There are several overlapping memes in the manosphere about women and leadership. The game and PUA crowd (I do not presume to speak exactly to anyone’s iteration of these things, only generally and loosely) would hold that men, by asserting themselves as dominant and aloof (I know, I know…too simplistic) women will naturally respond because that is what women want. It is what they crave. We can agree that we mustn’t let women tell us what they want, we must witness what they do and decide for ourselves. That code is well broken.
The Christian manosphere would have that women crave leadership from their husbands. Female writers are straight up saying we should not listen to women because most of what they say is “poo”. We should plow right through the nonsense and lead. Male writers including Dalrock have chimed in repeatedly echoing this sentiment that women crave male leadership. Because I respect his opinion and have eaten crow prepared by him before I have to allow that we may be speaking parallel lines that cannot contradict one another because they never intersect. Or, we disagree, and I have some more explaining to do.
The dialog has grown lengthy at Dalrock’s regarding whether or not women crave leadership. I say no. I ask, why would someone designed with built in rebellion, as we all are, be craving leadership? And if they do, why is the perfect leader not openly and visibly manifesting as Lord of their lives en masse?
This image of the quirky woman with her sometimes desire to rock the boat but deep down virtuous has disturbed me for some time. It disturbs the same nerve as the claim that gaming a woman means you are in control of the frame. Neither completes the picture. But one of those two things has at least a stated honest goal regardless what anyone thinks of it, values wise.
Women generally have a tempest in their thoughts, and an unknown (even to them) goal to their actions that is purely emotionally experiential. Its how women are made, and as Cane Caldo always points out….that is good. There is a purpose behind all of this. Some call it a plan. But the participants are only willing in the sense that they signed up as believers in the grander scheme.
I can at the same time decry the slippage in men’s responsibility and the rebellion of women against men, even men who are doing things well. All that is still good. But as individual parts, a woman is no more craving male leadership than a single man is craving a monogamous sexual relationship with an aging wife. For that to be the state of a given man means he has himself submitted to a higher calling and pushed his cravings aside. So much the same with women and submission. If she is in submission, she chose to be so against her nature and the contentment that comes with men and women thus submitting is God given contentment. It is not born of quenching some hidden desire that is good but for the inadequacy of someone else.