I mentioned in a one of my posts in RPW a while back about approaching relationships as a business merger and if people were interested in a post like that. There was so I decided to elaborate on it and have been told I was approved to post this. Here you go :):
Company X (woman) and Company Y (man) are two similar corporations that are in the same field and are successful. Both have an attractive brand (looks), generate revenue (have a source of income), customer service (personality), etc. While both are successful in their own right, there is quite the possibility that combining their two companies into a singular large corporation could yield larger gains. At some point Company X/Y could approach the other company to do a collaboration (a date) with each other. Assuming that their first collaboration was a success, both companies can agree to do more collaborations together (dating) and continue to build upon the success they have already built together. Eventually it may get to a point where taking the next step of merging together into one company (a relationship/marriage/etc) is the most logical progression. NOTE: to be successful together does not mean you have to be completely the same to begin with. For example, when I mention generating revenue I do not mean to say that you both must generate the same revenue. Just because the other person makes 6 figures does not mean that you are disqualified if you make 5. And vice versa.
HOWEVER, before a formal relationship is established, it is important for both companies to look each other and review (vetting process) their entire portfolio. This is when each side reviews their own assets and liabilities and also the others in order to maximize not only the possibility of having a successful relationship but also have an increase on returns for their investments. Example of assets could be financial (high paying job, savings, stock), property (own business, house, etc), good corporate structure (goal oriented, self-discipline, hygiene) etc. Examples of liabilities could also be financial (high debt), too much wasteful spending on assets with diminishing or no returns (for example too many shoes, expensive clothing, cars with expensive insurance or needs constant repairs etc, bad corporate structure (serious character flaws that you did not know about when dating, bad hygiene, no self-control), and so on. During this review process each sides goal really is to maximize on each other’s assets and their own assets while minimizing on the liabilities. Would a company want to merge with a company whose liabilities outstrip their assets? No because if they were to merge then the liabilities, which outweighs the assets, of the failing company becomes the liabilities of the more successful company. Each company has their own liabilities but in order to succeed in coming together as one it is best to minimize their own liabilities. Will all the liabilities go away? No, that is unrealistic. But what is realistic is reducing the liabilities to a point where it is manageable and makes the other company more willing to take on. NOTE: the examples that I have given for assets and liabilities are by no means a comprehensive list. Also, both parties do not needs to have the exact same assets and liabilities for them to count as either. Both men and women have unique qualities that can be either and asset or liability, it's up to (both of) you to decide which is what.
By reducing liabilities and maximizing assets, the newly formed company (officially a couple) now has the best platform in order to succeed going ahead in the future. Does this mean that the new company will always continue to keep growing and have a successful year? No. Companies have good years and bad years. But what is important to be in a situation where there will be more good years than bad and be able to survive for the long term.
Final note: This post was intentionally written to be understood without being too complex. Of course relationships are much more complex than how I outlined above, but what I hope you readers take away from this is to remove the rose coloured glass that you wear before entering a relationship and approaching it with the seriousness that it deserves.
[deleted] 8y ago
Sucessful relationships are more like buyouts: one with assertive value takes ownership of one with quality it can live without. Together, both are better, but only one name survives.
[deleted] 8y ago
[deleted]
LawyerInTheMaking 8y ago
This is an important point and something i have wanted to write about. ive seen it too many times where girls date men thinking that if they date them then they can somehow change him into the man they have in their head. then they become disappointed when it doesnt work out and he is still the same guy. men dont change unless they want to and dating/sleeping with them is often not enough to make them do so.
Blissfully 8y ago
I appreciate this post/comment a lot.
[deleted] 8y ago
[deleted]
durtyknees 8y ago
The way I interpret it, it's more about having a "relationship condition/situation" to strive for, instead of a checklist. Basically this part:
Anyone in a relationship longer than 10 years will experience major changes together. Similar to a business, you innovate/adapt to changes and trends.
Without flexibility and a continuous effort at improvement, a relationship (like a business) can't thrive in the long term.
LawyerInTheMaking 8y ago
I understand what you mean that this can come off as a checklist and a way of negotiating attraction. I argue it is not negotiating attraction because attraction has to be present to begin with. I would never tell someone to date/marry someone they are not attracted to. Also I would argue is that it is not like a checklist (as it is viewed in modern relationships) because im saying to analyze the person, weigh the pros and cons, and if the pros outweighs the cons, then make a determination as to whether or not the person would make a good partner longterm. A person doesnt have to check off every box to be a good partner.
[deleted]
mynamenope 8y ago
thanks babe
[deleted]
[deleted]
Rivkariver 8y ago
I think it accomplished the point, which was a detached perspective on marriage. In an age of Hollywood romance we need this reminder. In times past every relationship commitment was approached this way.
LawyerInTheMaking 8y ago
You got it because thats exactly what I wanted people to take away from my post. When you take off the rose coloured glassed after the initial high from dating the person, you see that as fun as it is to spend time with the person the relationship wont be going anywhere or it wont last long.
[deleted]
girlwithabike 8y ago
A company still only has 1 CEO whether it's a merger or acquisition.
Don't assume that a woman is somehow the lesser partner on the basis that she does not take the lead.
md8716 8y ago
If we're talking about an RP marriage, one side must lead and one side must submit. It's not shameful to be the junior partner, nor to be a follower. The point is to achieve a common goal that makes all parties happy.
If this concept provokes a negative reaction in you, then perhaps you haven't fully bought into the idea of being a RP woman yet.
girlwithabike 8y ago
Alright, mercy y'all. I actually asked my husband's opinion to decide if I was off base before I said anything and he had the same sort of response that I did. Maybe we don't have an entirely RP dynamic, since im differing with several people here, but my issue was never with the idea of submission or following. I simply disagreed with the idea that the GF is automatically the smaller company and the man is the established firm that remains as-is. Not the merger metaphor, but the acquisition one. I don't think following or submitting makes you the "lesser" partner.
To me, we came together, each brought our strengths and weaknesses, we both gave up whatever benefits we had being single to do this, and we created a new entity. His vision leads our marriage and the things I do are in consideration of his vision. An acquisition to me just sounds like I fit neatly into his life without any changes on his side. I never set out to change him (specifically did not do this) but marriage changed both of our lives into something new. I've never felt that submission made me lose any part of myself which is why I agree with calling it a merger (if we must keep up the metaphor) but not an acquisition.
LawyerInTheMaking 8y ago
Also while a company has 1 CEO, the company has a board of directors who do get to make their voice heard. The man is the CEO, the woman is the board of directors. The CEO gets the final say but decision is for the benefit of the company (relationship)
girlwithabike 8y ago
Thank you for this. I agree entirely.
[deleted]
LawyerInTheMaking 8y ago
If you trust your CEO and can be confident in their decision then you go with the CEOs decisions. Ultimately you trust the CEO because they are tasked with leading the relationship and make decisions for the best interest for the relationship.
girlwithabike 8y ago
In the real world, the board can trust the CEO or they can fire the CEO. There is no real option for them to step in and override his decisions. But he should be taking the boards advice into account because if he goes too far off the rails he can be let go.
The Board can also be fired but this would be a decision of the shareholders of which, in many companies, the CEO is a large shareholder (because compensation is designed this way to give him a vested interest of the company but that's for nothing to do with the metaphor it's just information).
Basically everyone has to be the best they can be to forward the company, following the CEO vision and everyone answers to someone if they start to fall down on the job.
[deleted]
Laceandsilks 8y ago
Okay, I am stepping in at this point. There is no ironclad RPW law that says how a C/FM dynamic must look and operate. As with every RP approach and skill, things will vary to suit the individual and the couple.
Nothing /u/girlwithabike has said is incorrect. It's good that you know how your relationship functions, but please do not assume that your approach is the only RP or 'correct' one.
/u/md816 and /u/franky19902 I am tagging both of you as well.
[deleted] 8y ago
I understand and thank you for stepping in. But would you please answer the question I pose below?
What happens when you are confident that the CEO is making a wrong decision? Do you follow or not.
I am asking because while captains may vary on leadership styles they still lead and the wife follows because it is his ship.
If you view a RP marriage as more captain and co-captain then I really have nothing to offer here.
Edit: /u/franky19902 I didn't drop out the conversation I got banned for my replies on another RPW post.
Laceandsilks 8y ago
This is a complex question that requires far more information about the couple in question.
Some men want full obedience and compliance no matter what, and other men value a FM that will pick up the slack and refuse to let him make questionable decisions without solid reasoning.
There are different types of leaders, and they will in turn desire different kinds of women.
Many RP marriages operate from a position of mutual respect, and both recognize each other's strengths and weaknesses. Delegating tasks and responsibilities is part of being an effective leader. So while he may run one sphere of the relationship, the woman will be responsible for other areas.
It also depends what kind of decision is being made. Where to eat for dinner? The woman is better off just going with the flow. Risking all their savings on a business venture? A responsible FM will have a thorough discussion with the man to make sure he has thought through every angle and understands the pros and cons.
franky19902 8y ago
That doesn't really answer the question asked... what if you have a discussion about a serious issue and the captain has made it very clear that that's their decision and you know it's wrong?
The sidebar says STFU and let them make the mistake - is that wrong?
[deleted]
girlwithabike 8y ago
::shrug:: your word choice makes it sound like the people behind the roles are of unequal status or importance. A merger implies she brings her life: looks, personality, skills, family, friends, biology, career, aspirations etc and her brings his life: same and they work together to create a new joint life that works as a cohesive company. Some of what they keep is his, some is hers, some is both. Who fills the role of the CEO doesn't lower the value of either company. Acquisition of a smaller company sounds more like her life being discarded in whole or parts so she can be absorbed into his life, which remains intact. If her company was small enough to be assumed into his, it seems like that implies that her company is worth less/more easily thrown away. Maybe I'm misreading you.
But I also just wouldn't call marriage a hierarchy.
[deleted]
girlwithabike 8y ago
How does a woman lose herself?
[deleted]
girlwithabike 8y ago
Logically, I do see what you are saying. I just wouldn't consider it to be a loss of self to adjust to the reality of being with another person. I don't think that checking in with a partner is red pill or blue pill, I think it's courtesy. The scenario that you outlined isn't the way that it would play out in my relationship but I think we are probably disagreeing because we are trying to put very personal and nuanced dynamics overtop a broad metaphor. Marriage has always made me feel like more of a complete person rather than less. So the idea that a RP dynamic involves the woman losing ....anything really ... just doesn't jive with my personal experiences.
[deleted]
franky19902 8y ago
Well.. both companies take on the name of the larger company. The new, improved company refocuses its business efforts towards the goals of the Mr company and the Mrs company stops her activities to play a supporting role to him, and she refocuses her efforts into the longevity of the Mr name by procreating.
The Mrs company does discard large parts of her previous activities - although you're right, she doesn't become nothing, she takes on the goals of the Mr company as her own. The Mr company looks to take on a Mrs company who will acquire his goals without much effort or resentment and showcase the Mr company, the Mrs company looks for a Mr company whose goals she wants to take on.
A supporting status isn't less important than the star role, but at the heart of RPW it asks you to follow the goals of your Mr company and only keep yours if they're not in direct opposition: if you can't follow the goals of your Mr company, you chose the wrong company to merge into, if you're keeping your own goals in opposition to your Mr company, is that the hill you want to die on? His way or the highway, really - the trick is to find someone where "his way" is perfectly agreeable to you.
girlwithabike 8y ago
Yeah, I think my disagreement is more based on my perception of the metaphor. The merger comcept works well enough for me - and as I said, in a merger of two companies, there still is 1 CEO. I find the idea that marriage is more like an acquisition of a smaller company to be off putting. It may simply have been the description as 'a smaller company' that bugged me, not entirely sure. But the acquisition idea just doesn't quite work for the way that I (and my husband, because we chatted about it) perceive our relationship.
There was really no point that I've felt like I gave up any previous activities or goals to take on his. This may be because I vetted well enough that our interests aligned. Certainly we work towards the same goals. But I understand the point you are making, so, meh, I guess the metaphor just doesn't work for me personally.
franky19902 8y ago
Well, bingo, that's the thing.
The trick is always to vet for a man who's going to make decisions you like. If you're a homebody who doesn't want to move more than ten miles from your home, vet for a man who would never want to move cross country. If you want financial success more than that settled feeling, vet for a man who takes those opportunities.
But if you're a homebody and your husband takes the job cross country, then you give up your company's interests for the interests of the Mr company, because it's your job to support your husband and it's your job to let that company desire go if it hinders him.
When the two companies don't align, someone has to let something go - and the Mrs is not the boss!
girlwithabike 8y ago
But the Mrs isn't a silent wilting flower. She has a voice at the table. My husband wanted a partner who he could trust to represent him and make appropriate decisions in his absence. When he flew across the country for a job interview we went together. The decision to take the job was his and his alone but he certainly took what I said and how I felt about the city into consideration. If I was a homebody and had trouble making friends and my husband uprooted me without a thought for my wellbeing, then he's not a good captain.
I don't understand how I upset people by suggesting that men's roles and women's roles are different but that doesn't make the woman a lower status. If we all marry someone around our "league" doesn't that mean that as individuals we are pretty equal to start out. Someone has to lead yes, but that doesn't mean the follower is a doormat. If we were actually starting a business ( something that Husband wants to do in the 10 year plan), i would want all C-level employees to be capable of being CEO even if there was ultimately one person (CEO) guiding the whole thing and serving as a final decider.
All this lecturing starts to sound like we are these blushing quiet mice that the feminists expect us to be.
but I never said that she was I said she shouldn't automatically be considered the lesser partner (which is what I felt other comments were implying, not the OP) simply because she is following his lead. We aren't children! A first mate is second in command of the ship, not some deck hand who is cute arm candy. A first mate has proven themself in order to rise to that position and has to be able and willing make decisions on his own to handle his/her responsibilities, following what the captain's vision, goals etc. A first mate has to step up and be the boss during times the Captain is incapacitated. In fact, I'd argue that my submission means far less if I was a lower status coming into the relationship. If I can stand on my own (a preexisting similarly positioned company), then following him says a lot about his measure of a man. It's easy to get someone who values herself lower than you to follow.
Surrender is not weakness. Following does not make you less of a person.
franky19902 8y ago
No but you must follow, not lead the way. That doesn't make you lower status but it sure as anything means that you have to abide by and support your husband's decisions, even if you disagree.
If you disagree, you shut up and do what he wants, not follow your own decisions or argue back. That's one of the core teachings of RPW, no? That you acknowledge that he is leader and you do what he wants without bitching, even if he goes against what you want.
If you think that makes you lesser, then not really, no. Every day you choose to re-submit and accept the decisions of the umbrella company, because presumably the umbrella company whose name you've taken deserves it.
But thinking that you have an equal say in big decisions isn't really that RP as I understand it - your views might be taken into consideration, but the decision is his. You're the Mrs, not the CEO and you shouldn't be looking at the Mr thinking that you could be CEO given half a chance.
girlwithabike 8y ago
I don't think that following makes me lower staus. My whole argument with the idea of an acquisition vs a merger is based on my understanding of how the business world works.
But I'm done arguing for my marriage or RPW status. My husband has read everything I've written and he is the only person I have to answer to.
Each of us implements the dynamic in the way that works for us. If within your marriage you have no voide then that's your marriage. In mine I am expect to have one.
[deleted]