The Woman Behind the Man: the affect on women (segment one of three)
Ladies, how many times growing up were you exposed to that phrase? What about that sentiment, through the supportive wife giving up her high-paying job offer to do what the husband wants? The idea that First Ladies are actually running the country, or holds more influence over the President than anyone else? The man that always comes to the wife with every intricate dilemma, whether it be moral, work-related, or about a friendship, and the woman was expected to have the perfect answer? How many times were you exposed to the phrase or idea of "marry rich", "find a nice man and settle down", the stigma that the man takes care of you financially and you should be taking care of keeping the house running, making sure he eats, sleeps well, is sexually satisfied, keeps him sane? How old were you when you realised that to effectively get your ideas, thoughts, or feelings across you had to find a way to get a man to present it to others?
I've found that every time I'm friends with a male, especially one that holds a position of every kind, people come to me when they have a problem with him. They ask me his reasoning for his decisions. They ask me to convince him or manipulate him into doing things a certain way. They except me to be there to clean up any messes he makes. And I've also found that (certain) men expect the same, especially that last point. I'm not allowed to hold the position, no, he gets that because he's a lad, even though he's less qualified and the people don't actually have faith in him. I'm just expected to do all the work for the position; make sure he does what he needs to and handles things the way people see fit; and if he messes up, it's my responsibility to fix it or my fault it went wrong. I'll not get the title, I'll not get the credit, but I'll sure as hell get the responsibilities. I also get the oh-so-lovely duty of being his emotional and moral guidance. I have to be the calm one, the collected one, the reasonable one, the logical one, the systematic one, the organised one, the reliable one, the empathetic one, the sympathetic one… you get the idea.
But let's back up a step. Why is this whole concept toxic? How does something that could, and usually is, seen as a supportive relationship have such negative affects? There are three major ways this comes down on women; 1) in the way we're raised, 2) our career choices, and 3) romantic relationships (it affects platonic relationships as well, but that's not what we're going to focus on here).
Impact area uno: childhood. Starting when we're itty bitty, girls are introduced to this concept. Through tv, books, society standards, watching the relationships (impact area three!) around us. We see wives standing behind their man, supporting whatever decisions he makes then shouldering and cleaning up the fallout when it goes nuclear; being their main moral compass, instead of men having, considering, and following their own; putting their own dreams, ambitions, and careers on hold or dropping them completely to let the man ~follow his passion~. The husband comes homes angry, takes it out on the wife, she forgives him because "I know you've been having a tough time", has to calm him down, make him realise he messed something up (work, a friendship, whatever), shows him how to fix it. Single men are excused for their irrational/emotional actions because "boys will be boys", "he just needs a woman's touch", the idea of the fiery (aka violent) bachelor partnered with the older, settled-down (wifed up) man. Little girls see this and take it to heart; the idea that that is their purpose, that is how they're supposed to function and make decisions. It's not about them because the woman is giving and generous and sweet and innocent and gives everything up for "the people around them" (the men). It also plants the idea that for a woman to be her own person, she has to come out from behind the man; whether it's her man or just men, she starts out behind them and has to fight her way to the front. It paints an image where either the man or the woman is in the front, and if the woman behind the man is the giving, generous, sweet, innocent one then the woman who dares to fight to the front is overemotional, volatile, cold, cutthroat. It also creates a mental thought that to be in the front of the men, you also have to be in front of the women; you have to head them off before you can head off the men, because the women… well, they're behind the men. Then women feel like they're automatically competing with all other women and powerful women threaten other women just by existing in their space and… well, I'm sure you can see how that doesn't work out to be a good thing. I could go on for a while more, but I think that's enough on that for now. Let's move on.
Impact area dos: career choices. The woman behind the man sounds more like a personal life effect, right? Wrong. It affects professional just as much as personal, if not more. If you're the woman behind the man, you're meant to be there supporting him. So, is he there to reciprocate (again, impact area three!) and support you in your choices as equally as you are for him? Uhhh, no. No, he's not. Are you going to make the same decisions without that support as you would with it? Again, uhhh, no. You're the secretary, not the manager. You're the nurse, not the doctor. You're the paralegal, not the lawyer. You're the First Lady; not the President. Does this mean you can't be those things? No, so don't @ me. It just means your subconscious is going to steer you away from it; your "natural" relationship with men will steer you away from it; sexism in the workplace will steer you away from it; your guidance counselor will steer you away from it. Will you take the promotion with a great pay raise that requires you asking your boyfriend/husband to sacrifice something? Will you tell your boyfriend/husband that you can't rush home to deal with his moral crisis because you need to work late? Uhhh, no. Again, not because you can't; but because you've been trained and conditioned from a young age (impact area one!) to believe that is not your role.
It also affects how you're chosen for positions, of all types. They'll elect the male you're friends with over you, despite believing you'll do a better job, because this way their Lad is the face of operations but they still get your opinion, your guidance, your final say. You're expected to coach him and guide him to do… well… exactly what you would do. You'd do the job, just… without the title, without the credit. You're expected to help do a job that isn’t yours just because you're close with the male who has been handed the role. And if you don't? Well, you're not supportive, you're not doing everything you can to help (which you have to do, by the way, you can't only do your designated job and go home), you're not being reliable, you're… a bitch. Don't take it personally, though, they'll tell you; you can have the title and position once all the lads are gone. Then it's all up to you to carry on what is now their legacy. Again, a topic I could speak on for quite a while, so let's move on to impact area three.
Impact area three: relationships. This has been touched on in impact areas one and two, honestly because, especially with women and power, personal relationships get dragged in as influential and important even when they should be left out of the equation; which is why we're zeroing in on romantic relationships in this sector and leaving platonic relationships at the back door (which is, ironically, what people often think of women who support men or manage to climb ranks ahead of men). We'll focus directly on how this stigma affects how women function in romantic relationships, not how being in romantic relationships affect other impact areas.
Women are taught their role and sole function is to support "their" man. He's their responsibility to care for and, in ways, control. If he's not sleeping enough, not eating right, not happy; it's his woman's fault. If he's not properly maintaining his friendships; if he isn't being a good leader at work; if he's cheating; it's all because the woman is lacking in one way or another. Not making sure he gets enough time with his lads; not being a good enough and reliable enough moral compass and sounding board; not satisfying him often enough or well enough. It becomes a toxic rhetoric, for both sides. Women pass up job opportunities, give up their hopes and dreams and passions, to make way for what their man wants or believes in. Women are taught to give more in a relationship than the man, and it's draining. Not only does it take away from other areas of her life, it also takes its toll mentally and emotionally. It's exhausting. Honestly this is one that is difficult for me to speak on, so if you have your own anecdotes or feelings about it, let me know; I'm open to listen. I'm just not ready to speak on my own experience within this impact area just yet.
While this is (slowly) becoming a less and less commonly accepted stigma, it is still one that recent generations struggle with breaking while being one that desperately needs to be broken. One point of high importance, that I will touch on later, is that women do not have to be in front of other women to get in front of the man, and neither man nor woman needs to be in the front 100% of the time. There are times that one or the other will need more support, but it's about finding a balance, whatever works for whichever people are involved. If I'm not careful, I'll prematurely get into the subjects of my next posts, so I'll leave it here.
vaporwave
germansingergirl
ellievsbear
romaincrisis
2087
amandla
