It's common that a man might like to think of himself as the dominant partner in the relationship. This is the one who instinctively takes the lead more often than the other in social interactions and day to day living.
However, some men today simply don't properly provide leadership in certain situations. There's not necessarily anything wrong with this. Some guys just aren't comfortable being the one in the driver's seat.These are the guys that would do better by being with a more dominant woman.
He doesn't want to pursue
If a guy would rather a woman ask him out and make the moves instead of him being the one to pursue, then he's likely a more laid back, passive type of guy, as some men are by nature.
In some cases, guys can be shy and have anxiety around asking a woman out or making the first moves, which is understandable because men generally run a greater risk of rejection than women do.
A passive guy is going to be more comfortable with an assertive, take charge type of woman who has no problem being the one to initiate flirting, making the first moves, or asking him out on a date.
He is indecisive
If a man is often hesitant, fickle, or indecisive then he's going to need a woman who will be the authoritative force in the relationship.
Two indecisive people in a couple are going to be ineffective and grow frustrated with one another very quickly.
For example, if a man asks you where you want to eat, he's not asking you to reply with, “ Oh I don't know. Where do you want to go?”
That's the last thing he want to hears because he wants you to be dominant and make the decision for the both of you.
He doesn't want to pay
Running hand in hand with favoring the woman to ask him out is also the preference of opting out of paying for the date.
Dominant men are going to willingly pay for the date as it is made evident that they are the financial leader and supplier in the relationship.
If a man has the money to pay for a date, but habitually doesn't want to, then he'll naturally be the more humble and subordinate partner, financially. He will need a woman who is going to be more comfortable being in the provider status.
Luckily, this shouldn't be too difficult considering the fact that there are more bread-winning women than ever, complimentary to more men choosing to be stay at home dads which has in fact almost doubled since 1989.
As stated before, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with either of these choices or lifestyles based on principle. It's all just personal preference of the individual and how well you complement your partner.
Some men might be intimidated at first by the idea of having a more dominant girlfriend or wife, but if they take the time to think rationally, they might realize that this is how they could be happier.
Most Helpful Opinions
@Naydyonov Makes sense but the economic climate has changed since then and that affects things more than the other 50% finally joining the labour force. Part of the reason why women started to go out to work before and after it was more socially accepted was because of the rising struggle to manage JUST on the man's income.
Social circumstances ironically have pushed women to go out to work.
Additionally, women joining all kinds of jobs doesn't necessarily bring down the OVERALL wage growth. There are specific jobs that are have increased in demand because of the influx of female workers (hence raising the wages) and there are also specific jobs that have the opposite effect. Very few jobs have been negatively effected by rising conpetition from the opposite sex joining.
More people are demanding strikes on pay-related issues than before women going out to work was a thing. There is more movement to increase minimum wage and salaries than before.
Isn't it great for men to not have to carry the whole weight of making money and ends meet now that women also have to share it? Men can now not be as burdened as before with social and family financial pressures when their partners are also earning and can retain some for themselves instead of spending it all of family bills etc.
The example you gave doesn't hold much water because her circumstances and job specifics could be different to yours and your time. I don't know what Starbucks looks for in employees (looks? Perceived behaviour?) but unless she got that job you didn't get, it is near impossible to make a reasonable comparsion. It is definitely much more complicated than gender.
I don't know how some who does exactly what you do but happens to be female could make 3 times more, by just being female. In fact, she could be making less BECAUSE she's a woman in construction/landscaping. Sexist stereotypes of who's fit to do what still exist.
I feel that it is more population and people influx growth than specifically women. Especially now that we are well into both sexes in the workforces, we're actually more worried about the declining population growth in many places and the workforce shrinking with less young people and more elderly.
Starbucks: had to do with age — I was denied for my age, she was not.
But my point isn't specifically about a man versus woman thing, it has more to do with the fact that men are no longer the bearers of financial resources. This means expected men to pay for strangers is unfair.
About the 3× more: a guy can make more than a girl, she can make more than him. My examples are mostly more specifically related to students. The point being that girls get some low-skilled jobs that guys often can't. Like babysitting.
The point is simply that it is completely reasonable to assume that nowadays a girl can be making more money that a boy. Why the boy should pay for every date is not clear to me.
In my own experience: I was denied due to age. Any ordinary self employment was not viable or possible for me, like babysitting, which is not a job boys have access to. Though my classmates, boys and girls alike, got jobs with no experience and would be fired and go on to the next job, where they'd also be fired. As a result for quite a while many girls would have been making 2-10 times more than me depending on the month.
I would have had literally no money left if I had to pay for every date I would have gone on — if that something I would be doing.
By the way, your comment: "You make good points and I agree but the last part doesn't make any sense."
My response: fuck you.
I'm joking! : )
I found your acknowledgement nice. Equally, your argumentation is on point; criticizing the argument, not the arguer.
This clears everything up for me perfectly!
I wholeheartedly agree that men should not be expected to pay for strangers or pay for every date.
That is utter bullshit, exactly.
Okay all this seems like my wrong interpretation of what you said when I actually agreed with you 😂 I apologise.
Got it, the Starbucks job and the girl one was about the age. I thought it was because she was a girl and you were a guy :P my bad!
However, I know people who are 16 and work at Starbucks these days! They were ageist (not a joke, this is a real thing) to you and where I am, you can sue them for it. There was this story of this guy around here who was denied a reasonable job at 16 despite the job legally permitting 16yrolds to work there (?) And he sued them 6 years later and won apparently. Good for him.
Yeah, it's true that some girls can get the low-skilled jobs more easily than guys. Babysitting actually also has a sexist undertone to having more females in the field - males are assumed to be more predatorial and a possibly (often sexual) violent danger to kids, especially female children. I am really confused by this damn world at times.
Ah okay yes. If the girls are earning more than you are and/or expect you to pay for every date, that's unreasonable!
Good choice not doing that. If I go on a date and it comes to the payment point, I offer split or paying for what I ordered or even paying for the whole meal especially if I asked him out but never all on him EVERY time! Who would actually have the nerve 😂
And thanks for being so respectful in explaining your points so well! : D
Nah I think my argument based around flawed interpretations of what you were trying to say more than anything concrete :/
This was a lovely convo! I'm actually taken aback because usually I see personal attacks on my intelligence, gender, age... my ancestors... weird stuff, too.
Respect flows both ways and this was great : D
No, I'm not blaming you. I usually kind of ramble, glance over at what I wrote, shrug, and press submit.
So I know that sometimes some people misunderstand what the overall idea is.
About Starbucks: I'm not going to sue them because in reality a lot of places denied me a job because of my age. I don't take it personally. Especially considering it forced me to stop looking at jobs that depend on location. Now I can make the same amount of money whether I am in Canada or in Europe. It's not a lot regardless, but at least I am not tied to my residence in regards to work.
And honestly, I find it funny to hear my Trudeau loving peers talk about the job growth he created, considering (depending on the time period) 80-100% of my employment comes from abroad and I couldn't find a single ordinary job as a student.
The only jobs I had in Canada were:
— landscaping, got the job through a friend.
— construction, worked with some crazy guys until the boss disappeared for half a year.
— bakery, not something I was fond of — at all.
Three jobs is technically alright, but this was all before the minimum wage increase. I do landscaping with the guy on and off; the construction thing died out because the boss was sent to the hospital, as I found out a fucking half year later; I stopped working at the bakery due to an injury. Meaning I've never been fired. :)
But comparing my self employment:
— my own landscaping
— snow shoveling; I was quite desperate because this was after being denied by over a dozen places due to my age.
— online #1 (foreign)
— online #2 (foreign)
— online #3 (foreign)
— online #4 (foreign); still in the works and so far can be classified as part of the #3 category, but is starting to take form as an unrelated source of income.
— I think your approach shows consideration for the guy but also ensures you're not being taken advantage of yourself.
I know you're not blaming me. I honestly do more or less the same. It's just an irreversible habit at this point and I'm too lazy to properly think and word my comments so it can't be misunderstood only to regret when people call me out for it 😂👌🏼
Yeah, no you're all good.
Starbucks: Fair enough. The dude who I was talking about was sueing a relatively medium-sized company and not a big, multi-national, multi-million company like lovely SB. He probably would've lost if it was a big MNC, not to put it off completely. Sad reality is that money can switch the courts for you to an alarming extent.
That's cool you don't take it personally. I probably wouldn't either.
Ah, you're in Canada? I don't know much about Canadian politics tbh.
The depth of my knowledge is that his first name is Justin. I should get a grip lol
I have heard about the so-called job growth he has apparently created a lot however but never really took it to face value. Now that I'm hearing from a real person who has actually worked in the assembly lines of the job market, it definitely is a first impression!
I'm glad you've found yourself in self-employment :) I'm unsure what to do with my life at the moment but I'll figure it out haha. To earn money, I do a lot of odd jobs like you like even some as obscure as just "translating" etc. Self-employment is becoming more and more attractive for people it seems. Not surprising and I think it's great in terms of the earner's extended piece of mind, freedom, hours etc. Great!
Yes, I want to make sure the guy feels considered for and not burdened by MY costs. It is extremely weird because some men I've gone on dates with have actually refused to date me again because I offered to pay 50/50 or even just my orders on the first date. They said it is "stripping them of their masculinity" and "giving power to the woman"? Dude, would you rather break the bank or just let the girl pay lmao 😂