nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Are women usually the bosses in relationships?

Chefrio

I've noticed this amongst friends that the women are usually the ones that have more of a say in the relationship. Then there is the widespread jokes you hear about men being "whipped, under the thumb"etc. So does a woman usually end up as the boss in a relationship?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Wibbs

A good relationship should be a partnership where it flows back and forward between two people to make them as individuals and as a unit stronger. If someone is under the thumb, male or female, I don't blame the thumb wielder. outside of people with genuine emotional/mental issues 9 times outa 10 they take that position out of necessity, because one half of the partnership isn't carrying their weight, so they have to.

I've known men "under the thumb" and each one of them was emotionally and psychologically weak to some degree. Didn't like too much responsibility either. In these cases I've known they either specifically selected for harridans or turned normal women into harridans. I've seen similar with women under the thumb.

PucaMama

Men like to say women are bossy or controlling etc but in reality they just don't like a woman who will stand up to them

old hippy

Maybe men should just date men. Maybe we understand each other better.

Wibbs

Lyaiera wrote: »

I've read a few studies on familial systems and Ireland is generally considered fairly matriarchal when it comes to families. Whether that applies to all relationships, relationships when a couple settles down or only relationships where children are a concern I don't know. Spain and Italy are seen as similar and I wonder if it has something to do with Catholicism. (Germany and the UK aren't matriarchal.)

I'd agree Irish culture is more matriarchal in this regard. More than Italian and Spanish IMHO. They have the element of machismo which can run strong. That's lacking here by comparison. Might be a Catholic thing alright, though Polish folks would be less again. I'd consider the US a matriarchal society in a lot of ways and that's a much more Protestant culture.

I'd say that most societies have an element of matriarchy going on behind the familial door. Traditionally and for a very long time the home was considered the woman's domain. Well for the vast majority of women in history that was the only domain open to them. That and reproduction. Though as El_Dangeroso points out this is changing with the wider societal changes afoot.

PucaMama wrote:

Men like to say women are bossy or controlling etc but in reality they just don't like a woman who will stand up to them

Aye, but on the other side of that generalisation one can argue that some women confuse being a harpy with being independent and equal.

poundapunnet

Wibbs wrote: »

A good relationship should be a partnership where it flows back and forward between two people to make them as individuals and as a unit stronger. If someone is under the thumb, male or female, I don't blame the thumb wielder. outside of people with genuine emotional/mental issues 9 times outa 10 they take that position out of necessity, because one half of the partnership isn't carrying their weight, so they have to.

I've known men "under the thumb" and each one of them was emotionally and psychologically weak to some degree. Didn't like too much responsibility either. In these cases I've known they either specifically selected for harridans or turned normal women into harridans. I've seen similar with women under the thumb.

Bingo. I can see it a lot in my extended family on my dad's side, it seems like the women are constantly on the men's case, bossing them, talking down, telling them what to do. But then you realise that this is in a family with six kids and the men will sit in the middle of world war three UNTIL they're roared at to get up and go to the shop or whatever. There's also a huge amount of hard drinking men who could disappear on benders, spend the rent money if it's not taken straight off them etc.

But then that model of relationships filters down to the next generation where it's not even necessary. I often find myself bossing my male relatives or friends around and talking to them in a way I never would to a woman, I really have to be aware of it and try and catch myself, it works for my family (my parents are the exceptions) and I think for a lot of Irish people of that generation, but there's really no call for me to do it.

Wibbs

old hippy wrote: »

Maybe men should just date men. Maybe we understand each other better.

maybe OH. As a huge generalisation men tend to have a lot less emotional drama in their dealings with each other. My personal, mad, "oh this wacky baccy is goooood" theory on this at a very reptile brain level is down to violence or the potential for such between them. So they have to take more care in general compared to women, where violence is rarer. Over the years I've certainly seen comments all the way up to arguments between women where they're being "honest", that if that was a couple of blokes the chances for fisticuffs would be high enough. Ditto for actions or comments by women aimed at men that wouldn't be so easily tolerated if coming from another man. I've seen women in clubs and the like actually slap guys and in most cases there is no expectation of the guy responding in kind, yet if that was two blokes, the bouncers would need to be on top of that real quick.

As an extreme; I was watching a documentary on the US Italian mob around the time of the Sopranos. Real gangsters were interviewed and they liked the series as entertainment, but found one aspect didn't gel and that was the excessive cursing and busting of balls. In reality, unless the actual blood was up mobsters were almost excessively polite with each other when compared to "civilians". Basically because the wrong word could get you killed. They specifically avoided drama as much as possible. Apparently this was one reason the Irish American mafia guys in the 1970's freaked the old guard out as they didn't seem to care on this score. real loose cannons and mad with it.

kowloon

Everyone I've met with the 'it's easier just not to argue with them' attitude has been miserable.

Daveysil15

At the pearly gates there's a sign above St Peters' head which says, "all men who have been dominated by their wives stand here." The queue is a mile long. Then there's another sign which says, "all men who have not been dominated by their wives stand here." And there's one little guy standing there on his own. St Peter walks up to him and says, "what do you want?" The man replies, "well my wife told me to stand here."

Wibbs

kowloon wrote: »

Everyone I've met with the 'it's easier just not to argue with them' attitude has been miserable.

+1000. Though some get off on it too. Still having seen these relationships, these men - if we're only talking of men in this situation - have purposely selected for this type of woman out of all the women in the world. They then ignored more red flags than Chairman Mao's birthday party throughout the relationship and still went through with marrying them. TBH my sympathy is low on this. Like a woman I know who was dragged along by this one bloke for years, while he cheated on her, treated her like dirt and when he finally got tired of whoring around asked her to marry him and she accepted and now she's miserable. Dumb. Really bloody dumb. I can only surmise they like being miserable, or that its a state they find the most comfortable. Certainly in this woman's case she went out with nice ordinary non dickish guys, but left them.

looking_around

newport2 wrote: »

Women usually get lumbered with most of the housework in relationships.

That's a sweeping generalisation about women, does that mean people should stop saying it?

Please say it does, I'm sick of hearing/reading it.

"Sweeping generalisations" aren't always false :pac:

I would say the above is true in most households, unless it was pre-talked about who would do what work, when,

__
@OP,
I can't say. Alot of women I know are more submissive.

In my own relationship, there's a bit of a tug of war on who's the boss.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

I've known men "under the thumb" and each one of them was emotionally and psychologically weak to some degree. Didn't like too much responsibility either. In these cases I've known they either specifically selected for harridans or turned normal women into harridans. I've seen similar with women under the thumb.

Yet with the genders reversed the man is "controlling" and the woman should get sympathy rather than be described as "weak".

suicide_circus

Every morning when you wake up, the second you open your eyes, ask yourself one question; "who's the daddy?"

Hint: the answer is "me, I'm the ****ing daddy!"

bee06

I'm the boss in relation to some decisions, he's the boss for others and we're 50/50 for the rest.

.jacksparrow.

Why can't Stevie wonder see his mates?

Because he's married.

Chefrio

One rule that I find women usually lay down is the standard of cleanliness which is acceptable or the organisation of household items. There is no strict right or wrong but I find women usually determine these rules.

mickydoomsux

Women are in control of "the relationship" because most men done care one iota about "the relationship" as long as they keep getting their dicks wet on a regular basis.

kowloon

Wibbs wrote: »

I can only surmise they like being miserable, or that its a state they find the most comfortable. Certainly in this woman's case she went out with nice ordinary non dickish guys, but left them.

I would have said she was too afraid of being alone right up until that last line.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet with the genders reversed the man is "controlling" and the woman should get sympathy rather than be described as "weak".

Not with me. I have sympathy of course. That is or should be a normal human reaction, but I still think them weak/unenlightened if this is a consistent behavior pattern in their relationships. Goes for male and female. If you're a woman and all your exes were bastards, then the problem ultimately lies with you, because you are preselecting the bastards out of the majority of men who may have faults but aren't bastards.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

Not with me. I have sympathy of course. That is or should be a normal human reaction, but I still think them weak/unenlightened if this is a consistent behavior pattern in their relationships. Goes for male and female. If you're a woman and all your exes were bastards, then the problem ultimately lies with you, because you are preselecting the bastards out of the majority of men who may have faults but aren't bastards.

I can hear the screams of "victim blaming" in the distance. :pac:

kingshankly

I honestly don't get the concept of having the misses as the boss lads at work working all week handing up the money for her to give them back a few quid.
Lads having to consult with the misses before being able to comit to a lads weekend.
Don't get me wrong two week lads holiday in the sun is stretching it a bit but I'd rather be single than have to ask the wife's permission to do anything and vice versa for her

poundapunnet

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet with the genders reversed the man is "controlling" and the woman should get sympathy rather than be described as "weak".

It's the weird types of derogatory language that seem acceptable to use on a gender specific basis that get me. A man can say "oh sure she's the boss of me, doesn't let me do anything" and the woman in turn can say "Sure he's useless, he couldn't tie his own shoes without me around to tell him how, I made him go to the shop for me the other day", and it's a grand funny joke, but reverse those genders and neither statement would be acceptable.

Wibbs

kowloon wrote: »

I would have said she was too afraid of being alone right up until that last line.

Yea you can have the fear of alone types alright, men and women. Equally I'd say on that score. But you can have people with pretty good choices in partners who still keep picking the idiots, because they're the ones who tickle their bean mentally and emotionally and I've found that more common with the ladies. IMHO many women are more led by their pants than men are accused of. They just dress it up in more romantic terms.

Again IMHO this is down to a historical fear of female sexuality within women themselves. The notion that if they want to ride a bloke it must in some way mean they have a connection, even a love for the bloke. They're more likely to mistake emotional and sexual excitement for love and compatibility, particularly when young and can easily get into dosgy relationships or what I call the Bonkzone(c)Wibbs(tm). Erica Jongs 1970's book "fear of flying" debated around this issue, describing the idea of the "zipless fcuk" as the perfect one off only sex type encounter, though in the book the heroine claims she never had such a thing, there were always some complications and that's not that long ago.

Historically men have generally been better at compartmentalising the ride versus love. Hell men often describe their willies as a somehow separate entity, somehow not quite a part of them. Hence they're less likely to fall into that kind of scenario. Of course they're more likely to engage emotionally first before any sex is on the table, the so called friendzone.

Thankfully this is changing with more and more women being open to just "scratching an itch" and leaving it at that and knowing the diff. Now it just needs more men to cop on around the friendzone issue.

Ihatecuddles

My fiancé is the boss, that's exactly how I like it

poundapunnet

Wibbs wrote: »

Again IMHO this is down to a historical fear of female sexuality within women themselves. The notion that if they want to ride a bloke it must in some way mean they have a connection, even a love for the bloke. They're more likely to mistake emotional and sexual excitement for love and compatibility, particularly when young and can easily get into dosgy relationships or what I call the Bonkzone(c)Wibbs(tm). Erica Jongs 1970's book "fear of flying" debated around this issue, describing the idea of the "zipless fcuk" as the perfect one off only sex type encounter, though in the book the heroine claims she never had such a thing, there were always some complications and that's not that long ago.

Historically men have generally been better at compartmentalising the ride versus love. Hell men often describe their willies as a somehow separate entity, somehow not quite a part of them.

There's simple physiological reasons for that too though. The odds of a one-off purely sexual encounter being as rewarding for a woman as for a man are pretty slim, most promiscuous women I know or those who engage in casual sex would be more likely to have a couple of regular fcuk buddies with whom they know the sex is good rather than purely relying on one night stands. And once you're engaging in sex with someone on a regular basis, the likelihood of emotional complications goes up.

And whether you want to argue from evolutionary biology or pure social conditioning, women tend to have more of a drive for a relationship than men at an earlier age. It's not that the sex drive is any weaker, it's just got more complicated motivations than getting your rocks off.

Curly Judge

I think that the partner with the lowest sex drive ends up being in control.
Consciously or subconsciously they end up using the difference in quota to control the situation.

seenitall

mauzo! wrote: »

My fiancé is the boss, that's exactly how I like it

You'd be something like this lady, so? (making news in the US today)

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/candace-cameron-loves-submissive-marriage/story?id=21461990

Sky King

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I think a lot of men don't mind sitting in the passenger seat when it comes to relationships.

Not when it comes to driving though

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I can hear the screams of "victim blaming" in the distance. :pac:

For me blame is the wrong word and sentiment, I'd prefer to say that the responsibility for such a pattern ultimately lies with the person and so does the ability to change the program.

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea you can have the fear of alone types alright, men and women. Equally I'd say on that score. But you can have people with pretty good choices in partners who still keep picking the idiots, because they're the ones who tickle their bean mentally and emotionally and I've found that more common with the ladies. IMHO many women are more led by their pants than men are accused of. They just dress it up in more romantic terms.

Again IMHO this is down to a historical fear of female sexuality within women themselves. The notion that if they want to ride a bloke it must in some way mean they have a connection, even a love for the bloke. They're more likely to mistake emotional and sexual excitement for love and compatibility, particularly when young and can easily get into dosgy relationships or what I call the Bonkzone(c)Wibbs(tm). Erica Jongs 1970's book "fear of flying" debated around this issue, describing the idea of the "zipless fcuk" as the perfect one off only sex type encounter, though in the book the heroine claims she never had such a thing, there were always some complications and that's not that long ago.

Historically men have generally been better at compartmentalising the ride versus love. Hell men often describe their willies as a somehow separate entity, somehow not quite a part of them. Hence they're less likely to fall into that kind of scenario. Of course they're more likely to engage emotionally first before any sex is on the table, the so called friendzone.

Thankfully this is changing with more and more women being open to just "scratching an itch" and leaving it at that and knowing the diff. Now it just needs more men to cop on around the friendzone issue.

I think women areafraid of their inner sirens, and maybe with good reason, let her loose and god knows what would happen, maybe some shaming, maybe some blaming, etc, maybe some assault. The fact that rape whistles come in your college welcome pack does not help.

Look how Marylin Monroe was both worshiped and adored,but also controlled and punished particularly by Hollywood. I'm fairly convinced her whole sexy shtick was tongue in cheek, that she is actually mocking the very men she is tantalising.

Back in my way younger days, my best friend and I would have a good laugh at how easy it was to turn a man to mush, just with a wink across the bar. We would go out and amuse ourselves endlessly entertaining this was.

If I told other female friends about this, they'd say in horrified tones "You are sooo mean!" and then sometimes, particularly if I told an older woman what we would do, she'd say "yeah I get that..." and be very understanding.

Ihatecuddles

seenitall wrote: »

You'd be something like this lady, so? (making news in the US today)

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/candace-cameron-loves-submissive-marriage/story?id=21461990

Exactly, I voice my opinion but allow him make the decisions, with almost everything