ok.. So I’m listening to this conversation that Danielle Ricks hosted, and the gist of it was whether men (in general) were looking for strong women and I hear several times from several people, male & female, something to the effect of a woman “letting” a man lead in the relationship.
This is a very basic, yet fundamental problem, and women need to cut it out, ASAP.
If you’re in the army, and woman has a particular rank and a man has a lower rank than she does, he doesn’t get to override her opinions… about ANYTHING. NUTH-THANG!… NOTHING!… NEVER. Case Closed, Done Deal, It’s a WRAP! She outranks him, so by the codes that they live and fight by, he has to take orders from her or peel potatoes in the brig.
There’s a reason why the woman gets to tell the man what to do. She’s put in the work to achieve the rank she’s achieved and he hasn’t achieved that rank, so that’s that. Unfortunately, people don’t tend to apply this simple logic to relationships.
Back in the day, women had no choice but to “date up”, because they weren’t allowed to vote or own land. The only way they were going to have ANYTHING in life was if they married a guy that had something good going. Due to Women’s Suffrage and eventually the depletion of the American workforce due to men being killed in world wars, that all ended.
At this point, in 2009, women have the same jobs as men (or better), own the same amount of land, own the same type of cars, houses and apartments and have no problem taking care of themselves and whatever kids they amassed along the way with no help from any men whatsoever. This would seem to be an advantage for women, but it isn’t. It’s not an advantage because women STILL want to date men that are better than they are.
Why is this a problem? Because women are progressing faster than men are. Go hang out on a college campus and see if you don’t see MANY more gals than guys. Walk around town and see who’s working in the stores… See if you don’t see MANY more gals than guys. Basically, what’s happening is that women are severely limiting the pool of men that are “better” than they are by out-learning men and out-working men. Women are painting themselves into a social corner because they’re brainwashed to date men who are achieving more than they are.
Life Isn’t Fair
Meanwhile, men couldn’t even, hardly, practically, not even GIVE A DAMN whether some chick they want to date is achieving ANYTHING IN LIFE or not. She’s hawt or she isn’t. They want to tap that or they don’t. End of story. Nobody cares.
So, while women become more educated than men, on the whole, women’s pool of viable prospects is becoming smaller while men’s pool of viable prospects is growing larger, because more and more girls turn 18 (become legal for sex anywhere in the United States of America) every single day.
Of course, this makes things even TOUGHER for the accomplished, older women that are trying to hook up with accomplished guys that are dating twenty-somethings and will still be dating twenty-somethings ten years from now.
This is where statements like “Let a man lead in the relationship” come from. A guy who called in to Danielle‘s show accidentally hit the nail on the head and didn’t realize it. He said “By saying that, you make it sound like you actually have the power in the relationship, but you’re letting him lead”. um… That’s EXACTLY what’s happening.
She knows damned well that she’s smarter than him, wiser than him, makes more money than he does, has more common sense than he does, etc etc and for the sake of being in a relationship, she’s going to defer to him so that he can feel like he’s leading something.
The fact of the matter is.. If he were naturally the stronger person (for whatever reason), he would NATURALLY be the leader between the two of them and she would NATURALLY defer to him. For her to let him lead, that means that he hasn’t demonstrated to her AT ALL that he SHOULD be the leader.
What’s that dude in the military going to tell that woman that outranks him? Nothing.. Other than “Yes Ma’am” and “No Ma’am”. Does she defer to an obviously inferior male so that they can have a nice relationship? Nope. You never succeed with the less capable leading the more capable. The armed forces would collapse if they let privates tell generals what to do.
I think that a better idea for a woman than letting a man that she feels is inferior to her lead their relationship is for her to select a better man to begin with. I also think remaining single and not settling for anything she can get is a better idea.
This presents an obvious problem for women that want to have a family. Time is running out for them faster than it’s running out for guys. On top of that, guys can have kids with a chick that makes minimum wage just as easily as a gal who’s an MIT-educated Rocket Scientist. ‘Doesn’t make a difference.
Since lots of women aren’t willing to accept a future of being single, they start compromising and lowering their standards without even recognizing it. If you have to let someone lead, they shouldn’t be leading in the first place. Does that make sense? How about letting the leader lead? How about that? Doesn’t that seem to be the efficient way to run a relationship?
Why let someone less educated in finance decide what to do with your money?
Why let someone who doesn’t know about Italian cuisine select the restaurant?
Why let someone with no income decide how many kids you’re going to have?
Why let someone with zero battlefield experience determine your troop movements?
Why let someone with no playoff experience pinch-hit for your best player?
Why let a guy that you KNOW shouldn’t be leading you run your relationship?
Can you tell me?