Why do men tend to be submissive in relationships?

OnTheCouch

So I have wanted to start a discussion on this for quite a while but have never got round to it until now.

Before I begin, even though this is posted in The Gentlemen's Club, I would openly welcome women's views with interest as to why they believe this phenomenon occurs. I would also be interested to hear if this trend has changed over the years.

What I am talking about is what is colloquially referred to as 'wearing the trousers' in a relationship.

I think most sensible people would argue that the best sort of relationship is one where both partners have equal input into decisions and enjoy a healthy, balanced partnership. However, this in practice often does not occur and in my experience, one person is usually (albeit slightly in some cases) dominant. And among my friends and acquaintances, women I would say would be the ones clearly in charge in around 70-80 percent of cases. I know a few where the man is the dominant figure, but they are much rarer. This is obviously taken from a Western Europe perspective, I can't comment on situations in other countries/continents.

So, why is this? Is it an evolutionary trend that has held constant over decades to ensure solid relationships in addition to a stable background for the children growing up? Or is it biological or sociological in its essence, or even cultural, we all presumably have seen films/TV shows where the quintessential tough-guy gangster/thug type who fears no one, ends up deferring to his wife when she puts her foot down?

The lazy stereotype in my view is that the woman decides when to have sex, so if the man wants to indulge, he has to keep her sweet. This is nonetheless a weak argument and ignores all variations in sex drive between individuals, plus paints all men as being pathologically weak and incapable of thinking of anything other than fornication. The annoying 'silent treatment' also derives from and is a result of this belief in my opinion.

Some of my female friends tell me that it is necessary to manipulate the man into doing what they want, because if they don't, the couple will get nothing done. Now I don't necessarily agree with this, again it's lazy stereotyping in my eyes, but it possibly indicates a greater tendency for men to be laid back and content with the status quo. This theory would also be consistent with men who seek out partners that remind them of their mothers, they enjoy a sort of extended childhood, where the girlfriend takes over the previous role of the mother, doing their washing, planning their daily lives, holidays away and so on. I know a couple of relationships like this.

But of course all men are not laid-back. Some are extremely driven. If we look at purely traditional roles of the man and the woman, this particular dynamic would be more prevalent in previous generations, where the man went out to work and took care of the family finances, whereas the woman dealt with domestic duties. Again I would be interested to hear from others who remember relationships from many years ago, who was in charge exactly.

Speaking from a male perspective, things certainly change once in a relationship. Your focus tends to switch from your good friends to your girlfriend/partner. (And back again once you split up but that's another story). So I think there is a certain expectation and instinct, both biological and societal for the man then to look after the woman, to concentrate on her and make sure she wants for nothing. The problem is, one can get dangerously close in this instance to putting them on a pedestal. A happy medium of respect without suffocating the person is ideal, but I have seen only too well how easy it is to cross the line. So doing the latter can potentially turn the nicest individual into someone who can on occasion become diva-like.

A scenario I have witnessed countless times over the years is when a close friend brings out his girlfriend at night in a group situation, everything is going well, until, because of something that she doesn't like, (presumably fairly innocuous) the girlfriend starts making moody faces, goes a bit quiet, the boyfriend leans over, asks what's wrong, gives a few comforting touches, whispers to her something incomprehensible, she nods and next thing we know it's 'Right, we're off, see you soon.' Which usually leads to people rashly jumping to conclusions that the boyfriend here is 'under the thumb,' which may or may not be true. One thing which is very important to remember is that no one really knows what goes on inside relationships except the two involved, so these are just presumptions, even though they could be to a large degree accurate. Again I want to make clear here this is not an attack on all women, simply that anyone who is indulged a lot will be likely to develop certain 'spoilt brat' tendencies, it is merely the case that men tend to be the cause of this more often, whereas women tend to treat their partner in a more 'grounded' fashion.

Society also tends to favour the woman being the decision-maker, you see constant indirect references to it, the 'I'll have to ask the wife' scenario. Of course to stick up for females here, no one is ever forced into a relationship with a gun to their head. If there are so many men that defer to their girlfriend or wife, there must be a reason for this, ie, that's what they prefer and where they feel most comfortable.

Unfortunately I feel that on occasion there is an implication that relationships where the man is the dominant partner are in some way abusive, where he is bullying or battering her into submission, which again I think is quite unfair. I believe it's perfectly feasible to have a respectful healthy relationship where the man makes most of the important decisions, as long as he doesn't conduct himself in a supercilious manner and considers the woman's feelings at all times.

In my own experiences, I'd like to think that most of my previous relationships have been relatively equal, although maybe that is wishful thinking on my part. One girl I went out with, who was otherwise very charming, was extremely stubborn and if ever we had a disagreement, she would act distant (even if it was her fault) until I relented and apologised or whatever. So I suppose you could argue she held the cards there.

So I am quite interested as to what everyone thinks are the reasons for this phenomenon.

eviltwin

Speaking for myself and myself only we both make decisions on the big stuff equally and if we don't agree we come to a compromise where we try and meet in the middle. Sometimes things go my way, sometimes they don't. I don't overthink it. Its not a competition.

Lelantos

Its called: Wanting a quiet life

hullaballoo

It's part of the game of relationships, no?


I mean, men might appear to be bendy in most situations so that they can have their way when they need it, e.g. I watch stupid Kardashian's from time-to-time so that I get dibs when there's football on.

Then again, herself watches football from time-to-time so she gets dibs when there's something she wants to watch.

Meh, it's pretty equal in my view. People in a proper relationship should be flexible to the other person's wants/needs to a degree. If one side is insistently dominant, the relationship will taper out in time.

PingO_O

You made some interesting points op but when you start a thread like why do [insert gender] tend to be [insert adjective] you tend to focus in on a sample you can't quantify, I've seen many threads and posts on boards saying why are irish women this and that (usually negative) and its just not the case.

I know too many guys that aren't submissive in relationships but I still like some of the observations in your post.

OnTheCouch

Lelantos wrote: »

Its called: Wanting a quiet life

I was going to mention this in the original post, knew there was something I had forgotten!

PingO_O wrote: »

You made some interesting points op but when you start a thread like why do [insert gender] tend to be [insert adjective] you tend to focus in on a sample you can't quantify, I've seen many threads and posts on boards saying why are irish women this and that (usually negative) and its just not the case.

I know too many guys that aren't submissive in relationships but I still like some of the observations in your post.

Fair criticism. I suppose all I can say is basing a discussion around the 15 couples I know/have known plus impressions gleaned from television etc, may not have been as fertile debating material. It may also have arguably been more something suited to Personal Issues than here.

One of the reasons I tried to make the argument as balanced as possible and used arguments from either side, was to avoid the thread becoming precisely like one of those awful 'all Irish women are bitches' rants, which quickly turn farcical. Although I will acknowledge that when one takes such a broad sample as you say, it is nearly impossible to not use generalities at times, even if the overall tone of the entry is reasonably fair and objective.

Xenophile

As the book says "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus". Mars of course is the warrior planet, Martian fiery forces and all that. On the other hand Venus the planet of love, beauty and harmony.

So as many songs go "All you need is Love", "Love changes everthing" etc.

Maybe women are just better at loving and men at fighting.

To quote Virgil.

Love conquers all things — let us yield to Love.
Love conquers all; let us, too, yield to love.
Love conquers all things: let us too give in to Love.
Love conquers all things; let us too surrender to love.

Let me say very well done to the OP on such an interesting opening post.

Woodward

A lot of it has to do with the fact that men are primarily raised by mothers and are raised with a deference towards women. A wife merely takes the place of a mother subconsciously

OnTheCouch

Woodward wrote: »

A lot of it has to do with the fact that men are primarily raised by mothers and are raised with a deference towards women. A wife merely takes the place of a mother subconsciously

Going on the above logic, would you therefore argue that men who grew up with a strong father figure then become in turn more dominant in their own relationships?

username123

Cant say Ive noticed it being a particularly male or female phenomena to "wear the trousers". Some individuals are just more dominant than others, regardless of gender.

I know couples where the man "wears the trousers", couples where the woman "wears the trousers", couples that seem to equally share a pant leg each, female couples where one female "wears the trousers", male couples where one male "wears the trousers". Its a mixed bag really.

Whatever works for each individual couple. For some of the cliched examples used I could offer similar observations with the gender switched (the one that particularly comes to mind is the one with the girl with a face on her when out with the BFs friends - as a woman I see the opposite gendered story all the time!).

My husband and I tend to be very equal, I would say we share a pant leg each.

clairefontaine

Married men often appear as eunuchs to me but that could be because of cultural expectations of what masculinity is. So I do see what you are saying but I don't know if it's due to the men or because of my prejudicial expectations that are violated.

eireannBEAR

Lelantos wrote: »

Its called: Wanting a quiet life

100% correct i would of thought this post would of got more thanks.

as this issue is that simple. since beating women is out of fashion these days we have no choice but to shut up.

The Pheasant

http://www.theladbible.com/media/evening-lb-ladness-images-54?image=15

Gloomtastic!

A happy wife is a happy life! It's quite simple really....

Zombrex

A lot of men are lazy and just want a replacement mother who will make house hold decisions for themselves, I guess.

Wouldn't be my cup of tea, I like to discuss things and have input. But if you are focused on things like work you might be perfectly happy to be just minded at home without have to worry about it.

blatantrereg

Might be true with younger people. They say girls mature faster than guys. I don't think it's true overall. Personally I tend to fall into a dominant role, though in most ways I prefer things to be balanced.

Meangadh

Are they submissive though? I'd like to think that they are just being mature and considerate enough to realise that they can't live their lives the same in a relationship as they would have when they were single. They have someone else to consider. Submissive suggests that they are being hounded and nagged by the woman to the point where the men just have to give in, "for the quiet life". It shouldn't take that though. I know in reality women often do end up having to nag, but it genuinely shouldn't be necessary. (Now having said that, I do know some women who are overly critical of their men, and why the men put up with that either I don't know.) Perhaps though people say that men are submissive in relationships because for so long women were the ones who had to just go with whatever their husbands wanted, and now that things are different (thankfully), men can get a hard time (mostly from other men) about being "whipped" if they do what their wives/girlfriends ask of them.

I would like to think though that we're living in an age where neither sex has to "submit" to the other and that it's more a compromise thing. That's the way it should be anyway, I think.

pwurple

This winds me up with my husband. He says things like, "must ask the boss", and "dunno if I will get a permission slip" when his buddies are asking him to go drinking. I am more than happy to see him going out with his friends, I do the same. We even keep our calendars synced to our phones to see if we are overlapping and need a babysitter. The reality is that he is cutting back on booze as part of a health kick and uses me as an excuse!

Legs.Eleven

A few observations:


- I have noticed the phenomenon you're talking about, OP, where the woman takes the lead but I've also noticed that the men are happy as pig in shyte to take that role generally speaking. The woman takes charge with all the organisational stuff and he just goes along with it. Personally I'd hate to be a woman like that or a fella like that but if they're happy....

- I've come across genuine naggy women in my life but again they've been enabled to carry on that way by the boyfriend remaining passive. Not justifying her behaviour but often with these kinds of relationships you're going to find a certain kind of man. It's up to you whether you want to remain in a relationship or not and obviously they do. Perhaps all the good stuff balances it out.

- I find men as they get older are happier than women to give up their friends and social life. That's why men are often more isolated and lacking friends as they get much older. I see it with my dad and my step-mam. She has a massive group of friends whereas he's got one or two good mates but is happy to spend most of time either with her or alone. My own boyfriend is the same. He's 10 years older than me (43) and since meeting me, he's become less social. I'm the one who has try and convince him to get off his hole (in the nicest possible way) and meet his friends or else he'll lose them.

I find often men use the woman as an excuse for not going out when it often comes down to them preferring to stay in themselves. I hate that. I hate the idea that a man portrays a woman as a nag and has him under his thumb because the stereotype about women exists so people believe it. Horrible way to portray your girlfriend when it isn't the case at all (this isn't my situation but an observation of other couples).

-I've noticed the phenomenon too of couples in a group where the girl gets stonky and wants to go home. I personally wouldn't take that from anyone and I can never understand why the man does. Uncomfortable for everyone involved including the friends.

- Overall though, most couples I know have the balance. I most definitely have that in my own and couldn't stand it any other way. I'm not the dominant type but I'm not a walk-over either and he'd be the very same. Most, if not all, of my friends are the same.

I do see the couples you're referring to, OP but I wouldn't presume they're not happy. As you said yourself, you've no idea what's going on between two people and we only get to see a fraction of their time together when they socialise and even then they're probably not being how they'd normally be. Women are all too often portrayed as nags in the media etc which I hate and it's often not justified in the slightest - people with no back bone pulling out the stereotypes. Many women often become that in a relationship and it's horrible to see but often men become passive and child-like in relationships allowing this to happen and letting the woman sort out his mess (metaphorically and literally) Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.


I will say though: don't take your friends' word for it when they say their girlfriend won't allow them to do something - often it's just an excuse.

ted1

As stated before , I also like an easy life. Fight the good fight, let all others slide bye

helimachoptor

An easy life is acceptable up to a point tbh using that as a reason to get yourself walked all over isn't justifiable IMO

ted1

helimachoptor wrote: »

An easy life is acceptable up to a point tbh using that as a reason to get yourself walked all over isn't justifiable IMO

Big difference between living an easy life and being walked over. As I said fight the good fight.

illuma

I've noticed that with a lot of Irish couples alright. I've never seen it with the Polish or any of the foreign couples here where the roles tend to be more traditional.

Slutmonkey57b

I think that instead of "the quiet life", it's the case that there are many things that a woman has strong opinions on which the man simply couldn't give a toss about. I know for me that there are occasions when I'm expected to come up with a decision on things which are so insignificant it's not even worth firing up the brain to respond, much less think about it or form an opinion. So in that case, "whatever you think" is the thing to go along with.

Legs.Eleven

But you've also got men who won't make a definitive decision about anything knowing the girlfriend will. That's infuriating. Even thing like deciding where to go to have a drink - "I don't mind". Yeah that's cool but a decision, no matter how small, has to be made or we'll be stuck walking the streets the whole night. Sheer laziness.

illuma

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

But you've also got men who won't make a definitive decision about anything knowing the girlfriend will. That's infuriating. Even thing like deciding where to go to have a drink - "I don't mind". Yeah that's cool but a decision, no matter how small, has to be made or we'll be stuck walking the streets the whole night. Sheer laziness.

Surely something as trivial as where to go for a drink shouldn't be just left to the man to decide?

Legs.Eleven

illuma wrote: »

I've noticed that with a lot of Irish couples alright. I've never seen it with the Polish or any of the foreign couples here where the roles tend to be more traditional.

This might be true alright. My observations here in Spain is that although the women like to give the impression that they wear the pants, they don't. Men absolutely wear the trousers here, even among younger generations. A recent study among young people stated that young women wouldn't mind getting hit by their boyfriends as it'd prove to them they were loved Ehhh....

Interesting with myself and my Spanish boyfriend although he'd be exceptional in that he's not your typical macho Spaniard at all. If he tried to boss me about, I wouldn't put up with it at all.

Ando's Saggy Bottom

If a man is overly submissive in a relationship with a women I usually find theyre likely to be the type to suffer from low self esteem.

Legs.Eleven

illuma wrote: »

Surely something as trivial as where to go for a drink shouldn't be just left to the man to decide?

No I mean that often these organisational decisions are left solely to the woman and not just deciding where to go to have a drink. Surely it's a decision to come to together? Decide on a place to go to together instead of always leaving it up to one person?

My point is, I've seen men leave the organising to the woman ALWAYS. Some men would discount these decisions as being trivial but they have to be decided.

Some men are happy to let their life be decided by women and I believe a lot of it is down to laziness.

illuma

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

No I mean that often these organisational decisions are left solely to the woman and not just deciding where to go to have a drink. Surely it's a decision to come to together? Decide on a place to go to together instead of always leaving it up to one person?

My point is, I've seen men leave the organising to the woman ALWAYS. Some men would discount these decisions as being trivial but they have to be decided.

Some men are happy to let their life be decided by women and I believe a lot of it is down to laziness.

Yeah I see what you mean, although if you ask them what sexual position they want, I'm sure they will be a lot more decisive.

The Corinthian

Some women nag. Some men nag (I presume). Some don't. Some do a lot. Some do only a little. Some have good reason. Some do so out of neurosis.

If a guy is going out drinking and coming home late half-cut five nights a week, then his wife or partner probably has good cause to nag. She's concerned about his health, and about how this will effect their relationship or family and out of frustration turns to nagging as a means to deal with the problem.

Of course, nagging probably isn't the best way to deal with such a problem, there are more effective and diplomatic approaches, but when people are frustrated they'll often turn to the approach that seems most direct and/or allows them to unload their frustrations.

On the other hand, consider a couple that share housework. She feels that the bathroom should be cleaned, top to bottom, every day. He feels that once a week is more than sufficient. Nagging is far less justifiable in such a situation as cleaning the bathroom, top to bottom, every day is an exaggeration to most people and so the nagging becomes one person's attempt to bully the other into accepting their standards, without compromise.

The passive approach to nagging by men is just one of those things that has evolved over the millennia (read some Roman plays) to deal with being in a relationship with someone who uses this for problem resolution. There are rational reasons for this strategy, even though I agree it is not an ideal approach - any more so than nagging is in the first place. For example:

There's no point reasoning. With women who are 'naggers' there is generally absolutely no point in trying to reason with them. As with the above example, the woman in question will never accept that cleaning the bathroom, top to bottom, every day is an exaggeration; so attempting to reason with her will ultimately get you nowhere - she'll just become more entrenched in her view and the row will escalate.

Nagging episodes are temporary. A man will get chewed out of it, nagged, shouted at, whatever. If he rides it out, she'll get it out of her system and things will go back to normal. Then he can just do whatever he likes anyway.

Beware escalation. Stay silent and the nagging will just stay at that level and pass. Object, attempt a counter argument or argue back and the nagging will become a full-fledged row. Stick to your guns and it'll continue escalating; to what level depends upon the woman in question, but all I'll say from experience is do not have such a row in a kitchen - way too dangerous.

Ultimately, men do want a quiet life. We already have stress issues to deal with without inviting more. Standing up for yourself will simply be rewarded with a heart attack or stroke before you're fifty.

Pick your fights. If you fight back too often, then - other than ending up in a relationship where you have screaming rows three times a week - she'll become desensitized to your opposition. If you pick your fights, then she'll be more likely to back down when she realizes that a topic is important to you enough that you're ready to escalate the disagreement and this will more likely back down in some face-saving manner designed not to make her look as if she's backing down.

I've used the 'passive' approach in the past, as well as a more communicative one - it really depends on the woman I'm with and ideally the latter is better. Of course, you can't always control the one's you fall in love with.

Legs.Eleven

If someone was carrying on that way, Corinthian, I'd end the relationship. It's not worth the heartache. Believe it or not, most women want the quiet life too. I couldn't imagine co-existing with a nag tbh.

Actually when it comes to tidiness, my boyfriend would be more tidy than me on the whole. I'm not a pig and I am tidy but my idea of tidiness is not his (Spaniards are renowned for their obsessive cleaniness - they spend more on cleaning products than any other nationality, for example) but a couple of times I've been a "victim" of the passive-aggressive approach where I've had to ask what's wrong only to be confronted with a, "Nothing". I'd almost prefer the nagging to that tbh. I'd finally get it out of him what was wrong (usually something to do with leaving my shoes around the place or not closing the press doors in the kitchen). It was never serious but we had a few teething problems when we moved in together initially.

I think overall the best approach is to sit down and talk about it. That's generally what I try to do. I'd say to him, "Listen, if you tell me what bugs you, I'll do the same" and we get it out of our systems.

You should treat your partner like you would a friend - you wouldn't get away with nagging or carrying on in a passive-aggressive manner whenever there was something wrong with a friend. Respect is the key. You're not each others parents ffs.

Cienciano

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

I think that instead of "the quiet life", it's the case that there are many things that a woman has strong opinions on which the man simply couldn't give a toss about. I know for me that there are occasions when I'm expected to come up with a decision on things which are so insignificant it's not even worth firing up the brain to respond, much less think about it or form an opinion. So in that case, "whatever you think" is the thing to go along with.

"which curtains do you prefer? "
" what font should we use for the invitations "
" do you like these cushions? "
The list is endless.

The Corinthian

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

If someone was carrying on that way, Corinthian, I'd end the relationship. It's not worth the heartache. Believe it or not, most women want the quiet life too. I couldn't imagine co-existing with a nag tbh.

If only it was that simple. What if:

• When you, as a man, met her she wasn't a nag and only become so, over time, after you married and had kids - so it's easy to say you'll leave such a person when you don't have anything to lose by doing so.
• She doesn't nag all that often and/or down deep you know you kind of need someone to nag you because some guys do need a kick in the arse from time to time.
• Who's perfect? She may nag, but if that's the only negative in an otherwise perfect relationship, then you can live with it.

Actually when it comes to tidiness, my boyfriend would be more tidy than me on the whole.

I just gave that as an example of 'neurotic' nagging.

Legs.Eleven

The Corinthian wrote: »

If only it was that simple. What if:

• When you, as a man, met her she wasn't a nag and only become so, over time, after you married and had kids - so it's easy to say you'll leave such a person when you don't have anything to lose by doing so.
• She doesn't nag all that often and/or down deep you know you kind of need someone to nag you because some guys do need a kick in the arse from time to time.
• Who's perfect? She may nag, but if that's the only negative in an otherwise perfect relationship, then you can live with it.

I just gave that as an example of 'neurotic' nagging.

• Kids obviously complicate things, of course but let's presume kids aren't in the equation. You're free to leave if she's nag.
• If there's a need to "nag", then it isn't really nagging, is it? It's simply stating what needs to be said for the relationship to have a future ("You can't go out for pints every night of the week and we need to spend some time together", for example) Often this is discounted as nagging when it's really not; it's someone simply being open about how they feel to a person who doesn't want to admit they're wrong and who's not open to hearing it. I was referring to men dealing with a relentless nags who nag out of habit and for no good reason.
• Who's perfect? No one. But someone to be in your ear 3 times a week over the most trivial stuff would be a deal breaker for me personally. I suppose it depends on the tolerance levels of the person in question but if you're willing to put up with it, then you can't complain.

pastorbarrett

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUH34iqK7cI

The Corinthian

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Kids obviously complicate things, of course but let's presume kids aren't in the equation. You're free to leave if she's nag.

Of course, but I was pointing out that it's not always so easy to leave the 'nag' - sometimes kids, a family home and so on are part of the equation.

If there's a need to "nag", then it isn't really nagging, is it? It's simply stating what needs to be said for the relationship to have a future ("You can't go out for pints every night of the week and we need to spend some time together", for example) Often this is discounted as nagging when it's really not; it's someone simply being open about how they feel to a person who doesn't want to admit they're wrong and who's not open to hearing it. I was referring to men dealing with a relentless nags who nag out of habit and for no good reason.

It's still nagging, although for good reason. As I said earlier, as an approach "nagging probably isn't the best way to deal with such a problem", but sometimes people almost involuntarily go for this option.

Who's perfect? No one. But someone to be in your ear 3 times a week over the most trivial stuff would be a deal breaker for me personally. I suppose it depends on the tolerance levels of the person in question but if you're willing to put up with it, then you can't complain.

Of course you can complain. Even if all else is perfect and your tolerance levels can deal with nagging you suddenly have to pretend to like it? And your only other option is to leave the person? Oh for life to be so black and white...

Legs.Eleven

It's still nagging, although for good reason. As I said earlier, as an approach "nagging probably isn't the best way to deal with such a problem", but sometimes people almost involuntarily go for this option.

It's not nagging although the receiver might unfairly label it as such to take the heat off - Nagging has negative connotations and is often only a berb associated with women. Nagging in the case above is simply stating a problem in the relationship that needs to be fixed.

nag

1 [nag] Show IPA verb, nagged, nag·ging, noun
verb (used with object) 1. to annoy by persistent faultfinding, complaints, or demands.

2. to keep in a state of troubled awareness or anxiety, as a recurrent pain or problem: She had certain misgivings that nagged her.


verb (used without object) 3. to find fault or complain in an irritating, wearisome, or relentless manner (often followed by at ): If they start nagging at each other, I'm going home.

4. to cause pain, discomfort, distress, depression, etc. (often followed by at ): This headache has been nagging at me all day.

Of course you can complain. Even if all else is perfect and your tolerance levels can deal with nagging you suddenly have to pretend to like it? And your only other option is to leave the person? Oh for life to be so black and white...

In a lot of cases it's often more black and white than people will care to admit. You can complain alright (no one is stopping you) but I won't feel sympathy for you. You're partly to blame for enabling it. Nagging (as in actual nagging going by the definition of nagging) would be a deal-breaker for ME personally. As I said, it depended on the tolerance levels of the person in question. Again you can complain but if the complaining was a regular occurance, I'd tell you to cop the fook on.

That's just me though.

Edit: When I say you, I'm talking in general terms.

The Clown Man

We gave them chivalry. As the old adage goes: Give her an inch and she'll take a mile!

Nah, seriously, I think in evolutionary terms women are better equipped to organize, maintain and oversee. They can multitask better, are more organised and have more focus on the peripheries to the point that many are comfortable or even happy to take over the management of a house or social schedule. Personally, I hate doing that crap so I'm delighted to hand it all over!

I think this also makes women better program managers and office managers in the workplace. Guys are good at going after something with a specific target the and girls are good at managing multiple tasks and priorities.

All the above I'm basing on evolutionary basics, rather than stereotype. Of course there are great male office manners and great female salespeople, but on average I think each gender has preconditioned advantages at core, which thousands of years of evolution has decided for us.

I think it's easy to confuse who is wearing the pants with who is managing the specifics by choice. And just as easy to just stay out of the way if you are inclined to want the easy life and let someone else do the hard work!

enigmatical

I think it's down to individual personalities.

I've seen it go both ways and I don't think it's a male or female thing. it's just that you get one person with an over-dominant personality.

In most relationships, I think you generally get a bit of balance on most issues.

I think where you've one party being a walked all over, you've really got some problems brewing.

Young King Arthur was ambushed and imprisoned by the monarch of a neighboring kingdom. The monarch could have killed him but was moved by Arthur's youth and ideals. So, the monarch offered him his freedom, as long as he could answer a very difficult question. Arthur would have a year to figure out the answer and, if after a year, he still had no answer, he would be put to death.

The question?...What do women really want? Such a question would perplex even the most knowledgeable man, and to young Arthur, it seemed an impossible query. But, since it was better than death, he accepted the monarch's proposition to have an answer by year's end.
He returned to his kingdom and began to poll everyone: the princess, the priests, the wise men and even the court jester. He spoke with everyone, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer.
Many people advised him to consult the old witch, for only she would have the answer.
But the price would be high; as the witch was famous throughout the kingdom for the exorbitant prices she charged.
The last day of the year arrived and Arthur had no choice but to talk to the witch. She agreed to answer the question, but he would have to agree to her price first.
The old witch wanted to marry Sir Lancelot, the most noble of the Knights of the Round Table and Arthur's closest friend!
Young Arthur was horrified. She was hunchbacked and hideous, had only one tooth, smelled like sewage, made obscene noises, etc. He had never encountered such a repugnant creature in all his life.
He refused to force his friend to marry her and endure such a terrible burden; but Lancelot, learning of the proposal, spoke with Arthur.
He said nothing was too big of a sacrifice compared to Arthur's life and the preservation of the Round Table.
Hence, a wedding was proclaimed and the witch answered Arthur's question thus:
What a woman really wants, she answered....is to be in charge of her own life.
Everyone in the kingdom instantly knew that the witch had uttered a great truth and that Arthur's life would be spared.
And so it was, the neighboring monarch granted Arthur his freedom and Lancelot and the witch had a wonderful wedding.
The honeymoon hour approached and Lancelot, steeling himself for a horrific experience, entered the bedroom. But, what a sight awaited him. The most beautiful woman he had ever seen lay before him on the bed. The astounded Lancelot asked what had happened
The beauty replied that since he had been so kind to her when she appeared as a witch, she would henceforth, be her horrible deformed self only half the time and the beautiful maiden the other half.
Which would he prefer? Beautiful during the day....or night?
Lancelot pondered the predicament.
During the day, a beautiful woman to show off to his friends, but at night, in the privacy of his castle, an old witch? Or, would he prefer having a hideous witch during the day, but by night, a beautiful woman for him to enjoy wondrous intimate moments?

What would YOU do?
What Lancelot chose is below.
BUT....make YOUR choice before you scroll down below.




Noble Lancelot said that he would allow HER to make the choice herself.

Upon hearing this, she announced that she would be beautiful all the time because he had respected her enough to let her be in charge of her own life

So...what is the moral to this story?




The moral is.....
If you don't let a woman have her own way....

Things are going to get ugly

The Corinthian

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

It's not nagging although the receiver might unfairly label it as such to take the heat off - Nagging has negative connotations and is often only a berb associated with women.

You do realize that the definitions you quoted contradict your claim that it's not nagging?

In a lot of cases it's often more black and white than people will care to admit. You can complain alright (no one is stopping you) but I won't feel sympathy for you. You're partly to blame for enabling it. Nagging (as in actual nagging going by the definition of nagging) would be a deal-breaker for ME personally. As I said, it depended on the tolerance levels of the person in question. Again you can complain but if the complaining was a regular occurance, I'd tell you to cop the fook on.

Sure, and in many cases you'd be right, but my point is that you can't say that in all cases. It's not always black and white - we can't always "presume kids aren't in the equation", for example.

The Clown Man wrote: »

Nah, seriously, I think in evolutionary terms women are better equipped to organize, maintain and oversee.

I don't even know where to start with all these sweeping generalizations, so I won't.

Legs.Eleven

The Corinthian wrote: »

You do realize that the definitions you quoted contradict your claim that it's not nagging?.

I think the word "persistant" and "fault finding" it what negates what you've said. It doesn't define nagging as a person with a genuine gripe stating their feelings now and then. Obviously "nagging" is subjective so we could be here all day but you and I both know what it really means.

Legs.Eleven

Sure, and in many cases you'd be right, but my point is that you can't say that in all cases. It's not always black and white - we can't always "presume kids aren't in the equation", for example.

No we can't indeed. And relationships aren't always black and white and I already acknowledged that other factors like kids complicate things but a lot of the time it's just a man and a woman and the man being treated like a doormat without standing up for themselves but complaining constantly to mates who are fed up hearing it and those are the ones I'm referring to.

cson

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

But you've also got men who won't make a definitive decision about anything knowing the girlfriend will. That's infuriating. Even thing like deciding where to go to have a drink - "I don't mind". Yeah that's cool but a decision, no matter how small, has to be made or we'll be stuck walking the streets the whole night. Sheer laziness.

"I don't mind" syndrome is something I've noticed a lot amongst my peer group (early 20s). Lack of drive and general decision making at times. I've been guilty of it myself but it is something I'm consciously trying to improve.

clairefontaine

Nags are infantilising castrators.

If deep down you feel the need to be nagged, you are still five years old. Adults don't need or want to be nagged.

This is so sadly recognisable.

Why does this happen so much?

I saw a woman cutting her husbands dinner for him in a restaurant. What the hell?

I agree with you legs 11it would be the end for me too. Kids or no kids, even if no formal break up, the relationship would be over because it would be a parent child one not and adult one. I couldn't deal with it at all.

Gin77

A womans tear is worse than a thousand lashes.

nucker

This is hard, because there has always been submissive men in relationships. The problem men have is that you have feminism when years ago there weren't as many feminists that wanted to be freed of their household responsibilities. Which I suppose is good, but you get a lot of women trying to push their luck and misconstruing what real feminism is all about

OnTheCouch

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

A few observations:


- I have noticed the phenomenon you're talking about, OP, where the woman takes the lead but I've also noticed that the men are happy as pig in shyte to take that role generally speaking. The woman takes charge with all the organisational stuff and he just goes along with it. Personally I'd hate to be a woman like that or a fella like that but if they're happy....

- I've come across genuine naggy women in my life but again they've been enabled to carry on that way by the boyfriend remaining passive. Not justifying her behaviour but often with these kinds of relationships you're going to find a certain kind of man. It's up to you whether you want to remain in a relationship or not and obviously they do. Perhaps all the good stuff balances it out.

- I find men as they get older are happier than women to give up their friends and social life. That's why men are often more isolated and lacking friends as they get much older. I see it with my dad and my step-mam. She has a massive group of friends whereas he's got one or two good mates but is happy to spend most of time either with her or alone. My own boyfriend is the same. He's 10 years older than me (43) and since meeting me, he's become less social. I'm the one who has try and convince him to get off his hole (in the nicest possible way) and meet his friends or else he'll lose them.

I find often men use the woman as an excuse for not going out when it often comes down to them preferring to stay in themselves. I hate that. I hate the idea that a man portrays a woman as a nag and has him under his thumb because the stereotype about women exists so people believe it. Horrible way to portray your girlfriend when it isn't the case at all (this isn't my situation but an observation of other couples).

-I've noticed the phenomenon too of couples in a group where the girl gets stonky and wants to go home. I personally wouldn't take that from anyone and I can never understand why the man does. Uncomfortable for everyone involved including the friends.

- Overall though, most couples I know have the balance. I most definitely have that in my own and couldn't stand it any other way. I'm not the dominant type but I'm not a walk-over either and he'd be the very same. Most, if not all, of my friends are the same.

I do see the couples you're referring to, OP but I wouldn't presume they're not happy. As you said yourself, you've no idea what's going on between two people and we only get to see a fraction of their time together when they socialise and even then they're probably not being how they'd normally be. Women are all too often portrayed as nags in the media etc which I hate and it's often not justified in the slightest - people with no back bone pulling out the stereotypes. Many women often become that in a relationship and it's horrible to see but often men become passive and child-like in relationships allowing this to happen and letting the woman sort out his mess (metaphorically and literally) Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.


I will say though: don't take your friends' word for it when they say their girlfriend won't allow them to do something - often it's just an excuse.

Excellent post, thanks for your contributions Legs.Eleven. In many ways you actually articulated many of the points I wanted to make much better than I did myself, especially looking at the situation from a female perspective on how men act within a relationship. As a heterosexual man myself, this is something I'll never be fully privy to. I wouldn't say I agree with you 100 percent in everything you say, but you certainly provide many moments of clarity, where I found myself thinking 'Yes, that's exactly how I would have put it.'

I think from a young age, many men just feel it's much easier to let the woman organise everything for them, especially if they're fairly laid back anyway. The big problem is, as you mention, is that they retreat into a juvenile-like state once more and let the woman decide pretty much everything that is to do with the couple. I have even seen girlfriends ordering for their significant other in restaurants and when I say this I don't just mean order what the guy normally chooses, rather order what she thinks he should have. He reverts back to an infant-like state of mind and she acts out the role of his mother. As you say, I cannot really begin to see the attraction, but there you go.

The greater question I suppose in this case is why do such relationships last? I mean clearly the man doesn't mind this, but what about the woman? We all are led to believe that females are attracted to strong, masculine, independent, virile men, but someone in the above example would be the antithesis of this image. I suppose it goes to show you cannot rely on stereotypes, unless the woman herself is lacking in options, which is where the frustration may come from with the man being overly passive.

Your point about a couple leaving abruptly being stressful for the friends is also accurate. In these scenarios, there always seems to be a few minutes after the couple have departed where there is a clear tangible sense of 'was that down to us?' and everyone remains quieter than normal during this time.

However, what most resonated with me was how you said that men drop their friends when they get older and are in a relationship. With my female friends, within reason, if I give them enough notice, even the ones with children, will come out on a regular basis - usually dragging their husband/bf along with them. My male friends on the other hand (and bear in mind I am 31 so bit younger than your boyfriend), have for a good while now left it up to me to arrange all our social meet ups. In fairness, most of them don't decline when I offer, but when it is constantly you making all the running it can get a bit tiring/frustrating. This is especially pertinent when you decide not to contact anyone for once and woefully watch the minutes tick by knowing that an invitation for that night is not going to be forthcoming any time soon. One can observe a clear change in their thinking, where the other half not just comes ahead of the friends, but is essentially their only social outlet. Now I have mentioned that I worryingly enough have seen elements of this happening to me as well in relationships, so perhaps I am a little bit of a hypocrite, but it really shocks me how much these people change from the social animals they were in their early twenties. Like you, I also see this in my parents, my mother has a solid group of 20 or so friends whom she sees at least once a week, my father, although having quite a lot of friends, would only tend to see them every six months or a year.

There must be something biological behind it, ie when a man has a mate, all his attention and resources are focused towards her and the friends are left behind. One good friend in particular, he recently broke up with his girlfriend after a seven year relationship, where I hardly saw him at all during this time. Merely a few days later he was on to me about when we should meet up and so on. This leaves me very ambivalent, on the one hand I am glad to see him, but you start thinking, well am I just his Plan B?

I will try to remember what you said also about the girlfriend being used as an excuse! This is a shame, because it gives the girls a bad name, plus it leads others to think the man is being dominated in the relationship which may (as I see from many of the replies here) not actually be the case.

OnTheCouch

The Corinthian wrote: »

Some women nag. Some men nag (I presume). Some don't. Some do a lot. Some do only a little. Some have good reason. Some do so out of neurosis.

If a guy is going out drinking and coming home late half-cut five nights a week, then his wife or partner probably has good cause to nag. She's concerned about his health, and about how this will effect their relationship or family and out of frustration turns to nagging as a means to deal with the problem.

Of course, nagging probably isn't the best way to deal with such a problem, there are more effective and diplomatic approaches, but when people are frustrated they'll often turn to the approach that seems most direct and/or allows them to unload their frustrations.

On the other hand, consider a couple that share housework. She feels that the bathroom should be cleaned, top to bottom, every day. He feels that once a week is more than sufficient. Nagging is far less justifiable in such a situation as cleaning the bathroom, top to bottom, every day is an exaggeration to most people and so the nagging becomes one person's attempt to bully the other into accepting their standards, without compromise.

The passive approach to nagging by men is just one of those things that has evolved over the millennia (read some Roman plays) to deal with being in a relationship with someone who uses this for problem resolution. There are rational reasons for this strategy, even though I agree it is not an ideal approach - any more so than nagging is in the first place. For example:

There's no point reasoning. With women who are 'naggers' there is generally absolutely no point in trying to reason with them. As with the above example, the woman in question will never accept that cleaning the bathroom, top to bottom, every day is an exaggeration; so attempting to reason with her will ultimately get you nowhere - she'll just become more entrenched in her view and the row will escalate.

Nagging episodes are temporary. A man will get chewed out of it, nagged, shouted at, whatever. If he rides it out, she'll get it out of her system and things will go back to normal. Then he can just do whatever he likes anyway.

Beware escalation. Stay silent and the nagging will just stay at that level and pass. Object, attempt a counter argument or argue back and the nagging will become a full-fledged row. Stick to your guns and it'll continue escalating; to what level depends upon the woman in question, but all I'll say from experience is do not have such a row in a kitchen - way too dangerous.

Ultimately, men do want a quiet life. We already have stress issues to deal with without inviting more. Standing up for yourself will simply be rewarded with a heart attack or stroke before you're fifty.

Pick your fights. If you fight back too often, then - other than ending up in a relationship where you have screaming rows three times a week - she'll become desensitized to your opposition. If you pick your fights, then she'll be more likely to back down when she realizes that a topic is important to you enough that you're ready to escalate the disagreement and this will more likely back down in some face-saving manner designed not to make her look as if she's backing down.

I've used the 'passive' approach in the past, as well as a more communicative one - it really depends on the woman I'm with and ideally the latter is better. Of course, you can't always control the one's you fall in love with.

Interesting post, TC, especially the bit about picking your fights. I would generally abhor nagging, especially when it appears to be nagging for the sake of it and would often lose my temper at any little thing I saw to be out of order or pedantic.

Maybe using your guide I can save myself some stress further down the line!

cson

cson wrote: »

"I don't mind" syndrome is something I've noticed a lot amongst my peer group (early 20s). Lack of drive and general decision making at times. I've been guilty of it myself but it is something I'm consciously trying to improve.

I've noticed it in college big-time since I went back, the women always end up being "in charge" of group assignments. The simple fact is that if one tries to argue with a woman there's no way to win if she cares enough.