Thursday, 28 May 2009

Why Men Are The Submissive Sex

We have been told for thousands of years, that men are the natural dominant sex and Women are naturally submissive. And this is confirmed by the fact that men dominate every government in the world. We still have only a minority of female politicians and a very small minority of female leaders of countries. The same is also true in business, law and religion, Women, are in the minority anywhere, wherever there is power and status.

If we look back in recorded history the situation is even worse. Very few Women have ever achieved power. We can think of a few Women like Cleopatra, Queen Elizabeth 1 and Catherine the Great but the vast majority of rulers have been men. And if we go back before recorded history we are told that men were even more dominant. The caveman, we are told, was an aggressive brute who dominated cavewoman through extreme violence. So the picture we are given, is that man, always has and always will, dominated Women.

It is true that Feminism claims that men and Women are equal and the same, but this claim doesn’t square with the facts. There has never been a time in recorded history where men and Women have been equal, and Feminism can only point to a few stone-age tribes where this might of happened.

So with all this overwhelming evident that seems to prove that man is the dominant sex, how is it possible to claim that man is the natural submissive sex? The reason is, is that man’s natural submissiveness is the reason why alpha men rule our world.

Throughout most of history there has always been powerful warlords, kings and emperors whom have gained power through violence and warfare. The origins of all countries and empires have been through warlords who have conquered other people and ruled over them. Much is written about very successful generals like Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Cesar, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and Napoleon, but not a lot is written about the ordinary soldier who fought for these successful generals.

Whenever the military talks about attributes of being a successful soldier, what is put at the top of the list, is always discipline. A successful general has to know that whenever he gives an order, he has to have instant and unquestioning obedience. Successful generals have to be able to use their men like pawns on a chessboard, and will willing sacrifice thousands of them, to gain a tactical or strategic advantage.

An example of this was in the Zulu war between the Zulus and the British in the 19th century. Chief Shaka, to demonstrate to a visiting dignitary, how his men were so obedient, ordered a troop to march over a cliff to their deaths. Then the Zulus won the first battle with the British, in the Battle of Isandlwana. It was only the discipline of the Zulu warriors that made this possible. Although they were only armed with spears, they continued to attack British troops armed with modern rifles, until they finally overwhelmed them. The Zulus finally lost the war when they simply ran out of men.

In the 20th century, with the invention of the machine gun, war has become even more deadly. In the First World War it is claimed that the ordinary soldiers were, “lions lead by donkeys”. This was because all the generals in the conflict didn’t know how to fight a war with modern weapons like machine guns, modern artillery and poison gas and so millions of lives were sacrificed needlessly, for very little gain. Yet, in spite of this, the ordinary solder still obeyed orders to come out of the trenches and face near certain death, in the face of enemy machine gun fire. In the Second World War the Japanese took things even further by ordering their airmen to crash their planes into enemy shipping in Kamikaze attacks. In more recent times many guerrilla groups like the Tamil Tiger in Sri Lanka and many Islamic terrorist groups use suicide bombers.

USS Columbia attacked by Kamikaze

This means that if you can train a man to risk his life or even commit suicide when ordered to do so, suggests that men are very submissive. Yes, it is true that Women suicide bombers have also been used, but Women suicide bombers haven’t been so successful. In the Palestinian conflict there are a large numbers of Women in Israel jails whom were sent out to be suicide bombers, but couldn’t go through with it. Unlike men, Women have the sense, to see the stupidity of what they are being pressurised into doing.

It is men’s complete obedience to authority that has paradoxically makes him the dominant sex. The Feminists once had a slogan that, “the sisterhood is powerful”, unfortunately this hasn’t been the case. Women have totally failed to create a powerful sisterhood. It can be also said that men haven’t produced a powerful brotherhood either, but they have done the next best thing. Men’s total obedience to authority allows alpha men to gain great power, by being able to mobilise large numbers of men, who do as they are told.

A despotic dictator has great power over the people because he has an army of young men, whom if ordered to beat up, murder, rape or even torture any member of the public, will obey without question. This means that the average man is not either very dominant or bossy but very submissive, because it is men’s very submissive behaviour in obeying those in authority, that keeps the whole patriarchal society going.

The problem is that if you ask any man, “are you submissive?” he will deny it completely. This is because men all over the world have been trained to think of themselves as dominant. Or at least dominant as far as Women are concerned. And the men who would most likely to strongly deny their submissive behaviour, would be soldiers. After all soldiers do have a very strong machismo image, and to suggest they are submissive, would be like suggesting that they are wimps. And if you pointed out that soldiers would always obey orders without question, he would claim it is discipline, and not submissiveness.

Yet whether a person is disciplined or submissive, the result is exactly the same, both types of people, do as they are told. The only difference is perception. So although macho soldiers are not a sort of people we normally associate with submissive behaviour, the reality is, is that their extreme obedience to authority, where they will risk their lives or even commit suicide, when ordered to do so, does make them very, very submissive.

The same is also true in the civilian world. Feminists have already observed how the whole patriarchal society is a hierarchal system. Most men like to claim that they only obey their boss at work, because he pays the wages. Yet, even though men may moan and complain about their bosses, or the politicians, or anyone else in authority over him, men on the whole, do as they are told. And this instinctive obedience by men is the foundation of patriarchy, if men didn’t instinctively obey those he considered to be in authority over him, then the whole patriarchal system would collapse.

This then is the basis of political power. Because men do instinctively obey those in authority, then political power comes from being perceived by the population as the alpha male. If we look at the patriarchal society as a whole, then men look up to and even sometimes hero worship those in he perceives as being above him in the pecking order, and will ruthlessly exploit those he perceives as being below him. In all patriarchal countries nearly all the wealth and power of a country are in the hands of a few alpha men and the rest are poor and powerless.

This is true for even a modern Western country like the USA, the top 1 % of the population owned 34% of the country’s wealth. Also, the top 20% of the population owned 85% of the wealth of the country. Leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% of people. In poorer third world countries these figures would be even worse, where there is an enormous gap between rich and poor. Yet in spite of the fact this causes great resentment in men all over the world, revolution doesn’t happen very often and as we have seen throughout history, revolution doesn’t solve the problem either. The new rulers end up behaving as badly, or even worse, than the leaders they have replaced.

To make society function smoothly, we are all taught obedience from a very early age. Children are expected to be obedient to their parents and then later to their teachers at school. The paradox is that as boys learn to play macho games in sport, the more he is taught to become obedient. All team sports need the players to do exactly what their coach tells them, to become a winning team. This is also true of individual sports as well, where most sports coaches act like sergeant majors on a parade ground.

So boys from an early age are given two contrary messages. The first message is that men have to be very strong and macho and be willing to ‘stand up for themselves’. Yet at the same time they are taught to obey those in authority without question. No wonder teenage boys when they grow old enough to think for themselves, become very confused. As clearly both messages are in contradiction to each other, and so it encourages schizophrenic type of behaviour.

So obedience and passivity is part of the human condition, but how boys and girls react to this is very different. Scientific studies done on children show a distinct difference in how boys and girls react when given a project to do. For boys they first have to elect a leader, who tells the rest of them what to do, but if they cannot do this then nothing gets done, as they continue to argue among themselves. This is not true for girls, who are far better communicators and can discuss among themselves what needs to be done, with far less conflict and so can work together without a leader.

We can see this throughout the patriarchal society where leadership is all-important. In business, under good leadership a company can thrive, but under bad leadership a company will quickly go broke. The same is true for political leaders a bad leader can destroy a country as we see in the case of Robert Mugabe the leader of Zimbabwe who has become a terrible leader but the people are still helpless in the face of this power and seem to be unable to replace him. It is very true in war. For instance Napoleon won every battle he ever fought in, until the battle of Waterloo, where he lost to another general that also had an unbeaten record. The French army has never been so successful before Napoleon or after him. It was his leadership that made all the difference. In these situations the common soldier feels totally powerless, because he is totally reliant on the leadership of the army whether they will be successful.

Another instance of the common man’s feeling of helplessness is the1929 Wall St crash that caused a worldwide Depression, the common people had no say in the decisions that caused the crash, but it was they who suffered the consequences. During the cold war the USSR and USA had thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at each just waiting for someone to ‘press the button’, that would wipe out humanity. The general public was very frightened of this situation, but were helpless to stop it going on. The cold war only ended with the economic collapse of the USSR, who couldn’t keep up with the USA in producing more advanced weapons. It didn’t end with both sides seeing the stupidity of what they were doing.

What is very clear, is that to be able to work together collectively, men need to have a leader. Unfortunately if the leader happens to be an idiot, then the whole group is in trouble. In the past there have been cases of kings who have become insane like Ivan The Terrible of Russia, yet in spite of his insanity he was still allowed to rule. It seems men will still faithfully obey their leader even though they know he is mad.

Therefore political power comes from being in control over the majority of passive men. About five thousand years ago alpha men learn to control men through violence, a small group of violent men were able to dominate a far larger group of less violent men. Today they would be seen as a gang of organized criminals, or bandits. These bandits then recruited more men from the general population to be part of their gang and so the leader became a warlord who used his power to conquer other areas around him. In time these warlords became kings, pharaohs or emperors, where they ruled whole countries or empires and to ensure that the people respect them, they set themselves up as gods.

Back in the Neolithic times archaeologists have discovered a lot of evidence to suggest that Women ruled these early civilizations, but the trouble is that many people find this hard to believe. After all, throughout history we have been used to brutal alpha males who have ruled countries by force and violence. The problem is that what archaeologists have discovered is that warfare was unknown back in the first Neolithic civilizations. When they excavated ancient cities like Catal Höyük in Turkey and Caral in Peru, or the Neolithic civilizations of Malta, Crete, Eastern Europe, Japan, China and the Indus Valley civilization in Pakistan, they couldn’t find any weapons of war. Not only that, they couldn’t find any skeletons showing any signs of violence, nor could they find any carved images of war and violence and any fortification protecting the towns and cities. Whereas the evidence of war and violence was overwhelming in later Bronze and Iron age excavations. With thousands of weapons of war being discovered, skeletons in graves showing signs of damage by swords, axes, spears and clubs, with very strong fortifications around all towns and cities, and carvings on walls of wars, acts of violence and torture.

So how was it that all over the world civilisations could live in peace and harmony for thousands of years, but then suddenly these peaceful civilizations were swept away and replaced by extremely violent empires?

The theory put forward by the archaeologist Marija Gimbutas, was that warlike patriarchal tribes from the North conquered these peaceful Matriarchal civilisations. Now, this makes sense of how some of these Neolithic civilisations were destroyed but it doesn’t explain where these patriarchal tribes came from, and why they suddenly turn to war and violence.

To explain this, some people have pointed out that the Sahara desert was once a wetter and greener place 6,000 years ago, and then is slowly began to dry up. So it was suggested that the people living there faced years of starvation and it was this starvation that turn these people into warlike monsters that went out and conquered the world.

I personally think this is a terrible idea. First of all, the Sahara didn’t become desert overnight. Yes, things would be tough if the rains didn’t come for a few years and many people would starve to death. But this is not unusual, and situations like this have happened all over the world, throughout history. In this situation with the fertile lands turning to desert, the people will start to move out of the area. After all it has taken thousands of years for the Sahara region to become desert it is today. The process is still going on today, as the Sahara desert is still moving south. So it means that the people living there had time to adapt or move.

Also I am not sure that starvation does turn people into monsters. Yes, starvation does stress out the whole community but in modern times charity workers that go into famine areas find the biggest problem, are people becoming lethargic. Many of them lose all hope and sit down to die, just waiting and hoping things with change for the better. Yes, some people will fight for life but not necessary will fight other people. Human beings do have brains and they are more likely to use them to find alternative sources of food. After all, humans are ingenious enough to even find food or water in a desert, as we can see with the present inhabitants of the Sahara Desert and with the Australian Aboriginal. It is true patriarchal societies tribes in times of famine do fight each other and steal each other’s food, but I don’t think Matriarchal tribes would do this and would be more likely to help each other out of a difficult situation.

Why Matriarchy was overthrown is open to speculation but in my opinion this may of came about because of Women’s complacency. Because men are so passive, Women may have taken their obedience for granted and perhaps tried to give men equality. As the result they were no longer telling men what to do. This created a power vacuum, where men looked around for someone, anyone, to tell them what to do, and alpha men then took over the dominance of men and filled this power vacuum.

The concept of a power vacuum comes from patriarchal politics, where if there isn’t a strong leader ruling a country, then this creates a power vacuum and someone like a warlord ends up taking over. This has happened in recent time in Somalia, with the collapse of its government in 1991, no other political group has been powerful enough to take power. This has resulted is that the country is being controlled by competing warlords.

A power vacuum only comes about because men are so submissive they need someone to tell them what to do. So if no one is doing this, then it is open to anyone to adopt the alpha role and take power. Because men are so submissive and were so obedient to Women, many Women got the idea that men were not a threat to them. And because Women in general are fair-minded, some of them began to feel it was unfair that men were second-class citizens, and decided to give men equality.

There is some archaeological evidence for this. Towards the end of the Neolithic age were previously archaeologists had found only images of Goddesses, then suddenly there appeared Goddesses with sons. They at first were infant sons but then it seems the sons grew up and become the Goddess’s brother or lover. So these images suggested strongly that men and Women are equal. This might sound very sensible and reasonable, but men didn’t know what to do with their new found freedom and were still looking around for someone to tell them what to do, and this created a power vacuum.

If Women were not telling men what to do, then men looked within their own sex for a leader, so these alpha men filled the power vacuum left by Women. Yet even then Women may not have done anything about this, they didn’t see the danger signs and let things progress. They at first may of found it convenient that instead of telling a lot of men individually what to do, they just tell the alpha male what to do and he would organize everything for them. And so it wasn’t a problem while these alpha males were still subordinate to Women. It only became a problem when the alpha males decided they wanted to rule Women in the same way they were ruling other men.

What many Women don’t understand about men is that equality is an alien concept to the masculine mind. If we look at male animals like stags, bulls or lions the males fight each other for dominance and the strongest male gets to mate with all the females. There is no concept of equality, you are either a winner or loser, and the winner takes it all and the loser gets nothing. We can see the same in competitive sports which men really like, there has to be a winner or loser. The same is true in war, with each side fighting to win, and it is also true of the patriarchal society, which is organized as a hierarchal structure. Even when men set out with the purpose of creating an equal society like with communism and socialism they completely failed.

So if men were not allowed to be subordinate to Women, because Women were claiming that man and Women were equal, then because the masculine mind didn’t understand equality, the only other option men had, was to dominate Women. And they learnt they could do this through violence. After all, men being bigger and stronger than Women, always had the advantage in violent situations. The problem alpha men had, was that normal men didn’t want to do this, so they had started a propaganda campaign to convince men that Women were inferior to them. So by becoming convinced, through clever propaganda that Women were after all inferior to themselves, men no longer had any qualms about using violence against Women. Starting a worldwide revolution where men have been dominating Women through violence ever since.

Once one Matriarchal community become patriarchal then these new patriarchal men started conquering neighbouring Matriarchal tribes and civilizations. The world didn’t become patriarchal overnight it is estimated that the first patriarchal tribe came into being about 6,000 years ago, but the last major country to become patriarchal was Japan, at about 300 BC. Some areas of Matriarchy have clung on into fairly recent historic times. Like the Basque people of Northern Spain and Southern France, the Czech people in modern day Czech Republic, the Berbers of the Sahara desert, the Gypsies and the Keralal people of India. Some of Matriarchal communities have survived into modern times, like the The Minangkabau people in Western Sumatra, the Moso people of China and the Hopi Indians of North America.

Therefore men have a choice of being ruled by alpha men or by Women. I am aware that Feminists who prefer sexual equality reject this concept but they have to accept that men are very different to Women. Feminism makes no sense to men, because it is about sexual equality, all they want to know is where they stand in the pecking order. So if they are told that Women are inferior to him he will exploit and abuse Women, and if he is told that Women are superior him he will obey Women and expect her to exploit him.

This is what happened at the beginning of the patriarchal age. Men were told they are equal to Women, but this made no sense to men. So in the minds of men, if Women were no longer superior to them, then they had to be inferior. Once men accepted this idea, then it made patriarchy possible, but in modern times, if men were told that this was wrong and Women are superior to men after all, then Matriarchy becomes possible once again.

For this reason, in every patriarchal society, alpha men have seen Women as a threat to their power. Even today in Islam they have the ‘honour’ system, where Women are beaten up or killed if they are ‘disrespectful’ or disobedient to men. Social pressure has forced men to kill their wives, sisters and even mothers. If Women were the natural submissive sex then there would be no reason for men to use extreme violence against Women to keep them submissive. Women would simply do as they were told without violence and intimidation. The fact that, Islamic society has to encourage men to beat up and even kill Women to make them obedient, suggests that Women are not naturally submissive.

It is like in slavery, the only reason why slaves where whipped, beaten and killed were because slaves resented being forced to work for no money. So if violence is used to force anyone to obey, it means they are being forced to go against their natural behaviour.

What is less known is that they had a similar though not so extreme system in Western countries. Up until the 20th century a husband was considered to be ‘unmanly’ if he couldn’t dominate his wife. So men were encouraged to ‘control’ their wives through violence. Also Women were denied education and not allowed to have any job or career that gave them power, wealth or status. So the very fact that the patriarchal society has to actively oppress Women to ‘keep them under control’ means that submissiveness is not Women’s natural behaviour.

Patriarchal propaganda likes to claim that man was always the dominant sex, and claims that in prehistoric times men were violent brutes who dominated Women even more then they did in historic times. Yet, there is no proof of this whatsoever. Scientists know nothing of the social structure of pre-historic people, but that doesn’t stop them speculating about it and then presenting these speculations to the public as scientific fact.

There is a lot of evidence from the large amount of Goddess statues discovered in prehistoric excavation that humans once held Women in very high esteemed. But this fact is not told to the general public.

What holds Women back from regaining power and dominance over men once more is patriarchal brainwashing that tells men and Women that men are the ‘natural’ dominant sex. So that even today in the West, men still think they have to dominate their wives or they are not a ‘real’ man. While many Women suppress their normal dominance over men, because they think it is ‘unnatural’ for Women to be bossy.

The fact is, that the average man would be far better off living in a Matriarchy than the present patriarchal system. Simply because patriarchy doesn’t benefit the average man, it only benefits the very small minority of alpha men, who ruthlessly exploits the general population and do stupid things like start wars with other countries. The average man would be far better off in a Matriarchy where the female rulers would care about the people they rule and wouldn’t be interested in fighting wars to settle disputes between countries.

So it means that we all, (both men and Women) need to see patriarchal propaganda for what it is, just propaganda. It is vitally important that we question the way patriarchy brainwashes our children to act against their natural instincts, so men can accept their submissive behaviour without feeling ‘unmanly’, while Women can likewise accept that it is natural for them to dominate men.

Academic Feminists, like Cynthia Eller, have been taken in completely by patriarchal propaganda completely, so they believe that if women were to demand Matriarchy or even a Goddess worshipping religion, men will react against them with violence. Yet, if we look around the world, what we find is the opposite. The greatest degree of violence against Women is in extreme patriarchal countries where Women have no legal rights whatsoever. In Western countries where Women, legally at least have equal rights, is where there is far less violence against Women. Men do not beat up Women whom they think are above them in the pecking order, they only beat up Women who they see as below them.

Men only beat up, rape and murder Women because they have been brainwashed into believing that Women are inferior to them and they have to inflict violence onto Women to retain their place in the pecking order. It would certainly help to get rid of the ‘role models’ boys and men see on films or in video games of extremely violent ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’. These films and video games give out, the not so subtle message, that, “you can solve all problems through violence” and that, “a ‘real’ man is a violent man”.

This means that both Women and men are victims of patriarchal brainwashing, and the sooner we can get rid of it and stop it being fed to our children, the better off we all will be.

This article is available as a printed booklet at. -

Or at, -


  1. Hello William,

    I am very impressed with your writing. I agree with much of what you say and I have taken the liberty of quoting part of this passage in my own blog (which is not a patch on yours!). Please keep up the good work!

    Steve T

    p.s. If you object to this please let me know and I will alter my post

  2. I don't want to be equal I want to be the sub husband I was intended to be.

  3. I love the article and I love the pic its hot... post more please!