It's painful, but they take it. I've met a lot of tough men in the world, but none were as tough as my mom. She endured eight kids, 20 surgeries, 10 years of kidney dialysis, and 20 years of an artificial kidney. The only person who comes close to her in toughness is my mother-in-law, who had six kids.
Although the article mentions that it is a type of woman, it's not really. It's just being an asshole, which is an equal opportunity offense. You can be male, female, black, white, brown, yellow, gay, straight, whatever - you can be an asshole. They have been on the Earth since Cain killed Abel, and they will always be here.
|
|
|
|
Post by shamwow on Feb 8, 2017 21:04:44 GMT -5
I think women are strong in different ways. Always have been, always will be. It isn't feminism or any new philosophy. The most powerful women I know are those who have so-called "dominant" husbands. They know how to play the husband's ego so well, that they are really in control, not the husband. Human existence depends on the strength of females. They have to handle the pain of passing something the size of a bowling ball down a much smaller orifice. It's painful, but they take it. I've met a lot of tough men in the world, but none were as tough as my mom. She endured eight kids, 20 surgeries, 10 years of kidney dialysis, and 20 years of an artificial kidney. The only person who comes close to her in toughness is my mother-in-law, who had six kids. Although the article mentions that it is a type of woman, it's not really. It's just being an asshole, which is an equal opportunity offense. You can be male, female, black, white, brown, yellow, gay, straight, whatever - you can be an asshole. They have been on the Earth since Cain killed Abel, and they will always be here. Bingo. Neither gender has a lock on the Golden Douchebag Award |
|
|
|
Post by wewbwb on Feb 9, 2017 10:42:14 GMT -5
I think that the author is using "alpha" and "beta" in the wrong context. I also think that she is missing the idea that some men as "alpha" are idiots and cannot run a house or a budget. The woman NEEDS to do it in those cases. The author also fails to realize that the idea of a single "role" for all situations isn't always a good thing. In fact it fails to take into account that a couple should compliment and enhance each other. (Such as baza ) I would like to see more women leaders - a more even role - a situation that allows the best of each other to rise to the top. You do NOT have to "submit" or be a "beta" to provide "respect, companionship and sex". So I"m not sure what her point is - she say's not be a mouse or a doormat- but don't control every situation. Okay. But that isn't something that should be exclusively told to women. |
|
|
|
Post by LITW on Feb 9, 2017 11:20:41 GMT -5
That article very accurately described my ex. Especially this part, which pretty much describes what our marriage looked like:
"If my mother wasn’t the one who made the decision, the decision couldn’t possibly be good. Every so often she would appear to cede to my father’s wishes, but only if she happened to agree with him."
Personal opinion alert (your mileage may vary): I am going to have to stick with my traditional roots here and say that I do believe in gender roles, but I don't think that gender roles mean the man always gets his way. My parents are both alphas, but they have made it work because my mom defers to my dad 99% of the time, and my dad never makes any decisions without taking my mom's opinions into account. Its a give and take ... the "dance" the author referred to. As a result, my mom gets her way more than half the time, even though she is not the "leader" in the marriage. This is because my dad's primary goal in decision making is to make my mom happy and safe.
Even if a woman isn't an alpha, its possible for a man to be so much of a putz/jerk/loser that it forces her into an alpha role (as we have seen with many of the awesome women on this forum). As it is equally possible for a man to be unyielding (and this years winner of the Golden Douchebag award). If either partner is unyielding, then the dance dynamic is destroyed and the marriage falls apart.
So to the specifics of this article... I agree that our society has done a very good job of convincing girls that having a career is more important than being a wife. Notice I did not say "mother" ... because motherhood is still lifted as a worthy goal, but not being a wife. Society tells girls that being someones wife is beneath them, and if they do get married, they need to be in charge because men are simpletons, bigots, and/or losers. Given that dynamic, its no wonder so many men these days do not want to get married. As for me, I would rather be alone than to be constantly wrong or constantly fighting with my wife for authority.
|
|
|
|
Post by LITW on Feb 9, 2017 11:25:27 GMT -5
So I"m not sure what her point is - she say's not be a mouse or a doormat- but don't control every situation. Okay. But that isn't something that should be exclusively told to women. I don't think you can assume that she is saying women are the only ones with this problem. Her audience is women, so that is who she is speaking to. Men have been guilty of being unyielding for centuries, and there is a lot written about that, aimed squarely at men. (google "father wounds" and you will see) |
|
|
|
Post by wewbwb on Feb 9, 2017 11:35:23 GMT -5
@litw
It sure is possible that I misinterpreted it.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Feb 9, 2017 12:13:03 GMT -5
Interesting enough read. FWIW I agree that 'most' partnerships work best the way she has described, with a full discussion of a situation, then one person making the call necessary and the other backing it up. But those roles have to be interchangeable too. Sometimes they lead, sometimes you do. Sometimes they follow, sometimes you do. I do NOT agree with her assertion that these roles are gender specific. Women can lead - or follow - just as well as men. Back in the day of my ILIASM deal, my missus was far from an alpha female. Indeed she was the antithesis. Indecisive, a constant plan changer, a procrastinater, a ditherer, an 'un-doer', a second guesser. It was a fucking nightmare trying to negotiate anything. Because as soon as one had negotiated a plan it started to get undermined and "un-negotiated". But, although not a good 'follower', she absolutely would NOT step up and take a turn at leading either. It was chaos. Things that yesterday were "agreed" were "un-agreed" today. I'd prefer to negotiate with an "alpha" type (either sex) any day of the week. At least you know exactly where they are coming from. Ms enna and I have a "leader / follower" sort of thing happening. But the roles are interchangeable (she's a good leader when it's her turn) and I reckon that about half the time (mebbe more) she tends to lead. And she has the score on the board, so when she suggests something, it is invariably well thought out and makes sense - and that makes it easy to follow. She is, by nature, more imaginative than me, so she tends to come up with more suggestions than me. (incidently, "alpha" people tend to give me the shits, and if at all possible I give them a wide berth) Give this some thought, you said your missus was far from being an Alpha . Someone who is indecisive, constantly changing planes (to their advantage or liking) a procrastinator, a ditherer, an un- doer, a second guesser, all sounds very manipulative. A controller, not someone who suggests things. A suggestion, ( to me) is saying" I would like this, I want this, what do you think, do you agree, let's compromise!" This gives you the chance to respectively say no,and explain why, with a loving, caring, dialogue. The article also says how much the man is willing to say yes, to agree, because he wants his wife happy. How much did you give in to all of that second guessing, procrastinating, un- doing, thinking you would keep her happy? Who, then is in control? You GIVE in, and she TAKES control. Yes you could have called her out on it every time. You would have to quote her, point out her mistakes, re-hash the entire subject, back and repeat everything you said, argue that she had agreed, and is now trying to change it. Remind her that she hasn't done what she agreed to, etc.... That's like raising a child all over again. That gets old quick. Without suggesting, compromising, there goes the trust. The article is about woman who are unable to love, by bringing too much Alpha, (dominance, and control) into loving their husband. |
|
|
|
Post by baza on Feb 9, 2017 21:00:07 GMT -5
Brother greatcoastal. It is entirely possible that my ex missus did "manage" our deal by stealth I guess. On the evidence (that she was a deeply unhappy person and didn't seem to be getting whatever it was she wanted out of our deal - or her life generally) it doesn't stack up. 'If' it was designed to produce outcomes that she wanted / was happy with, then it was a spectacular failure. In any event, whatever her "why" was passed in to irrelevancy for about the last 10 years of our deal. |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Feb 9, 2017 21:19:51 GMT -5
Brother greatcoastal . It is entirely possible that my ex missus did "manage" our deal by stealth I guess. On the evidence (that she was a deeply unhappy person and didn't seem to be getting whatever it was she wanted out of our deal - or her life generally) it doesn't stack up. 'If' it was designed to produce outcomes that she wanted / was happy with, then it was a spectacular failure. In any event, whatever her "why" was passed in to irrelevancy for about the last 10 years of our deal. Great to hear from you, as always! Thank God it is in the past. Look what you have gained from it. A woman who, as you said, " suggests". That is not some one who you give wide berth too. That is a person who you can communicate with on an even playing field. There is an equal amount of respect, a covenant, an agreement. Workable, fair amounts of giving and receiving. The day or time, when that giving and receiving feels, or flat out has begun to be un-balanced, or one-sided, you have the strength of being able to openly suggest that a compromise needs to be established, reached, backed, and implemented. Similar to boundaries, and maintaining them. |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Feb 9, 2017 21:45:06 GMT -5
On the evidence (that she was a deeply unhappy person and didn't seem to be getting whatever it was she wanted out of our deal - or her life generally) it doesn't stack up. 'If' it was designed to produce outcomes that she wanted / was happy with, then it was a spectacular failure. I see this a lot with my STBX . Similar to the article where she mentioned her mom. My W. produced outcomes she was happy with, on the surface. They were done her way, she was in control, which would appear to make her happy. Much of it required both of us, working together to carry out her plans. Hard to do when one is un-doing what has been decided on the moment it begins to go wrong. Or when I would agree, reluctantly, lets try it and if it doesn't work,we will go back to how things were. That rarely happens, because that means having to admit that her way was wrong, or failed. The DARVO. The finger pointing. Once things would begin to crumble, the avoidance, and blaming of others,would start. Things had to fall flat on their face in order to change. Things like failure, and grief with homeschooling. Assigning and enforcing household chores, and responsibilities. Carrying out levels of discipline as needed when dealing with teenagers. Admitting that sex and intimacy where never part of her idea of marriage. The manipulation, and control of money. The intrusion of relatives. The "kids only" policy over marriage. The list goes on, and on, ...... A spectacular failure, that she appears to be happy with, because they are her ways of doing things. Had there been far less Alpha, on her part, things could have been re-routed and handled better, for everyone. It's also a pride issue. |
|
|
|
Post by wewbwb on Feb 10, 2017 9:04:51 GMT -5
This is a great article. I might not agree with the writer's exact point of view, but it truly touches many arguments that I've been thinking about during the past few years of my life transformation journey. I agree with the writer, that a relationship can thrive when it is composed of a good harmony of feminine and masculine energy. Now, who has which side and in which areas of life they demonstrate it, this can't be put in boxes, and it most certainly is not gender or role specific, but rather what comes natural to each of us. I totally agree - with one stipulation. Both partners need to put the egos aside and objectively see who is better at it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2017 21:28:10 GMT -5
I don't want to be the "Alpha" and have to do everything, control everything, etc. A partner who would put up with me being in charge all the time would be unattractive to me. Besides, being in charge all the time is too much damn work.
OTOH, anybody who gets too bossy with me quickly finds out that I'm a natural at resisting authority.
It's been the quest of a lifetime for me to meet a man who is just the right amount of assertive with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by shamwow on Feb 12, 2017 21:33:47 GMT -5
I don't want to be the "Alpha" and have to do everything, control everything, etc. A partner who would put up with me being in charge all the time would be unattractive to me. Besides, being in charge all the time is too much damn work. OTOH, anybody who gets too bossy with me quickly finds out that I'm a natural at resisting authority. It's been the quest of a lifetime for me to meet a man who is just the right amount of assertive with me. Sounds like you're looking for an equal, smartkat Not a damn thing wrong with that. |
|
