tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post318000120245715257..comments2024-03-22T05:55:48.117-04:00Comments on The Pervocracy: "Poon"?Cliff Pervocracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02080142422250604406noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-91435163275189194122010-05-11T01:02:32.900-04:002010-05-11T01:02:32.900-04:00Anyway, overall, yes: aliens. This post from a fe...Anyway, overall, yes: aliens. <a href="http://fetchmemyaxe.blogspot.com/2006/04/men-are-from-mars-women-are-from-venus.html" rel="nofollow">This post from a few years back</a> covering some dude who was a bit too honest/bitter/something to quiiiiiiite be a PUA candidate, as well as a bit on the other side of the "guess based sexuality" people, probably sums up my impressions of the whole thing.belledame222https://www.blogger.com/profile/13947289856453172848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-48116288772836767842010-05-11T00:57:25.226-04:002010-05-11T00:57:25.226-04:00I can't tell when Roissy is trolling sometimes...<i>I can't tell when Roissy is trolling sometimes. There's a thin line between his "ha ha, I'm a totally bad boy, IN YOUR FACE political correctness because I'm EDGY" and the things he actually means. I'm sure he's proud of this fact but I think it's just a cover mechanism for not knowing the difference himself.</i><br /><br />"Irony": the all-purpose ass-cover since at least 1990-something. More accurately known in most of these cases as "kidding on the square," and/or "unfunny smarm, but also serious as a stroke." <br /><br />"Bored now."belledame222https://www.blogger.com/profile/13947289856453172848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-31246472692282559312010-05-11T00:54:12.887-04:002010-05-11T00:54:12.887-04:00He's not (just) an asshole, he's kinky! Ro...<i>He's not (just) an asshole, he's kinky! Roissy is totally a Dom! But he's one of those fetishists who doesn't understand that their fetish isn't universal.</i><br /><br />I'm sayin'. Introducing him to the wonderful world of BDSM wouldn't make him any less of an asshole, it'd just give him more ways in which to be an asshole.belledame222https://www.blogger.com/profile/13947289856453172848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-55095540322989717072010-05-10T20:43:22.884-04:002010-05-10T20:43:22.884-04:00"Poon" is just such an erotically stimul..."Poon" is just such an erotically stimulating term. Almost as good as, I don't know, his purple meatpole of love slammed through her roastbeef curtains. Command on, Roissy, you silver tongued balladeer!belledame222https://www.blogger.com/profile/13947289856453172848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-85574554911101485452010-05-04T08:40:37.595-04:002010-05-04T08:40:37.595-04:00Sorry about the delay. Show weekend.
Labrat,
...Sorry about the delay. Show weekend. <br /><br />Labrat, <br /><br /><i>...no matter what our culture says about who should lead a family, it seems to be my observation that who takes the lead if anyone is determined by who wants it. I've known a lot of religious, ostensibly submissive women who were UNQUESTIONABLY the heads of their household in all but lip service.</i> <br /><br />Y'know, I suspect it's always been that way, to a certain extent. Whatever the "official" social policy, individuals and smaller groups tend to stretch the standards and find creative loopholes until they can make it accommodate their unique situations. It's unreasonable to assume that because Culture X had such-and-such a more, that means everybody in it lived by that more. A society with rigid rules of conduct based on arbitrary factors like sex or "race" will almost certainly have more unhappy people in it, but assuming no ancient, strictly Judeo or Christian families could have simply decided the wife was better at decision making is a _real_ stretch. <br /><br />Mousie00, <br /><br /><i>It's just not particularly suprising or baffling that people from Earth cultures might assume the Y chromosome marks the decisionmaker.</i> <br /><br />I never referred to "people from Earth cultures". I referred to a specific person from a specific Earth culture that's had at least fifty years to adjust to women openly holding positions of authority in functional systems, even if we accept the premise that it was reasonable to assume universal male decisionmaking in antiquity. <br /><br />That a random society might assume male dominance isn't at all unexpected. That a random human from anywhere in history might do the same may also be a reasonable assumption. For a modern American to do it is again, if not baffling, extremely convenient.elmo iscariothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710846725911318970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-91734174550333634502010-05-02T11:06:06.025-04:002010-05-02T11:06:06.025-04:00We lost that a long time ago, when we lost extende...We lost <i>that</i> a long time ago, when we lost extended family/tribal networks that actually provided some <i>support</i> to parents and caregivers (which have, anthropologically speaking, never been identical groups).<br /><br />The idea that parents have the ready capacity to do all (or most all) of the caregiving for young children is one of the more damaging and idiotic traits of the culture I live in. I live in an anti-child, anti-family culture that nonetheless wants to pretend that it's all about Mom and Apple Pie.<br /><br />A hypothetical me who could work and get the assistance of professional caregivers would probably do so, in much the same way as the parents in my extended social network do: with careful interview and observation of potential caregivers to make sure they were in accord with our valueset. The actual me who is invisibly disabled and works at home anyway can't justify the expense.Dw3t-Hthrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-92069501457604022632010-05-02T08:16:27.533-04:002010-05-02T08:16:27.533-04:00Dw3t-Hthr, do you think Little Foot would grow up ...Dw3t-Hthr, do you think Little Foot would grow up just as well if you stuck her in daycare while you went to work? That's the biggest thing we're losing as a culture; so many children reared by interested professionals rather than loving parents. To reiterate, it's worth it for justice for all the women who don't want to be Homemaker Mom. And it's good that there's a starting to be a little acceptance for men who want to be Homemaker Dad.<br /><br />I'm sorry that you're having a tough time with the isolation from your old social circles that tends to follow being Homemaker Mom. But what you are accomplishing is a worthwhile thing. I hope your efforts to find new circles are fruitful.Mousie00noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-84368912974542286842010-05-02T02:02:22.935-04:002010-05-02T02:02:22.935-04:00Speaking as a Homemaker Mom, I'm ... not clear...Speaking as a Homemaker Mom, I'm ... not clear on what we're "losing" at all.Dw3t-Hthrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-10135809303513342352010-05-01T17:35:22.974-04:002010-05-01T17:35:22.974-04:00"There's an assumption built into YOUR qu..."There's an assumption built into YOUR question- that any woman entering the economy in a full-time capacity would otherwise be Homemaker Mom."<br /><br />Nope. The assumption is that SOME women, between one and all inclusive, entering the workforce would otherwise be Homemaker Mom. Also, Homemaker Mom is part of the economy.<br /><br />"I don't find it mysterious that patriarchy would be so common.... What I question is to whether we're losing much, if anything, in leaving behind the assumption." I take it you mean on balance, taking the good with the bad. It's a good question. Dividing it up, it seems pretty clear we're losing a lot, and pretty clear that it's worth it for justice for all the women who don't want to be Homemaker Mom.<br /><br />What I really wish is that society would acknowledge the enormous contribution Homemaker Mom makes.Mousie00noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-28837034970563690352010-05-01T15:50:43.556-04:002010-05-01T15:50:43.556-04:00A good starting point might be WWII, because an en...<i>A good starting point might be WWII, because an enormous number of women first entered the workforce at that time. Lots of other factors at the same time, of course.</i><br /><br />Like our enormous industrial momentum, among other things. But one other thing I find interesting is that the degree to which cultures have held on to the strongest elements of their historical patriarchy often tends to predict economic and technological stagnation, with exceptions in the case of countries with tremendous oil wealth.<br /><br /><br /><i>There is an assumption built into the question that I think is utter bunk, though: "after allowing the other half of their population's brainpower into the economy...". Which is easier to replace with a robot, Homemaker Mom or Assembly Line Person?</i><br /><br />There's an assumption built into YOUR question- that any woman entering the economy in a full-time capacity would otherwise be Homemaker Mom. Even when gender roles were much more strictly enforced, there were single women, infertile women, women who hadn't yet married, and women who had already had their children. It's not just women who'd <i>rather not</i> be Homemaker Mom who benefited, it was women who <i>never would have been</i>- previously to the acceptance of the idea that they could put their talents and energies to other aims, they were considered basically useless. <br /><br />My point isn't just that having women be engineers, doctors, and scientists and the like is good for the economy, it's that the idea that a woman can make effective decisions and lead in a relationship is inextricably tied to the idea that she can make effective decisions and lead outside that context as well. Speaking of highly patriarchal cultures, there's a tremendous amount of emphasis in them of the idea that a woman <i>cannot have authority over a man</i>- expressed most pointedly in Saudi Arabia, but hell, look in the Bible. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." The idea that a woman can be the head of household (or an equal partner) and that she can grow up to be an astronaut are inextricable.<br /><br />I don't find it mysterious that patriarchy would be so common. It's a pretty natural outgrowth of the intensity of childcare requirements and the absence of effective birth control prior to the modern age. What I question is to whether we're losing much, if anything, in leaving behind the assumption.LabRathttp://www.atomicnerds.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-57199064685122254712010-05-01T00:17:32.519-04:002010-05-01T00:17:32.519-04:00"Do we get to compare Western countries after..."Do we get to compare Western countries after allowing the other half of their population's brainpower into the economy, single or married, versus their more strongly patriarchal former selves?"<br /><br />Sure, please do. It's an interesting point, though when considering the standard of living in the same culture at different times one should find a way to allow for the increase in learning from the previous time. It would be fascinating to see whether there was a noticeable change in the rates of, say, patent applications, corresponding to this change. I have no idea. A good starting point might be WWII, because an enormous number of women first entered the workforce at that time. Lots of other factors at the same time, of course.<br /><br />There is an assumption built into the question that I think is utter bunk, though: "after allowing the other half of their population's brainpower into the economy...". Which is easier to replace with a robot, Homemaker Mom or Assembly Line Person? The specific example of Homemaker Mom changing to Microchip Inserter Person is clearly a loss in the brainpower in use in the culture, though not directly in the economy in the narrowest sense of that word. For that matter, I don't think being a good homemaker mom or dad is simpler than my own field of software engineering (though I have no experience with parenting myself). From observation of my dad I don't even think lab research is more intellectually challenging than raising kids; it just has a much higher bar for entry.<br /><br />None of which says that working on a case-by-case basis isn't better than making generalities rules, or even establishes beyond the need for investigation that the existing generalities are the best generalities. It's just not particularly suprising or baffling that people from Earth cultures might assume the Y chromosome marks the decisionmaker.Mousie00noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-77169101386125457442010-04-30T20:16:37.323-04:002010-04-30T20:16:37.323-04:00I've obviously communicated badly myself and c...<i>I've obviously communicated badly myself and come across as advocating much more than I actually believe.</i><br /><br />Don't worry about it, I'm actually really interested in the question in general. Healthy, functional relationships with power dynamics radically different from mine are interesting.<br /><br /><i>Out of curiosity, were these religious, kinky, self-aware family engineering, or other?</i><br /><br />The fourth, functional one self-aware kink/engineering. Of the other three, unhealthy ones, one was a woman shoving all the decisions onto a man who didn't actually want the full weight of the pressures and responsibilities, and two were domineering women who felt they knew what was best for the rest of the family whether they agreed or not.<br /><br /><i>I'll concede that saying HoH relationships "seem to work better" was wrong; it's more that HoH relationships done right can be one way of practicing a good relationship model. </i><br /><br />Yeah, at the end of the day we have a very similar beef; no matter what our culture says about who should lead a family, it seems to be my observation that who takes the lead if anyone is determined by who <i>wants</i> it. I've known a lot of religious, ostensibly submissive women who were UNQUESTIONABLY the heads of their household in all but lip service. People are unhappy and nonfunctional forced into roles they're temperamentally ill-suited to, and people that talk as though there's the One True Way To Gender Role Happiness piss me off.LabRathttp://www.atomicnerds.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-20598382851241083412010-04-30T18:21:57.683-04:002010-04-30T18:21:57.683-04:00Ah, and I managed to ignore your main point:
Ri...Ah, and I managed to ignore your main point: <br /><br /><i>Right, but my point is that you've expanded the definitions to the point where there is no real difference, effectively speaking, between your relationship and mine. Decisions have to be made in an equal partnership...</i> <br /><br />Fair point. In my family, we _are_ all "equal", and all decide the shape of our relationship and how we make decisions. If anybody isn't okay with how decisions are being made or how we relate to one another, we'll talk it over and make changes. It wouldn't be the first time. So contrasting our arrangement with yours in that regard isn't really correct; we're both finding ways to accommodate everybody's preferences, and the methods we use are essentially the same, just "phrased" differently. <br /><br />I'll concede that saying HoH relationships "seem to work better" was wrong; it's more that HoH relationships <i>done right</i> can be one way of practicing a good relationship model.elmo iscariothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710846725911318970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-88839257094444771962010-04-30T18:08:46.113-04:002010-04-30T18:08:46.113-04:00You said earlier that in the "head of househo...<i>You said earlier that in the "head of household" arrangement the decision-maker decides based on what's best for everyone, but isn't that how all healthy relationships work? Does the other person not get to decide because they *don't* have everyone's best interests in mind or can't be trusted to?</i> <br /><br />I was responding specifically to Aebhel's discussion of relationships in which one partner _doesn't have everybody's best interests in mind. <br /><br />As far as individual relationships are concerned, two people can share the same goal but disagree on how to achieve them. Two people can have the whole family's best interests in mind and still be unable to agree on what's right in a specific case (I'm not talking about people with _excellent_ communication skills, just people who _try_ to communicate; they may not always get it right). In those cases, it can be useful to have some prearranged means of making the decision. The "you care about it more" solution is a fine one, as is the "I know more avout X" solution, and (again assuming both partners can be trusted to act in good faith) so can flipping a coin. Yes, the head-of-household model works the same way; it's just a different way of achieving the same thing. <br /><br />Again, the HoH thing was just setting up my criticism of the "therefore man rules" extension of HoH-philosophy. I've obviously communicated badly myself and come across as advocating much more than I actually believe. A more clear original comment for me would have been something like: <br /><br />"You know, I do think the head-of-household concept can be a good fit and offer some advantages to some families. But Roissy's a dumbass for thinking that means his penis inherently makes him the household head." <br /><br /><i>As to my own biases, out of four families I've been a part of or been close enough to to watch that had a definite decision-maker, three of them were deeply unhealthy and miserable situations.</i> <br /><br />Out of curiosity, were these religious, kinky, self-aware family engineering, or other?elmo iscariothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710846725911318970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-17791151310514703462010-04-30T17:55:15.975-04:002010-04-30T17:55:15.975-04:00The comments on the photo submission linked in Bru...The comments on the photo submission linked in Bruno's post was kind of mind-bogglingly hilarious. I mean, since when was Britney Spears a 5? She's gorgeous. The most mysterious part was this "all feminists hate Asians" thing-- where did that even come from? They're all accepting it as gospel, too. I would be mildly offended if it wasn't so...alien.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-58151777282662563572010-04-30T17:50:55.942-04:002010-04-30T17:50:55.942-04:00The idea is simply that relationships work to a ce...<i>The idea is simply that relationships work to a certain extent like any other group that shares common goals: there are times when different people have different opinions, and a decision still needs to be made. Having a person who can end debate and make that decision, however he or she is chosen, is valuable in getting shit done.</i><br /><br />Right, but my point is that you've expanded the definitions to the point where there is no real difference, effectively speaking, between your relationship and mine. Decisions have to be made in an equal partnership, and usually the way that's done in my relationship and Aebhel's is one partner defers to the other based on that "I think you're better qualified to make this decision" factor, or else "you care more so we'll do things your way because I don't really".<br /><br />You said earlier that in the "head of household" arrangement the decision-maker decides based on what's best for everyone, but isn't that how <i>all</i> healthy relationships work? Does the other person not get to decide because they *don't* have everyone's best interests in mind or can't be trusted to?<br /><br />As to my own biases, out of four families I've been a part of or been close enough to to watch that had a definite decision-maker, three of them were deeply unhealthy and miserable situations. <br /><br />It seems to me that if we make the default standard couples who consciously chose their power dynamic, have excellent communication skills, and have mutual respect for one another, who has ultimate decision-making power may no longer be very relevant...<br /><br /><i>How about mean living standards in non-patriarchal cultures compared to the patriarchal ones? How do they do in the competition of 'cultural evolution'?</i><br /><br />Do we get to compare Western countries after allowing the other half of their population's brainpower into the economy, single or married, versus their more strongly patriarchal former selves?LabRathttp://www.atomicnerds.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-29928008602111083092010-04-30T17:48:32.670-04:002010-04-30T17:48:32.670-04:00Mousieoo--
Cultural evolution isn't a competi...Mousieoo--<br /><br />Cultural evolution isn't a competition, unless you consider homogeneity of culture 'winning.' Cultures interact; they eradicate each other; they isolate from each other; they bump uglies and produce bastard children. <br /><br />It's a constantly shifting sort of thing, and the fact that a culture may be viral doesn't necessarily make it <i>better</i> in any objectively verifiable sense.aebhelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-275509319267849452010-04-30T17:30:21.278-04:002010-04-30T17:30:21.278-04:00Elmo: "But the leap of logic it takes to assu...Elmo: "But the leap of logic it takes to assume that the decisionmaker must be the one with the Y chromosome? Baffling."<br /><br />Not particularly suprising if you look from an empirical rather than rational angle. It's not like there are a shortage of cultures where one gender is culturally assumed to be the decisionmaker. Now go to the art museum and check out the contributions to art from non-patriarcal societies. Science? Music? How about mean living standards in non-patriarchal cultures compared to the patriarchal ones? How do they do in the competition of 'cultural evolution'?<br /><br />"But we've *always* done it this way" is actually a pretty good rule of thumb until you have a proven alternative. Before that, it's not a plan, it's an experiment.Mousie00noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-16481345188845515322010-04-30T17:08:08.956-04:002010-04-30T17:08:08.956-04:00Except that I want to know how you train yourself ...<i>Except that I want to know how you train yourself to ignore beauty, but then exclusively pursue 22YOBS anyway.</i><br /><br />I think the idea is that you're still supposed to be <i>aware</i> she's a woman who would be considered beautiful, but you're not supposed to derive actual pleasure from her beauty.<br /><br />So basically, the whole "women are status symbols, not relationship partners" thing again.Beatricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08773459487771412690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-22252098308754847092010-04-30T16:54:46.769-04:002010-04-30T16:54:46.769-04:00I'd also add that it probably makes a massive ...<i>I'd also add that it probably makes a massive difference to effective decision-making on the "head of household" model to find a polar relationship satisfying in and of itself to begin with.</i> <br /><br />Absolutely. Which is why I said "only for specific practical values of 'working' that may or may not be any individual's priority". Again to beg the question, even if I could prove that HoH arrangements raise the family's decisionmaking effectiveness foo percent, "decisionmaking effectiveness" is hardly the be-all and end-all of rewarding relationships. <br /><br /><i>That does feed back into your "debate contest" model some, but you've already pointed out that your sample size is not only biased, but biased in a situation that requires everyone to have excellent communication skills to begin with.</i> <br /><br />I was taking it as implicit that I was discussing essentially healthy relationships in which all partners are at least trying to articulate their preferences, have each other's wellbeing in mind, and aren't looking for excuses to abuse each other. It was obviously less implicit to people who live outside my head. ;) <br /><br /><i>Now I'm confused. What on earth is the meaningful difference between a "head of household" model and an "equal partnership" model if who actually makes the final call is in fact this changeable?</i> <br /><br />The real-life "head of household" relationships I've known _aren't_ that changeable, but I see no reason they couldn't be. The idea is simply that relationships work to a certain extent like any other group that shares common goals: there are times when different people have different opinions, and a decision still needs to be made. Having a person who can end debate and make that decision, however he or she is chosen, is valuable in getting shit done. <br /><br />You and Stingray clearly have excellent communication and don't have this problem, but I've known plenty of otherwise healthy middlin'-communicative families that can hit a bit of an impasse in those cases. <br /><br />Naming a head-of-household is just one possible prearranged method of stasis-breaking. Frankly, in most of these presumed-healthy "head of household" relationships, I expect you could get essentially the same advantage from agreeing to flip a coin when decision-stasis comes up. <br /><br />I didn't mean to suggest there was special super-relationship mojo in HoH relationships. I just wanted to make fun of Roissy for assuming household heads needed to be male.elmo iscariothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710846725911318970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-36883405629968546152010-04-30T16:49:38.177-04:002010-04-30T16:49:38.177-04:00I'm with Andy on "XI. Be irrationally sel...I'm with Andy on "XI. Be irrationally self-confident"<br /><br />Roissy's advice there is probably useful to someone who is irrationally self-doubting; to push the self-opinion toward a reasonable and accurate point. Holly, from your writing I believe you are an example of someone whose self-opinion is inaccurately low.<br /><br />I know people who fully live out irrational self-confidence, though, and they are socially destructive assholes, wandering through life leaving a string of wrecked relationships and wounded people behind.Mousie00noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-77354678500021672142010-04-30T16:41:05.231-04:002010-04-30T16:41:05.231-04:00OK, i haven't gone to their pages, but i just ...OK, i haven't gone to their pages, but i just assumed from the name "Roissy" that it was either the kind of Dom who thinks his kinks are universal, or a Pauline Reage type who's just making all this up to amuse her friends.<br /><br />flightlessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-51133705083750341562010-04-30T16:35:56.109-04:002010-04-30T16:35:56.109-04:00"If you allow a woman to make the rules she w..."<i>If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire.</i>"<br /><br />He's not actually as opposed to women making the rules as you might seem. You see, Roissy thinks that <a href="http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/play-rape/" rel="nofollow">all women really want to be raped</a>. So if he tells you that she'll hate you more than a rapist, maybe it'll just be mild annoyance!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-86469324354436064172010-04-30T16:29:59.289-04:002010-04-30T16:29:59.289-04:00That person can be a man, a woman, the person with...<i>That person can be a man, a woman, the person with the most experience in the relevant subject, or whoever rolled highest on the percentile dice that morning.</i><br /><br />Now I'm confused. What on earth is the meaningful difference between a "head of household" model and an "equal partnership" model if who actually makes the final call is in fact this changeable?LabRathttp://www.atomicnerds.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-30965721713764905712010-04-30T16:24:23.627-04:002010-04-30T16:24:23.627-04:00aebhel, note:
...(assuming healthy communicatio...aebhel, note: <br /><br /><i>...(assuming healthy communication and mutual respect, and only for specific practical values of "working" that may or may not be any individual's priority). But the leap of logic it takes to assume that the decisionmaker must be the one with the Y chromosome? Baffling.</i> <br /><br />The kind of relationship I'm talking about doesn't involve anybody getting stomped on, (unless he's into it ;) ), nor does it make decisions regardless of what any partner thinks, nor is it default-patriarchal (off the top of my head, I think I know more female-led households than male-led ones). I'm talking specifically about relationships in which decisions are discussed and if a disagreement results, one person chosen by mutual consent makes a final call based on what he or she thinks is best for everybody. That person can be a man, a woman, the person with the most experience in the relevant subject, or whoever rolled highest on the percentile dice that morning. <br /><br />This doesn't work if the head-of-household capriciously makes self-serving decisions at the rest of the family's expense, but I'd question the wisdom of putting that person in charge of the family (or, for that matter, staying in _any_ relationship with him or her). <br /><br /><i>And it's an impossible dynamic to force...</i> <br /><br />I'm not saying it should be mandatory. And again, I'm not sure it's even advice. I'm pointing out for the sake of discussion a correlation I think I see, not suggesting that you'd get the perceived benefit if you switched to that kind of relationship.elmo iscariothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710846725911318970noreply@blogger.com