3 Signs A Guy Might Need A More Dominant Woman

[MzAsh]

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.

[wynn-ing]

@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.

[Naydyonov]

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.

[Naydyonov]

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.

[wynn-ing]

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 😂

[wynn-ing]

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

[Naydyonov]

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.

[wynn-ing]

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 😂

[KaraAyna]

Good mytake

[MzAsh]

Thank ya! 🖤

[KaraAyna]

Welcome

[KaraAyna]

Thanks

[Lliam]

Good MyTake, MzAsh.
I had never thought about the issue, but it makes total sense that there are guys who are less aggressive and assertive or more subordinate. And it makes sense that there are women who are more assertive. They make a perfect combo. They compliment and reinforce each other.

It's an insightful perspective that might help some guys to understand themselves and seek out the right type of women or vice versa.

Neither personality type is superior or inferior, normal or abnormal. They just are what they are and should be acknowledged and celebrated. How sad for women who have more dominant personalities to have to fit themselves into the stereotypical role of the wide-eyed, helpless, submissive female if they want a mate. And how sad for less assertive men to go though life feeling uncomfortable in their roles as bread winners, decision makers and top dogs.

You also picked the perfect photo to exemplify a dominant female archetype.

[Lliam]

It also goes without saying that nobody is 100% one way or the other. They may possess some of these characteristics to one degree or another. There is a wide spectrum. Acknowledging the normalcy of these traits should increase people's comfort with themselves.

[MzAsh]

Great response, thank you.

[Jean-Marie_Céline]

Good myTake, I agree on all your points, but I don't think all the signs need to be present - one is sufficient enough.
I think the only sign I show is the first - unwillingness to pursue - and this did result in the woman of the situation doing the pursuing.
Maybe it can go along with indecisiveness - I do recognize that sometimes my lack of assertiveness and accomodating side is perceived as a weakness and properly taken advantage of. Perhaps I'm seeing it the wrong way, perhaps it is really a weakness I have to work on, I don't know.

[razelove]

I agree on the first two but not the last. Sometimes there's just an income disparity, or, in my case, I just can't part with money, I live cheap, and put a lot into savings. That being said I do enjoy a dominant woman from time to time, a partner to be dominant to, and a partner to be submissive to. Balance.

[ElissaDido]

Good take
I'm not attracted to these men

[jgokgotit]

I mostly agree with each point in my case. I have a preference for her to pursue, but I will do it too. I think of it as whoever feels comfortable making the first move just goes for it. When it comes to decisions, I am mostly passive and would leave it to her. For example, how things run day to day I would love for her to decide. However, when a major decision is being made, I will make my voice heard. The more a decision matters to me, the more I'll be assertive and negotiate. As for paying for dates, I have a bit of a rule. I'll pay for the first two dates. The third date I would insist on going half, but would let her know ahead of time. This is a kind of test I've set up to see what her reaction is as well as her heart and integrity. From the 4th date on, it does not matter to me who pays. However, given my chosen career field, whatever woman I meet will probably make more than I do, especially in my first 5 years.
This is an excellent mytake. It got me thinking about what kind of woman I hope to meet and what kind of relationship I hope to have. If I were to place it on a 50/50 type of scale, my ideal is 65/35 with 65 being how often she makes the decisions. If I succeed at being a police officer, that career will take so much of my mind and heart. The little bit of spare time I would have home I would want to spend having fun with my family. Also, I value intelligence and creativity in women, to the point where the ones I choose to date are usually smarter than me. Finally, I would be making so many life-altering decisions in my career so it would be nice to not have to make them at home.
lol Sorry for the lengthy reply.

[ankith10reddy]

Dominance generally means when one takes power over others and forces their decision on to others. The scenarios you mentioned shows more of confidence and leadership.

Firstly, yes a some/lot of men don't want to purse asking a woman out because of risk of rejection. But also risk of offending, in the current generation where some women who find greeting to also be offensive, sure asking a woman out might possibly land him in prison.

Secondly, yes some men don't want to make decision in some matters , like the choice of restaurant. But that doesn't necessarily make him indecisive, he sure might be having an opinion or choice in other matters.

Finally, i pretty sure these days people share their expenses on dates. But yeah some don't and expect other person to pay for them. If you think about it, do you want a guy who pays for a stranger to just get to know her (that for me sounds way to desperate). Or he pays for people who he is actually in a relationship with.

I don't think its dominance if one is working to earn money for family while the other stays at home. If more of like partnership, where they divide and conquer the jobs.

No offense what so ever but I don't think it's good for men/women to stay at home even after the kids reaches a certain age, because that inflicts a lot of responsibility and risk if the "breadwinner" loses job. I think it's better of both earn together, while still spending time with children.

[Jamie05rhs]

I disagree, and I will tell you why:

1. More like we don't want to harass and we don't want to stalk. Unlike some other people, I actually understand the concept of No Means No. If you want to be coerced, then sorry; I'm not your guy.

2. One can be indecisive and still lead. We just take longer to come to a decision. But we make better decisions because we think things through more thoroughly. And we're democratic; we take our woman's wishes into consideration as opposed to just dictating everything and shoving it down her throat.

"ineffective and grow frustrated". No; they can make a good team because they respect each other and understand the art of compromise.

And no, I don't want her to "make the decision.". It's a genuine question asking her for her opinion.

3. Payment is not about control. And if it is, then I want no part of it. I'm a leader, not a control freak.

Furthermore, I don't know how this is so hard for some people to understand: just because I don't want to pay for everything for the woman (because she's an adult, not a child) that doesn't mean that I want her to pay for me. I'm a man; I can pay for myself, thank you very much.

[ronaldo75]

"He doesn't want to pursue" - So if a guy won't chase, he's a coward who needs a dominant woman? No. Just. No. It's 2019 and women are big girls now, if a guy shows interest then either you want him or not - no has time for games anymore - especially in the age of #metoo.

"He is indecisive" - Women who are dominant are normally less patient with their partners than dominant men are. A man who's indecisive shouldn't even be dating. He needs to be working on himself as indecisiveness 100% stems from insecurity.

"He doesn't want to pay" - Stop cherry picking facts. Women are becoming larger bread-winners "STATISTICALLY" only when you calculate for homes with 2 married or unmarried romantic partners living in one household. However, that statistic is heavily skewed by the fact that men in relationships still spend over 70% more of their income on their partners and/or households than women. 70 fucking percent. That's because in most households where the women earns more the bills are split 50/50. That's NOT the case when the man is the larger earner, when men earn more women tend to spend up to 50% of their pay on THEMSELVES. That said, the average man in the USA has close to $2,000 in the bank more than the average women. So... yeah.

[wynn-ing]

I don't agree with this MyTake either and I agree with all of this bar the last point - can you source those figures? They sound very class, background, salaries, with person-specific bills, lifestyle choices, values within the family/couple/person and very location specific than we can go here.

Women ARE becoming larger breadwinners where I am and in terms of social impact and household earning distribution in general. Bills are paid by the breadwinner (man or woman) and the other partner can spend on more conventional items and services for the family. The breadwinner retains the leftover money from the bills but this may not necessarily be 50% of their earnings. This is not the case everywhere but is extremely common according to social impact and changes in society with these household income management types.

I'm not invalidating your point, just curious about the legitimacy. It sounds very different to what I can deduce in my society.

[SomeGuyCalledTom]

I'm kinda on the fence on this, I definitely am more laid back and passive in a sense. And sexually I can be submissive or dominant depending on mood. And I kinda like the thought of a girl taking interest in me and making moves. But I also like the feeling of protecting and providing for a girl I like. I tend to be more contemplative and aim to please, but that doesn't mean I can't have some fun playing the leading role. Girls I've dated were more attracted the more I led. Although if she was naturally more dominant and prefered her men more passive/ submissive, then who knows, maybe I could be seduced by that. My main fear would be becoming emasculated. Then again, I know guys who act dominant and macho but are totally under their gf's thumb and are pretty much "whipped". So maybe things are not always they seem. Personally I swing between wanting a sweet submissive girl who lets me lead... and a decisive seductive girl who takes the lead

[Lliam]

Good reply, SomeGuyCalledTom. You understand nuance. Everything isn't black or white; all or nothing.

[SomeGuyCalledTom]

@Lliam Thanks, yes I agree there are very few definitives when it comes to human personality and sexuality. One person can possess several contradictory traits and they all co-exist. eg: guy goes to work and acts overly polite and reserved; then goes to the pub afterwards and is boisterous and charismatic; then goes home to his wife and gets all tender and sensitive. Problems start when we think of these traits in terms of "I am" rather than "I have". If the guy in above example says to himself "I act sensitive at home with my wife, therefore I AM a sensitive man.".. then that's a half truth at best. If he says "I HAVE a sensitive aspect of my personality", then there's no contradiction with a counter statement like "I HAVE a dominant, commanding side."

So I recognise I HAVE a passive/ submissive side that wants to follow and please a woman. But I also recognise I HAVE a dominant/ leading side that wants to seduce and make decisions etc. It all fits together in the totality.

[Lliam]

Good explanation.

[englisc]

Shy and indecisive guys will prefer a dominant woman, sure. The rest though I'd say is false.

Dominant and submissive behaviour has nothing to do with who pursues who. It's really about how they pursue. You're going on a date with this person who is pursuing you.

You: so where are you taking me?
Dominant: let's go to X place
Submissive: where would you like to go?

That could be either a man or a woman. Whoever is the more confident, assertive and the more decisive is the more dominant one.

As for money, just because a man or woman have more money than the other doesn't make them dominant. Again this depends on the two people involved.

[Sensualsubmissive]

Hi Madam Ash💚🌹💎, 1) for pursuing i def do pursue without an issue due to the grace of being introduced to reading about what women want and need and expect from a man. 2) For decisions id rather a Woman decide when she had more knowledge or experience in the matter.3) for paying i have a cake daddy mindframe so even if she makes more im obligated by nature to provide for and fulfill her desires. In general, i need a Wife who is going to be the leader in finance of the marriage. So if she says no we are not spending on this or that, i hear and obey💚🌹.

[prasanp]

This is shit. All people have some flaws and that does not make them submissive. I only know whether one is submissive or not if they want to feel protected, loved and when they seek attention and security of someone else constantly. Apart from that most submissive have their own scars, what they need is someone who can fill those scar and regain their confidence, they don't even need any dominant to be happy. About decision making, most time submissive are one controlling; they need someone who can make decision not the best one but who one can make better decision while taking their opinion.

[TotallyAverageMale]

I honestly do not believe that a relationship on the basis you've described will work long-term. If the woman has to do the chasing and the decision-making in the relationship as well as being a primary financial provider I don't see how she can respect the man long term. And men need to be respected in the same way that women need to be loved.

If a man is always passive and indecisive then he needs to make a concerted effort to change some aspects of the way he approaches his relationship, rather than have a relationship that reinforces those attitudes and then breaks down.

[Naydyonov]

Okay, if I ask a girl out then paying the couple dollars is what I should do.
But if she is clearly interested but never offers to go on a date, so I am the one doing so, then by straight logic I should pay: I am the one inviting. But I can't sponsor another person.

If she doesn't understand why in the beginning I expect her to pay roughly 50% of the time or for her half of the meal then she can leave.

It is because if I pay for all dates with multiple girls I will lose money that otherwise would have been saved for the future. When I pay for myself I pay for the food I eat. When I pay for a girl that I've seen once or twice, then I am essentially paying for a stranger. She is not mine. Until she feels like my person I can not be committed to spend my labour on her food.

This is 2019, not 1950. Of course now it is less pretty, but if women diluted the job market and made wage growth lower, then they should also pay.

[wynn-ing]

You make good points and I agree but the last part doesn't make any sense.
How did women "dilute the job market" or "make wage growth lower"? Now that women are actively in the market just as men because they're human too, they are somehow negatively impacting the job market?

[Naydyonov]

Well before employers had to pay the man enough money to support a family. When women entered the workforce en masse than no longer did one salary have to be enough to support 4-5 people.

It's like with immigration:
more lower skilled immigrants makes the wages for all low skilled workers lower, while more high skilled immigration lowers wages for all high skilled workers.

More supply of workers in a specific field produces stagnating or diminishing wages.

So while in the 50s there were social and financial reasons for a man to pay, nowadays both sexes are equal.
Especially young people. Some girls get jobs that I couldn't get.
example: Starbucks told me I was too young (16); my brother works in a location with a 16 y-o girl who would have had less availability than me and who had less work experience at the time.

So were I to try to stick to normal jobs I would actually be poorer. So instead I either worked outside of the stereotypical teenager jobs: stores and fast food, and did work in landscaping, construction, and next becoming self-employed.
So while I may have more money because I figured out a way to get a job when no one wanting to hire someone like me, another guy could have very little money. It's very possible the girl could be making, say, 3 times more.

[David_Kek]

@wynn-ing It's basic economics; if you double the workforce without doubling the industry, you half wages.
Why else do you think it's so hard to raise a family on a single income these days, while in the past it was easily done? Relatively speaking men's wages are lower than they were before, hence married women still have the same level of income coming into their home, only difference is now they also have to work.

[wynn-ing]

@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.

More people are demanding higher pay and salaries than before women going out to work was a thing because before, risking your main source of income would be risking food on the table and living expenses for the whole family. There is more movement to increase minimum wage and salaries than before because more people are dissatisfied with low wages.

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 but unless she got that job you didn't get; it is near impossible to make a reasonable comparison. 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.

[wynn-ing]

@Naydyonov 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.

[wynn-ing]

@David_Kek How is the industry not doubled if the workforce is doubled? Does the workforce not drive the industry? What would an industry be without a high demand workforce?

It's hard to raise a family on a single income because of living costs in today's world and inflation. Resources we've been counting in for major supplies are being depleted, everyone's on each others backs about climate change and many don't care one ounce about it, urbanization is costly and rural areas are being mowed down for cities and by monetary drives.
Life is expensive, basic needs cost a lot more than just one person's income can cover so both partners work. Not that many families can afford to survive on a single income.

Men's wages are just as high as women's in terms of what specific job they're working on. There is no minimum wage gap and men actually earn more without factoring in if they work longer. Wages are highly field-specific, not nearly as much or at all gender-specific. Married women obviously have more income coming in if they work too.

[David_Kek]

@wynn-ing the workforce has double, but the consumers have not. The supply of workers doubled, but the demand did not.

Do you even know what inflation is? Because I've got news for you, this very subject is an issue of inflation. In the same way just printing more money lowers the value of said money, increasing the supply of workers without an increase of demand, actually reduces the demand, hence lowers the value of said paycheck.

That is why in the modern age it take about 2 paychecks to raise a family, because paychecks are worth half as much as they relatively used to be.
If 95% of women dropped out of the workforce tomorrow, said husbands paychecks would double, because the demand for said workers just doubled.

[wynn-ing]

Demand can rise or fall depending on factors outside of workforce size like economic climate, national debt and infrastructure expenditure etc. This principle cannot be applied to all fields equally as not all fields have equally proportionate workforce supply and consumer demand.

I know very well what inflation is, and that this indeed is one inflation-related issue. Supply being higher than demand can be and is an issue lowering wages and salaries offered by companies in that specific industry, yes. But that is not the case in every sector and assuming so is not giving a realistic view of what is rising or falling within the economy.

High living costs have much less to do with supply and demand of the workforce in general in terms of basic, survival needs like food, shelter, clothing etc. Taxes and duties of exports and imports is alone one of the big reasons for high living costs and to cover costs, therefore, both partners have to work.

If 95% women dropped out, money flowing in the economy would drop significantly and recession is very likely as taxes paid in are cut drastically lower. Economic recession greatly influences the job market and with less people in the job market, taxes on the people left will be increased. In families, even if husband's paycheck doubles, the difference it makes would depend on which field he has a job in and how much the loss of money flowing into the economy has influenced his sector.

[David_Kek]

@wynn-ing it is a multifaceted issue, but it can't be denied this is one of the largest.
In mean, what field in the economy does this not apply to?

If women dropped out it would lead to a lower GDP and possibly a recession for a while, but in realitive terms it wouldn't negatively effect the workers via the demand of them going up. If you can increase your GDP by doubling the workforce, that doesn't mean your doubling your workforces paycheck... by definition you are inflating your workforce.

I understand the importance of competition in the market, and how harmful protectionism is in the long run, but when it comes to men and women it's different, because in practical terms their place the economy is not separate. They live in the same house, they live on the same pooled income.
When your both on the same income are both work, that is a negative compared to both being on the same income while only one has to work for it.
This is just as big a factor as the amount of people who live by themselves, increasing the cost of living increasing the demand of housing (and housing resources) while not the supply.

And I agree with you, there are other factors at play here, such as taxes, national spending, national debit, etc.
But without trying to sound too misogynistic, who's fault is that?
Seriously, who's fault is it that all of those factors are unsustainably too high?
If you look at the statistics on the timeline, there were all at reasonable manageable level, then as soon as women got the vote that when taxes, social spending and short term social wellfare went through the roof.
And that reflected in the disproportionate policies men and women vote for.

So, you know, as a woman if you want to help the economy, then ignore Sheryl Sandberg's advice to "Lean In", and instead just "Lie Down".

[wynn-ing]

@David_Kek In all honesty, you really are just trying to hiding your bursting misogyny behind economic problems and citing the causes to just women as opposed to everything that is actually affecting the economy.

You just want women to leave the workforce completely, making it out as if that will have no problems whatsoever, focusing far too much on the negative effects of a bigget workforce and not at all at the differences the influx has made to economies.

Men and women are human. We both deserve to make our own money and sustain ourselves. Not every person is in a family household and people need to work to make money. That's the main reason why there IS a workforce in the view of employees - they need money to survive in this money-loving world so they work. Other reasons to work come after that.

Who's fault is that living is expensive? Governments and what they take value in, to be short. Do you really think that women in the workforce is affecting living costs even a % as much as governments and their policies are?
If there are more people in an economy, obviously expenditure, taxes and social spending would increase. Just as it would and always have with a growing population, regardless of women in the workforce. It's no different.

[wynn-ing]

@David_Kek The policies men and women vote for are only disproportionate when the policy has something more so to do with gender - e. g laws governing abortion etc.
Otherwise, there is very little to judge upon - sides can balance or outweigh each other depending on the amount of PEOPLE in favour, not specifically the amount of women. If it's not a gendered issue, why would women need to take a specific "female stance" on policies?

As a woman, I am helping the economy by working FOR the economy. Because I and other employees am in the workforce, the government is getting a lot of money to fuel the economy. And that is just one of the benefita the economy is getting from the work I do.

But beside that, I work for my family. With only my partner's salary, we'd barely cover food costs. With our combined income, we are earning enough to cover more than just survival.

Y'know, if you just viewed women as humans as well, all this wouldn't be so hard for you to come to terms with. I don't hate men like you hate women. It's dumb, it's immature and it is mythical.

We have problems. Why don't we try solve them by joining forces instead of thinking that it's better to half the solvers and have more complex problems which will still grow as big or even bigger than before?

[David_Kek]

@wynn-ing Did anyone ever tell you that the moment you resort to ad hominems is the moment you lose the argument?

[wynn-ing]

@David_Kek If my comments came across as personal attacks, I apologise. They are not criticising you as a person but rather the ideologies and arguments you are making in relation to the issue at hand.

I do not hate you or think of you any less because of your opinions. I respectfully disagree and am explaining why I disagree and showing you a different perspective from yours.

Of course I'd lose the argument if I resorted to blaming your existence and questioning your intelligence and crap like that but I am not.

[David_Kek]

@wynn-ing Sorry, i guess all of my misogyny of not seeing you as a human being must of caused me to misread your counter-argument to my points... my mistake.

To reiterate, no, men and women do vote very disproportionately on economic issues, and that is why as soon as women got the vote that's when taxes and social spending exploded, being the very factors you're pointing at to explain why living costs have just got higher and higher.
You might not like it, but that is the reason why you can't live on just your husbands income anymore, that is the price of women's liberation; more taxes, more social spending and lower wages.

At this point i'd like to point out, I've not once said what things should be, i'm merely stating what is. What's the solution to all these problems the feminist movement gave society? Beats me. Since you have all the good ideas of what should be, maybe you have the solutions to these issues of economic unsustainability that doesn't result in national bankruptcy at some point down the line?

[wynn-ing]

@David_Kek I do not see these voting differences to be as disproportionate as you make them out to be. It has little to none to do with gender.

Women's liberation has brought more taxes becuase there are more people working for and in the economy, more social spending for that reason too but has not lowered wages but on the contrary rised wages because more people are affected by low wages and the economy therefore is negatively impacted by the decisions workers then make in terms of spending and tax-paying etc.

I can live on my partner's income but it is not enough for both of us and our family. It is not the "price" of women's liberation and even before it was a thing, surviving on a single income was a struggle. It makes no sense to struggle like that so now both partners can work and live their lives. If you are single woman, you can sustain yourself now that women can work. On all perspectives of living, this is a benefit to the people among much more.

I am not stating what should be. I am countering what you think things are when you are looking through a misogynistic point of view. I am looking at all this with consideration to both men and women, the married and unmarried and everyone in between. You are purposely leaving the concerns of women and relating to them in the dust and that is not right.

I have ideas for possible solutions but it does not require eradicating half the population to be a possiblity. That will never do any good in the short or long run and will only lead to not only problems in thw economy, but problems in society too. It is better to have a choice than have none and taking that away is cutting down solutions, if there are any, to economic problems which are related to social ideologies as such.

[wynn-ing]

The* Because*

[wynn-ing]

@David_Kek After all this, we have not come to much middle ground.
Perhaps it would be best for us to agree to disagree. I cannot see any more discussion leading to much progress but this discussion can be open to further commentary if you want to.

[David_Kek]

@wynn-ing Not that i like repeating myself, but did anyone ever tell you that the moment you resort to ad hominems is the moment you lose the argument?

[soleil2666]

The man is NEVER the EMOTIONALLY dominant person in the relationship. NEVER.
Physically, sure - but we all know full well women dominate the emotional, it is how they are wired - and, on top of it, they have kept insisting on being EXPECTED to be emotionally dominant to the point of complete social dominance (as their definition of near-equality - for actual equality, they expect being able to destroy every fibre of a man's being at their slightest whim - and still cry foul to everyone about being the victim).
The equivalent would be men publicly expecting a right to beat up a woman to a pulp if in any way dissatisfied with they way she treats them (and to be honest, that would than match those female expectations, and is probably where the whole thing is going if they can't apply brakes to their own excruciatingly demanding behaviour/expectations of privilege - it is mostly a woman's job to guard the niceness and care of the society, as is man's to guard it physically)

[ronaldo75]

"but we all know full well women dominate the emotional, " - This is the reason women are getting so pissy in response to the modern man. We're not putting up with their emotional terrorism anymore and since men now communicate with each other we're learning all their tricks and bullshit.

[soleil2666]

@ronaldo75 Yeah, the game is obvious - she wants to explore her wildest sexual fantasies because her 'gina tells her so - and then abusively demands she gets treated like a virgin - because, my god, she is a WOMAN.
And you as a man are either too nice and romantic for her, or too strong and violent (except while she ovulates when strong and violent all of a sudden attracts her)
This used to be called poor impulse control - and was reason a woman couldn't lead because emotional overreactions cloud her judgement - but now we will supposedly celebrate it as the way to go
(until Pelosi's hate emotions based impeachment of Trump collapses and 'women' collectively notice nobody puts up with their bs any longer (honey, you want male attention - start behaving like a decent human being - we know full well you need sex more then men do, you're just pretending (the nature has arranged that aeons ago))

[soleil2666]

@ronaldo75 The whole thing is about women fording the market into letting them choose because supposedly they are a scarcity and there are plenty of men they can just pick from. And they all understand that plot and keep quiet about it/use it for their own vanity.

[Anonymous]

True. Some guys need this. Being an anxious person myself i've met quite a few anxious, indecisive men in my lifetime and they certainly need a partner who takes the lead a bit and are usually greatful for this because otherwise they'd just remain single. I don't really mind it too much, I like being the one to make the plans if we're doing something and decide when we're seeing each other etc. And in my experience these men usually get more comfortable the longer you're together and start to take intiative on their own once they really trust you and that you're gonna stick around.

[420cat]

I agree with the majority of what you said but as far as not wanting to pay, I don't agree. It might be true with some guys, I don't know. I have always been passive but I also believe that the guy should pay for the date. If the woman wants to pay periodically that's okay, I got used to that. Going dutch is out. I did that once, ( I had no choice ) and I felt like a heel. Some of us men are just naturally submissive.

[David_Kek]

There's no shortage of these guys in society; in my experience most of them are Bi men that have been abused by their mothers.
Just a shame that very few if any "dominant" women actually care for these men. The only ones that do tend to be a-typical trans tomboys, which goes without saying are pretty rare.

[Anonymous]

From my point of view:
- He doesn't want to pursue: Definitely 100% true for me.
- He is indecisive: Maybe 50% true for me, I can make most of decisions, but I would submit to a dominant woman's decision if I like her.
- He doesn't want to pay: About 30% true for me, I actually like to pay for the woman I love... but I appreciate equality in paying, and I wouldn't mind if she wanted to pay, or even better, if she'd like to split the bill.

[crazy8000]

🤣😂🤣

Much missing and to much generalized presumption.

Have you heard of to only pass an equal that has own drive that goes for what they are after and takes initiative.
Or for that matter that dominant isn't the same as dominating.
Very few of those men wants her to pay for him or for her since both gives signals of user mentality.

[westwordbound]

Some “dominant” guys are smart not to over pursue early. They act mysterious because they know girls like that. But once they get their foot in the door they go for it.

I once dated a girl who tried to be dominant. I didn’t like it. In the beginning it was nice because she was so direct there was zero guesswork. But as time went on I felt emasculated. I cut it off. I could never stay in a relationship like that.

[cooldude64]

I've found a few dominant woman more attractive but they were not because of the points you raised. Rather i just found them more fun because they are feisty, and spark interest in sporadic thinking.