During dating, courtship, and engagement women lay groundwork to win or lose in the marital power game. As the relationship expert, a strong female intuitively knows about these pointers, but not all females are feminine or expert enough to use them to feather their domestic nest.
- Women face two fine lines along which to tread judiciously. One separates competition from cooperation and the other separates his dominance (aka expectation for her to submit) and her submissiveness
- The female best able to march boldly along those two lines emerges victorious in all her relationships. She competes such that he takes no offense while simultaneously encouraging him to cooperate with her agenda. She submits to his dominance such that he’s pleased, but she ultimately gets her way. She treads two very fine lines, but doing so manifests her likeability as mate.
- She knows that competing with a man before marriage wins his respect so essential for his love. Competing with him after marriage eases her toward the recycle bin.
There’s another line but more clearly seen at the altar: before and after marriage.
- Before: She competes strongly with him to shape their relationship to match her agenda and fulfill her hopes and dreams. She doesn’t submit as she would after marriage; instead she stands up to him to make his dominance less domineering and more acceptable for marriage.
- After: She quits competing with him; instead she becomes submissive but not as sycophant. She works to coordinate their cooperation into promoting his job and efforts for the short term while fulfilling her hopes and dreams for the long term.
God designed, Nature endows, and hormones energize women to compete with a man before marriage and cooperate with him after marriage. Thus, she wins her respected place in their premarital relationship and sustains her respected place in marriage.
This clarifies some things to me for the first time…I have seen women continue to compete after marriage and the resulting frustration and disappointment from their husbands who were enamored with the same behavior before marriage.
I had never really considered the women do compete more before marriage.
Also, women who act too wifely before marriage in an effort to show the potential mate how wonderfully submissive and supportive they will be after marriage often don’t make it to the alter because the man ends up taking them for granted.
Interesting.
In an earlier post you mentioned something about a man, after first sex, having the rewards of conquest. In passing it was also mentioned about a wife’s rewards. Will you expound on that espescially in light of competition and cooperation? For example, homelife, passionate lovers, parents, etc.
Thank you
Your Sterlingness Sarah,
I’m unsure what you’re looking for me to answer. I can’t get to it until tomorrow morning, so if you could add more detail it might help. The idea I’m working on could be removed from what you want.
Guy
This is a very interesting series. I think a lot of women feel flattered when a man wants a speedy courtship. It’s deemed as romantic when a couple meet and marry within six months. However, this means that a woman has very little time to establish her feminine standards and requirements where the man learns to treat her habitually in the manner in which she desires. Habits take a while to form, but if the courtship is rushed, the couple enter marriage from a passionate high, where the man hasn’t learnt to cater to the woman’s hopes and dreams. Longer courtship are actually essential, it seems.
I wonder why some men are keen to rush into marriage? In view of the fact that a lot of men seem resistant to marriage, why do some men rush into it? What drives them? I’m a little hesistant to believe that it’s only because they’re “so in love” and they can’t wait to commit to the woman they’ve just met. This doesn’t seem to fit with the male nature, somehow. Or am I missing something?
Your Beautifulness Ladylike,
Your first paragraph nails it. Clearly too.
As to your second paragraph, you describe men that occupy the gamma end of the male spectrum. They value masculine freedom less and female-provided comfort or steadiness or marital security more.
Guy
Interesting… so I shouldn’t mind that my boyfriend was very resistant to commitment (and intent on maintaining his freedom) when I first met him. I used to think it wasn’t very romantic that he valued his freedom so much, but I guess it’s what makes him an alpha male. He told me the other day that for a man to be a good husband he needs a strong sense of duty. Not very romantic, but pragmatic, I guess
Your Sparkleness Ladylike,
Women are romantically inclined; mature men are not, but adolescent-minded men may be. Most men have to be taught, and nothing works better than chaste teen girls and virtual virginity.
“a good husband…needs a strong sense of duty” reflects a high level of maturity. Look for more maturity; it’s a good measure to help determine candidacy for Mr. Good Enough.
Guy
Thanks, Guy… my boyfriend is mature, and has a strong sense of duty. Since we started seeing each other, he’s become more romantic in his actions (because he knows I like romance!). Just had a thought – maybe his sense of duty has made him more romantic!
Your Ten-ness Ladylike,
I’m tempted to call it more devotion than duty. Maybe they’re the same. A man’s devotion flows out of his natural respect for doing his duty. Thanks for the engaging thought.
For example, if true, women help their man build devotion during dating, courtship, and engagement by generating what he accepts as minor duties. She generates simple expectations of him and doesn’t let him off the hook. Repeated peformance of such ‘duties’ morphs into devotion.
Guy
Sir Guy,
I have a question — a sincere question, not meant to provoke an argument or make a point. I ask because I am new to WWNH, and still trying to digest your point of view.
You wrote: “She competes such that he takes no offense while simultaneously encouraging him to cooperate with her agenda.”
I’ve seen other, similar remarks in various posts, suggesting and supporting the notion that husband and wife do (and should) have their own agendas, at least some of which should overlap.
In the previous post, you pointed out the importance of having one CEO in the family. As I commented on that post, I most heartily agree.
My question has to do with the apparent conflict of “individual agendas” and “one CEO.” My view on the subject is rooted in my understanding of the Bible. If you have a different understanding of the Bible, or base your understanding on another source, you and I may simply have incompatible viewpoints, and I can live with that. But on the chance that our Biblical understanding is similar but my thinking is flawed, I wanted to ask the question (almost there!).
My understanding of marital roles, as designed by God and explained in the Bible, is this: God made Adam and gave him responsibilities (an agenda). Adam was already engaged in fulfilling those responsibilities when God made for him a helper: Eve. Thus the marital relationship was defined: CEO (to use your term) and COO (my term). CEO executes God’s agenda, COO helps him.
Of course I don’t believe that husband is magically endowed with a good agenda, and the wife should blindly follow it (“God told me you should cheat Grandma out of her savings, hon!”). Nor do I think the wife is magically endowed with a good agenda. We are all created as sinful beings, selfish to the core, and thus must be reliant on God’s agenda, as presented generally in the Bible and specifically through prayer. Husband and wife will fulfill their responsibilities imperfectly, but God knew that when he designed the marriage relationship.
Finally, after all that background, here’s my question: How does “one CEO” fit with “wife’s agenda”?
Thanks!
Sir John,
How does anyone not at the top gain influence? At risk of seeming simplistic, she uses her feminine influence to wheedle, negotiate, sell, preach, and otherwise get him to recognize, honor, and support her agenda. His agenda tends to be oriented toward the present, hers toward the future, so plenty of room exists for maneuver. As his helper, her greatest responsibility is to shape their mutual agenda to promote both his and her personal agendas and do it to his liking. That is, if success is to follow.
Guy
Thanks for your response, Guy.
After re-reading the CEO post and two others, I think I now understand our differing viewpoints.
Sir Guy,
As I imagine is the case with many women, it has taken me a long time to get past my emotional response and aversion to “the S word.” And your defining it as Cooperation is greatly helpful. Big time.
Question:
“Before: She competes strongly with him to shape their relationship . . . After: She quits competing with him”
If she is Competing with him beforehand — and I don’t mean just competing in terms of conquest, but also competing in general, such as in the various posts about shaping his behavior (for lack of better phrasing) to suit her expectations — then how does he see the promise of Cooperation later on?
Your Highness Girl,
Great question. She plants seeds. He sees promise in the way that she talks up marital life and cooperates on matters about their relationship that she finds acceptable. She uses indirectness. She points to examples of other couples’ behavior that illustrate what she admires or what she hates. As the relationship expert, communicating is her strong suit. However, there are no universal specific answers except those she figures out for herself and her boyfriend or fiancé.
Guy