You guys, this message probably sets a world record for how much a person should type when posting on a forum. So if you're tagged, I suggest you CTRL+F your name to avoid wasting your time.
I really wanted to answer everyone who was kind enough to provide me with input about this issue I've face. You were all incredibly helpful to me and I've made a massive amount of progress. There were also some beliefs I thought I would share...because I've been slowly revealing who I am as a person on this forum, and I'm enjoying that. A lot of times, you guys really seem to understand me in ways other people have not. I feel privileged to feel so accepted by this community, and I also feel excited about some of the conversations we might have regarding some of my unconventional, rarely voiced opinions and beliefs. I've made a lot of progress as a person here in a massively short amount of time, so I'm eager for that to continue.
That's why I've typed so much in this reply. Sorry to overload!
Pretty soon, I'm going to get a better handle on it. I might even do more infographics.
----------------------------------------------
Here starts the original message
----------------------------------------------
I'm addicted to this type as you think thing though. Because it feels like progress. Often times if I overthink it, I end up writing nothing at all.....
That's besides the point Inex. Return to the point. (okay)
Okay I think I'm going to respond to what people have said, even though I didn't set out to spend that much time on it. My brain is on this train track now and there's no stopping the train. (sigh)
Cognisant
Leadership does not equate to dominance, a leader inspires followers, dominance is the purview of the tyrant.
Intersting point. I generally tend to be the unwilling leader. It's sort of a strange contradiction I have. I don't like the spotlight, and I don't want it. Even when I was a kid, I never, ever wanted to be famous. Perhaps it's also why I don't necessarily care to be wealthy.
But somehow, I always end up taking leadership roles. Thinking about it now, I don't think it's that I want to...but it's like...the people around me are just too wishy-washy to do it and it makes me feel distinctly awkward that nobody is taking charge of the situation, so I feel like I have to.
But then again, in situations where I have been able to pass the gauntlet...thinking about it now, I haven't wanted to, because...wow this is going to sound so conceded...it's because I just don't trust other people to do what they have to do as well as I do it. -_- How awful is that? I even have this issue in a professional context. I don't like working in teams because my team mates don't put the effort in. When I hire people, I get frustrated with the lack of quality of their work. I get annoyed, too, when people won't take tactful criticism to heart and revise their behavior on subsequent attempts at the task.
All of this probably demonstrates arrogance.
But I don't think I'm rude. I think I probably used to be quite a bit ruder than I am today...but I know today, I make every effort not to be rude. Although, maybe I just can't see the rudeness in myself. That's a distinct possibility.
Can arrogance sometimes be a good thing? The very nature of the word, itself, is bad...but why? Why does our culture believe arrogance is bad? The only thing I can think of is that it would stem from the values outlined by Christianity, such as to be humble, and not to have pride.
My grandma made a good point on this front. She said that back in her day, people would say they are "pleased", not "proud". If your child does well, you are pleased with them, and they should be pleased with themselves.
I think, perhaps, that little bit of anecdotal wisdom hints at the origins of arrogance. I think it's somewhere in discovering the real difference between being pleased, and being proud. Being proud suggests a subjective hierarchical dominance in some sense. Being pleased is an objective emotion. Perhaps this is one reason why we have so many power struggles between the sexes in this day and age. My mother's opinion is that it is because people simply don't demonstrate the manners that used to be expected of us. In making minor changes like pleased > proud, perhaps that has affected the way we assess and value others.
men are goal oriented and take pride in their ability to do things, to be capable, to be useful,
I've heard that...as a distinction between men and women...but whoever made that distinction (and I think Jordan Peterson is guilty of it in part, potentially), I don't think really stopped to actually think about women. They just spoke on behalf of what drives men. (Jordan Peterson is definitely guilty of that...rarely stopping to think about the female aspect.)
I take a lot of pride in my ability to do things. It's what makes me good at my job. I love to be capable, and I see being useful as a responsibility. I think most women also share these feelings. The only thing that changes is the role of the person. If your role is a housewife and child-rearer, then you tend to take pride in your ability to cook, clean, and understand your children. Or, especially, women take pride in their ability to organize and maintain routines and schedules, or plan meals around the nutritional needs of their family. These women absolutely take pride in being "capable". They view themselves, often, as the only ones who are really capable of providing the home they provide. And when it comes to being useful, I think most women love to be useful. Its why women will often go out of their way to help their family members. In my grandma's day and age, women managed household finances as well.
I think sometimes we jump too quickly into assuming that men and women have something that distinguishes them from one another. I often find that a lot of these things we think of as a "man thing" or a "woman thing", are, quite frequently, a "both" thing. (Like being afraid of rejection, for instance.)
I believe a great deal of modern male neuroticism is due to men not being ordered about and praised by the people whose opinion matters most to them.
This was funny. But actually, I think you're 100% spot on. However, I think that the issue is that young males are not receiving this. Children, specifically. A lot of kids are growing up these days without the consistent application of their parent's values and beliefs. A lot of kids are growing up "by default". A lot of parents hire babysitters, for instance, or put their kids in daycare, and there, adults do what they can to make sure the kids don't kill each other, and they try to teach some generic principals of society, like "don't cheat on board games". It's not the same as having an intimate, deep, moral discussion with a parent.
A lot of our young boys, I think, are very confused as to what is the right way to view the world, and who they should be as people. Without a mother or a father to be the end-all be-all opinion of that, they're left having to choose between contradictory values in society, which leaves a person struggling to find themselves. When you're young, you can't really decide which value is more important, and the rationalities behind why a moral or a value makes sense...you need a parent to give you the fundamentals, so you have a strong structure to build on.
When it comes to women, and their children, I think that women these days are failing to have healthy, deep, meaningful relationships with their kids - but especially, their boys. Boys seem to require that relationship much moreso than girls do, because boys are pressured into repressing their empathy. Without a healthy relationship with the mother, I think many boys lose the ability to view women as people - that is, as being "just like them". It causes boys to misinterpret female behaviors, objectify female intent, analytically search for reasons as to why the sexes are "so different", and become more and more disassociated with females. In response, females feel attacked, belittled, unappreciated, misunderstood, and even somewhat threatened by males, and when they sense objectification, disassociation, or otherwise a lack of respect for their sex and for life itself (a consequence experienced by males that devolve in this way), they do not want to allow that male into their life. Which makes men feel confused, and frustrated, and which makes them return to the process of analyzing, objectifying, and generally misinterpreting the problem. It's a nasty cycle. It leads a man to the conclusion "You're too complicated to figure out. There's no answers at all. Life doesn't even make sense. I feel so frustrated."...and it also leads a male to the conclusion that something about his physical demeanor or appearance is the problem. Which, from what I can tell, is seldom the case - but because men value women based on physical qualities, they expect to be valued in this way, in return. And they will die trying to find science to prove it. (Sorry for the melodrama! That was overblown.)
A healthy relationship with a person's mother can make all of the difference here. When boys are young, they look to their mothers for information, and they believe her opinions and value her perspective. Once men get to a certain age, if they've come to the conclusion that women are manipulative and deluded, and slaves to their emotions, they will devalue the input women give that contradicts their worldview. They automatically assume the woman has an agenda regarding the sex power struggle, and that she is either being dishonest, or refusing to listen to science, or that she is deluded about her own gender. That's where the sheer lack of respect starts to come into play.
So yes, very long story short, I 100% agree with what you're saying.
Adaire
I suppose the closest thing regarding estrogen and personality... well it could cause mood swings if you have abnormal fluctuations or memory issues if too high.
I definitely had memory issues when I was younger. I wonder if that's why. I think, possibly, my testosterone has increased as I've aged, but it's really hard to say...
Women typically have the lowest levels of estrogen when breastfeeding if you're looking to make observations about how estrogen affects personality.
That's a great example. I know that testosterone-related behaviors tend to be less anxious/stressed, more confident, more secure, vaguely happier. Relaxed. That's why I don't think of aggressive men as having more testosterone...Aggressive men seem to have a lot of pent up energy, anxiety, and hostility. What I read about testosterone would suggest that a person with naturally high testosterone naturally has higher dopamine as well. So the more distressing emotions are probably more in the realm of estrogen. Unfortunately.
I guess that touches on the whole "alpha male" belief. Far too many people seem to believe that dominant, hotheaded, "bad boy", arrogant, aggressive, "rapey" sort of guys are somehow more "alpha". However, the men I've met that I would say have qualities of leadership or dominance are also the same men that never seem to feel the need to prove it. In fact, those men that I've met actually have more respect for women, and even some low-key level of fascination/admiration for the female sex. They enjoy women behavior, and being around women, and being flirtatious in a genuine way. They also seem way better at relating to women. Higher EQ, probably.
If you think of it, it makes sense. If a man has higher levels of dopamine, then he probably has a higher tendency to want to try to empathize with other people, because when we are happier we tend to be more understanding and laid-back. So if dopamine is correlative with high-testosterone, then it might actually be the more empathetic males that have higher levels of testosterone. Or more likely - more balanced levels of testosterone. With many biological systems, when something increases to a degree to which it is too high, it starts to display the same symptoms of being too low....So yeah. It could just be that the kind of "dominant, leader" males that people would call "alpha males", are just more hormonally balanced. Whereas males with high levels of testosterone may demonstrate behaviors that would be common in low-testosterone males...
What is your opinion on this? You seem to have done quite a lot of research.
If you're like me, then you've probably come across certain men that just exude a respect-worthy sense of self. Men that are very likable, intelligent, easy natured, and respectful of life and of women in particular. Or...maybe you haven't. Maybe that's just me.
It blows my goddamn mind that melatonin is an over the counter product in the US and that hormonal birth controls is treated as not a big deal, considering both can really wreck your shit.
Considering that they contaminate our water supply, too, which affects our children.
Scorpiomover
Apart from that, I don't really see a use for the term "dominance". The best type of conversations and relationships, are when both parties contribute what they are good at to increase the other, so that the whole is much better than the sum of the parts.
I think there's a use for the term "dominance". I definitely think that dominance is a real human behavior, and I think we're lying to ourselves when we try to pretend that it is not. Almost all mammals display dominance. It's insane to me to think that humans are any different.
But much as you indicated, human dominance is often expressed socially, I think. We have dominant groupings, dominant pairs...dominant political parties, or presidential regimes. There are many chief officers for one company, and as a group, they will almost always be more dominant than a single individual. So yeah, the epitome of human dominance would be when independent people with qualities of dominance or leadership join into a co-dependent grouping. That behavior is seen in chimpanzees, unless I'm much mistaken.
Dominance is just who calls the shots, I think. Who is the chief, and who is the Indian. Who leads and who follows. I think it's the nature of human ambition that we are driven to establish this kind of social hierarchy. It allows us to peacefully co-exist in situations where our diverse opinions may have lead to social unrest.
But generally, if people start saying that women aren't good, or are even bad, some of the time, a lot of feminist men and feminist women seem to start saying that's misogyny and an attempt to impose patriarchy on them.
I think that's an oversimplification based in frustration. It's not always the case, but it often seems to be the case to me that men get frustrated because they voice a controversial opinion about genders, and women get offended, but rather than explaining the validity behind why they are offended, they just say "Don't patronize me." or something to this effect.
It's really obnoxious when you offend someone but they won't tell you why it is that they're offended. The consequence is that men feel like they just can't say anything at all, because they don't understand the rationality behind what is offensive and what is not. There's "rules" - but they're invisible, and not discussed, and they appear to change constantly, which is enough to drive a person up the wall.
I can identify with almost everything that feminists are upset about. In most situations, I know exactly where they're coming from. I'd be a feminist myself, but modern feminism has reached a point where women are no longer satisfied to champion better treatment of women, and instead, are looking to be "repaid in kind". A lot of pretty toxic feminists beliefs seem to stem from a very deep since of anger and bitterness, and a desire for "justice" (or more accurately, for vengeance, because they apply these philosophies to people who did nothing to hurt them). The consequence of this corrosive behavior is that the children have to pay for it. Our little boys are being told, in some cases, that they should be ashamed that they are a boy. That boys are bad. That their feelings are bad. That it isn't okay to be themselves. Very few things bother me. That attitude makes me literally want to attack someone. Obviously, I won't. But that's how extreme my feelings can be regarding how our little boys are sometimes being treated by women who have developed a hatred for men, more or less. I try very hard to respect most people, but I find it extremely difficult to respect people who bully children or animals. It's sick.
Anyways....that's my relationship with feminism. That, and the fact that many of the things a small minority of women are advocating for are not changes the majority of women want to see. Or believe exist. It's fine if you want to advocate for something dumb like female urinals - but don't brand the rest of us with your twisted dogma. Don't call it "feminism" - it's not. Its your weird little personal power struggle with you gender-related issues. It's what's caused the feminist movement to become so ridiculous and disorganized. So many nasty little women who fancy themselves to be humans rights warriors, pressing some kind of absurd agenda, and calling it "feminism". What it does is undermine the feminist movement, and make it so that a woman can't voice real concerns regarding female rights without being leapt upon by a pack of aggressive, defensive men. Figuratively speaking, of course. There's even a small minority of nasty little men, patrolling the internet, waiting for the chance to find a feminist and be extremely rude and nasty to her for no real reason. Pathetic. Those men need to grow up. Bullying in adults is not attractive.
The other half is just "you go girl!", which is really what people are doing anyway when they are being dominant. So there's not really much that can be said there.
I think that's more of a submissive thing. Cheering someone on. Those are women who don't know how to "fight the food fight", so they just try to encourage other women who seem to be doing it, so they either don't have to, or won't lose.
So I think that it's probably more your personality type.
That would be a comforting thought.
You're assertive, and polite, and very respectful and considerate of men's feelings.
Aww, thank you! That's quite the compliment. I think you give me more credit than I deserve though.
So if you're butting heads with men, that's a good sign, as it means they respect you.
Hmmm...I don't think that's the case, because usually when I butt heads with men, they don't want to discuss my opinions. They would rather just say I'm stupid, I don't know what I'm talking about, or just that they don't want to discuss it (but I'm wrong anyways). If they respected me, they would want to discuss the talking points I bring up.
Very few men want to hear what I have to say, and a lot of times when they do, it makes them defensive and angry or bitter, and I can easily be branded as a feminist. You guys, here, are the exceptions. You actually listen to me.
when a woman is not being supportive, often it means the man has lost her respect.
Hmm...I think this is probably pretty true. But there's one thing I'd add...I think that respect for someone can come and go in waves. If your husband is being super lazy and won't take out the trash - you might feel a sense of disrespect for him, because you don't value laziness. However, when he sticks up for you when another man says disrespectful things, you might feel a wave of respect wash over you. Or when he admits to something that is deeply emotional. Again - respect. So its kind of circumstantial. I don't often see couples where a woman just completely has no respect for a man, regardless of circumstance. However, when I do, the man usually has this attitude of "women are impossible to please so why bother. Just let her words wash over you and pay them no mind. It's not like you're capable of listening to a woman anyways. She'll always win because she's illogical, because she's a woman." In which case - I think it's fairly evident that the lack of respect is mutual, and probably causative.
I'm generally extremely soft as a man. But when things get physically real, I tend to go "Alpha". Like, when guys have hit me in the past, I just laughed, or got annoyed that they broke my glasses but didn't care a jot that they punched me in the head. It's like my testosterone is through the roof, when it's a real situation. But when it's all imaginary like emotional criticism, then I go to pieces like I'm full of oestrogen.
I don't know what you mean by "soft", but as I was telling Adaire...the men I've known that other men consider to be "alphas" are not aggressive, agitated, forceful people. They actually seem to be pretty respectful and easy-going, and especially respectful of females in particular - in a genuine way. As in, they enjoy female company, and see females as people that are just like them.
But in at least one of those cases, the same man that demonstrated these qualities also responded to being hit in the face by laughing and belittling the event. And this guy would get the "crazy eyes" - like, sort of psychotic. Just completely devoid of fear and more...hmm...excited? Personally I can't identify with this too much. I don't know that I have that extreme of an adrenaline response.
It's true I never really saw a sensitive side in these men, either...but then again, I've only been intimate with three men that are like this, and one of them I don't count, because I think he was legitimately a sociopath. Which disqualifies him as a measure of generalized male behavior. So...it's very likely that these males just repress their feelings. One of them would definitely cry sometimes about a really traumatic past, but only if he was blackout drunk. Which suggests to me that these males have all of the same emotions, but that they are deeply, deeply buried.
I'd suspect you believe in equal pay and all.
Nope. I've not seen evidence to really indicate that women are paid unfairly simply due to their gender. Women are less assertive about negotiating working contracts, I would think. And depending on which stats you're looking at, women also have work absences relating to pregnancy, childbirth, child care and similar. So that influences the numbers. When someone presents me with a solid case regarding the gender pay gap, I'll reassess my opinion, but it isn't something I've spent time researching because I don't believe it actually exists. Mostly because of how many timid women I've known, and my own professional experiences...it doesn't matter if you're a male or a female, if you're excessively meek, you're likely to be taken advantage of by business people. Most business people are quite lacking in the ethics department.
Definitely don't believe that. So you're right there. The fundamental philosophy of rape is irrational to me. I know the argument that rape is supposed to be "natural" sort of, and I'm aware of the argument that women fantasize about rape - (this is often true, actually). But I don't think that rape is natural, or rational from the standpoint of evolution. When it comes to passing on genes, you're not only passing on socially destructive genes that correlate with anger, frustration, and bullying behavior, but you're removing the female's role to "choose the most fit mate". So it doesn't make sense that rape is an evolutionarily rational action. Even Nietzche, with his "will to power", believed that insufficient humans will respond to a "lack of the right to breed" sort of a thing. Which, if I remember correctly, according to Nietzche, stifles a person's sex drive. (I think he was actually potentially right about that one...)
Women do fantasize about rape. But I think the reasons for that are misconstrued, because while many women enjoy being consensually dominated in the bedroom, women, obviously, don't enjoy rape. There are several reasons, in my opinion, as to why women (and some men of course), fantasize about being dominated and raped, even though they do not want that to happen to them in real life. Firstly, it's taboo, and things that are naughty are often sexy - there's a link between defying societal expectations, or rules, or laws, and feeling particularly animalistic, true-to-onesself, and free of social constructs. That's that sense of "badness" that can make things sexy. Secondly, people (especially many women, from what I've been able to gather), have a habit of fantasizing about horrific scenarios, often in a way which soothes or helps a person to come to terms with a possible event. We need to process these things in our mind and understand how we would feel, and what we might do, to not only appreciate the danger in a valuable, instinctual, subconscious fashion, but also to be able to cope with that understanding of danger, so our minds do not go out of control and turn a fear into a phobia, or anxiety. Another reason is that many women have very poor self-esteems, and the thought that a person may want you so much as to lose control over themselves would be a boost to a person's ego, but because they have a very poor level of self-worth, many of these women may also feel like they deserve to be attacked. It's self-destructive fantasizing. The last reason I can think of off the top of my head is that many, many women have been raped. Or molested - but often straight up raped. I think it's far more common than most people realize. And it's been psychologically documented that being raped or molested confuses a person sexually, especially if they were attacked when they were young, as most women are, I believe.
The point is, though, when you look at how rape affects a person psychologically, affects their sense of self-worth, affects their ability to thrive, and even to parent efficiently, and how victims display symptoms of trauma...its pretty unrealistic to go on believing that rape is a natural, healthy, instinctual sort of a thing. The information available just does not indicate that.
No....I think that men who rape do so out of very deep issues of self-worth, and a feeling of being emasculated by adults, but particularly, by women. I think that's why so many male rapists were abused as children. Psychologically, these male children seem to develop a definition of power in their mind, and they define power as being something you earn by taking by force. When these males feel bossed around, or bullied, or marginalized, or mistreated or forgotten by society, anger manifests, and in search for a victim, the male blames the female sex, because (A) The female opinion is a large portion of how he defines his opinion of himself, and (B) Because the body often responds to certain extreme emotions with arousal, and females are the ones that heterosexual males mate with. So between desperately wanting approval, power, and respect, and the confusing sensation of horniess, men can be led to desires to rape.
I don't think all male rapists were abused as children....but those who weren't appear to have been neglected. I think the instances where rape comes from a normal, healthy, well-adjusted male, are rare.
Anyways, this psychology is pretty easy to study. Aside from actual studies and psychology texts...you can just go to 4chan, and read what men say regarding raping women. Almost all of it is angry - but particularly angry regarding the way women judge and value things.
** As an aside. That applies to rape in the US, and particularly, to raping women who are awake and resisting. In some countries, there are uneducated boys in poor areas that don't really understand the consequences of rape and see an unconscious woman as a free dinner. **
"women do twice as much work as men for half the credit"
I actually believe that one XD....I'm sorry.
It just seems fairly evident to me based on most marriages I look at. At least when the family has kids. Women seem to be on the clock 24/7, and many women also work. Men, and husbands, seem to spend a lot more time relaxing. This is also evidenced by my marketing research, because men make up a majority of the populous that uses the internet and play video games.
Way, way back in the day, this attitude made some sense because men did very physically demanding labor, like constructing buildings by hand, and when a person works that hard, more physical respite is a necessity. Today, even construction work is far less demanding than it used to be, and most jobs don't require much physical exertion, but the behavioral pattern between men and women remains...and its something that many women encourage by coddling and being subservient to their mates - which their boy children then pick up on, and go on to believe is the right way to live.
But this is mostly referring to the US. I think that in other countries, many men come home from work and proceed to then do chores and help with the kids. Those men share the burdens of familyhood fairly with their partners.
"women need men like a fish needs a bicycle"
Well I think that's a weird way of putting it...but actually, I really don't think women need men. Again, I'm sorry about that. From what I hear from what people have told me, and from some more recent studies on the subject, it appears that women are actually much happier being single.
It makes sense if you couple this with the amount of work most women have to put in to family life. To include the whole "subservient" thing. Not only that, but society has a set of pretty unfair, unrealistic expectations for women...and yeah, there doesn't often seem to be much appreciation - or even much respect. Respect is a biggie. The role of housewife just isn't respected much anymore, by men and women both. And if a woman's only value lies in her beauty, then she's only valuable for a very short period of time. (About age 16 - age 27). Meanwhile, males pursue careers, which causes their value to grow over time. So many women, I think, feel much more valuable when they have professional experience to fall back on. Otherwise, all you get to do is feel belittled by being reduced to a person who is only good for cleaning dishes and whelping kids, while you stare in the mirror watching your looks fade away, wondering if your husband still finds you attractive. It's kind of sad.
Way, way back in the day, when rape, violence, etc. were more common - yes, women needed men for protection. Most of those women also weren't educated that well, or not in the right ways, to be able to cut it in the real world without the male's guidance.
These days, though, we're more civilized and, more importantly, we have guns, and similar. That tends to even the odds for women from a physical standpoint. Aside from that role, there just really isn't much that men can give women that a woman can't get for herself.
Kids. The role of a father. A spouse to help with the burden of a family. While its possible for a woman to do these things on her own, and many, many women do, it's not worth the cost to her physically and psychologically - in my opinion. It's too rough. At least with younger children, and considering the fact that people live very isolated lives these days whereby family members and relatives don't contribute to child rearing.
That's about it, as far as I can think of. I haven't heard any women voice to me yet that they require a man in their life to fulfill them sexually, for instance. Women seem to be more burdened by that then anything, as a whole...I don't think married people or people with long-term relationships generally feel much sexual fulfillment on either side of the gender line...but I think, in general, males tend to feel that they need sexual fulfillment more if they're to be happy people.
All that being said, I know that women
want men, even if they don't need them. There's a special quality to the male gender, something women fantasize about when they imagine their perfect reality. Feeling valued, loved, protected, cherished. The feeling like someone really understands you, accepts you for your faults, admires your good qualities, and believes that you are unique, and special. Male love is a very idolizing sort of thing, and I think when it's genuine, it can be one of the most, if not the most empowering experience a woman will ever know. To feel that she, alone, is the only one for this male, and that this person she admires and respects - he chose her.
The male mindset also, I think, can help a woman to be stronger, more balanced, healthier, and less stressed....
But that's the ideal, and the romanticized philosophy of what men could be. In our society, that doesn't seem to be the manifestation of what actually happens. Partners sort of end up low-key hating each other, disrespecting each other, and causing each other more grief and stress than if the person was single. It's enough that Jordan Peterson's philosophy on this is that its our job as a couple to make each other uncomfortable and make each other feel like we need to better ourselves.
That kind of constant disapproval wears a person down, and when you couple that with the massive amount of work that is expected out of the modern woman, and the large amount of social scrutiny she faces regardless of how well she does - well its exhausting.
I think it's exhausting for men, as well. If for no other reason, then because they are the receivers of many women's frustrations, resentments, and their stress and fatigue, but many men are so empathetically challenged these days, they don't really know how to help. When you can't help someone you love, who is depressed, it really takes a toll on you. I think a lot of husbands just give up in the end, because nothing they do or say seems to fix it.
I've seen women being more dominating. I knew couples in my youth, when it was clear the woman bossed around everyone in the family, and the man just kept quiet for an easy life.
I mean, in most marriages that don't end in divorce, from what I've observed, the female is dominant. And she orders the male around. It not necessarily a bad thing, though. Women tend to have a better sense of ritual, organization, and (I think) management, tbh. Women focus on a lot of detailed things, whereas men often don't notice minor details, and when it comes to managing a house and a family, the devil is in the details. So it seems to be the controlling, bossy sort of women that seem to have the highest rates of marital success.
That's another reason why I don't really want to get married. That's not me. I don't like to be bossy, but I think being "submissive" - or more peaceable, helpful, etc - its not necessarily a great thing in long relationships, because at the end of the day, men are apt to be more resilient to criticism, and also less apt to being compassionate for another person's struggles...so if there's going to be a person that is the bosser and a person that is the bossee, it makes more sense for woman to boss.
The Grey Man
If you know what you want, when you want it, and aren't afraid to tell people about it, you'll inevitably be perceived as aggressive
You're definitely right about that. I agree.
Redbaron
there's so many different contexts where power dynamics apply that it doesn't seem pertinent to apply a uniform label or to try and figure out 'dominance' based on hormones
Based on hormones - maybe not. But I think that exploring the concept of dominance is relevant to analyzing human interactions.
willingness to compromise
This is something I definitely don't have XD....
I'm pretty firm about my beliefs, until someone gives me a good reason not to be. I'm not the kind of person though who will pretend to believe in something just for the sake of making the other person feel validated. I don't like to lie about what I believe.
This was an issue for me when I was younger and identified as an atheist. People would ask me "Can you prove that god DOESN'T exist?", to which, obviously, I would answer "no."....But then they would say "Well that makes you agnostic".
Still no...not to me. Because being unable to prove that god doesn't exist does not mean that I have any belief, whatsoever, that he does. Sure, its perfectly possible that I might be wrong, but I'm not going to pretend that possibility influences my beliefs...because my beliefs are something I don't consciously control. I influence them with thoughts, but at the core, I know what I believe and what I don't. And unless someone gives me rational reasons that make me subconsciously feel that a belief is wrong, because I feel like it no longer makes sense - well then whether or not I believe something - it's out of my hands. And to me, believing in god is absolutely, fundamentally based on the existence of faith. If there is no faith, whatsoever, there is no belief in god, and that is atheism.
However, later on in my life I have become more spiritual because I've come across data that indicates that there is...something. I still don't believe that there is a guy sitting in a chair staring at me (if he is, I bet he's an INTP), but I can comfortably now say that I identify as agnostic.
So I guess that just goes to demonstrate that I'm not very willing to compromise. It took me...hmm....maybe 22 years to become agnostic. XD....So yeah. 22 years of being extremely stubborn about my beliefs and refusing to change them. And to be brutally honest about it, I didn't even question them probably until about the last 2-3 years. I'm not always the person I wish I was.
