Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

brainstorm

Who Is Supposed to Be the Leader in a Relationship? The Man or the Woman?

Who Is Supposed to Be the Leader in a Relationship? The Man or the Woman?   57 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is supposed to be the leader in a relationship? The man or the woman?

    • The man
      13
    • The woman
      3
    • Neither
      41

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
169 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Generally speaking, who is supposed to be the leader in a relationship? The man or the woman?

1- Generally speaking (i.e. not in each and every situation, but in general), if you're a woman, do you prefer to be the leader or the follower in a relationship?

2- Generally speaking, if you are a man, do you prefer to be the leader or the follower in a relationship?

3- From a biological, natural point of view, who is supposed to be the leader in a relationship? The man or the woman?

P.S.  Leadership doesn't mean you do everything yourself. Leadership doesn't mean you don't delegate tasks to others, who are better at the concerned tasks than you are. Leadership doesn't mean you don't take up the role of the follower from time to time as circumstances dictate. 

Edited by brainstorm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no imperative, either way. Some men will lead, some women will lead, sometimes neither, and sometimes both. The dynamics individuals have with one another are unique to them and any generalized or averaged pattern that exists (or that you may believe exists) in the larger population is merely a feature of the population that encompasses all of the variation that exists at the level of individuals. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither.  Both.  Either.

My mom "wore the pants" in my household growing up.  She made the financial decisions, she was the more assertive one, she was the planner, she was practically both parents (my dad mostly just brought home the paycheck), and she had the final word.  My father never spoke against or argued with her.  He also supported her parenting decisions (which ... sucked).  I have no idea if this was his preference or if he just didn't want to make things more difficult for himself by attempting to take charge.  He was the highest enlisted rank in the Air Force and also was a program manager at the companies he worked for, so it's not like he wasn't comfortable being in charge.  I just think he must have just wanted to avoid the drama in his marriage and let her "take over".  Or maybe he just wanted to go home, relax, and have everything handled.  They've been married about 35 years.

I'm a little more submissive and don't desire leadership.  I would like to take part in important decisions, but I don't prefer to make decisions for others.  I am comfortable being assertive and saying "No".  I don't like being controlled or told what to do (I will rebel), but I will go along with things if I agree with them.  I wouldn't want a partner who went along with everything I said/wanted, but I also wouldn't want a partner who expected that I'd go along with everything they said/wanted.  I prefer a more balanced, equal relationship.  There are some times/instances where we want each other to lead and other times where we're the ones taking the lead ourselves.  It's kind of a back and forth kind of thing.  I take the lead when it comes to paying the bills, scheduling, purchasing tickets, calling companies, or handling social matters.  He takes the lead when it comes to deciding on plans, since we're very active.  We'll both discuss ideas, but he'll typically decide on what we ultimately do (and I prefer that).  He also makes all the decisions in the household like artwork, furniture placement, organization, etc... He usually decides on dinner, though I'm the one who makes it.  He's more opinionated and particular than I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That entirely depends on what works best for the people in the relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a ridiculous question. Why would there be a standard? And who would have decided that standard? And how would that standard have been enforced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2. The leader. I'm responsible enough to know that some tasks are better handled in certain ways and I'm also caring enough to get input and realize my leadership isn't going to be 100% perfect.

3. Hmmmmm. Purely from a biological perspective, I'd assume the man would be the natural leader as it was often males who owned much of the resources. However, there are plenty of cases of female leadership as well in both modern and ancient times. I'd suspect that it's more natural for men to be the leaders but I'd be sure to take this knowing that it's not a fact but a simple feeling/observation. Whenever you ask a question with "how it's supposed to be" however, you're going to get subjective answers.

Edited by poizon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nemesis said:

There's no imperative, either way. Some men will lead, some women will lead, sometimes neither, and sometimes both. The dynamics individuals have with one another are unique to them and any generalized or averaged pattern that exists (or that you may believe exists) in the larger population is merely a feature of the population that encompasses all of the variation that exists at the level of individuals. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Holli said:

Neither.  Both.  Either.

My mom "wore the pants" in my household growing up.  She made the financial decisions, she was the more assertive one, she was the planner, she was practically both parents (my dad mostly just brought home the paycheck), and she had the final word.  My father never spoke against or argued with her.  He also supported her parenting decisions (which ... sucked).  I have no idea if this was his preference or if he just didn't want to make things more difficult for himself by attempting to take charge.  He was the highest enlisted rank in the Air Force and also was a program manager at the companies he worked for, so it's not like he wasn't comfortable being in charge.  I just think he must have just wanted to avoid the drama in his marriage and let her "take over".  Or maybe he just wanted to go home, relax, and have everything handled.  They've been married about 35 years.

I'm a little more submissive and don't desire leadership.  I would like to take part in important decisions, but I don't prefer to make decisions for others.  I am comfortable being assertive and saying "No".  I don't like being controlled or told what to do (I will rebel), but I will go along with things if I agree with them.  I wouldn't want a partner who went along with everything I said/wanted, but I also wouldn't want a partner who expected that I'd go along with everything they said/wanted.  I prefer a more balanced, equal relationship.  There are some times/instances where we want each other to lead and other times where we're the ones taking the lead ourselves.  It's kind of a back and forth kind of thing.  I take the lead when it comes to paying the bills, scheduling, purchasing tickets, calling companies, or handling social matters.  He takes the lead when it comes to deciding on plans, since we're very active.  We'll both discuss ideas, but he'll typically decide on what we ultimately do (and I prefer that).  He also makes all the decisions in the household like artwork, furniture placement, organization, etc... He usually decides on dinner, though I'm the one who makes it.  He's more opinionated and particular than I am.

 

7 hours ago, Doob said:

That entirely depends on what works best for the people in the relationship.

 

7 hours ago, Fuji said:

What a ridiculous question. Why would there be a standard? And who would have decided that standard? And how would that standard have been enforced?

 

7 hours ago, Fuji said:

What a ridiculous question. Why would there be a standard? And who would have decided that standard? And how would that standard have been enforced?

 

7 hours ago, poizon said:

I agree with @Doob

I'd also like to add that I don't think there's a leadership role that's played throughout the entire relationship either. Different circumstances call for different skills and mindsets that either gender could play better. For example, need someone who's very decisive? The man is probably the best bet. Need someone who's more empathetic and understanding? The woman is probably the best bet. It really depends on the composition of the relationship, the people involved, and what the situation calls for.

This forum has the great feature that allows you to edit your OP even after being replied to. 

So, I clarified what I was asking about. 

Would you revisit the OP and answer questions 1 or 2 and 3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try thinking of relationships outside of the context of "one man and one woman", and you'll quickly see that it depends wholly on the personalities of the people involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brainstorm said:

2- Generally speaking, if you are a man, do you prefer to be the leader or the follower in a relationship?

Neither.

10 hours ago, brainstorm said:

3- From a biological, natural point of view, who is supposed to be the leader in a relationship? The man or the woman?

That entirely depends on what works best for the people in the relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Doob said:

That entirely depends on what works best for the people in the relationship.

I'm talking about general human nature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, brainstorm said:

I'm talking about general human nature

And I answered your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Doob said:

And I answered your question.

No you didn't. I'm asking about human instinctual nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, brainstorm said:

No you didn't. I'm asking about human instinctual nature.

I know, and the answer is still the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever wins the duel at the wedding. If we go the traditional way (swords) I'll win but she might get tricky and pick a battle of wits or Smash Bros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Doob said:

I know, and the answer is still the same.

How? Explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, brainstorm said:

How? Explain.

Some people are more inclined to be leaders. Others are less inclined to be leaders. Yet others have no desire to lead nor to be lead. Yet others might be inclined to lead in circumstances X, but not in circumstances Y. Sometimes the less inclined to be a leader person might be more competent in area X and it would be advantageous if they would take the lead in that area and not the person to be more inclined to lead. So, the most successful arrangement depends on the people in the relationship and their particular strengths and weaknesses. That might be a woman being the leader, a man being the leader, neither being the leader, one being the leader in situations X and the other in situations Y. Or it might not involve a man and a woman at all.  

Nature is not about "supposed to". It's about what works and what doesn't. From a survival point of view it would be hilariously stupid to cling to a not working model just because you think that's how it's "supposed" to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same fucking thread, over and over again, learning nothing in the process. Ground hog day and exactly why some males shouldn't lead in relationships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Doob said:

Some people are more inclined to be leaders. Others are less inclined to be leaders. Yet others have no desire to lead nor to be lead. Yet others might be inclined to lead in circumstances X, but not in circumstances Y. Sometimes the less inclined to be a leader person might be more competent in area X and it would be advantageous if they would take the lead in that area and not the person to be more inclined to lead. So, the most successful arrangement depends on the people in the relationship and their particular strengths and weaknesses. That might be a woman being the leader, a man being the leader, neither being the leader, one being the leader in situations X and the other in situations Y. Or it might not involve a man and a woman at all.  

Nature is not about "supposed to". It's about what works and what doesn't. From a survival point of view it would be hilariously stupid to cling to a not working model just because you think that's how it's "supposed" to be. 

It seems you didn't read "P.S." after the three questions in the OP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, brainstorm said:

It seems you didn't read "P.S." after the three questions in the OP!

I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Doob said:

I did.

Think of a CEO in a company. Does he lead in each and every task in the company? Isn't he led by accountants when it comes to accounting issues? Isn't he led by engineers in engineering issues? Isn't he led by physicians in medical issues? Isn't he led by lawyers in legal issues?

A leader doesn't lead in each and every task, but he leads in general. 

Edited by Seablue
Disruptive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, brainstorm said:

Think of a CEO in a company. Does he lead in each and every task in the company? Isn't he lead by accountants when it comes to accounting issues? Isn't he lead by engineers in engineering issues? Isn't he lead by physicians in medical issues? Isn't he lead by lawyers in legal issues?

A leader doesn't lead in each and every task, but he leads in general. 

I know. It does not make a difference for my argument. It is not particularly relevant when it comes to instinct, which is what you asked me about, either, since instinct =/= ability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Distance said:

The same fucking thread, over and over again, learning nothing in the process. Ground hog day and exactly why some males shouldn't lead in relationships.

By the way @Distance how successful have you been in your relationship(s)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, brainstorm said:

No you didn't. I'm asking about human instinctual nature.

More's the pity you didn't look at homosexual relationships before you asked such a dumb question.

8 minutes ago, Distance said:

The same fucking thread, over and over again, learning nothing in the process. Ground hog day and exactly why some males shouldn't lead in relationships.

Indeed. But then if you gaze through the same silly prism you can't expect empiricism or much gained knowledge at all.

5 minutes ago, Doob said:

I know. It does not make a difference for my argument. It is not particularly relevant when it comes to instinct, which is what you asked me about, either, since instinct =/= ability. 

Some truffle dogs work out better than others. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Doob said:

I know. It does not make a difference for my argument. It is not particularly relevant when it comes to instinct, which is what you asked me about, either, since instinct =/= ability. 

Oh! Difference in word interpretations again!

Ok. Let's define instinct to be:

a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason

b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

 
 
...... added to this post 4 minutes later:
 
6 hours ago, rickster said:

More's the pity you didn't look at homosexual relationships before you asked such a dumb question.

 

It's obvious that this thread is about heterosexual relationships. Is there anything wrong in focusing on heterosexual relationships?

 

Edited by Seablue
Rule 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rickster said:

Indeed. But then if you gaze through the same silly prism you can't expect empiricism or much gained knowledge at all.

And exactly why some men never get the choice to lead or follow in relationships since there's no demand for them, no matter how hard they spam their prism reflections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now