“Who wears the pants?” You’ve heard this age-old question enough times to know it’s referencing relationships and who’s in charge of them.
During the fight for equality, we’ve challenged wage gaps, racial prejudice and even fat shaming. But have we turned that high-powered microscope on ourselves and those closest to us?
When we think of romantic relationships, we assume this saying rings true: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Yet the truth is we analyze our relationships based on the people in them as separate entities.
When we ask, “Who wears the pants?” or something similar, we’re dividing this aspect of life meant to unite people and asking which one holds the most power.
Usually, this question can be answered by a matter of gender in heterosexual relationships. Our culture assimilates being male and masculine with power and being female and feminine with the absence of it.
During the weekend, I spent a good portion of my time binge-watching season 3 of “House of Cards.” My younger brother and I talked about the show after we finished, and he was rather upset about the actions of Claire Underwood. For those of you who’ve yet to see the newest season, the story arc plays on the struggles between Frank Underwood and his wife.
A once power-hungry couple, the Underwoods have come to an impasse. After Frank becomes president, Claire is left in the shadows, only able to gain positions her husband ?begrudgingly elects to her.
One of the final scenes of the season portrays the Underwoods in an all-out feud. Frank yells at Claire for her selfish thinking, pointing out that she’s always known there’s only room for one in the oval office.
What my brother didn’t understand was why Claire wasn’t satisfied with the power dynamic created by Frank’s new political position. What used to be a combined relationship of independent authoritative people became a teeter-totter of power and dependency.
But it’s not just our TV shows. We’ve categorized ?real-life people in relationships into winners and losers.
Who’s more dependent on the other? Who’s the breadwinner? Who’s older? Who’s more skilled? Who’s smarter? Who’s better at sex?
Even the emotions shared in the relationship in question are under scrutiny; whoever reveals their feelings first cares more than the other, and they are ultimately the loser. We’ve messed up when we start thinking that emotions like love and happiness, the foundations of a good relationship, are undesirable qualities.
I’ve had the same thinking in my own relationships. Playing hard to get and refusing to admit my feelings was a way for me to keep my independence and my dominance over the other person.
And even those not in a heterosexual relationship aren’t safe. The always awkward and inappropriate question of who’s the man and who’s the woman or who’s top and who’s bottom for queer couples is just as damaging. Though the people in said relationships could be neither man nor woman, we ask such ?questions to gain insight on the authority structure of it.
Asking, “Who’s top and who’s bottom?” a direct association to sexual acts, creates the idea that even sex can be broken up into power and powerlessness. As if the performance of penetration or lack thereof actually dictates how a relationship plays out.
Unless you’re in a BDSM relationship, the question of who’s dominant and who’s submissive by nature, or anything like it for that matter, should never come to mind.
If we ever want to give our relationships a lasting chance, we have to scrap the idea that individual characteristics play the biggest role. Relationships are complex, and reducing them to sides of power and powerlessness won’t solve anything. Think of your affairs as what they are: greater as a whole rather than the sum of their parts.
maehogan@indiana.edu
