There are some times-- when ethics are involved, for instance-- when a gal needs to stand her ground. She may even have to relocate to a safe haven.
In the relationship I'm in now, though, either one of us could win almost any given argument and life would go on much the same as if the victory had gone to the other partner. Why not save time and let the default position be his position? (*1) Many religions instruct wives to be the followers and men to be the leaders. Maybe it's because the women, as the traditional care-takers of children, have more practice recognizing when they need to break up a childish fight with a loud, "Knock it off, you'uns."
What is worth more to me, getting my way most of the time (a quarter of it? ten percent?) or, by my overall agreeableness and reasonableness, eliminating emotional obstacles to his accepting my ideas in those cases when they patently have more merit than his?
1. There is an exception here, the case in which I ask for my husband's opinion on a matter he doesn't have much of a stake in. He
has good ideas, but when I choose another option, he wonders why his opinion was requested
if I hadn't intended to take his advice in the first place.
Well, sometimes I
don't want him to make a decision for me: I just want a sounding board.
Just as words written on a page have a different quality when they're
read aloud--a good reason to make a vocal read-through part of the
editing process --so does a choice when it moves from the inside of my
skull into realms where it can be evaluated openly.
The breakthrough to my understanding him better(*1) came when I realized how bad he felt when I didn't take his advice, instead of hyper-focusing on my own irritation at feeling controlled.
** OCD Footnote:
1. .. and ultimately getting what I want--although that was never what this was all about. Not ultimately.