Methods Women can use to control men.

On many message boards on the Internet we find messages from dominant women complaining that submissive men are a waste of time.   One of the biggest complaints is that submissive men tend to, “top from the bottom”.  Usually they are use to going to a Dominatrix with a list of demands and the Dominatrix does whatever the man wants, because after all, he is the client and is paying for her time.  Unfortunately these submissive men tend to do the same when they meet genuine Dominant Women and also demand that they act out their fantasies and then cannot understand it if the Women refuse to do this.  So what can a woman do in a situation like this?  The answer comes from modern Dog training, modern military training and modern child rearing.

As all dog trainers tell you, you cannot train a dog properly unless you take the alpha position in your relationship with your dog.  So if the man starts to make demands on how he wishes to be dominated, then the Dominant Woman can ask the obvious question, “who is the boss?”  She then has to further explain what should be obvious, that in a relationship between a Dominant Woman and a submissive man, it is the Woman who tells the man what to do, and not the other way around.   If the man then says, “I’m only explaining what I want”, then the woman has to patiently explain that in a relationship between a Dominant Woman and submissive man, it is all about what the Woman wants, not what the man wants.  After all, if the man is demanding she act out his fantasies, he is not consider the fact that she might have her own fantasies, that she might want him to act out, for her.

It seems some men can accept this, but not all men.  Many men can get very frightened when the Woman takes the relationship out of the realm of sexual fantasy and into reality.  So why is this?  I think for many men, the problem is that they are frightened by their own Femdom fantasies.   They have fantasies of cruel and sadistic women who beat, torture and humiliate them, which may all right in a fantasy world, but not in the real world.   So these fantasies might be acceptable when acted out with a Dominatrix, where they have an agreed “safe word”, so if it gets too much, he can say the magic word and the Dominatrix stops what she is doing to him.  This means these fantasies are perfectly all right while the man is in control of the situation and can put a stop to it whenever he likes.   But if he meets a Dominant Woman who says, “I’m the boss, and you do as I say,” then he has lost control of the relationship.  So he starts to imagine what would happen if she was the tie him up and whip him without a safe word.  This is why some men run away when a Dominant Woman asserts her authority and tells him that she is the boss.  But he is not actually frightened of the Woman but his own fantasies about what she might do to him.

So the Dominant Women then has to explain to the man two things; that she is the boss, and that she is a caring and loving person.   Now, this will be difficult for many men to understand, because they associate Dominance with cruelty and sadism, because they cannot imagine how a Dominant person can also be a loving and caring person. 

This is very old fashion thinking.  In the past, dog trainers did use to train dogs by beating them with a stick.  In fact, some dog trainers of the past recommend that the trainer tie the dog up and beat it, when they first meet, to establish who is the boss and make the dog frightened of the trainer. This means that Femdom fantasies come directly from this type of thinking, of assuming that the alpha person in the relationship, has to establish their dominance through brutality.  This is why many submissive men pay a dominatrix to spank, whip or torture him, as he assumes that dominance can only be established through force and violence.

In the 19^th century, children were once routinely beaten by their parents and school teachers.  A favourite saying of the time was, “spare the rod and spoilt the child”. (See "For Your Own Good: The roots of violence in child-rearing", by Alice Miller).  Nowadays, school teachers and most parents no longer beat their children, and this is also true of dog training and military training.  A modern dog trainer doesn’t beat their dogs to make them obedient and neither does  the military.  In the past soldiers were whipped to make them obedient but no modern army does this today, as more effective methods have been found to make soldiers obedient.  So if a Dominant Woman doesn’t beat her submissive, how does she make him obey her?   Modern dog trainers and the modern military use methods like, persistence, repetition and positive reinforcement.   These are the methods that have shown to be the most effective in controlling men’s behaviour.

When a soldier first joins the army, he is subjected to “parade ground discipline”, where along with a number of other troops, he is indoctrinated into obey orders.   To do this, he is put into a position where he is not allowed to move a muscle unless ordered to do so by the Sergeant Major.   So he is given orders like, “attention”, “left turn”, right turn, “quick march”, even when he is marching the Sergeant Major  is shouting at him, “left, right, left right” so he is even ordered how to march.  The orders the Sergeant Major give are totally pointless, as he will order the soldiers to march up and down the parade ground, for no apparent reason.  So why do the military do this to soldiers?  The reason is to brainwash soldiers so completely into obeying orders, so that in battle, soldiers will obey orders without question.  So even if ordered to charge a machine gun post, these men will obey the order without question.  The same is also true of dog training.  It is not enough to get a dog to obey the dog-trainer once, the dog-trainer will repeat the same command over and over again until the dog is so indoctrinated into obeying this order, it will do so automatically.

So a Dominant Woman can learn from this in her relationship with submissive men.  At the beginning of this relationship it pays the women to be extremely bossy.  She doesn’t have to shout at the man like a Sergeant Major, but it is a good idea to give him a lot of orders and expect him to give her instance obedience.   It is also a good idea to give him meaningless orders like ordering him to walk to the top of the stairs and then walk down again, so he gets the idea of obeying without question.   Now, some people will ask the question that, “if the man is obeying her, why does she need to keep on giving him orders?”  The reason is that at first he is obeying her because he wants to do so, but later on in the relationship he may decide not to obey her and she will find there is nothing she can do about it.  But he won’t find this so easy, if she makes a point of giving him a large number of orders at the beginning of the relationship, so she will have indoctrinated him into obeying her automatically.  Then at a later stage of the relationship if he has any thoughts of defying her, he will find it hard to disobey her, because he has been brainwashed into obedience.

All humans are creatures of habit.  Once habitual behaviour has been established within us, we find it difficult to break this habit.  As pointed out before, the military gets soldiers into the habit of obeying orders so that if ordered to risk their lives and face enemy fire, they will do so without question.  So if a Dominant Woman can get man into the habit of obeying her, this habit of behaviour can become so strong, that she will take on the mystique of, “she who must be obeyed”.

Dog training has more to teach Dominant Women into controlling men that just getting him to obey orders.  What both dog trainers and child psychologists have discovered is that people can unwittingly train both children and dogs into anti-social behaviour without realising they are doing this.  The same is true of Dominant Women who can unwittingly train a man to do the opposite to what she wants him to do. 

What child psychologists have noticed is that with many parents, is if child is naughty, it gets a lot of attention, but if the child is good, then he or she gets ignored.  The same is also true of dog owners who will ignore a dog that is behaving itself, but only give it attention if it doing something the dog owner doesn’t want it to do.  To be fair, this is for most people normal behaviour, we tend to take notice of things that we don’t like and take for granted behaviour we do like.  But by doing this, we can unintentionally train the people and animals we live with; to behave in way we don’t want them to behave.  The reason being, is they are being rewards for bad behaviour by getting attention and being punished for good behaviour, by being ignored.

Both people and dogs are social animals, and children like their parents to socialize with them.  So if children find that their parents only take notice of them when they misbehave, then they are encouraged to do this to get their parents attention.  The same is also true of dogs, if their owners tend to only give them attention when they misbehave  and it can also true of the relationship between a Dominant Woman and submissive male.  If the man is being ignored when he is behaving as he should, but gets the Woman’s attention when he misbehaves, then he is encouraged to do things she doesn’t want him to do, so she will take notice of him.  An extreme case of this happening, is when a Dominant Woman punishes the man by spanking him.   This only works if the man doesn’t like being spanked, but if he finds spanking sexually exciting, then he will be encouraged to do something to annoy the Woman frequently, so he will be spanked.  This might not be a problem if the woman enjoys spanking the man, but a big problem is she is only doing it to get him to do as he is told.  As her efforts to make him behave properly is having the opposite effect.

Dog trainers and child psychologists speak about positive reinforcement as means of controlling dogs and children.  This method is the total opposite of the old fashion method of negative enforcements which means punishing an animal or person for doing something wrong.  Positive reinforcement is about rewarding and encouraging people and animals to be well behaved.

So what is required is for parents to take notice when their children are behaving in ways they approve off and give them praise and encouragement, but to completely ignore them when they misbehave.  Modern dog trainers also use the same method in training dogs.  Now, many people find this difficult to do, as they completely take for granted good behaviour in children and animals so they don’t notice it, but get upset over bad behaviour and focus their minds on this.  So to reward and encourage good behaviour and ignore bad behaviour, means many people have to think in a completely different way.

This method works extremely well with dogs.  Modern dog training is all about patience and keen observation.  For instance if a dog trainer wants to train a dog to sit on command, she will trick it into sitting by holding a small piece of food in front of it and manoeuvre it until she gets the dog to sit.  She will then give the command “sit” and praise the dog and give it the food, which dog trainers call a treat. The dog trainer has to be very clear in her behaviour that the dog will only get praise and the treat if it sits down.   Then she will then repeat this again and again until the dog associates the command “sit” with sitting down.   After this has been established, she will wean it off the treat, by only giving it the treat sometimes when she give the command to sit, until it will regularly sit on command without needing to reward it with food. 

Now, some people will point out that children and men are not dogs and what works for dogs may not work for people.   Certainly humans are far more complicated than what dogs are, but as Behaviourist Psychologists have shown, animal training methods work just as well on humans as they do on animals. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/books/review/Leibovich.html,   The USA military would agree with this, as they have used Behaviourist psychology on their soldiers with great success, and all the Behaviourist methods come from behaviour experiments on animals.  The military reward their soldiers with medals and praise, like telling them, “you are the best soldiers in the world” and marching them in public parades, for people to cheer them.   Certainly you cannot train a human being like a dog, by rewarding it with scraps of food, like dogs, but humans do respond to praise and approval, and these are the methods that modern child psychologists recommend for controlling children.  So a Dominant Woman can increase her dominance over a man through positive reinforcement.  She can do this by praising a man for how obedient he is when he does obey her and praise him when he successfully does tasks for her. 

Modern child psychologists point out that what parents and teachers tell children can have both a positive or negative effect on them.   For instance, if a parent or teacher tells a child repetitively he is stupid, his confidence in himself will be undermined so they he  can quickly lose interest in school work.  It is true for some people this can have the opposite effect and the child can get angry and being told he is stupid and this can motivate him to prove the parent or teacher is wrong, but most children are not like this.  Scientific studies on human behaviour show us that praise and approval are the best tools for motivating people.   So a parent or teacher that only tells children what they are doing wrong all the time, will quickly undermine their confidence in themselves.

This is equally true of a Dominant Woman’s behaviour to a submissive man.  If at any time he doesn’t do as he is told or fails to serve her in the way she wants and she makes a big issue of this.  She can unwittingly train him to be exactly the sort of person she doesn’t want him to be.   If say a woman has a man who is obedient 99% of the time but sometimes doesn’t do as he is told, either because he misunderstood her, or was tired at the time, and if she makes a big fuss about the 1% of the time he is not obedient and tells him how disobedient he is, she can start to brainwash him into disobedience.  We can understand how this works by looking at the advertising industry.

Most people like to think they are immune to advertising, as they cannot believe how the silly adverts they see, can possibly influence them, but they would be wrong.  Big international companies do not spend billions of dollars on adverts for no reason whatsoever.  They use adverts because they know they work.  The secret of adverts is repetition.  If we are repetitively told the same thing over and over again, we can be brainwashed into believing in it, without being aware of its subconscious effect on us.  Advertising.

So a Dominant Woman has to be very aware of what she habitually tells her submissive partner.  If she starts complaining and tells him he is disobedient, then she will unsuspectingly brainwash him into being disobedient.  If the woman wants him to be obedient all the time, then it helps a lot to tell the man everyday how obedient he is, when he does obey her, until he gets to believe it.  The same is true for the way she wants him to serve her and do jobs for her.  It is all right to correct him and show him how to serve her properly, but too much criticism will undermine him and brainwash him into believing that he is useless at serving her.  Praise works far better than criticism, in getting a man to do a good job in serving a woman.  So it is far more helpful to tell him when he is doing things right rather than when he is doing things wrong.

Now, some Dominant Women will object to this.  They will point out that women have been doing this for centuries, of pandering to men’s egos to get their own way, while at the same time men have been criticising women to undermine their confidence.  The reason men do this, is that if you undermine a person’s confidence, they are less likely to challenge your status as the alpha person in the relationship.  So some women will want revenge and want to do the same to men.   Some women want to take it even further, because men have been dominating women for thousands of years through violence and so some women want to do the same to men.  The problem is that the average woman is smaller and physically weaker than the average man, so a woman can only get away with hitting a man if he doesn't hit her back. Which means a woman can only use violence against a man, if he is a masochist.

 That is a personal choice, and if women want to get their own back by undermining men’s confidence and then use violence against him, then that is up to them.   Men cannot complain about this, because this is what men have been doing to women for thousands of years.  

But the point is, that history has shown that men do a terrible job in ruling our world, as male rulers create wars, genocide and poverty.  So if women are to take over and rule instead, then women need to know the most effective methods of controlling men.  The best methods come from modern dog-training, child care and the military, which use repetition and positive reinforcement, and women need to learn about this methods, to keep men under their control.

See more articles I have written about this subject at. -
http://femdommatriarchy.blogspot.com/

The power of the Subconscious Mind by Joseph Murphy

Hub pages by William Bond

Videos by William Bond


http://youtu.be/QEiQlNZTP6o

Learning Love Through Fetishism

Many men today are developing many unusual fetishes, like foot and panty fetishes.  It is usual for many people to put these fetishes down to perversion and not try and understand what is really going on.  So I have decided to look past any snap judgements about this and attempt look at what motivates people who like fetishes.

It may sound incredible to a person who thinks that a person with a fetish is "sick", but a man who has a panty fetish is man starting to learn about love.  Women it seems know everything there is to know about love, because when women have children a bond is created where most women will give their child unconditional love.  In men this bond to their children is not so strong, so some men who will quickly move out of a woman's life if she has a child.  Or refuse to pay maintenance to his child if he separates or is divorced from his child's mother.  

Any woman who has a child is biologically programmed to learn about love.  But for a man this biological tie to children is not so strong.  So how can a man learn about love in the same depth as a woman?  Surprisingly he can learn through so called sex-perversion.

A panty lover likes to be able to smell the used panties and drape it over his head so to him it is an oral experience.  This means that such a man wouldn't be adverse to going down on a woman and giving oral sex.  It can also indicate that the man might also want to kiss or lick the anus of a woman, as some men like to also lick the crutch piece of the panties.

So it means that a man who likes to go down on a woman is giving enjoyment to a woman without any thought to his own needs. So it is a sign that by putting the needs of another person before his own, and the beginning of learning about unconditional love.  Though it has to be said that this may be only a sign of where he is going and it many not be an indication that he has got there yet.  A man may be willing to go down on a woman but only regard it as foreplay.  Or may even go as far as bringing the women to organism but demand his turn afterwards.  So although such a man has moved on from the very selfish man who is only concerned with his own pleasure and cares little about what the women might want. He is still a long way to go in learning unconditional love in giving without wanting any reward or even praise for it.  He is still got in the same league as a woman gives to her children all her life or a Woman who can still love an abusive husband.

Likewise a man who wants to kiss the anus of a woman, although might get turned-on with this form of worship, may only feel that way while in the act of worship. For the rest of the time he may act like a normal selfish patriarchal man.  Though it is still and indication that he wants to learn how to give to and love others unconditionally.  A similar tale can be told of a man who has a foot fetish.  To kiss a woman's feet is an act of worship.  But it can be to him be only a fantasy he enjoys, and not necessary how he really feels about women.  Though for some men the feelings worshiping a woman can be so overwhelming that he finds he wants to be her devoted slave.

All these fetishes can be sign-posts and not the real thing, it shows what direction a man is moving but it doesn't mean that he has got there yet.  Women have learnt about unconditional love over the thousands of years, by caring for ungrateful husbands and children.  Men on the other hand have only just started.  Yet there is some men who are able to surrender his whole life to a woman and her children..  In the same way millions of women have done in the past and still do today.  Unconditional love, does not come naturally to a man, it is something he has to learn to do through practice.  A fetish is about emotion, and this emotion can give a man the motivation to start to learn about giving unconditional love.  For any man with a strong and powerful ego it is difficult to start to surrender his own needs in favour of another or others.  So another very strong emotional like a fetish desire, is sometimes needed to overcome the voice of his ego. It is only when the man begins to experience the pleasure and reward of giving to others, so he identify himself in others and not himself, then the need of having a fetish becomes less.

A man with a fetish is no different from a monk, who is attempting to go beyond his own selfish needs and serve others to find 'the kingdom of god' or 'enlightenment'.  It is only the motivation that is different, one is religious and the other is sexual. 

There is a path that combines both ways and that is through Tantra and Taoism.  Most religions try to overcome sexual desire, which means they are attempting to learn about unconditional love without serving a woman.  This method only allows homosexual and celibate men to follow this path, as they learn to serve the needs of other men.  Only Tantra and Taoism uses both sexual and spiritual motivation to reach enlightenment.  Which means a man can be spiritual and acknowledge his sexual desires at the same time.  Tantra and Taoism teaches men to withhold his organism that allows a woman to enjoy sex as long as possible without any fear of her enjoyment being cut short by the man ejecting.  Many Tantra and Tao "masters" have boasted of not having an organism for years in spite of having an active sex-life.  So a man doing this is surrendering his sexual enjoyment in favour of the woman.  It is also notable that in Tantra and Tao sexual positions are mostly shown with the woman on top allowing her to take control of the act.

There are many other fetishes with men that tell a similar story.  A man who gets turned on by being dressed up as a baby and having a woman treat him as one.   In one way he is still having the desire of having a woman look after him and giving him everything he needs.  Yet at the same time in playing the role of a baby he is allowing the woman to have power over him.  It is of interest that the "disciplining" of the baby is an important aspect of this fantasy.  So the man is learning about how to give over control of his life to a woman, whom he gives the power to teach him how to behave in the manner she wants him to behave.  Which means in relationships with other women, he can get used to fitting in with what the women wants and not her fitting in with what he wants all the time.  So this gift of power also becomes a gift of unconditional love.

This form of fetish can grow to a more extreme forms where a man will pay a Dominatrix to tie him up then whip and torture him.  This man is then giving for a while total power to a woman. There are many people who like to, "go-over-the-top" in everything they do.  So this could explain this behaviour, but there could be another reason for this. This may be happening because the man is not practising the lessons in love that the fetish is teaching him.  If the man is not giving any women the gift of power over him in his normal daily life, then the fetish becomes stronger to make him do this.  Unfortunately if he still refuses, then the fetish becomes so strong that he finds he has a need to be tied up and tortured by a woman in an extreme manner.  Not realising that by keeping his fantasies separate from his normal life, he is making the power of the fetish stronger and stronger.

The lack of understanding our emotions has caused great suffering in the world. Religions and social customs have encouraged people to take control of their emotions and suppress any that are socially unacceptable.  Unfortunately these emotions are never denied, and come back to us in stronger and more extreme form when suppressed, until they take over the person completely and they may do harm to others or themselves.  These forms of extreme desires have given emotions a bad name, giving people more reasons to suppress them.  What we need to realise is that emotions are our friends, without emotion we would not have a need to get out of bed in the morning.  All we would just be is just a sophisticated robot with no motivation to do anything. 

So to write off a fetish as just a perversion or a person with a sick mind, doesn't help him or society as a whole.  It is only by making them conscious, understanding why we have these types of desires that we can channel them into acceptable forms that do not harm ourselves or others.  Unfortunately psychologist or psychiatrists do not talk much about love, and because of this are not very good guides to people with fetishes. 

Why Men Love Dominant Women.

Logically it makes no sense of any man to want to live with a Dominant Woman. After all, nowadays, men can answer adverts for women in Thailand or Philippines or Russia, where we are told women are very submissive and will so anything the man wants. As it is claimed they are old fashion women who will cook and clean the house for him and he can have sex with them whenever and however he likes. So why would any man want to live with a Feminist wife who will demand equal shares in everything, or a Dominant Women who expect the man to do as he is told at all times? But logic doesn’t seem to have a lot to do with human behaviour; as it is emotions that motivate us all.

This to me was highlighted many years ago when I was part of a conversation with a woman who was complaining about her neighbor, “her over the road”. The complaining woman prided herself on being a good mother to her teenage children, and devoted her life of caring and looking after them. But in spite of everything she done for her children, none of them showed any gratitude and took everything she was doing for them, for granted. The situation was very different for, “her over the road”. She also had teenage children but the complaining women saw her as a bad mother, as she did very little for her children. For instance; in the mornings when her children had to get ready to go to school she stayed in bed and the children had to get ready themselves. Not only that, the children had to not only get their own breakfast, they had to make a breakfast for their mother and give it to her in bed! Yet, the teenage children of, “her over the road”, thought their mother was wonderful, and were happy to do anything their mother wanted. This greatly infuriated the complaining woman who wanted to know, what was she doing wrong?

After all, logic should tell you that if you give to others and love them unconditionally they should appreciate what you do for them and give love and appreciation in return. It is true some people can appreciate being loved unconditionally but not all people are like that. For instance, there is very little appreciation for unconditional love in patriarchal marriages. Many patriarchal women have given their husbands unconditional love for years; yet have only receive physical and verbal abuse in return.

The problem for any man living with a traditional patriarchal wife is that he is not encouraged to love others. Yes, a submissive patriarchal wife will love her husband unconditionally but he is not expected to give love back to her. Things are a bit better if a man lives with a Feminist wife, as he is expected to love his wife and children but it is all in the spirit of equal sharing of, “I will give it to you, if you will give it to me”. So love becomes a bargain, and a man is still not expected to give unconditional love.

Unconditional love is generally easy for women because they have a maternal or nurturing instinct. When most, (not all), women give birth they fall deeply in love with child they have given birth to. But for men, love is not so easy as he doesn’t have such a powerful nurturing instinct. If a man is brought up in a traditional patriarchal society, he is not expected to love anyone or anything. While in very strict patriarchal countries he is actively discouraged from learning to love, as love is seen as a ‘weakness’. After all, how can a man be expected to discipline his wife and children by beating them, if he loves them? Because of this, many men associate dominance with ruthlessness and cruelty.

So in a traditional patriarchal society a man is condemned to live a life where he is only allowed to love himself, and not all men are happy with this situation. When a man only loves himself, he becomes, in the words of the poet John Donne; in his poem, “No Man Is An Island”, “an island, entire, of it self”. In other words, the man becomes isolated to the degree he finds it hard to connect to other people. In this isolated world the man becomes fearful of others. This dilemma is explained by the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, through his famous saying, “the other is hell”, this is true when a man cannot connect with others and sees them as his enemy.

Life for the patriarchal woman is not much better. It is easy for her to give unconditional love to her husband because she uses her maternal instincts and thinks of her husband as a child. (This can infuriate some more aware patriarchal men, who realize that their wives are turning them into children). So a patriarchal wife becomes a full time mother and relates to all people in the spirit of motherly concern. Through this she learns to love all people in a motherly way but is not allowed to love herself. This is because by not loving herself she can put all the needs of others before her own and therefore not worry about the way she is oppressed and ill-treated in the patriarchal world. A woman who begins to love herself in a traditional patriarchal society, would find life very stressful.

In the last couple of centuries many men have wanted to break out of their patriarchal isolation and have looked to salvation from Dominant Women. Like Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, who in 1870 published his famous book “Venus In Furs”. This book started the Femdom genre as all other Femdom stories have followed a similar theme. Sacher-Masoch wasn’t just a fantasist; he lived out many of the themes within “Venus In Furs” with his mistress Baroness Fanny Pistor. He was also wrote articles on the emancipation of women and advocate female education and suffrage. His other writings showed him to be a caring man as he wrote about the problems of impoverished and oppressed peoples.


The problem with the Femdom genre, is that it is all about dominance and submission and because most of these stories are written by men, love is hardly mentioned. Yet, love is the key to understand Femdom, and men’s attraction to Dominant Women. Dominance and submission are thought to be a kinky perversion or even a mental illness. For instance, male psychologists used to think of patriarchal women’s desires to love her husband unconditionally, in spite of the fact he was physically and verbally abusing her, as masochism. They never thought of it as the extension of her maternal and nurturing instincts, where they loved their husbands the same way they love children.

So why do men have to look to Dominant Women for salvation? This is because only Dominant Women can teach men to love deeply.

Feminist Women can also teach men to love, but the difficulty with Feminism is that it teaches equality between men and women. So it is about men and women loving each other equally. This is not a problem for Women, but for men love then becomes a bargain. “I will love you, if you will love me”. So by making love a bargain it is devalued and not very satisfactory for both partners. But when a man loves a Dominant Women then, he is connected to a very powerful love that can take over his whole life.

What men find is that it is not easy for them to love traditional patriarchal women, they can love Feminist Women more, but with Dominant Women they find they can love them so deeply, that they want to worship and serve them and become their slaves. The reason for this; is that Dominant Women have learnt how to love themselves. The more a Woman can learn to love herself, the more deeply a man can love her. This is why men have problems in loving patriarchal women, the patriarchal women is so busy sacrificing herself and giving to others unconditional love, she doesn’t allow any room for others to love her.

As previously mentioned, although a Feminist Woman can teach a man to love, it is conveyed to him that love is a bargain. The result is that in Feminist marriages there are arguments about who is giving more to whom. So a Feminist wife may complain that she is still doing more to look after the kids and the house than her husband, who in turns thinks he is already doing a lot to help her. Which means that when love becomes a bargain, then that gets in the way of people loving each other, deeply.

There is no problem with this, in a traditional patriarchal marriage or in a man’s relationship with a Dominant Women. A patriarchal woman doesn’t expect her husband to love her. Likewise a man who loves a Dominant Women learns that his love for her has to be unconditional, for the relationship to work.

We can see this in Femdom groups with men’s desire to be cuckold. That is to say, the Dominant Woman is free to have sexual relationships with any man she likes but he has to stay faithful to her. In some relationships they go even further where the man is put into a chastity belt, so he cannot have sex unless his partner unlocks him. Some Dominant Women may also ban the man from having penetrative sex, so the only sexual contact he has with her, is giving her cunnilingus. Yet, these men are more than happy to accept these conditions and even encourage their partners to be more extreme in their behaviour.

So from this point of view it might seem that a FemDom relationship is very much like a traditional patriarchal relationship but with the Woman playing the dominant role and not the man. But there is one vital difference. It is far easier for a Dominant Woman to love her submissive male partner, than it is for a patriarchal man to love his submissive wife. We can see this in the different attitudes of physical and verbal abuse.

Some men strongly desire Dominant Women to punish them by being whipped or caned or verbally abuse them. After all, this is what men have been doing to Women for thousand of years, in strict patriarchal marriages. But not all Dominant Women want to do this. The reason is that Women understand love better than what men do. So if a Woman has to make a man obedient through physical punishment, then it puts doubt in the Woman’s mind if he truly loves her. The reason is because if he deeply loved her, then he would obey her without question, and his biggest punishment will simply be the knowledge, that he hasn’t pleased her.

This then shows the big difference between patriarchy and Matriarchy. In a patriarchal society men are not taught to love, as he is told that love is a ‘weakness’. While in a Matriarchal society most Women will find it hard to suppress their maternal or nurturing instincts. For this reason it is difficult for a Woman to learn to love herself, by suppressing her love for others. (Though admittedly some Women do try to do this). So for most Women, she has to learn how to be both loving and dominant at the same time. In other words, a Dominant Women has to learn how to love herself and love others at the same time.

For people brought up in the patriarchal tradition find this hard to believe. Because men are told that a man cannot be a ‘strong’ leader unless he is cruel and ruthless. So it is not surprising to find patriarchal men to be selfish and brutal people. Now it is true that in an unloving society where men are not encouraged to love each other, it inevitable that the most ruthless men are likely to become the rulers. But this doesn’t have to be the case in a Matriarchal society, where everyone will be encouraged and taught to love others.

In other words, a Dominant Women is unlikely to dominate through coercion and physical violence; she will dominate through love, the love of herself. Even if a Woman does spank a man or use physical violence, he has to co-operate and allow her to do this. This is because the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman. So physical violence will end up being only a symbol of her power, over him, and nothing to do with the way she dominates him. The dominance comes through a Woman’s love for herself.

An example of a woman who is able to love others and love herself at the same time would be the Country and Western singer Dolly Parton. Recently I saw a TV programme about her life and at no time did she say anything bad about anyone or others said anything bad about her. She came across at all times as a very loving and caring person. Yet she was also a strong-minded businesswoman, she was clearly in charge of her own life and career and her husband was hardly mentioned. He allowed himself to stay very much in the background and not interfere in her life. So to me she came across as a woman who is able to love herself and love others at the same time.

As previously mentioned, the more a Woman can learn to love herself the more men can love her. For instance if a Women doesn’t love herself, she is unlikely to accept a man worshipping and serving her. It will become difficult for her to allow him to keep on giving to her without giving in return. And in no way would a Women like this accept a man’s worship of allowing him to kiss her feet or bottom or give her cunnilingus. But by not allowing him to serve and worship her, she is denying him the opportunity to learn to love another person, unconditionally.

Now this can be a controversial subject as patriarchal religions have taught people to be humble or as in Eastern Religions, to overcome the ego. So the ego has become in the minds of many people another sort of Devil. Yet, if you think about it for a moment, you realise that people who are humble and have little love for themselves are far easier to rule and control than people who do love themselves. So this is why patriarchy teaches humility or that the ego is bad. If the people began to love themselves too much, they wouldn’t put up with patriarchal oppression and so the people are far more likely to rise up and demand equal rights. This is very true for Women who have accepted patriarchal oppression for thousands of years through learning extreme humility, by not being allowed to love themselves. While most patriarchal men where only allowed to love themselves to the degree patriarchal women loved them. Only the rich and powerful were allowed to love themselves without restraint.

With the decline of patriarchal religions in the West, the common men have been allowed to love themselves more. But for Women the change has been far more dramatic and as they learnt to love themselves even more, the more attractive they have become to men.

So men need Dominant Women whom they can serve and worship if they are to learn how to love others unconditionally. While Women through men’s desire to worship them as Goddesses, can fulfill their desire to love themselves.

The Worship Of Women

In Femdom literature it is assumed that the whole business of men wanting to be dominated by women is only about sex, but these sexual feelings and fantasies disguise something far deeper. The strange thing about Femdom is that for many men who go to a Dominatrix, they very rarely have sex with her. Which is a bit strange, if Femdom is supposed to be only about sexuality. There are other ways where sexuality for men is restricted by Dominant Women, were in some Femdom relationships men are put into chastity belts, or are cuckold. So perhaps Femdom desires might be to do with something beyond the sexual.

In my first relationship with a dominant woman, what surprised me was a strong spiritual feeling I felt when I was intimate with her. Unfortunately after I was converted into being very attracted to dominant women I then began to buy Femdom magazines, because they were the only literature that seems to reflect my desires, but these magazines led me astray. This is because they were only about men’s sexual fantasies. It is true in some Femdom magazines, people did speculate why many men today are so attracted to Dominant Women, but none of them gave a satisfactory explanation.

The problem is that most people do not think that men’s attraction to Dominant Women has anything to do with religion or spirituality. Fortunately, I am greatly interest in the spiritual and became interested in anything to do with Goddess religions. So, through this I learn about the ancient religion of the Great Mother. And it is through this knowledge that I was able to connect my desire for Dominant Women with my spirituality.

In the Femdom scene some women call themselves Goddesses, and men will worship them like a Goddess. But no one seem to mention in Femdom literature about any spiritual feeling through this worship, and I believe there is a good reason for this.

All of us have been brought up to believe in a male god. So if we believe god is male we find it hard to think of god in any other way. So when men who believe that god is a male, worships a woman as a Goddess, he only sees this as a fantasy and cannot take it beyond this, because of his religious beliefs. This is also true of the woman who is being worshiped. She might think it nice to be worshiped as a Goddess but cannot take it into the spiritual realm, because she believes in a male god.

Many people today find it strange that in the ancient past, people once worshiped god as female. At one time, in the Neolithic age, people assumed that the world was born from the Great Mother, while the idea of a male god who created the world, was completely unknown and only came much later. But if we go back to the ancient worship of the Great Mother then we can see the worship of women by men, as a very spiritual act.

If we accept that God is female rather than male, then all women on this planet are representatives of God. So if a man believes in MotherGod, or the Great Mother, then it is easy for him to see any women he worships, as a representative of MotherGod on this Earth. Likewise the woman who is being worshiped, can also see herself in the same way. And through this both the man and woman can get in touch with the powerful spiritual feelings that can come through this act of worship.

So for any man and woman who can accept that God is feminine, and practice the worship of women, can go far beyond the sexual fantasies of Femdom into the realm of the spirit.

Dialog between Feminism and Femdom

On the face of it there does seem to be a big gulf between Feminism and Femdom. After all, Feminism promotes the concept of equality, peace and harmony between the sexes, while Femdom, on the face of it, seem to be about Women dominating men through force and violence. For this reason Women in Feminism find the whole concept of Femdom abhorrent and repulsive. While the men in Femdom find the whole concept of Feminism, unexciting and impracticable.

What is very noticeable, is that it is mostly women that promote Feminism while men mostly promote Femdom. So the differences between these two concepts could be the differences between how men and women, view the world. So I personally believe that the women in Feminism can learn a lot by trying to understand Femdom, while the men in Femdom can equally learn a lot, by trying to understand the viewpoint of Feminism women.

Femdom is mostly about male sexual fantasies. So men when they masturbate fantasize about being dominated by cruel and sadistic women. Now, there is no problem with this as a pure fantasy, but there are a lot of problems when men try to turn this fantasy into reality. This is because the majority of women do not want to be cruel and sadistic bitches, to satisfy men’s fantasies.

Feminism also has a problem, because it also comes from, an impracticable ideal. Feminism is about sexual equality, and many women do very much like the idea of sexual equality between the sexes, and perhaps for women this might be possible but not for men. How do you get men to agree to a world of sexual equality?

This means that both Feminism and Femdom are only fantasies and both have real problems in making these fantasies reality. But both can bring these fantasies into real life, if they would learn from each other.

Because few women want to play the role of a cruel and sadistic woman, many men have to go to Professional Dominas who will act out their fantasies for them. They then run into a paradox, it is the man who then tells the women what to do and now to behave, so it is the man and not the Dominatrix, who is in charge. There is also a similar problem when men attempt to have a Femdom relationship with women. The biggest complaint women have about Femdom men, is that they, “top from the bottom”. That is the say, these men tell women how they want to be dominated.

Feminists also have similar problems in trying to impose Feminism onto men. They may tell men that they want to have an equal relationship with them, but men have problems in understanding this concept. This is because equality is an alien concept to the masculine mind. Men like most other male animals, are very competitive with each other. If we look at animals like; bulls, stags, lions and rams, we find them fighting against each other for access to the females. There is no sense of sharing with these male animals, the strongest tries to gather the biggest harem he can gather, and not share any with any other male. In other words, “the winner takes it all”.

The male human as a general rule, do you fight each other over women and try to form large harems. (Though very large harems were once commonplace with ancient rulers). But men are still a very competitive with each other over wealth and power. As shown in a survey in the USA in 1998, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population. All countries of the world show similar if not worse figures than this. And this percentage is not getting any better but seems to be getting worse

Even when men attempted to create equal societies like in the French and Russian revolutions, they failed completely. Communists or Socialist countries all had problems in imposing equality onto their societies. Every society ruled by men has had a hierarchical structure with a few individuals at top with all the wealth and power and in contrast with the rest of society that is poor and powerless.

This is why men do not understand Feminism and sexual equality. When the Woman's Liberation Movement started in the 1960s, they formed Feminists groups and in the spirit of sexual equality they invited men to join them. But they soon found that men were such a disrupted influence, that most groups ended up banning men. So the concept of sexual equality failed at the first hurdle. (Later some Feminists groups became so anti-men that they even banned the male children of Feminists from attending Feminist gatherings).

This is why men far prefer Femdom to Feminism, because domination and submission is what men understand. Within the competitive mind of men, in his relationship with women he can only be the winner or loser. So if he is the dominant partner then he is free to exploit and abuse the woman. But if it is decided that the woman is the dominant partner, then the woman is free to exploit and abuse the man.

So how can we get out of this impasse? Of Feminists claiming that all they want is equality with men, while men saying that equality is not an option, and it has to be a relationship based on dominance and submission.

The only way forward is for both sides to accept what the other sex is like. Femdom men cannot expect women to behave like sadists and verbally and physically abuse them. Yet, at the same time, women cannot expect men to understand the concept of equality.

Femdom men have to accept that if they want women to dominate them, then they have to allow women to do it their way. So if the woman does not want to dress up in black leather and whip men, then it is her right not to do this, because she is after all the boss. Yet, at the same time, the woman has to recognize that the man wants and needs to know where he stands in the pecking order. If a woman attempts to impose an equal relationship with a man, then he becomes very confused because he doesn’t know, who is the boss. In fact, in many of the relationship in the 20th and 21 centuries this causes difficulties. The man not knowing who is the boss attempts to take over and is put in his place by the Feminist wife. So he then tries to be submissive only to be told, “it’s not about that, we are equal”. Which only creates even more confusion for the man. So the marriage breaks down in continuous arguments, as the man tried to work out his place in the pecking order.

So a woman in a relationship with a man has to work out if she wants to be dominant or submissive with him, and then she has to make it clear to the man what role she wants to play. She doesn’t have to give in to any demands to verbally or physically abuse him, and is free to play the dominant role in whatever way she wishes. Men will greatly appreciate this, because they will at least know, “where they stand,” in the relationship.

So a relationship of harmony between men and women is only possible if women accept the true nature of men and accept that men see relationships only in terms of dominance and submission. If women accept this, then she can have a successful relationship with men, by taking either the dominant or submissive role.

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. -http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/why-men-are-the-submissive-sex/4966807

Or at, -http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=786000

The Middle Path Of Matriarchy

There seem to be two theories on Matriarchy, which I will call the Femdom theory, and the Feminist theory.

The Femdom theory, (which comes from men’s sexual fantasies), is that if women were to take over and rule the world, then they would behave like Nazis. Men will be enslaved and forced serve women under the threat of extreme violence. Although it is true most of these ideas come from men’s sexual fantasies about Dominant Women, many men do actually believe this would happen in reality, if Women were to rule the world.

The Feminist/Matriarchal theory, (Which comes from academic Women), is completely different. Yes, they believe that women could rule the world but at the same time they promote the ideal of sexual equality. So if women were to take over, they wouldn’t enslave men, in the same way men have enslaved women for the last five thousand years. They would instead give men equality.

To me, there are big problems with both theories. The problem with the Femdom theory, is that the men who created these Matriarchal fantasies haven’t bothered to ask Women what they think about them. The feedback I get from Women, is that most of them have no interest in behaving like FemNazis, as the majority of Women do not want to use force and violence to intimate and enslave men.

The Feminist/Matriarchal theory also has problems as well. Men have enslaved Women and other men, for the last five thousand years. So if they attempt to create a society where men and women are equal. What is to stop men from competing against Women for power and once again enslave women?

So if both the Femdom and Feminist theories of Matriarchy have problems how would women rule society if they got into power? The answer is somewhere between these two theories.

Women on the whole do you want to enslave men through intimidation and violence. Yet at the same time Women have to realise that men cannot be trusted with equality. In five thousand years of patriarchal rule throughout recorded history, men have totally failed to create an equal society. Even when men have set out with a deliberate intent to do this, like in the American and French revolutions and with communism and socialism, men have totally failed at equality. To attempt to create a Feminist/Matriarchal society and expect men and Women to rule society as equals is playing a dangerous game. Men are by nature far more competitive than Women, and so Women will be forced to either learn to be as competitive as men, to hold what power they have. Or lose out to very competitive men, which will allow men to take over once again.

So although the Femdom theory of Matriarchy is completely wrong in imagining women will use violence to enslave men. These men are correct in understanding that sexual equality is not an option, in a Matriarchal society. As Feminists themselves point out, every patriarchal society is based on a hieratical system, where there is a pecking order to establish who can boss whom around. For this reason men cannot imagine a society that doesn’t have a hieratical structure, because men would feel very insecure, if they didn’t know their place in the pecking order.

Another problem men have in imagining a Matriarchal society is that they cannot see how Women could possibility rule men, if they didn’t use force and violence. After all, draconian and oppressive laws enforced by violence are part of the patriarchal system. The problem we all have, is that the only type of society we know, is a patriarchal society. So when people start to imagine what a Matriarchal society will be like, all they can do is imagine a patriarchal society with women in charge. What we have to realise is that men and Women are very different, so a Matriarchal society would reflect these differences.

I also think that many men have an instinctive sense of justice. Men have been brutally oppressing Women for thousands of years, and so many are feeling guilty over this. They do feel that they owe a 'karma debt' to Women, and it is now 'pay back time'. So if men have turned Women into brutalized slaves in the past, then they believe it is right that Women should do the same to men. The problem is, is that Women may not want to do this. Force and violence doesn't come natural for Women, so they are unlikely to create a Matriarchal society based on male Femdom fantasies.

Violence is the foundation of patriarchy. The boundaries of countries were decided by wars in the past. Patriarchal laws are also enforced by violence. If you break a law you are forcefully put into prison, and even today you can still be executed in some countries. This then is the problem; many Femdom men cannot image how Women can dominate men without the use of force and violence. After all violence is how men have dominated Women for thousands of years and it is how men dominate Women today in Islamic countries. So would that then make a Matriarchal society impossible? Or can Women dominate men with resorting to force and violence?

If Women were to take over tomorrow, they would at first adopt all the patriarchal methods of ruling our world, because a patriarchal world is all that they know. But over time, after a few generations, they will change everything and do things in a more feminine manner. This is why I believe that a world ruled by Women would be extremely different to any patriarchal society we know about, in the whole of history.

So how will Women dominate men in a Matriarchal society? We can answer this if we look at childcare. Up until the 19th century it was normal for children to be trained by violence. As the old saying use to go, "spare the rod and spoil the child". Today with the rise of Women's power, 19th century childrearing would today be seen as child abuse. What has been shown today, is that parents can still control children without the use of violence. (Though many parents have to learn the skills of childrearing like we see on TV in programs like "Supernanny".) But we can also learn from dog training, that how women will control men in the future will more likely be how people learn to train dogs.

People forget that dogs are savage carnivorous beasts, and if not properly trained can be a danger to people. Every year there are reports of children and even adults that are killed by savage dogs. Men are the same and even worse, in Britain an average of two women die every week that are killed by their male partners. So if not properly trained by women, men is an even greater danger to the world. In the past, the accepted method of training a dog was to beat it so it becomes frighten of you. And then once that happens, you are able to easy train it. (Like the way children were trained in the past).

Today, with the increasing influence of Women such methods are unacceptable. So dogs are not trained by violence anymore. But even without the use of violence, dogs can be easy trained provided that the dog trainers establishes themselves as the alpha pack leader, in the mind of the dog.

I believe dog and men are very similar, and if Women are willing to establish themselves as the alpha pack leaders in the minds of men, then men will willing obey Women. Men are naturally obedient to any alpha leader, we can see this is the army. Modern armies can train men to be totally obedient, to the degree of charging an enemy machine gun, if ordered to do so.

So Women do not have to use force and violence to dominate men. All they have to do is make themselves in the mind of men, the alpha leaders, and men will then willing obey them. Once Women get over the ideals of feminism and sexual equality and realize that they need to dominate men, if we are to live in a peaceful and loving world. Then women can then start to take over the world with men's help.

We can learn a lot about men from the way they have organized patriarchal societies. All patriarchal countries have a leader, (The exception to this is Switzerland who seem to have found a way of operating without a leader), and a hierarchal structure, which is also called the class system. What is interesting about different types of social stratification is that they seem to be designed to prevent competition within the patriarchal society. For instance, at one time all societies had an elite aristocratic class, which you could only be born into. This meant that only people born as aristocrats could have wealth and power. It is true some people from lower classes were able to obtain wealth and power, but this was the exception and never the rule. So it meant that a person, who was born an aristocrat, was higher on the pecking order than anyone else that was not born an aristocrat, and men accepted this. Although in the past there were peasant’s revolutions they were few and far between and never successful until the French Revolution.

Since the time of the French Revolution the power of the aristocratic class throughout the world has broken down, but his hasn’t made a lot of difference. All patriarchal societies still operate a class system of some kind, that is mostly based on money. Children of rich and powerful families generally go on to become rich and powerful themselves. While only a small minority of the children of poorer families are able to break through the class barrier to become rich and powerful. This was even true of communist countries, where a class system still operated in these countries, in spite of the attempts of communist governments to eliminate it.

The reason why all patriarchal countries have a hierarchal class structure is because of the inherent nature of men. Men are naturally competitive, but if men were continuously fighting each other for wealth and power, then the whole of society would become so chaotic, that we would have a world of anarchy. To keep law and order and prevent chaos, patriarchal governments do their best to eliminate competition between men for wealth and power. This is why in the past most patriarchal societies had very rigid class or caste systems. So men of one class couldn’t compete against other men of another class.

So for a Matriarchal system to work, requires it to function as a two class system, with Women in the upper class and men in the lower class. This will not be a problem for men, because this will be similar to all the hierarchal schemes that men have themselves created. In all patriarchal societies the vast majority of men have to obey the orders of those who rule the society. So for the vast majority of men the only difference will be that Women will be in charge and not a handful of alpha men.

Women in power do not have to use force and violence to keep the system going. All they have to do is to teach men from a very early age that it is right and proper that men should obey Women at all times. In the same way that it was once normal that men once obeyed people of the aristocratic class. If any man objects to this, (and there always will be maverick men who will do this,) all women have to do, is point to the chaos of patriarchal history. Pointing out what a terrible job men do in ruling the world.

There can be no doubt that Women will do a far better job in ruling our world than men. Men are instinctively competitive, which is all right when men play sport, but when men become rulers of countries then their competitive instincts can push them into warfare. As we have seen in the countless of wars throughout patriarchal history. Also the competitive instinct creates in patriarchal societies a winner and loser mentality. Where the rich and powerful become the winners and the common people become the despised losers. In extreme patriarchal countries where Women have no rights or influence, we see a vast difference between rich and poor. Where a small minority of men keep all the wealth and power of their country in their hands and condemn their people to live in poverty.

Women would rule very differently. Women have a powerful maternal or nurturing instinct, so their focus of attention will be on the welfare of children. This means a Matriarchal government would ensure that no child in their country would live in poverty or ignorance. They would have no interest in settling their difference of opinion with other countries through warfare. They would rather talk about differences than go to war about them. (Though it has to be admitted, that if a patriarchal country invaded a Matriarchal country then they would have no choice but to go to war.)

Another problem for Femdom men is that if Women are not prepared to use violence how can they get into power. After all, the accepted method of gaining power in patriarchal countries the past, was either through war and conquest or a violence revolution. It is hard to imagine that a great Amazon army will conquer the world, but women do not have to use such masculine methods to gain power. In recent times there has been another way people have gained power and that has been through democracy. Women can get to rule countries by being voted into power, either by creating a Matriarchal political party or by taking over existing political parties.

A Matriarchal political party will have a big advantage because they can point out just what a terrible job men do in ruling our world. They probably will have to reassure the public that they are not going to be pacifists and disband the military. And will have to rule in much the same way men do at the beginning. But over time they can slowly change things so we will have a genuine Matriarchal society.

x-Fred's videos on Dailymotion