Dating Questions About Assertive Women

[Johnny M]

TLC.

 

Everyone needs it, and they need it from their partner, no matter how assertive they might be, no matter how kickass they might be at life.

 

When an assertive woman comes home to her man, she needs to feel "safe" that she can let go and relax and take off the badass boots she has to wear all fricking day to keep things running smoothly, and then be free to be soft and warm and cuddly and vulnerable and sexy and affectionate and loving with her man. She doesn't want to be in control with her partner all the time. She wants to find a safe person to let go with, knowing that he's strong enough and smart enough and capable enough to take over so she doesn't have to all the time.

 

The analogy I've used in the past is that an assertive woman may know how to ride a motorcycle on her own, and she may be damned good at doing so. But, she'd love to find a man that she trusts so she can ride with her arms wrapped tight around him and just let go of everything and enjoy the wind in her hair and the feel of her man in front of her.

 

I'm honest to god stunned that men believe assertive women don't need or want a man's TLC and solid strength in their lives. Strong women want a strong man, maybe even more than less assertive women do. A strong man is the only person she can let her guard down with, because she trusts that he'll be able to catch her if she falls.

I am sure that 'assertive' women need 'TLC', but what makes you think that a strong, assertive man needs a strong, assertive woman? You have to stop and think about the man's needs and wants for a second. An assertive woman may want to feel vulnerable and have a shoulder to cry on every once in a while, but an assertive man sure as hell does not. An assertive man wants a feminine woman who will stand out of his way and let him take charge 100% of the time, not when she feels like it.

 

A union between two assertive, hard headed people could never last. You can't have an army with two commanders in chief, you can't have a country with two presidents and likewise you can't have two equally powerful partners in a relationship. And please don't tell me that an assertive woman would be willing to be totally differential to her

husband - that is simply not in the realm of possibility.

 

So now that we have established that an assertive woman would not be a good match for an assertive man, what kind of a male specimen can she attract? The answer is obvious: a meek, deferential beta male who needs a second mother. There are tons of guys like that out there and most of them are readily available. The problem is that they hardly qualify as the strong, awe-inspiring type that women dream of.

 

So herein lies the assertive woman's dilemma: the kind of man that she is compatible with, she does not want, and the kind of man that she wants is not compatible with her.

[sally4sara]

You are discounting the possibility that once that dependent person furthers his or her (usually her) education, she will dump the guy who has been bankrolling her endeavors all these years. I've seen this scenario play out more than once: boyfriend bankrolls girlfriend through medical/dentistry/law school just to get dumped because the girlfriend is now higher than him on the social ladder and wants someone of equal status.

 

My husband didn't dump me as soon as he finished school. We were not even married then so he could've just bounced. If he had, I'd think little of him, but what does that have to do with the thread topic? So maybe you are saying if he had been an assertive woman I'd have been dumped? Or are you just one of the women=evil succubi club we have on here? I can think of many women my mother has known over the years that did grunt work and baby making while their husband went to med school or law school. I've worked with women like this too. I'm really not sure why, but you give off this attitude like women are gold diggers as a life standard. There are not near as many rich people as there are middle class, so I'm not sure why you think there are so many women sponging off of their male partner while they lounge. Not to mention, but an assertive woman is likely one with earning potential.

I guess I'm just confused as to how your offered scenario ties into the thread topic of relationships with assertive women?

[sally4sara]

I am sure that 'assertive' women need 'TLC', but what makes you think that a strong, assertive man needs a strong, assertive woman? You have to stop and think about the man's needs and wants for a second. An assertive woman may want to feel vulnerable and have a shoulder to cry on every once in a while, but an assertive man sure as hell does not. An assertive man wants a feminine woman who will stand out of his way and let him take charge 100% of the time, not when she feels like it.

 

A union between two assertive, hard headed people could never last. You can't have an army with two commanders in chief, you can't have a country with two presidents and likewise you can't have two equally powerful partners in a relationship. And please don't tell me that an assertive woman would be willing to be totally differential to her

husband - that is simply not in the realm of possibility.

 

So now that we have established that an assertive woman would not be a good match for an assertive man, what kind of a male specimen can she attract? The answer is obvious: a meek, deferential beta male who needs a second mother. There are tons of guys like that out there and most of them are readily available. The problem is that they hardly qualify as the strong, awe-inspiring type that women dream of.

 

So herein lies the assertive woman's dilemma: the kind of man that she is compatible with, she does not want, and the kind of man that she wants is not compatible with her.

 

You can just say you are not interested in any kind of partnership without making it about your misconceptions about assertive women. YOU want to be in charge 100% of the time so why even bother partnering up with anyone?

And consider yourself lucky to have lives a life so far that has allowed you to believe, as a man, that you will never need a shoulder to cry on let alone want one.

[Woggle]

TLC.

 

 

 

I'm honest to god stunned that men believe assertive women don't need or want a man's TLC and solid strength in their lives. Strong women want a strong man, maybe even more than less assertive women do. A strong man is the only person she can let her guard down with, because she trusts that he'll be able to catch her if she falls.

 

After a couple of the Gloria Steniem fish and bicycles mentality and having it shoved down our throat how unneeded or unwanted we are because women are now independent what do women expect men to think? After being told how useless we are to a woman who can support herself many men actually start to believe it. This mentality is what has given assertive and independent women such a bad rep against many men.

[Calendula]

Many of you seem to have missed that I addressed Johnny's questions about what I meant by independence and support and being taken care of earlier in the thread. I've quoted it below for reference.

 

In that case, 'independent' is a redundant

term since everyone has their own thoughts and interests. I was under the impression that we were talking about financial independence here. The normal meaning of 'independent woman' is a woman who can support herself with her own income.

 

You need to clarify what you mean by 'taking care of'. Are we talking in financial terms?

 

We are NOT talking only financial terms regarding being 'taken care of', and I have never considered the term 'independent' to mean ONLY financial indepencence unless the descriptive term 'financial' is before the term independent.

 

I saw nothing in the OP that would lead me to believe we were only talking about money. "Taking care of" could mean many things.

 

Sally4Sara, thank you for understanding the meaning of my questions and addressing many of the points that Johnny seems to like to focus on. I agree in a large part with many of your responses.

 

This is my entry from earlier in the thread in response to Johnny's questions about my questions:

 

I think you may be missing the point of the post. No person I know of can be completely independent all of the time and never need to be cared for by another individual. I simply don't think it is possible, and if I did, I think I would be lying to myself. The question is focusing on why a lack of insight exists that keeps men from realizing that a woman who is primarily independent, assertive, and confident on the surface, can also sometimes be many other things including unsure, self-doubting, confused, and scared. No one has it all figured out all of the time, and when we are at our worst is when we most need support and understanding from other people, especially our significant other.

 

It also isn't a question of needing to be taken care of in order to be happy. Happiness is a state of mind, and I think many people will agree that it is possible to be happy on one's own, but still possible to be even happier when you have someone to share certain life experiences with. The part of the question about a man doubting that "they could make an assertive or independent woman happy" is, in this case, referring to that increased level of happiness that comes with spending time with and sharing life experiences with another person. We are social creatures by nature, and even the most independent people I know still find joy in spending time with other individuals.

 

The questions I pose and the text that follows contain absolutely no references to financial support. The type of support I am referring to is more intangible, and could be described as primarily emotional support or support through actions or thoughtfullness.

 

In the case of emotional support, an example that comes to mind is telling someone that you believe in them and their ability to do a certain task. When self doubt rears its ugly head, causing your SO to become anxious or upset, I have found that the best way to fight it is to talk them through it and show them that their doubts and fears are irrational and can be faced and overcome. Reminding them of past incidences of success against obstacles, and stressing the fact that you believe they can do it are also effective methods of providing emotional support.

 

As a woman, biology (in the form of hormone-induced mood swings) often dictates that I am not always as rational and level headed as I would like to be, no matter how hard I might try. This means that no matter how independent I am, at times I still become depressed or doubt my own abilities. While I have learned to successfully manage such cycles of depression (and therefore consider myself to be independent), when I get like this it is nice to have a partner who is understanding and can remind me that I am stronger and more capable than I may momentarily believe. This is what I am referring to by "a partner that can pick you up and support you during those rare times when you hit the bottom."

 

In the case of support through actions or thoughfullness, I think of cases where my previous SOs have brought me dinner on nights that I've had to work late, or done my dishes or laundry when I was sick or simply didn't have the time, all without me having to ask them to do these things. There are many more ways of supporting someone beyond providing them with money, many of which I feel are crucial for a successful relationship.

[norajane]

An assertive man wants a feminine woman who will stand out of his way and let him take charge 100% of the time, not when she feels like it.

 

Really? That sounds like a controlling, weak man, not an assertive, strong man.

[carhill]

True story. One of the participants in my 'Three cats and a mouse' journal is married with a 'loud' husband. She so graciously offered to pay for some fuel on our trip. I was shocked that she didn't even know how to put her credit card into the gas pump. She doesn't do that. Her husband does it. This is a family with two cars and a teenage son and a combined income into six figures. He controls everything, far beyond filling gas.

 

Needless to say, he and I tolerated each other.

[Calendula]

Guys who are interested in finding a strong woman partner, TAKE NOTES:

 

TLC.

 

Everyone needs it, and they need it from their partner, no matter how assertive they might be, no matter how kickass they might be at life.

 

When an assertive woman comes home to her man, she needs to feel "safe" that she can let go and relax and take off the badass boots she has to wear all fricking day to keep things running smoothly, and then be free to be soft and warm and cuddly and vulnerable and sexy and affectionate and loving with her man. She doesn't want to be in control with her partner all the time. She wants to find a safe person to let go with, knowing that he's strong enough and smart enough and capable enough to take over so she doesn't have to all the time.

 

The analogy I've used in the past is that an assertive woman may know how to ride a motorcycle on her own, and she may be damned good at doing so. But, she'd love to find a man that she trusts so she can ride with her arms wrapped tight around him and just let go of everything and enjoy the wind in her hair and the feel of her man in front of her.

 

I'm honest to god stunned that men believe assertive women don't need or want a man's TLC and solid strength in their lives. Strong women want a strong man, maybe even more than less assertive women do. A strong man is the only person she can let her guard down with, because she trusts that he'll be able to catch her if she falls.

 

Thank you for this entry . I think you've excellently described the situation and feelings of many women, myself included, who consider themselves to be strong and/or assertive.

[Calendula]

Johnny, the type of relationship you're describing here is NOT a partnership, and is absolutely NOT the type of relationship a truly strong and assertive man OR woman would ever want. They say that the truly knowledgeable realize how much they don't know, and are therefore always learning more. I think a similar thing holds true for the truly strong. Those who are truly strong know their weekness better than anyone and are able to face them and account for them, adapting to become even stronger.

 

I think Sally4Sara and NoraJane have you well pegged in saying that what you are describing is a controlling relationship in which only a weaker man who lacks trust and confidence in his SO would feel the need to always be dominant and constantly prove himself. The stronger, confident man/person, knows that they can do something (take the lead, take responsibility for things, etc) and therefore doesn't feel like they have to prove themselves all of the time and always be in control. You have to have confidence in your convictions and opinions in order to be able to openly consider someone else's and be willing to compromise.

 

I am sure that 'assertive' women need 'TLC', but what makes you think that a strong, assertive man needs a strong, assertive woman? You have to stop and think about the man's needs and wants for a second. An assertive woman may want to feel vulnerable and have a shoulder to cry on every once in a while, but an assertive man sure as hell does not. An assertive man wants a feminine woman who will stand out of his way and let him take charge 100% of the time, not when she feels like it.

 

You can just say you are not interested in any kind of partnership without making it about your misconceptions about assertive women. YOU want to be in charge 100% of the time so why even bother partnering up with anyone?

And consider yourself lucky to have lives a life so far that has allowed you to believe, as a man, that you will never need a shoulder to cry on let alone want one.

 

Really? That sounds like a controlling, weak man, not an assertive, strong man.

[Calendula]

A union between two assertive, hard headed people could never last. You can't have an army with two commanders in chief, you can't have a country with two presidents and likewise you can't have two equally powerful partners in a relationship. And please don't tell me that an assertive woman would be willing to be totally differential to her husband - that is simply not in the realm of possibility.

 

Any two people could never be equally powerful, and what you are describing sounds like two people who both want complete control rather than two people who want to share and trade off leadership roles in different scenarios. It is a question of balance between individuals, rather than one extreme or another (total difference or total control).

 

So now that we have established that an assertive woman would not be a good match for an assertive man, what kind of a male specimen can she attract? The answer is obvious: a meek, deferential beta male who needs a second mother. There are tons of guys like that out there and most of them are readily available. The problem is that they hardly qualify as the strong, awe-inspiring type that women dream of.

 

How have you established anything with the points that you have made? Your responses contain logical fallacies and depend upon incorrect definitions. I think you need to go back and read my post (#24) on EXACTLY what it means to be assertive and what assertiveness really is. Assertiveness doesn't mean always butting heads, or always getting your way/ winning, or even being the alpha/dominant individual. It is much more about compromise and not letting someone manipulate or take advantage of you, as well as actively working towards your goals in life, while at the same time respecting those around you.

[Johnny M]

Really? That sounds like a controlling, weak man, not an assertive, strong man.

How so? A true leader is a leader 100% of the time, not 35% or 50% or even 80% of the time. Yes, leaders are controlling (comes with the territory) but that's hardly a sign of weakness.

 

The bottom line is that you can't have two leaders in a relationship. Somebody has to be a follower.

[Johnny M]

Calendula, what you are describing is an idealized and highly improbable scenario where two people are living in total harmony and having equal power without butting heads with each other. It's a nice fantasy, but it doesn't work like that in real life.

 

Like I already said, every relationship, regardless of whether it's of a personal or professional nature has a leader and a follower(s). Even businesses that are arranged as partnerships (i.e. law and accounting firms) always have a managing partner who has the ultimate authority.

 

Being a leader in a relationship has nothing to do with 'insecurity' or desire to dominate. It has everything to do with the sober realization that a team cannot have more than one quarterback and that an army cannot have more than one commander in chief. One person must always have overriding authority in case of a disagreement. To use a military analogy, a good general may consult his subordinates and take their advice, but he would never delegate ultimate decision making authority to them and would never tolerate anybody disobeying his orders.

 

That is not to say that there's no place for compromise in relationships or that one person should be calling all the shots. However, in the event that a compromise cannot be reached, one person's view must inevitably prevail over the other person's. Would an assertive woman be willing to accept her man's overriding authority in the event a comprise cannot be reached? From my experience, this is usually not the case.

[carhill]

Would an assertive woman be willing to accept her man's overriding authority in the event a compromise cannot be reached? From my experience, this is usually not the case.

 

I recall, during the last session of MC, while we were making decisions regarding what is now stbx's new house, saying 'at some point, someone has to take the lead. I've done this (purchased real estate and done financing) many times and I'm the most qualified to lead. Someone has to do it.' With that, MC ended and the rest is history.

[Johnny M]

I recall, during the last session of MC, while we were making decisions regarding what is now stbx's new house, saying 'at some point, someone has to take the lead. I've done this (purchased real estate and done financing) many times and I'm the most qualified to lead. Someone has to do it.' With that, MC ended and the rest is history.

People like Calendula like to live in a fantasy world and pretend that every conflict can be solved through compromise and power-sharing. But it's just that - a fantasy. The reality is that when two people don't see eye to eye on an important issue, one either has to submit to the authority of the other or end the relationship. That's why a relationship between two type A personalities could never last.

[Calendula]

Calendula, what you are describing is an idealized and highly improbable scenario where two people are living in total harmony and having equal power without butting heads with each other. It's a nice fantasy, but it doesn't work like that in real life.

 

Like I already said, every relationship, regardless of whether it's of a personal or professional nature has a leader and a follower(s). Even businesses that are arranged as partnerships (i.e. law and accounting firms) always have a managing partner who has the ultimate authority.

 

Being a leader in a relationship has nothing to do with 'insecurity' or desire to dominate. It has everything to do with the sober realization that a team cannot have more than one quarterback and that an army cannot have more than one commander in chief. One person must always have overriding authority in case of a disagreement. To use a military analogy, a good general may consult his subordinates and take their advice, but he would never delegate ultimate decision making authority to them and would never tolerate anybody disobeying his orders.

 

That is not to say that there's no place for compromise in relationships or that one person should be calling all the shots. However, in the event that a compromise cannot be reached, one person's view must inevitably prevail over the other person's. Would an assertive woman be willing to accept her man's overriding authority in the event a comprise cannot be reached? From my experience, this is usually not the case.

 

People like Calendula like to live in a fantasy world and pretend that every conflict can be solved through compromise and power-sharing. But it's just that - a fantasy. The reality is that when two people don't see eye to eye on an important issue, one either has to submit to the authority of the other or end the relationship. That's why a relationship between two type A personalities could never last.

 

Two of your above analogies are irrelevant: from my perspective a romantic LTR between two individuals should be nothing like either a sports team or a military organization. Those type of organizations DO need people with specifically defined roles in order to maintain their structure and function, and a relationship between two individuals doesn't necessarily require this. It may be something you desire (a defined leadership role in your relationships which gives you absolute final authority), but it is a matter of personal preference rather than absolute necessity.

 

I wouldn't say that I'm fantasizing to believe that no single person can be in the lead all of the time on all issues, and always be the one to make the final decision. Even in a business partnership, whoever is the 'managing partner' will defer to the knowledge or experience (and therefore the judgment and decisions) of their partner, when they recognize that they are out of their element or that their partner is more capable. The key element is being able to recognize and submit to the leadership of another when that person's knowledge or abilities in a given area are greater than your own.

 

What I am trying to describe is a case of Joint Leadership, where the role of 'leader' or 'the one with ultimate authority' is traded off between two individuals, depending on the scenario in question. I agree that "one has to admit to the authority of the other or end the relationship" but I don't agree that it always has to be the same person (either the man or the woman) with the final authority in case of disagreement. I believe that the person who makes the final call in a situation should be the person who knows the most or is the most capable, whether they are the man or woman. In order for this to work, however, both parties must be assertive and able to honestly recognize their own strengths and limitations, as well as those of the other individual. I'm not saying that such a relationship will ever be 'perfect', but why should such a balance be completely disregarded as "idealized and highly improbable" instead of recognized as something to work towards with the right partner?

Edited February 11, 2010 by Calendula

[Johnny M]

Two of your above analogies are irrelevant: from my perspective a romantic LTR between two individuals should be nothing like either a sports team or a military organization. Those type of organizations DO need people with specifically defined roles in order to maintain their structure and function, and a relationship between two individuals doesn't necessarily require this. It may be something you desire (a defined leadership role in your relationships which gives you absolute final authority), but it is a matter of personal preference rather than absolute necessity.

No, they are totally relevant. The key word in 'personal relationship' is relationship. All relationships, whether in the family, dating, business, or military context are based on the concepts of leadership and authority. You are absolutely wrong to suggest that a relationship between two people of the opposite gender is somehow fundamentally different from all other relationships.

 

I wouldn't say that I'm fantasizing to believe that no single person can be in the lead all of the time on all issues, and always be the one to make the final decision. Even in a business partnership, whoever is the 'managing partner' will defer to the knowledge or experience (and therefore the judgement and decisions) of their partner, when they recognize that they are out of their element or that their partner is more capable. The key element is being able to recognize and submit to the leadership of another when that person's knowledge or abilities in a given area are greater than your own.

You are confusing submission with taking counsel. It's one thing to recognize that a subordinate may be more knowledgeable in some area and follow his advice and quite another to relinquish control to the said subordinate and blindly follow his/her lead. No good manager or general would ever do the latter.

 

I believe that the person who makes the final call in a situation should be the person who knows the most or is the most capable, whether they be the man or woman.

And what happens when the parties can't agree on who's more capable to deal with a particular situation? This is where your theory of "joint leadership" falls apart. There can be only one ultimate leader. No exceptions.

 

I'm not saying that such a relationship will ever be 'perfect', but why should such a balance be completely disregarded as "idealized and highly improbable" instead of recognized as something to work towards with the right partner?

Because such relationships simply don't exist.

[carhill]

So, is a woman who is perceived to be 'assertive' always perceived by a man to be a potential rival for leadership? A competitor? A contender for top dog? Does that reality impact attraction? Can a man subordinate and still feel healthy?

[Calendula]

Johnny,

 

I find it interesting that many of your comments indirectly support my conclusion that certain men lack the insight to see that independent, assertive women also have a softer side, and I don't think your personality type and views would make it possible for you, in particular, to match with a more assertive female who would want to share power in a more balanced, partnership-based relationship. Your personal relationship dynamic would be a great deal different from mine, but if we didn't all have our perspectives this would be a very boring world.

 

I may not agree with you on many of the points you've made, but in many ways, the perspectives you've shared are quite interesting, if only from how you seem to want everything to be so absolute. What do you think your reason is for why you want such absolute lines in a relationship? Why do you think you feel the desire to categorize women or certain character traits? From your writing, it seems to me like you feel that submission to the leadership of another individual, especially a woman, is primarily a negative thing, never to be tolerated; is this perhaps the case, and if so, why do you think this is?

[meerkat stew]

So, is a woman who is perceived to be 'assertive' always perceived by a man to be a potential rival for leadership? A competitor? A contender for top dog? Does that reality impact attraction? Can a man subordinate and still feel healthy?

 

Not in my mind, rather "No" to the first question, "Yes" to the second. Disagree with Johnny M's analysis. Organizations require a hierarchy, two person relationships do not IMO, and analogizing a paired sexual relationship with organizational structure is inapt. By agreement or otherwise, the parties can structure their relationship however they like, leader or no.

 

In a partnership structure, a common entity usually consisting of few members, unless otherwise agreed, each partner has one vote, the same power. Requires a tie-breaking mechanism, but generally there is no leader and follower.

 

Of course there -can- be a hierarchy in a two person relationship or entity, just needn't be. If I can be assured of getting a good division of labor, that's all it takes to make me happy, no need to be obeyed or to feel in control. All control is an illusion anyway.

[Johnny M]

Johnny,

 

I find it interesting that many of your comments indirectly support my conclusion that certain men lack the insight to see that independent, assertive women also have a softer side.

I don't think you've been reading my posts very carefully. Otherwise, you would have noticed that I have agreed with this premise on at least two occasions.

 

Yes, most of the so-called assertive women have a softer side to them. But that is beside the point - and that's what you don't get. Unlike assertive women, assertive men do not have a "soft side". Sure, we all have our problems and issues, but we don't deal with them by crying on someone else's shoulder. We don't need (or want) a woman to be source of strength and inspiration in our lives. We need a woman who would fulfill the traditional female role of mother and wife. We want someone who is attractive, pleasant to be around and who would be a good mother for our children. We don't need a woman who wants to save the world or become the President.

 

And I would suggest to you that a more submissive, traditional female would fit the role of mother and wife better than your typical modern, career-oriented assertive woman (even if she does have a softer side). Why do you think foreign born women are so sought after in the US? The answer is that they are more submissive and deferential to their husbands than their assertive American counterparts.

[Johnny M]

Why do you think you feel the desire to categorize women or certain character traits? From your writing, it seems to me like you feel that submission to the leadership of another individual, especially a woman, is primarily a negative thing, never to be tolerated; is this perhaps the case, and if so, why do you think this is?

This has nothing to do with viewing submission to authority as a negative thing. The basic fact of life is that men are meant to have authority over women. That's nature's law. And before you accuse me of sexism, allow me to explain.

 

Like everything else, male and female gender roles are rooted in our evolutionary past. What were the traditional roles of our male and female ancestors? Females were responsible for raising children and keeping the household running. Males, on the other hand, were responsible for feeding the family and protecting it from harm. Because males were responsible for the safety of all, they naturally had authority over women. This was very much a hierarchical relationship. When it came to making fundamental choices affecting the family's survival, there was never any doubt that the man was the 'decider'.

 

People who want to turn things around and create an artificial power structure where authority is shared equally between the man and the woman (or where the woman is charge) are trying to accomplish something that goes against basic human nature. It's no wonder most of these relationships fail.

[sally4sara]

A true leader is a leader 100% of the time, not 35% or 50% or even 80% of the time. Yes, leaders are controlling (comes with the territory) but that's hardly a sign of weakness.

 

The bottom line is that you can't have two leaders in a relationship. Somebody has to be a follower.

 

Yes sometimes one will have to follow the other when no compromise can be reached. There is no reason under the sun why the follower must always be the husband or always be the wife.

A true leader must be wise enough to recognize their own limits in the face of another person's familiarity with the problem at hand. For someone to be unable to do this is not only a sign of weakness, but also one of stupidity and, depending on the situation, recklessness.

If my husband and I found ourselves snowed in up some mountain with not enough food, he would need to follow my greater knowledge of surviving in that environment and hunting. If he refused to do this because "a leader must be a leader 100% of the time" he would either freeze to death or starve.

If we were on a boat, and while at sea the captain suddenly died, he would be able to navigate the stars and figure out where we were and where we should go.

 

A leader knows how to best utilize the skill set of the rest of the group to achieve the best possible outcome. Not bellow "I'M IN CHARGE HERE". People do not gravitate to someone who acts like this. People do not recognize them as leaders as they do not instill trust.

[Johnny M]

Anyway, sally4sara....what do you have against spaces between paragraphs??

[sally4sara]

Anyway, sally4sara....what do you have against spaces between paragraphs??

 

Yeeaahhh.

That's staying on topic.

[Twenty-ten]

Why do agressive or assertive women seem more likely to stay lonely or seem to have trouble finding men who will partner them. Why do we seem to have this problem, and what could possibly be done about it by men or women? The question asked in the thread was “Is an aggressive woman a turn off?” with later discussion substituting the word ‘assertive’ for aggressive.

 

At the end of the day when all is said and done no matter how you slice it, a lot of men like to be the hunters not the hunted. When a man becomes the hunted he will stay in that role pretty much throughout the relationship.

 

Why is it that so many men seem to lack the insight to see that assertive, independent women also want to be taken care of on some level?

 

Because in a relationship we set the precedence for what we will get and how much we will have to give by the dynamic we determine from day one. If the woman is being the pursuer, she will have to stay for the most part in that active role. Sure there is a shift in roles in most relationships but the underlying roles will always be defined as decided upon from day one.

 

 

In all my years of talking to women and seeing the types of women who are aggressive and who act in the "hunting" role I have never seen one who felt like she was doted after or treated in the feminine ways she deeply would desire to be treated by a man. The very need that prompted her to be so aggressive in getting what she wants, are the needs that become a point of contention in a relationship because they are not being met.

 

This is just my observation.

 

Having said that, now because of all the shift in gender expectations I think the next generations (I am in my 30s) might be less defined in this respect.