Is the Conventional Power Dynamic “Natural,” or Just Patriarchy?

In analyzing monogamous heterosexual relationships, a fundamental controversy arises: is the conventional dynamic, often characterized by male leadership and female submission, inherently natural and mutually beneficial, or does it primarily stem from misogyny and entrenched patriarchal ideals?

Feminist thought often asserts that the conventional ideal is unequivocally wrong and not inherent, arguing that it is merely an artifact of a society dictated by external, systemic forces.

The Historical Roots of Imbalance

The power dynamics observed within heterosexual partnerships often mirror the power dynamics of society at large. The historical imposition of traditional roles is frequently cited as the root cause of imbalance:

Economic Control: For most of human history, women were systematically economically disenfranchised. This financial vulnerability forced them into codependency, as marriage was historically structured as a property contract where the woman was sometimes considered part of the property being exchanged.
Patriarchal Enforcement: The idea that women naturally prefer submissive roles is viewed as a “laughable post-hoc justification,” given that women often never had the choice to begin with. Religious texts and legal structures helped reinforce this dynamic as the “natural order”.
The Risk Factor: An unbalanced power structure where one partner, typically the woman, is dependent on the man significantly increases the likelihood of financial, physical, or emotional abuse.

Why Traditional Roles Persist in Modern Couples

Even in liberal and progressive modern relationships, traditional patterns of behavior can be observed. This persistence is not necessarily due to inherent nature, but rather because everyone operates within a society where “patriarchy is the water in which we all swim”.

The Role of Bias and Societal Conditioning

Societal pressures make going against the grain exhausting, while conformity is often less stressful and comes with external validation. This conditioning leads to two pervasive issues:

Gendered Attribution: Actions are often framed through the prism of the societal view, which colors interpretations of who is “leading”. For example, if a man organizes a vacation, he is demonstrating “leadership”. If a woman plans the daily meals, family gatherings, or schedules appointments, she is often seen simply as “taking care of social events and looking after things,” which is implicitly deemed submissive. The moment gendered meaning is attached to these actions, the terms become self-referential.
Confirmation Bias: Individuals who grew up in conservative environments may be hyper-aware and actively looking for submission in every relationship they observe, making it seem more extensive than it truly is. This bias can lead to incorrect assumptions about the intricacies of a partnership.

The Illusion of Choice

While liberation movements have created choices for women, the argument remains that many women who appear happy in a traditional “submissive” role may simply be choosing the path of least resistance or acting on deep-seated indoctrination. Feminism insists on ensuring that women have a genuine choice free from external influence.

Toward True Partnership: Equality and Shared Purpose

For relationships to be truly healthy, they must be built on the principle of partnership, not hierarchy.

In a collaborative relationship, the focus shifts away from who is “dominant” or “submissive” toward unified goals. Partners should tackle responsibilities as a team. Assigning a “submissive” or “dominant” value to tasks actively makes the relationship less healthy by separating “our” tasks into unequal, arbitrary roles, unless that dynamic is a consciously chosen kink.

Compromise over Authority: When conflicts arise, the solution is not for one person to act as the final decision-maker or authority figure. Instead, partners practice compromise, with one person yielding on a specific topic because they care less about it than the other person, not because they are inherently less powerful.
Playing to Strengths: Egalitarian relationships thrive when partners allocate duties based on strengths, weaknesses, and preferences, regardless of outdated gender expectations.
Focus on Giving: Rather than asking, “What do you want?” partners should focus on, “What can I give you?” to support the shared life together, moving away from keeping score or asserting power.

Breaking the cycle of conventional dynamics requires women to gain the social, economic, and political power necessary to negotiate equality, and requires men to examine their privilege and recognize how patriarchy forces them to maintain a fragile masculinity. By abandoning gendered attribution and focusing on mutual respect, couples can achieve the peace and strength that comes from a truly equal partnership.