I don't see how my husband's need to be Alpha and find his strength requires me to be "less than."
I don't think it necessarily has to mean that you're "less than". I have an immense amount of respect for my FO at the office. I've worked with her for almost 10 years, and she's fully capable of running the company. In certain respects she's probably even more competent than I am. Our skill sets compliment each other well, and we've achieved some truly great things together.
Every organization needs a leader. It's chaotic without it. Someone has to do it consistently. I was the Captain of my family for years. It's not really all it's cracked up to be.
I'm completely comfortable, and happy being the leader of my company, but at home- nah. He's welcome to lead. I don't need to lead in order to feel capable, and competent. I know that I am, and I know I can do whatever needs to be done. That's plenty for me.
His leadership frees up my head space to think about other things. I've soared to greater heights because I don't have to think about every last single detail in the running of the house. I have veto power, and that's enough for me.
A good leader shouldn't subjugate his followers, or demand that someone be a "Stepford Wife", or simply take power because they're a certain sex. A good couple should celebrate each other's strengths, and not be threatened by them.
9
HildaCornersWinter? You call *that* winter?Gold WomenPosts: 3,377
For more on the C/FO model I was explaining:
- watch that ST:TNG episode (season 1 episode 1) - Read The Number of the Beast. If science fiction isn't your thing, you can just read through the selection of a permanent Captain. As I said, that permanent Captain was a woman who deferred to nobody about matters of the ship, but did defer to her husband on matters of the marriage. Her husband was part of the crew, and deferred to her on ship matters. - Watch Athol's Part 3 videos - Search "Captain and First Officer" in Athol's blog.
Athol goes into this concept pretty deeply, because it is confusing. I was confused too, at first.
Off the top of my head, I can think of one female Captain marriage here,
though I don't think it's that way by the woman's choice, just
necessity due to having a very passive husband.
As far as "sexism", that is a political construct, as are most "isms". There are differences between men and women, no amount of political correctness will change that. But there are many places where that difference doesn't, and shouldn't matter.
Finally, a story to think about. Did you know that short kids are worse at spelling than tall kids? Absolutely, 100% true. More in the spoiler ...
That's because younger kids are both shorter and poorer at spelling than older kids.
Enneagram 5w4. I'm researching what that means, before designing t-shirt art about it.
"I feel no shame in making lavish use of the strongest muscles, namely male ones (but my own strongest muscle is dedicated to the service of men - noblesse oblige). I don't begrudge men one whit of their natural advantages as long as they respect mine. I am not an unhappy pseudomale; I am female and like it that way." RAH
I came across the term "benevolent sexism" this morning in a news article, and it gave me pause. I'm a relatively new forum member, and am just learning about opinions on gender roles here on the forum. I'm curious to hear more about these opinions and how some of the ideals here are related to or differ from benevolent sexism.
And back to your original question. I understand why you might be hesitant to embrace a Captain/FO model.
Here is a little click and paste from Wikipedia:
Theoretically, each form of sexism is composed of three subcomponents: paternalism, gender differentiation, and heterosexuality.[1]
Paternalism reflects views of women as underdeveloped adults, providing
justification for men to be authoritative and monitor, protect, and
make decisions on women's behalf. Gender differentiation promotes the
assumption that biological differences between males and females justify
the strict adherence to socially prescribed gender roles.
Heterosexuality—described as the most prominent cause of men's
ambivalence toward women—reflects a tension between genuine desires for
closeness and intimacy and a fear of women attaining power over men
through sexual attraction.
1. I don't think that paternalism is endorsed here. The aim is to have two fully functional adults in a relationship.
2. Gender differentiation is acknowledged, but only in reference to attraction and sexual desire.
3. I have seen men post who are obviously afraid of their partners attaining power over them through sexual attraction (or have allowed a power imbalance because of their attraction for their spouse). I have seen women here who are very unhappy to have lost power to attract their partner due to low T or porn addiction. I don't think anyone's goal here is to award women power over their husbands through sexual attraction.
Is this what you want to know?
We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned, so as to have the life that is waiting for us. -Joseph Campbell
As an aside, I don't even worry about teaching husbands to start trying to be the Captain until Part Three of the video series. So much can go wrong before learning the basics and getting some positive relationship momentum happening... and then the Captain stuff comes together more easily.
The C/FO model is best understood as a model. I don't demand @Jen_Kay act like a First Officer because of the C/FO model. It's not scripture, it's an explanation of what we end up doing in reality.
Weak husbands using the C/FO model to demand compliance, well Athol says that you should XYZ, are appealing to a higher authority than themselves, and will find it ineffective because it only serves to underline that they don't have the required moxie to be a leader on their own merits.
The other thing that is an enlightenment moment to most people is that their relationships have always been a Captain and First Officer relationship right from the start. Most serious wifely complaints about husbands are in essence that they have failed to be the Captain, long before either one of them have learned the concepts.
"The turnaround is tremendous. And I'm lifting weights, eating better, and tackling projects. I have all this great energy without a vampire sucking my life force. He's a lot stronger standing on his own two feet, as well." - Scarlet
Thank you, @Athol_Kay. I hear you saying that it's not telling me how to be, it's describing the way that many women feel. And yes, it describes how I feel. Basically it's ok for me to defer to him if I am more comfortable that way.
TheWolf made some attempts this afternoon to explain the model to me, and we talked about the FO role a bit. One thing he mentioned is that the model fails to hold up if the FO disagrees with her role; that both parties must be agreeable to and comfortable with it for it to work.
I think when I was previously mentioning "dominant/submissive" (and others in this thread have used the term submissive), I should have said "superior/inferior." However, the sense that I use the term "superior" is as a noun; the Captain is the "superior" to the FO. This is what I've been feeling uncomfortable with. @AlexZ said "Why do you think your husband will ignore your "absolutely, 100% not!"?
He can overpower you physically but you trust him not to do it, right?
You don't have to be less than him and I think he will gladly listen to
you expertise. " I should bring up that the only time in memory (about a year ago) that I put my FOOT DOWN on something TheWolf wanted to do, he went against me, did it anyhow, and didn't tell me until I saw the credit card bill. For all I know, some of you know what that was. Regardless, no, he didn't listen to me, so no I don't think it always works the way you think.
I read things on the forum, such as what @John3 wrote in this thread, and I feel good about men and their view of women and their wives, and how much respect they seem to have for them, and it encourages my interest in the C/FO model. Other men (many) on the forum seem to devalue women and throw that word "Captain" around like they are wielding a club, joking about how they are going to have the final say, etc. Oddly I just read one of those nasty comments before coming on here. So to a newbie, you might realize how it is I could get confused; what is really encouraged here? @Athol_Kay clears up a lot of it with his statement above, and I'll just have to try and differentiate who is saying what when I read various comments.
The idea that following strong leadership by the husband harms the wife's decision making skills has no basis. There are numerous strong and assertive professional women here, whose life and death decision-making is not harmed in the slightest. In fact an argument could be made for the opposite.
@Angeline, I don't think that following the leadership of my husband will render me incapable of decision-making. However, I do think that the things we do and the way we act is a result of what we've made habits of. If I already struggle some with my own ability to trust myself and be strong and confident, and then I consistently allow my husband to make the important decisions in our lives, this will promote indecision on my part, and perhaps a perpetual sense of slight weakness that might be perceived by my colleagues (for me my indecision IS a weakness). Yes, I question my self and my own self-esteem, so super strong women who rarely falter and like the "break" that coming home provides will probably feel differently than I do. If we say that a man who makes the transition from Beta to Alpha, and MAPs, and works his ass off improving himself (all good things), and becomes Captain of his family is more likely to become successful in the workplace (which is certainly true), then what exactly is the effect on his wife? @AlexZ says "He will be happy being a powerful man on the front line and you will be
happy to have that enormous influence on such a powerful man." Start with a very strong woman, and perhaps have no effect. Start with a woman with any self-doubt, and, what do you get?
"TheWolf made some attempts this afternoon to explain the model to me, and we talked about the FO role a bit. One thing he mentioned is that the model fails to hold up if the FO disagrees with her role; that both parties must be agreeable to and comfortable with it for it to work. "
^^^That sounds an awful lot like your husband putting the blame squarely on you for his wobbles as a Captain. It must be your fault since you don't 100% agree with your role.
In other words, he can only be a good Captain if you permit it, which means he really isn't a leader at all.
@JellyBean, I'm sorry I emphasized that part of our discussion then, because that's not the intent I got from it. He was explaining the model in a very respectful (to the FO) manner, and explaining how he thinks it best works. He says that the FO is fully capable of being the captain but chooses not to. He also says that the FO wields a power in that she can basically step out of her role or fail to recognize the Captain as the Captain at any point (mutiny) but that of course this disassembles the model altogether (and he would no longer be Captain). I'm not using his words, so it's hard to explain second hand. And yes, I think the Captain cannot be the Captain if the FO is not on board.
Regarding my agreeing to this role, I think I've already been here in this role for some time. I'm just trying to decide what I am most comfortable with at this time. Many things are changing for me now.
I disagree in substantial part with TW's explanation. The Boss makes clear in his writing and the videos that the C/FO model isn't something that the wife must consciously accept in order for it to work. Rather, the C/FO model is always in place and if the relationship is not working correctly, it is often due to a failure on the Captain's part.
Thank you, @Athol_Kay. I hear you saying that it's not telling me how to be, it's describing the way that many women feel. And yes, it describes how I feel. Basically it's ok for me to defer to him if I am more comfortable that way.
TheWolf made some attempts this afternoon to explain the model to me, and we talked about the FO role a bit. One thing he mentioned is that the model fails to hold up if the FO disagrees with her role; that both parties must be agreeable to and comfortable with it for it to work.
I'm saying the model is an explanation of reality for most couples whether you agree on it, or want it to be the reality. It doesn't have to pass the house and the senate for approval, it just is what it is. It's working whether you want it to or not.
It's like debating whether or not waves hitting a beach are an acceptable practice.
I'm just explaining how the waves work so they can more easily be surfed.
"The turnaround is tremendous. And I'm lifting weights, eating better, and tackling projects. I have all this great energy without a vampire sucking my life force. He's a lot stronger standing on his own two feet, as well." - Scarlet
I have an advanced education and impressive professional résumé (although I have changed fields and switched to part time college teaching since having our first child 6 years ago). I am extremely opinionated. I generally believe that I am right about everything unless someone is objectively able to prove otherwise on a given matter. I am driven and ambitious. I am a pleasant and kind person, but what I'm saying is that I am not typically deferential or meek or submissive in personality.
Obviously, I can only describe my personal experiences. My 14 year marriage has basically always operated on an unofficial C/FO model (i say "unofficial" because Mr. K is not MMSL aware and there was never any sort of roles discussion - just the way things have always been, partly due to my husband's "benevolent sexism" LOL).
My husband and I have a strong set of shared beliefs, values, and goals. In short, we are very much on the same team. We are not opponents. I am a reasonable, intelligent, capable, competent adult. So is my husband. We have different talents, abilities, strengths, and sets of knowledge. We pool those for the good of our family. It is an extremely rare occurrence that, after discussing something and sharing our viewpoints, we don't see eye to eye or reach a mutually acceptable compromise on something. It's almost unheard of, actually. It isn't as if my husband constantly imposes his will or overrules me. He seeks my opinions, and has told me, and others, numerous times that I am the smartest person he knows. In no way does he see me as "less" than him. That said, in the end, if we can't agree, I *choose* to defer to hIm. I don't believe there can be a completely equal relationship.
I think the foundation of a successful C/FO marriage is trust. I trust, with every fiber of my being, that my husband has my best interest and that of our family at heart. If I thought him to be motivated by selfishness or ego, this would not work for me. I trust that my husband is a good, intelligent, and reasonable man. He is level headed and capable of making sensible choices. Basically, there is no reason for me to fear deferring to him. His decisions are meant to benefit me, to benefit us, not to harm me. He's not just trying to throw his weight around.
Beyond significant decision making, I choose to defer to my husband in small ways, to show my respect and appreciation. I typically comply with his requests. He doesn't order me around (outside of bed ) but I enjoy waiting on him a bit and doing things for him. But again, it is a choice.
I firmly believe that polarity between the sexes drives attraction. I don't have to "like" it intellectually to accept that my body responds to male dominance. I think the MMSL model not only offers a good explanation of all of this, but offers ways to leverage gender differences in a way that respects both men and women.
15
HildaCornersWinter? You call *that* winter?Gold WomenPosts: 3,377
One of the things poor Captains forget is that the Captain has the ultimate responsibility for all problems in the marriage — not just the ones he caused, but the ones that happen because of outfall from a decision, or because of errors made by any family member.
Poor Captains believe "I'm the Husband, you're the wife, so you have to obey me." Good Captains know that they are #1 in a team, and if their crew isn't giving them good info and opinions, their decisions will suffer — and that's the Captain's fault because he made his crew reluctant to speak up.
I think of what I heard after several Korean air disasters ... the co-pilots were so ... submissive ... that they would not tell their Captain the plane was on course to hit something. Not the co-pilot's fault, but the Captain's, for not allowing the co-pilot feel he could speak up. [Also the fault of a culture that expects blind obedience.]
If, on the financial decision, TheWolf made his decision after listening to Forestleaf's advice against it, and knowing she would be very upset ... well, he can do that. And Forestleaf has the right to chew him out for being stupid (if he truly was). Because the FO is the only person in the crew who can, and should tell the Captain he's full of s*it. [Though he can say, "Well, it's my shit and I'm prepared to live with it".]
Enneagram 5w4. I'm researching what that means, before designing t-shirt art about it.
"I feel no shame in making lavish use of the strongest muscles, namely male ones (but my own strongest muscle is dedicated to the service of men - noblesse oblige). I don't begrudge men one whit of their natural advantages as long as they respect mine. I am not an unhappy pseudomale; I am female and like it that way." RAH
Thank you for all your contributions to this forum, I really enjoy everything that you post and for all the extremely wise advice that you give. Thank you for your insights
I have an advanced education and impressive professional résumé .... I am extremely opinionated. I generally believe that I am right about everything unless someone is objectively able to prove otherwise on a given matter. I am driven and ambitious. I am a pleasant and kind person, but what I'm saying is that I am not typically deferential or meek or submissive in personality.
And I want to add how much of a turn-on for me that is in a woman. All the women I find attractive have been basically like the above. Does that make me less male, or less of a captain? Not in my opinionated opinion. A strong captain wants a strong and confident first officer.
Part of the C - FO dynamic ultimately is that they could change places at any time - if the captain was sick or absent for example - but the respective roles feel right for them.
Part of it also is about scope. Being me, I tend to think of this in terms of kitchen work. When I am running a shift, if I have a person under me working on some particular part of the meal, I want them completely focused on that. I am still going to check on them occasionally. I may be making something myself. But the back of my mind is always going to be going: .... the leftovers from this ... what can we make tomorrow that uses them up? And what other ingredients do we need for that? And do we have them in stock? And what would go with that dish to balance the menu tomorrow? Like I am about 24 hours ahead of my FO. So they can just concentrate.
It can lead to some funny conversations. Like it's the middle of pandemonium, and the FO thinks things are moving too slowly, and says to me "what the hell is that you are making?" and I say "it's a stock I am going to need tomorrow lunchtime". And if I'm lucky, a light comes on for them, like "ohhhh, I get it, there's a plan!"
Enneagram type 5 w6.
If I offer lots of advice, it's probably really me giving advice to myself. That always seems to happen.
7
Rorschach"Just ask the axis ..."Silver MemberPosts: 1,458
Or, in other words, the goal isn't compliance; it's a happy marriage for both, which won't happen if one half is "forced" and it's not organic. The C/FO description is a way of living it mindfully.
And, yes, it definitely was an enlightenment moment when I realized I always was the leader, good, bad or indifferent. My whole marriage flashed through my mind.
@Katt, I think you and I would be good friends in real life, that is, until we got in an argument about something. I've always been a very strong woman too, especially to all appearances. But I have to admit I have always had some self-doubt. I don't mind deferring to my husband's decisions, and I am turned on by a strong man with decisive actions. And the waves/surf analogy makes sense, @Athol_Kay.
@HildaCorners, I definitely see what you are saying. However, the analogy with the Korean Air pilots confuses me; that FO made a huge error and while it might seem appropriate to place all the blame on the Captain, the FO should have manned up (man or woman) and spoken up. I suppose I would say both were to blame. And regarding TheWolf's "financial decision," it was actually an expenditure that in hindsight was a good choice, but I didn't have all the information.
@Reborn, the kitchen analogy is also a tough one for me; I tend to be the one who is 24 hours ahead of my H in terms of thought. I have always run the home and family, and if I don't know what's going on, then no one does. Kids' camps, scheduling, calendars, school necessities and functions, financial concerns, upcoming family events, etc. My H deals with most outside stuff, home repair. Both of us deal with child discipline and big financial decisions. However, there are some days (like yesterday) where I am endlessly frustrated with setbacks and REALLY appreciate when he Captains and makes the decisions for me. When I'm feeling negative, I absolutely need him to make the decisions. I hate that about myself, but it's true.
Theoretically, each form of sexism is composed of three subcomponents: paternalism, gender differentiation, and heterosexuality.[1]
Paternalism reflects views of women as underdeveloped adults, providing
justification for men to be authoritative and monitor, protect, and
make decisions on women's behalf. Gender differentiation promotes the
assumption that biological differences between males and females justify
the strict adherence to socially prescribed gender roles.
Heterosexuality—described as the most prominent cause of men's
ambivalence toward women—reflects a tension between genuine desires for
closeness and intimacy and a fear of women attaining power over men
through sexual attraction.
1. I don't think that paternalism is endorsed here. The aim is to have two fully functional adults in a relationship.
2. Gender differentiation is acknowledged, but only in reference to attraction and sexual desire.
3. I have seen men post who are obviously afraid of their partners attaining power over them through sexual attraction (or have allowed a power imbalance because of their attraction for their spouse). I have seen women here who are very unhappy to have lost power to attract their partner due to low T or porn addiction. I don't think anyone's goal here is to award women power over their husbands through sexual attraction.
@Beatrice, yes, I don't see men here on the forum viewing women as underdeveloped adults. But men here do want to protect and be the authority figure (which I'm not arguing is wrong). Regarding gender differentiation, I see a whole lot of that here, even in this thread. The question is whether accentuating our differences as men and women (which are certainly real) and following roles as a result of these perceived differences is indeed a sexist way to act. And let's not get started on men's worry that women control the sex (called heterosexuality by the author, an unusual use of the word). @never_again discusses this sexual "control." It is something that men bring up again and again, and definitely seems to bother them on the forum. For the record, I definitely agree that the woman in that example who said "You're cut off!" was being a bitch and was intentionally controlling the sex.
@Athol_Kay's reasoning (as he's explained above) makes sense to me. However, the examples I'm seeing elsewhere on the forum sometimes adhere to it, and sometimes seem a little off target. Most of this is likely a result of my failure to understand all the complexities of it.
Without having read the article since it wasn't linked, "benevolent sexism" sounds like a
phrase that is intended to cast the net of what is 'sexist' very widely, to catch things that maybe don't really seem sexist.
For some people, any claim that men and women differ in anything beyond reproductive organs is sexism, particularly when it comes to brains and behavior. But the reality is that men's brains and women's brains are different. They are physically different for a start, so you'd expect to find functional differences. And indeed there are numerous documented differences in the way the sexes think and behave. It's not all just culture and sexist conditioning.
@Athol_Kay's reasoning (as he's explained above) makes sense to me. However, the examples I'm seeing elsewhere on the forum sometimes adhere to it, and sometimes seem a little off target. Most of this is likely a result of my failure to understand all the complexities of it.
My advice and the "median forum advice" are not always aligned. It's complex because the messages are coming with some signal-to-noise issues.
"The turnaround is tremendous. And I'm lifting weights, eating better, and tackling projects. I have all this great energy without a vampire sucking my life force. He's a lot stronger standing on his own two feet, as well." - Scarlet
@never_again discusses this sexual "control." It is something that men bring up again and again, and definitely seems to bother them on the forum. For the record, I definitely agree that the woman in that example who said "You're cut off!" was being a bitch and was intentionally controlling the sex.
Keep in mind that much of men's sexual identity is tied to intimacy with their spouse. And "control" of that intimacy is very distressing to men.
A good analogy might be herd animals. When it's not mating season, you'll often find bachelor herds where all the males get along, aside for some routine pecking-order jostling. Come mating season, all bets are off and it's every man for himself.
In much the same way, when I'm not in a relationship, my sex drive is manageable. Yes, I'm looking and will consider every opportunity I get, but I'm not obsessed with it. But when I'm in a relationship my identity, comfort and happiness is very much tied to the level of intimacy in the relationship.
Put another way, I've spent considerable time single but the loneliest I've ever been in my life was in a sexless marriage.
The man who gives his woman everything ends up with nothing. Not even the woman.
Much of D/s emphasizes paternalism and protection and that is the kind of D/s in which I thrive and get fucked silly by my sweet husband. I'm a functional adult but more submissive than mmsl describes/prescribes. Politically I'm a liberal. Any leader/follower dynamic that dismissed my need to be held, caressed, and spoken to affectionately would not be good for me. D/s acknowledges the vulnerability of the sub and holds the Dom responsible for providing aftercare and before care as needed. DD/s prizes clear communication and consent with awareness of the power exchange. I liked the wolf for his evident love for you and his skepticism. You have the caution, seriousness and heat for your man typical of a sub @ forestleaf . Pursue your pleasure. Trust yourself and see how much you can trust wolf.
Comments
Every organization needs a leader. It's chaotic without it. Someone has to do it consistently. I was the Captain of my family for years. It's not really all it's cracked up to be.
I'm completely comfortable, and happy being the leader of my company, but at home- nah. He's welcome to lead. I don't need to lead in order to feel capable, and competent. I know that I am, and I know I can do whatever needs to be done. That's plenty for me.
His leadership frees up my head space to think about other things. I've soared to greater heights because I don't have to think about every last single detail in the running of the house. I have veto power, and that's enough for me.
A good leader shouldn't subjugate his followers, or demand that someone be a "Stepford Wife", or simply take power because they're a certain sex. A good couple should celebrate each other's strengths, and not be threatened by them.
- watch that ST:TNG episode (season 1 episode 1)
- Read The Number of the Beast. If science fiction isn't your thing, you can just read through the selection of a permanent Captain. As I said, that permanent Captain was a woman who deferred to nobody about matters of the ship, but did defer to her husband on matters of the marriage. Her husband was part of the crew, and deferred to her on ship matters.
- Watch Athol's Part 3 videos
- Search "Captain and First Officer" in Athol's blog.
Athol goes into this concept pretty deeply, because it is confusing. I was confused too, at first.
Off the top of my head, I can think of one female Captain marriage here, though I don't think it's that way by the woman's choice, just necessity due to having a very passive husband.
As far as "sexism", that is a political construct, as are most "isms". There are differences between men and women, no amount of political correctness will change that. But there are many places where that difference doesn't, and shouldn't matter.
Finally, a story to think about. Did you know that short kids are worse at spelling than tall kids? Absolutely, 100% true. More in the spoiler ...
Enneagram 5w4. I'm researching what that means, before designing t-shirt art about it.
"I feel no shame in making lavish use of the strongest muscles, namely male ones (but my own strongest muscle is dedicated to the service of men - noblesse oblige). I don't begrudge men one whit of their natural advantages as long as they respect mine. I am not an unhappy pseudomale; I am female and like it that way." RAH
Here is a little click and paste from Wikipedia:
Theoretically, each form of sexism is composed of three subcomponents: paternalism, gender differentiation, and heterosexuality.[1] Paternalism reflects views of women as underdeveloped adults, providing justification for men to be authoritative and monitor, protect, and make decisions on women's behalf. Gender differentiation promotes the assumption that biological differences between males and females justify the strict adherence to socially prescribed gender roles. Heterosexuality—described as the most prominent cause of men's ambivalence toward women—reflects a tension between genuine desires for closeness and intimacy and a fear of women attaining power over men through sexual attraction.
1. I don't think that paternalism is endorsed here. The aim is to have two fully functional adults in a relationship.
2. Gender differentiation is acknowledged, but only in reference to attraction and sexual desire.
3. I have seen men post who are obviously afraid of their partners attaining power over them through sexual attraction (or have allowed a power imbalance because of their attraction for their spouse). I have seen women here who are very unhappy to have lost power to attract their partner due to low T or porn addiction. I don't think anyone's goal here is to award women power over their husbands through sexual attraction.
Is this what you want to know?
As an aside, I don't even worry about teaching husbands to start trying to be the Captain until Part Three of the video series. So much can go wrong before learning the basics and getting some positive relationship momentum happening... and then the Captain stuff comes together more easily.
The C/FO model is best understood as a model. I don't demand @Jen_Kay act like a First Officer because of the C/FO model. It's not scripture, it's an explanation of what we end up doing in reality.
Weak husbands using the C/FO model to demand compliance, well Athol says that you should XYZ, are appealing to a higher authority than themselves, and will find it ineffective because it only serves to underline that they don't have the required moxie to be a leader on their own merits.
The other thing that is an enlightenment moment to most people is that their relationships have always been a Captain and First Officer relationship right from the start. Most serious wifely complaints about husbands are in essence that they have failed to be the Captain, long before either one of them have learned the concepts.
One Hour Call 12-Week Guided MAP
"The turnaround is tremendous. And I'm lifting weights, eating better, and tackling projects. I have all this great energy without a vampire sucking my life force. He's a lot stronger standing on his own two feet, as well." - Scarlet
TheWolf made some attempts this afternoon to explain the model to me, and we talked about the FO role a bit. One thing he mentioned is that the model fails to hold up if the FO disagrees with her role; that both parties must be agreeable to and comfortable with it for it to work.
I think when I was previously mentioning "dominant/submissive" (and others in this thread have used the term submissive), I should have said "superior/inferior." However, the sense that I use the term "superior" is as a noun; the Captain is the "superior" to the FO. This is what I've been feeling uncomfortable with. @AlexZ said "Why do you think your husband will ignore your "absolutely, 100% not!"? He can overpower you physically but you trust him not to do it, right? You don't have to be less than him and I think he will gladly listen to you expertise. " I should bring up that the only time in memory (about a year ago) that I put my FOOT DOWN on something TheWolf wanted to do, he went against me, did it anyhow, and didn't tell me until I saw the credit card bill. For all I know, some of you know what that was. Regardless, no, he didn't listen to me, so no I don't think it always works the way you think.
I read things on the forum, such as what @John3 wrote in this thread, and I feel good about men and their view of women and their wives, and how much respect they seem to have for them, and it encourages my interest in the C/FO model. Other men (many) on the forum seem to devalue women and throw that word "Captain" around like they are wielding a club, joking about how they are going to have the final say, etc. Oddly I just read one of those nasty comments before coming on here. So to a newbie, you might realize how it is I could get confused; what is really encouraged here? @Athol_Kay clears up a lot of it with his statement above, and I'll just have to try and differentiate who is saying what when I read various comments.
@Angeline, I don't think that following the leadership of my husband will render me incapable of decision-making. However, I do think that the things we do and the way we act is a result of what we've made habits of. If I already struggle some with my own ability to trust myself and be strong and confident, and then I consistently allow my husband to make the important decisions in our lives, this will promote indecision on my part, and perhaps a perpetual sense of slight weakness that might be perceived by my colleagues (for me my indecision IS a weakness). Yes, I question my self and my own self-esteem, so super strong women who rarely falter and like the "break" that coming home provides will probably feel differently than I do. If we say that a man who makes the transition from Beta to Alpha, and MAPs, and works his ass off improving himself (all good things), and becomes Captain of his family is more likely to become successful in the workplace (which is certainly true), then what exactly is the effect on his wife? @AlexZ says "He will be happy being a powerful man on the front line and you will be happy to have that enormous influence on such a powerful man." Start with a very strong woman, and perhaps have no effect. Start with a woman with any self-doubt, and, what do you get?
^^^That sounds an awful lot like your husband putting the blame squarely on you for his wobbles as a Captain. It must be your fault since you don't 100% agree with your role.
In other words, he can only be a good Captain if you permit it, which means he really isn't a leader at all.
Regarding my agreeing to this role, I think I've already been here in this role for some time. I'm just trying to decide what I am most comfortable with at this time. Many things are changing for me now.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/2013/04/the-eternal-captain-rule/
http://marriedmansexlife.com/2012/01/the-conscious-captain-and-first-officer-relationship/
I'm saying the model is an explanation of reality for most couples whether you agree on it, or want it to be the reality. It doesn't have to pass the house and the senate for approval, it just is what it is. It's working whether you want it to or not.
It's like debating whether or not waves hitting a beach are an acceptable practice.
I'm just explaining how the waves work so they can more easily be surfed.
One Hour Call 12-Week Guided MAP
"The turnaround is tremendous. And I'm lifting weights, eating better, and tackling projects. I have all this great energy without a vampire sucking my life force. He's a lot stronger standing on his own two feet, as well." - Scarlet
am driven and ambitious. I am a pleasant and kind person, but what I'm saying is that I am not typically deferential or meek or submissive in personality.
Obviously, I can only describe my
personal experiences. My 14 year marriage has basically always operated on an unofficial C/FO model (i say "unofficial" because Mr. K is not MMSL
aware and there was never any sort of roles discussion - just the way things have always been, partly due to my husband's "benevolent sexism" LOL).
My husband and I have a strong set of shared beliefs, values, and goals. In short, we are very much on the same team. We are not opponents. I am a reasonable, intelligent, capable, competent adult. So is my husband. We have different talents, abilities, strengths, and sets of knowledge. We pool those for the good of our family. It is an extremely rare occurrence that, after discussing something and sharing our viewpoints, we don't see eye to eye or reach a mutually acceptable compromise on something. It's almost unheard of, actually. It isn't as if my husband constantly imposes his will or overrules me. He seeks my opinions, and has told me, and others, numerous times that I am the smartest person he knows. In no way does he see me as "less" than him. That said, in the end, if we can't agree, I *choose* to defer to hIm. I don't believe there can be a completely equal relationship.
I think the foundation of a successful C/FO marriage is trust. I trust, with every fiber of my being, that my husband has my best interest and that of our family at heart. If I thought him to be motivated by selfishness or ego, this would not work for me. I trust that my husband is a good, intelligent, and reasonable man. He is level headed and capable of making sensible choices. Basically, there is no reason for me to fear deferring to him. His decisions are meant to benefit me, to benefit us, not to harm me. He's not just trying to throw his weight around.
Beyond significant decision making, I choose to defer to my husband in small ways, to show my respect and appreciation. I typically comply with his requests. He doesn't order me around (outside of bed ) but I enjoy waiting on him a bit and doing things for him. But again, it is a choice.
I firmly believe that polarity between the sexes drives attraction. I don't have to "like" it intellectually to accept that my body responds to male dominance. I think the MMSL model not only offers a good explanation of all of this, but offers ways to leverage gender differences in a way that respects both men and women.
Poor Captains believe "I'm the Husband, you're the wife, so you have to obey me." Good Captains know that they are #1 in a team, and if their crew isn't giving them good info and opinions, their decisions will suffer — and that's the Captain's fault because he made his crew reluctant to speak up.
I think of what I heard after several Korean air disasters ... the co-pilots were so ... submissive ... that they would not tell their Captain the plane was on course to hit something. Not the co-pilot's fault, but the Captain's, for not allowing the co-pilot feel he could speak up. [Also the fault of a culture that expects blind obedience.]
If, on the financial decision, TheWolf made his decision after listening to Forestleaf's advice against it, and knowing she would be very upset ... well, he can do that. And Forestleaf has the right to chew him out for being stupid (if he truly was). Because the FO is the only person in the crew who can, and should tell the Captain he's full of s*it. [Though he can say, "Well, it's my shit and I'm prepared to live with it".]
Enneagram 5w4. I'm researching what that means, before designing t-shirt art about it.
"I feel no shame in making lavish use of the strongest muscles, namely male ones (but my own strongest muscle is dedicated to the service of men - noblesse oblige). I don't begrudge men one whit of their natural advantages as long as they respect mine. I am not an unhappy pseudomale; I am female and like it that way." RAH
Thank you for all your contributions to this forum, I really enjoy everything that you post and for all the extremely wise advice that you give. Thank you for your insights
Part of the C - FO dynamic ultimately is that they could change places at any time - if the captain was sick or absent for example - but the respective roles feel right for them.
Part of it also is about scope. Being me, I tend to think of this in terms of kitchen work. When I am running a shift, if I have a person under me working on some particular part of the meal, I want them completely focused on that. I am still going to check on them occasionally. I may be making something myself. But the back of my mind is always going to be going: .... the leftovers from this ... what can we make tomorrow that uses them up? And what other ingredients do we need for that? And do we have them in stock? And what would go with that dish to balance the menu tomorrow? Like I am about 24 hours ahead of my FO. So they can just concentrate.
It can lead to some funny conversations. Like it's the middle of pandemonium, and the FO thinks things are moving too slowly, and says to me "what the hell is that you are making?" and I say "it's a stock I am going to need tomorrow lunchtime". And if I'm lucky, a light comes on for them, like "ohhhh, I get it, there's a plan!"
And, yes, it definitely was an enlightenment moment when I realized I always was the leader, good, bad or indifferent. My whole marriage flashed through my mind.
@HildaCorners, I definitely see what you are saying. However, the analogy with the Korean Air pilots confuses me; that FO made a huge error and while it might seem appropriate to place all the blame on the Captain, the FO should have manned up (man or woman) and spoken up. I suppose I would say both were to blame. And regarding TheWolf's "financial decision," it was actually an expenditure that in hindsight was a good choice, but I didn't have all the information.
@Reborn, the kitchen analogy is also a tough one for me; I tend to be the one who is 24 hours ahead of my H in terms of thought. I have always run the home and family, and if I don't know what's going on, then no one does. Kids' camps, scheduling, calendars, school necessities and functions, financial concerns, upcoming family events, etc. My H deals with most outside stuff, home repair. Both of us deal with child discipline and big financial decisions. However, there are some days (like yesterday) where I am endlessly frustrated with setbacks and REALLY appreciate when he Captains and makes the decisions for me. When I'm feeling negative, I absolutely need him to make the decisions. I hate that about myself, but it's true.
@Beatrice, yes, I don't see men here on the forum viewing women as underdeveloped adults. But men here do want to protect and be the authority figure (which I'm not arguing is wrong). Regarding gender differentiation, I see a whole lot of that here, even in this thread. The question is whether accentuating our differences as men and women (which are certainly real) and following roles as a result of these perceived differences is indeed a sexist way to act. And let's not get started on men's worry that women control the sex (called heterosexuality by the author, an unusual use of the word). @never_again discusses this sexual "control." It is something that men bring up again and again, and definitely seems to bother them on the forum. For the record, I definitely agree that the woman in that example who said "You're cut off!" was being a bitch and was intentionally controlling the sex.
@Athol_Kay's reasoning (as he's explained above) makes sense to me. However, the examples I'm seeing elsewhere on the forum sometimes adhere to it, and sometimes seem a little off target. Most of this is likely a result of my failure to understand all the complexities of it.
For some people, any claim that men and women differ in anything beyond reproductive organs is sexism, particularly when it comes to brains and behavior. But the reality is that men's brains and women's brains are different. They are physically different for a start, so you'd expect to find functional differences. And indeed there are numerous documented differences in the way the sexes think and behave. It's not all just culture and sexist conditioning.
My advice and the "median forum advice" are not always aligned. It's complex because the messages are coming with some signal-to-noise issues.
One Hour Call 12-Week Guided MAP
"The turnaround is tremendous. And I'm lifting weights, eating better, and tackling projects. I have all this great energy without a vampire sucking my life force. He's a lot stronger standing on his own two feet, as well." - Scarlet
Keep in mind that much of men's sexual identity is tied to intimacy with their spouse. And "control" of that intimacy is very distressing to men.
A good analogy might be herd animals. When it's not mating season, you'll often find bachelor herds where all the males get along, aside for some routine pecking-order jostling. Come mating season, all bets are off and it's every man for himself.
In much the same way, when I'm not in a relationship, my sex drive is manageable. Yes, I'm looking and will consider every opportunity I get, but I'm not obsessed with it. But when I'm in a relationship my identity, comfort and happiness is very much tied to the level of intimacy in the relationship.
Put another way, I've spent considerable time single but the loneliest I've ever been in my life was in a sexless marriage.
Any leader/follower dynamic that dismissed my need to be held, caressed, and spoken to affectionately would not be good for me. D/s acknowledges the vulnerability of the sub and holds the Dom responsible for providing aftercare and before care as needed.
DD/s prizes clear communication and consent with awareness of the power exchange.
I liked the wolf for his evident love for you and his skepticism. You have the caution, seriousness and heat for your man typical of a sub @ forestleaf . Pursue your pleasure. Trust yourself and see how much you can trust wolf.