Are men or women easier to lead?

Are men or women easier to lead?
Wow, that is a good one. Since women have a biblical role of submitting to their husbands, and from observation during my life, I will say that women are easier to lead. I think God made it to be able to work this way, but of course, sin has corrupted everything. I think men may find it a little more difficult following rules and regulations as we would rather set the rules and maybe, generally, don't like being told what to do.

I don't know. Just trying to chime in.

Mr Freedom

Generally speaking Women are easier to lead, especially introverted women.

When I used to follow the ways of the old forum most of my success came from meeting introverted women and initiating plans with them. In fact that's where most "instructors" said they got their results.

Extroverted Women today are more of a chore to lead but still doable. Extroverted women were not always rude mouthed entitled bitches. In the olden days they would conform to societal pressures and eventually settle down with an Alpha partner who would take control.

Nowadays with all the hordes of Simps/Betas/Gammas overpopulating Western Civilisation they are less likely to settle down. Of course they have a chad boyfriend but he is more a "tamed chad" and they seem to have a new "tamed chad" every 6 months. I used to talk to women like these (during my old ways) who used to have a habit of jogging in the park but the amount of effort one had to put in was not worth it. You basically have to surrender some of your masculinity and play a game to score and I was not going to agree with that.

I was always red pilled when it came to the opposite sex. Even in those days. Whenever I see a woman try to take control or act masculine I always feel a bit uneasy. Just something that does not sit right with me and never has.

Anyway the answer to making women easier to lead again is to reestablish the sacredness of marriage and giving birth. Once this is done we will be on the way of returning to normalcy.


Women are naturally more submissive/passive/"pushed", and men are more assertive/active/"pusher"; this is true not only anatomically but also psychologically. So, it would seem women are easier than men for men to lead.


I am in ukraine, i travel between FSU countries, i earn well, and i lead. Women tell me what they want to buy, i say no, i tell them of the boundaries i have (Spend around $50 a week on a dress or such, which is nothing to me, cheaper than using an escort) . A lot of women don't ask, but i still buy shit, because they end up cooking for me, caring for me, which is better for my business success, so $50 a week on an item is well worth it, so that i can lead, and that they are happy caring for my needs
I run a small business (law firm), and I generally hire women, but sometimes men (I would say 75-25). This is a great question. You'd think, because I have a high tendency to hire women, that they are easier to manage. Not true.

Women are indeed harder to manage. They are far more sensitive than men, and you have to often walk around on egg shells, particularly in the workplace. But why do I generally have a bias toward women? Because they are generally more reliable in support roles, and more importantly, if they are comfortable, they just won't leave. It will take a big difference in salary for them to take another job offer. So in support roles (like admin assistant, paralegal, jr attorney), women are just a much better choice. As for leadership roles, men are more suitable, so if I'm looking to hire an attorney who will have managerial responsibilities, I'd have a slight inclination toward hiring a man. Still, there is an advantage to having a woman in a managerial role, which is that they will be able to give you a pulse of the morale of the female workers much more accurately than a male manager because women will generally be far more open about their feelings to a female boss. Knowing the morale of your team is important, because if even just one or two women start to get a bad feeling about the workplace and about you (especially true of a small business), they just can't help but gossip and make everyone think differently about you. They biggest thing is they need to be told they are doing a good job though, and that they feel appreciated. The key when you do put a female in a managerial role is to make sure they are not overly feminine, and that they are just a bit on the introverted side.

Men, on the other hand, are far more likely to want to advance as quickly as possible in their career. So while they might be easier to manage and lead, and you don't have to think as much about giving them a pat on the back because they generally don't really care or need such validation, they are far more likely to quit. If they see a bit more dollar signs somewhere else, or if they don't see their work progressing consistently, they're out.

TLDR; women are harder to handle, but more loyal if you make the effort to handle them. As a leader, the importance of loyalty of those you lead can't be understated.
Women are easier to lead when you don't tell them you're leading them.

Men are easier to lead when there's a clear goal and you tell them you're leading them to it.

Yes! I worked in all-female environments twice, and I was given more consideration for being the only male and for not trying any funny business. I found that the women generally went along with what I suggested or said (even though I wasn't a manager or boss) as long as I said it patiently and respectfully, and made sure that they felt heard.

The problem with being in that environment was that cliques always formed, and I just floated in, out, and around them. Different women, within cliques and between cliques, would be hostile to each other for one reason or another, to the point where I considered it inevitable. I believe I find myself spared from most of it because I made no attempt to dominate them or impose my will upon them and take up some leadership mantle, though I did have an unofficial leadership role.