Polarity

 If you are a woman with a submissive nature, and you want to be led by a man, that is, for there to be a leader in the relationship, that man is going to require certain characteristics. In all likelihood the man will need to grow; to hone his dominant nature and to overcome any residual trauma from his childhood as well as societal messaging.

Let's assume that the woman is intelligent and well educated, and most probably perfectly capable of looking after herself. By that I mean she has the education and the necessary skills to get through her days quite satisfactorily whether she is led or not. But she chooses and desires a dominant man to lead her. For her to express her submissive nature she needs a man who is capable and willing to express his dominant nature; for there to be polarity. This man is going to be required to be evolved, mature, stalwart, calm and steady. 

We are judgmental about our leaders because no-one wants to be led by a fool. We analyze their behaviour and their decisions and as a whole we don't hold back from criticism when we disapprove.

I had a talk with someone over Christmas when I got a rare opportunity for a one-on-one conversation and I explained to him that, although it was clear his wife's behaviour was certainly triggering and sometimes quite unacceptable, he couldn't afford to give her back the same sort of behaviour she gave to him. As difficult as it no doubt could be, he needed to be that calm and committed presence in her life who was determining the standards of behaviour. 

'No, he couldn't mind the child this evening as he still had essential business calls he had to make, but he was happy to mind him on Saturday morning whilst she went to do whatever it was she wanted to do.'

Statements. No anger. No throwing words back at her. Just declarative statements. Compromise, but not giving in.

When she tried to make him responsible for something that was indeed her responsibility, he needed to note to her that she was capable of sorting this situation herself. He didn't need to be involved.

He was running around, I explained to him, trying to sort her problems, because he was capable of that, but he was training her to be dependent on him by doing so and getting angry about that at the same time.

There's no shortage of love either way and so he said to me, yet again, that the violence in her childhood home had created this scenario. He was justifying her behaviour. I understood that, I explained, but people can't spend their lives in disarray because something happened thirty years ago. He deserved peace, for one thing, and once the new training period was over, they would both be happier.

To his credit, he listened. He truly wanted it to be better, to be calm and for there to be harmony, but he had been triggered for several years by her demands and he sensed it wouldn't be easy to not be triggered again.

'Of course,' I assured him. It will take time and you will make mistakes. But you have to keep working your way towards being that man who was something like a well-built brick wall; solid and dependable; indestructible.

'She'll note the difference and won't understand it. You'll get a whole lot of stuff around how she is an 'independent woman' yadda yadda. Just stay the course. Trust me.'

Dominant men, the ones who hone their craft and character, do not get enough credit. I heard a brave man say in a podcast recently that a man has to be better than his woman in all the criteria that counted. He needed to contain her, and by that he meant he had to hold her in her hour of need. She needed to look up to him and he needed to protect her and hold her accountable to him. If she wants to be led, that's the way it works.

This reminds me somewhat of meditation advice - to let go of doing and sink into being. In the same way, I wonder if we should not let go of society's messaging and just be our authentic selves; strive to be our best selves.