Guest markb4

Female-Led Relationships

76 posts in this topic

Hey room,

So recently I discovered such a thing called "female-led relationships". We all know the traditional relationship where the man is the head of the household. And we know the common modern relationship where the man and the woman are equal partners and nobody's a head. But, a female-led relationship is a relationship in which the woman is the head of the household.

 

Anybody ever heard of this before? What do you think of it?

 

I honestly wouldn't want to be in a female-led relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good question!

Yes, I have heard of this kind of family which the woman is the head of the household.

 

For myself, I would rather have a marriage when my husband was the head of our household.

There is a big difference in the way men and women are wire to think. Women tend to think emotionally and men tend to think how to fix a problem. Not saying this is how every man or woman acts, each person is so different :)

An example of the difference is a time my brother and I were traveling on these crazy Canadian winter roads when an big 1 ton wielding truck desired to pass a semi-truck when there was a definite head-on collision with the on-coming traffic, us!! (roads were pure ice and you could not see very far ahead) My brother made a split-second decision to hit the ditch and the semi behind us( yes there were two semis) almost smacked into the stupid wielder truck, if my brother didn't do that I wouldn't be here typing this story. Now when we were in the ditch I was thinking "OH MY GOSH!! We almost died!!! How are we going to get out the snow is up to my window I can't even get out of the truck! We are hours away from the nearest city/town. Etc, etc. While I am panicking my brother is like "Hey, its ok, I have 4x4!"

 

So yea, I would rather have a man who often would think how to fix the situation when I can get emotional :)

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all biology.  Why does the man lead and woman not?  Because men need to feel like they are respected and a leader.  Why?  Because they got egos.  Why?  Because they are men.  Why are men this way?  Their biology.  They are driven by biology.  Want to make your man happy? Treat him like a man.

In fact, in men-led relationships, women are often leading too, but smart, experienced women know to let their man FEEL like men.  Because that makes men happy.  Women are driven by biology too.  Women want to feel safe around their manly men.  Women are pretty kick ass though.  Do they really need men to keep them safe?  Not exactly, but they want to need them. 

I like men who lead (in some regard).  Why? Probably because of biology!  But I like to be in charge too.  I hate when men try to persuade how I view something.  (Such as waiting until marriage).  They lead but they don't respect.  I want to be respected too. And since men don't respect my boundaries, It forces me to be the leader as well.  
 

10 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like it to be an equal-led relationship. I mean, both sexes are equal, and I think should be equal. Something I, myself, am looking for is someone who complements me. I believe a good relationship is one where each person brings something to it, because everyone has strengths and weaknesses. For instance, a weakness of mine is sometimes (a lot actually) being indecisive. I need someone who can help me to make a decision, think it through with me. Just as I would do the same for him. I want for both of us to feel that we are needed by each other.

 

I need someone who isn't going to take my 'I don't know' answer to his 'Where would you like to eat' question as anything more than it is. I simply don't know. If I care, I'll state a preference. The key is to know the other person so well, that you can take into account how they think. If he knows that I really don't like a lot of one ethnic food (I can find something I'll like on almost any menu), he will decide on something that he knows I at least enjoy, that he can enjoy as well.

 

Just as, if his weakness happens to be... I don't know, say, putting an entertainment center together, I'll be able to help him. We COMPLEMENT each other, and this means CONSIDERING each other. Neither is more important than the other, because you NEED each other (maybe not to actually live, but to make each others lives BETTER... you enhance each others lives). We won't agree on everything but, when we do disagree, it's ok.

 

You see, in my opinion, if you are a good match, you will have discussed a lot of things before marriage. You will know what is a deal breaker, and what is not. You will, as a couple, be able to figure out the big things together and figure out how to compromise and sacrifice for each other. Anything that is simply a matter of opinion you will simply be able to discuss it and agree to disagree. Then you'll either leave it be, or know that when you do talk about it you may, or may not, have changed. You see, we are always changing. Even our minds. I am a combination of a lot of emotion, but very analytical. So, I'd hope my husband would know he can trust me to think things through. I have this weird ability to see many points of view. Which, is why I sometimes find it hard to make a decision.

 

Women tend to be emotional, men tend to be pragmatic... and, yet, some of us are a combination of both. So, we need to find someone who accents us. Who we can work with... because we need someone with whom we can figure out this thing call life. Someone who we want beside us, as we trudge tough times, and glide through life's joys.

 

I read this article, recently, that I felt really described what I'd like to find. One of the things this Psychologist did, was to study a variety of couples by counseling them and then having them come in for updates every two years... for, I think it was, 22 years. He said there are 4 HUGE things that can bring a relationship down, and 3 things that a couple can do to help prevent those things. He also gives his opinion on what the most important part of a relationship conversation is and, what he has seen to be, a good indicator of whether a relationship will make it... or not. I don't like confrontation, and I try to avoid it. So, please, if you read this article, just know that it really hit a chord with me... as these are things I, myself, have noticed between couples I have know. It's ok if you don't agree. :)

 

I think it comes down to finding a compatible personality, chemistry, and willingness to do the work together.

 

Here's the link to the article... http://time.com/3629761/fix-relationship-problems/ in case you'd like to read it. :)

A lot of studies have been done but, what it boils down to is that not every person is going to fit a cookie cutter definition. This is just one that I found to hit home for what I have always felt, and thought, a marriage should be. Of course, even recently I have discovered myself, and my thoughts, changing a little.

 

Edit: I should add that, just because I don't like confrontation, does not mean I will not stand up for myself if I feel the need to. If I'm in a relationship, it's because I have found myself with someone who allows me to feel comfortable enough to state my feelings, and know he's going to respect me and love me, and that I can be myself with him.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So yea, I would rather have a man who often would think how to fix the situation when I can get emotional :)

 

I agree.  It is wonderful to have someone to rely on.  On the other hand, if you were by yourself and had no one to come rescue you, you'd figure it out.  I can drive in ice now because I lived in Colorado and just had to learn.  Women are capable too.  I have a shovel in my trunk at all times.  Again, though, I'd rather have a tough man rescue me out of everything and hoped he would.  Life just doesn't always work that way.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want either of us to 'lead' the relationship in general. True, life is rough, and sometimes one partner or the other will have to do more 'leading' when their other half is in distress. When I was having a really hard time a while ago, my boyfriend did more leading. Now that he is having a hard time, it is my turn to support him. But I want that burden/joy to be shared equally by both of us in good times, and for it to feel like we can take turns leading during the difficult times.

 

However, if a couple is more suited to having the woman lead and the man follow the majority of the time, then that is their choice to make. More power to 'em.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's very true, Steadfast. That's part of how my feeling of 'equal' is. There will be times when he will need me to be strong for him, and there will be times for him to be strong for me.

 

I do tend to be emotional, more as I've gotten older, and as much as I hate to say it... I may need him, in that respect, more than he might need me. However, one cannot know this kind of thing for certain. Either way, I hope we will be strong for each other, any time it is needed... or lean on each other, if we both need it at the same time. I don't want heartaches to drive us apart.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, if a couple is more suited to having the woman lead and the man follow the majority of the time, then that is their choice to make. More power to 'em.

 

This reminded me of someone I know.  He would love to be in a relationship with me, and me lead.  I wouldn't mind being in charge either!!  Except.. I do want him to act like a man too.  I would want him to pick me up for a date and take me to dinner to somewhere of his choosing.  That's why I'm not attracted to him.  I'd love to be in charge.  But he also needs to do some leading as well.  It is just an attraction thing.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's wrong and I totally don't want it. My woman has to be on equal footing with me. A woman IS equal and she has the same capabilities as a man (non-physically obviously). I wouldn't be at peace with myself if I led the woman I love, that'd go against my honour and it'd be heartbreaking. Everything needs to be balanced. And real balance comes from equality of spouses not 'superiority' of one.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's wrong and I totally don't want it. My woman has to be on equal footing with me. A woman IS equal and she has the same capabilities as a man (non-physically obviously). I wouldn't be at peace with myself if I led the woman I love, that'd go against my honour and it'd be heartbreaking. Everything needs to be balanced. And real balance comes from equality of spouses not 'superiority' of one.

 

Same, I see women and men as equal. Obviously as the man I'd automatically be the main and sword shield of my family, but in terms of deciding how to raise children, how to distribute and organise chores, etc. I'd rather share decisions or distribute responsibilities based on our strengths. Like we're a two-person party in an RPG game xD I'd be a Paladin/Knight.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[. . .] in terms of deciding how to raise children, how to distribute and organise chores, etc. I'd rather share decisions or distribute responsibilities based on our strengths.

according to some studies, women are happier in this type of relationship. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to some studies, women are happier in this type of relationship. 

That's what me and my mum and bro (sort of) do because it mostly works. I mean not raising children, but the chores and stuff.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I've heard of it and NO I would NOT and will NOT allow this to happen. I believe (my apologies but....) any guy that allows a female to be the head isn't a man at all but a scared little boy that NEEDS to grow up.... or maybe he was raised by a single mother lol But hey that's just my opinion and I stand by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, not for me.  Men are called to be the leaders and the head of the household - and that's what I want in a marriage.  We will both bring our own strengths and weaknesses to the relationship as well as our own knowledge, opinions, and ways of dealing with things.  Am I perfectly capable of doing things on my own?  Absolutely, but a man who is willing and capable of leading is what I want.  

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The implication that a single mother can't raise a boy is extremely ignorant.

I never said that so stop adding to what I said. My sister was a single mother thank you very much. My point is, Most women (NOT ALL) don't teach their sons that they are supposed to lead their homes and not leave. I said most not all. My nephew and some other little boys have it good because they have other male figures and mom's that know better and to teach them.

Why do you always have to comment on things I say? Seriously.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You in fact did say that. By saying a single mother cannot make a man out of a boy is all but saying she cannot raise him properly.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be/ am head of household. And yes I'm a woman. I consider myself an independent woman. I like equal relationships but men aren't the only ones that can lead

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You in fact did say that. By saying a single mother cannot make a man out of a boy is all but saying she cannot raise him properly.

 

To be fair, she didn't say that. Jasmine gave two theories: one was that a man who allows a woman to be a head of a household is a scared little boy who needs to grow up and the SECOND one was that men who allow women to be the head of the household might have been raised by single mothers, hence they perceive women as the head of the household.

 

I'm not saying I agree with her statements, but I just want to defend her in saying that she made TWO statements, and not ONE, hence we can't put the two together and say that Jasmine has said that men who allow women to be the head of the household because they were raised by single mothers are scared little boys who need to grow up.

 

Just wanted to clarify so there's no confusion.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it was two theories, she had written it as if relating to each other. By saying he is a scared boy for allowing a woman to lead, and then stating directly after it that he may have been raised by a single mother is saying..

 

He is a scared boy who cannot lead, or he was raised by a single mother, being raised by a single mother made it so he cannot be a man and lead. That is how I gathered what was said, I hadn't read it as the man perceiving women as head of a household.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it was two theories, she had written it as if relating to each other. By saying he is a scared boy for allowing a woman to lead, and then stating directly after it that he may have been raised by a single mother is saying..

 

He is a scared boy who cannot lead, or he was raised by a single mother, being raised by a single mother made it so he cannot be a man and lead. That is how I gathered what was said, I hadn't read it as the man perceiving women as head of a household.

 

Ok yeah, I think you gathered it incorrectly. But glad we could sort it out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, she didn't say that. Jasmine gave two theories: one was that a man who allows a woman to be a head of a household is a scared little boy who needs to grow up and the SECOND one was that men who allow women to be the head of the household might have been raised by single mothers, hence they perceive women as the head of the household.

 

I'm not saying I agree with her statements, but I just want to defend her in saying that she made TWO statements, and not ONE, hence we can't put the two together and say that Jasmine has said that men who allow women to be the head of the household because they were raised by single mothers are scared little boys who need to grow up.

 

Just wanted to clarify so there's no confusion.

Thank you.This is exactly what I meant.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all biology.  Why does the man lead and woman not?  Because men need to feel like they are respected and a leader.  Why?  Because they got egos.  Why?  Because they are men.  Why are men this way?  Their biology.  They are driven by biology.  Want to make your man happy? Treat him like a man.

In fact, in men-led relationships, women are often leading too, but smart, experienced women know to let their man FEEL like men.  Because that makes men happy.  Women are driven by biology too.  Women want to feel safe around their manly men.  Women are pretty kick ass though.  Do they really need men to keep them safe?  Not exactly, but they want to need them. 

I like men who lead (in some regard).  Why? Probably because of biology!  But I like to be in charge too.  I hate when men try to persuade how I view something.  (Such as waiting until marriage).  They lead but they don't respect.  I want to be respected too. And since men don't respect my boundaries, It forces me to be the leader as well.  

 

 

That's pretty much what I think on the issue. I do feel a natural desire to lead, to be the protector and provider in a marriage. I would never force her to do anything she doesn't want to (unless her health is at stake), but I do want her to feel safe and secure around me. Maybe it's biology or something, but regardless that is what I desire. 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good points all the way around on this topic.

But as do most things in my life, I refer back to my faith on this one.

And as others have said, it's a biological desire and I agree with that point.

I believe now I'm not saying all folks have to ascribe to this theory. But for me that I couldn't be happy and believe that my wife wouldn't either if I was not the leader and protector of our family.

That in a way it's as though it's my duty and my service that I'm called to.

And as a person serving this duty, I do so with the greatest motivations and intent for us all.

Now all of that being said, I certainly, absolutely believe that women are capable of leading.

Why???

Well, ....

I am one of those men raised in a single parent (mother) households.

But my mom taught me as best she could to lead.

And finally that a leader isn't a tyrant, or a dictator.

No man owns or controls his partner.

How can she then lead the children if she's "powerless".

I'd see us as team, working together in this relationship.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a big difference in the way men and women are wire to think. Women tend to think emotionally and men tend to think how to fix a problem. Not saying this is how every man or woman acts, each person is so different :)

[Citation needed]

 

It's all biology.  Why does the man lead and woman not?  Because men need to feel like they are respected and a leader.  Why?  Because they got egos.  Why?  Because they are men.  Why are men this way?  Their biology.  They are driven by biology.  Want to make your man happy? Treat him like a man.

In fact, in men-led relationships, women are often leading too, but smart, experienced women know to let their man FEEL like men.  Because that makes men happy.  Women are driven by biology too.  Women want to feel safe around their manly men.  Women are pretty kick ass though.  Do they really need men to keep them safe?  Not exactly, but they want to need them.

[Citation needed]

 

That's pretty much what I think on the issue. I do feel a natural desire to lead, to be the protector and provider in a marriage. I would never force her to do anything she doesn't want to (unless her health is at stake), but I do want her to feel safe and secure around me. Maybe it's biology or something, but regardless that is what I desire. 

[Citation needed]

 

And as others have said, it's a biological desire and I agree with that point.

[Citation needed]

 

 

Sorry, y'all, but science doesn't exactly agree with the "it's biology!" argument. Neither does history. Or reality.

 

While there are some biological and evolutionary arguments to be made regarding "innate" gender differences, they are heavily criticized in multiple ways by other scientists. Oh, and if you REALLY think "biology" is what makes men "more rational" and "better equipped to lead," just know that the biological argument that supports that theory simultaneously supports the theory that men are "biologically" inclined to rape.

 

To read an overview of the biological arguments and the many criticisms of them, with sources galore to scientific studies, check out this free online chapter called Understanding Sex and Gender. It also includes some fascinating summaries of cultures across the globe who do NOT follow what we would call traditional gender roles.

 

This academic study has to be purchased, but you can read the abstract for free, which includes the conclusion that sex differences are cultural rather than biological.

 

Another academic study where only the summary is available for free.

 

For a perspective that is not scientific, but observational and relational, I recommend the parenting blog Pigtail Pals and Ballcap Buddies. The author published her first book last year called Redefining Girly. Her blog chronicles her experiences with her children--one girl, one boy--and the challenges parents face in raising kids in a media-saturated world that tries to box in girls and boys. There's a lot on the early sexualization of girls and on toxic masculinity for boys. Aka she examines how boys and girls are socialized to act a certain way that has nothing to do with biology.

 

If you're more interested in history, Rejected Princesses is an AWESOME blog that chronicles badass (sometimes scarily evil) women throughout history, along with cool illustrations for each one.

 

If you read EVERYTHING I've linked here, and you STILL think biology is the cause of "sex differences," which, again, are not present across all cultures, then we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd be interested in your sources, though, since no one has bothered citing any yet.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now