Chapter One – Man, the Submissive Sex

In the first half of the 20th century psychologists claimed that all women were naturally masochistic and this was a ‘scientific fact’ until it was challenged by the feminists in the 1960s. But many people still think this is true even now 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 even smaller minority of female leaders of countries. The same is also true in business, law and religion, women, are in the minority anywhere where there is power and status. While all the efforts by feminists to get women equal pay with men has failed. 

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. What we are not told that this is pure speculation as there is no evidence that stone age people were like this. 

Then going back in time even further than this much is made of how chimpanzees behave which is the animal closest to humans genetically. Male chimpanzees dominate the females through violence and so it is assumed ape ancestors were exactly the same. But hardly no-one talks about the bonobo which is also as close to humans genetically as the chimpanzee, those behaviour is very different. But the behaviour of the bonobo is ignored and people continue to claim that man always has and always will, dominate women.

It is true that feminism say that men and women are equal, but this claim doesn’t square with the facts. There has never been a time in recorded history where men and women have had equality. So with all this overwhelming evident 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. 

If men were naturally dominant why has slavery has been commonplace throughout recorded history? Serfs and slaves are totally powerless, they are actually owned by other people and they have no rights and can be beaten or murdered with impunity. While the fruits of their labour goes to their owner and not to them. Malcolm X a civil rights movement leader complained that many African American men still had a slave mentality. But this might be true for most  men as we see that slavery, serfdom and the exploitation of working men has been commonplace throughout history. We have had slavery from the time of the Ancient Greeks and Romans up until the 19th century. So how men can men dominant, if it is so easy for other men to turn them into slaves and serfs?

It is true we have had slave uprising and peasants rebellions but most of them haven’t been very successful. It is true that women have also been slaves but women at least have good reason for this. Women are smaller, weaker and less aggressive than men so it is a lot harder for women to fight back when slavery is imposed on them through violence and intimidation. But men are also submissive in other ways.

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 Caesar, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and Napoleon, but a lot less is written about the ordinary soldier who fought for these successful generals, rulers and conquerors. 

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 from his men. This allows generals 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. It has been proven in many wars that a general that doesn’t have complete control over their men will lose to a general that does. 

An example of extreme discipline was in the Zulu war between the Zulus and the British in the 19th century. The discipline of the Zulus won them their first battle against the British, in the Battle of Isandlwana. Although they were only armed with spears, they continued to attack British troops armed with breech-loading rifles, until they completely overwhelmed them. But the Zulus suffered enormous casualties and finally lost the war when they lost far too many men and could no longer mount a mass attack on the British. But the British soldiers are not a lot different. 

Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote in his poem, “The Charge of the Light Brigade”, in the Crimea War in the 19th century.

Not tho’ the soldier knew

Some one had blunder’d:

Theirs not to make reply,

Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do and die:

Into the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

This means that soldiers with incompetent leaders will most likely be killed but they are not allowed to question the orders given to them and are forced to obey them. As Lord Tennyson wrote, “theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die”.

In the 20th century, with the invention of machine guns, 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. 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 naval ships in Kamikaze suicide attacks. These men were not volunteers, they were ordered to do this and they carried out these orders. And there wasn’t just a few pilots who did it. The exact numbers are unknown but it is estimated that there were thousands of Kamikaze pilots. There were also suicide human torpedoes called Kaitens, but they didn’t become fully operational before the war ended. 

In more recent times many guerrilla groups like the Tamil Tiger in Sri Lanka and Islamic terrorist groups also use suicide bombers with explosives tied to their bodies. 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. It is true that women suicide bombers have also been used, but they haven’t been as 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 total 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 did the next best thing. Men’s unquestioning obedience to authority allows alpha men to gain power, by being able to mobilise large numbers of men, who do as they are told.

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 did the next best thing. Men’s unquestioning obedience to authority allows alpha men to gain 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 members of the public, will obey without question. If the young men did questioned and refused to obey the dictator’s orders, his power would disappear, but men most men will obey even the most insane orders.

Tsar Nicholas 11 of Russia was forced to abdicate after the Cossack cavalry refused to shoot protesting women workers in Petrograd on 23 February 1917. This started a mutiny that spread throughout the Russian army which finally led to the Bolsheviks revolution. The same thing happened in n 1986 when the Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos was overthrown because his troops refused to fire at a crowd of protestors. But this rarely happens, most of the time the troops do as they are told. It is men’s very submissive behaviour in obeying those in authority, that keeps the whole patriarchal system going and gives patriarchal leaders great power. 

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 indoctrinated 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 ridiculed. And if you pointed out that soldiers would always obey orders without question, they would claim it is iron discipline, and not submissiveness.

Yet whether a person is disciplined or submissive, the result is exactly the same, both types of men, do as they are told. The only difference is perception. As the saying goes, “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck”, So although macho soldiers are not a sort of people we normally associate with submissive behaviour. The reality is, is that they have an extreme obedience to authority where they will risk their lives or even commit suicide, when ordered to do so. Suggests that they are very, very submissive.

In the civilian world, feminists have already observed how the whole patriarchal society is a hierarchy 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 wages, 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 obey those he considered to be in authority over him, then the whole patriarchal system would collapse.

How obedient man are was scientifically tested in 1961 in the infamous, Milgram Shock Experiment. 40 men were recruited for this experiment and they were asked to be a teacher and teach someone through electric shock punishment. So if the person being taught did something wrong he was to administer an electric shock. What they didn’t know is that the electric shocks were fake and the learners were actors who pretended to they were receiving electric shocks. 

In the experiment when the learners made mistakes the teacher were told to administer electric shocks. And the more mistakes the learners did the higher the electric shocks became. As the teachers had buttons in front of them saying how high the electric shock the learner would receive. The results were, - “65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e., teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts.” And, “many of the subjects became extremely agitated, distraught, and angry at the experimenter, but they continued to follow orders all the way to the end.”

The conclusion of this experiment is that, “obedience to authority is ingrained in us all.” This was an experiment only on men. No-one has tried to do a similar experiment on women. But it would be difficult to repeat the experiment as it is so well known in academic circles, that if repeated, people would probably know that they were using actors and fake electric shocks.

The Milgram Experient has since been criticised because there are claims that the men were bullied when they refused to continue with the experiment, but bullying is fairly normal in all patriarchal organizations. Some of the men were later interviewed claimed they knew it was all fake but went along with it. But then they would say that, rather than admit they were fooled and were administering electric shocks that would hurt someone. 

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 leader. If we look at the patriarchal society as a whole, then men look up to and even sometimes hero worship those above him in the pecking order. But 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.

In most modern countries the wealthiest I% own over 50% of the country’s wealth. 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 don’t happen very often. But even when we have revolutions, it doesn’t solve the problem either. When there is a revolution the new rulers end up behaving as badly, or even worse, than the leaders they have replaced.

Femdom women find they don’t have to try too hard to dominate men either. If we look at the femdom scene it is men who are the driving force behind it all. Women just go along for the ride and will exploit and use men who want to be dominated by women. But women cannot force men to obey them, and it is generally the men who have to persuade women to be dominant. 

So the whole idea of a man being dominated by force by a dominatrix is a fantasy, because he is paying to dominatrix to do this. He has to co-operate to allow her to tie him up and if he no longer is able to put up with the pain, he can ask her to stop and she will. Though many men use a ‘safe word’ so he doesn’t directly tell her to stop. So the whole femdom scene is not about women being dominant, but more about men wanting to be submissive to women, To the degree they are willing to pay women to act the dominant role. This suggests femdom men are just like other men, except they prefer to be submissive to women, rather than to alpha men.

Men’s tendency to obey women might explain the extraordinary story of Joan of Arc. She was just a teenage peasant girl during the 100 years war of the 15th century but she was allowed to lead French soldiers against the English. This is such a unlikely story that if it was fiction it would be considered to be too unbelievable. But it really happened and she is credited with turning the tide of war against the English.

The question is, why was she allowed to lead French soldiers and why were they inspired by her and followed her orders? It could be that she knew how to use the submissive side of men to her advantage. It was claimed she inspired everyone who listened to her. She manage to talk her way into getting an audience with the King and convinced him to let her lead this soldiers into battle. Then she led a force of 4,000 men to save Orleans from the English and turned the tide of war. In spite of her success she was later captured and given to the English who burnt her alive as a witch. But the French realised she was a inspirational figure for their cause, they decided to make her a saint. 

This means women do not need to whip men to make them obedient. If we learn from the military we find that they are able to train men into total obedient without the need of physical punishment. It is true that in the past soldiers were whipped to make them obedient but no modern army does this today. Because there are more effective methods have been found to make soldiers obedient. 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 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. This means that even if ordered to charge a machine gun post, these men will obey the order automatically, because that is what he has been programmed to do. 

If patriarchal rulers exploit men’s natural submissiveness then there is no reason why women can’t do the same. Somehow patriarchy has convinced men to be obedient to patriarchal rulers and not to women. But there is no reason why this cannot be reversed and convince men to be obedient to women and not patriarchal rulers. Considering how badly the patriarchal system treats men it would be in most men’s best interests to obey women rather than patriarchal leaders. 

Some wives and girlfriends of servicemen or ex-servicemen take advantage of their military training and find if they bark orders at their husbands or boyfriends they automatically obey. But men will do this without military training. When young men first get involved with women they generally have only one thing on their minds and that is sex. Women can take advantage of this and just be bossy with him while he has this obsession. Then he gets used to her bossing him about and that continues into the relationship.

So the whole idea of man being the dominant sex is just propaganda. The only dominant males are the alpha males in charge of countries and big organizations, like banks, businesses and the military. All other men do as they are told, though some men do get to boss other men below them in the pecking order. So it means that male domination only benefits a few alpha males, the vast majority of men do not benefit from a male dominated society and end up having to obey orders from other men. 

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, where 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 coaches are also used. 

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.

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, as they are far better communicators and can discuss among themselves what needs to be done, with far less conflict and are able to 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 bankrupt. The same is true for political leaders a bad leader can destroy a country but the people are still helpless in the face of this power and are unable to replace him. If they are in a democratic country they might have to wait until the next election but if he is a dictator then they might have to wait until he dies. 

 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 or a failure in battle. 

Another instance of the common man’s feeling of helplessness is the 1929 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 could wipe out humanity. The general public was very frightened of this situation, but were helpless to stop it going on. Everyone knew that the cold war was totally insane and people protested on the streets saying this. But no-one had any idea how to put an end to it. It 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 and working together to put an end to it. 

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 many cases of kings and emperors who have become insane, yet in spite of their insanity he was still allowed to rule. As men will still faithfully obey their leader even though they know he is mad. The list includes Emperors Tiberius, Caligula and Justin II of Roman, Charles VI of France, Henry VI of England, Eric XIV of Sweden, Christian VII of Denmark and many more. 

So have men always ruled our world? That is debatable because there is evidence that women once ruled communities. Back in the Neolithic times archaeologists have discovered a lot of evidence to suggest 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 why was the first civilizations so peaceful but then became extremely violent at the beginning of the Bronze age? One clue is that people then worshipped Goddesses and it has been suggested that women ruled these first civilisations.  Then they became warlike when men took over and ruled. Mainstream archaeologists find this suggestion so controversial they refuse to talk about it. 

The world didn’t become patriarchal overnight it is estimated that the first patriarchal tribe came into being about 5,000 years ago, but some became patriarchal a lot later. 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 Minangkabau people in Western Sumatra and the Moso people of China.

Surprisingly many feminist reject this idea as well, as they believe in sexual equality and try to claim that the peaceful societies of the Neolithic age were egalitarian where the sexes were equal. But if we look at history we find that men have totally failed to create a equal society anywhere in the world, in the whole of history of patriarchal rule. So it would be unlikely men would be peaceful rulers even if women had equal rights and ruled alongside them. Because of men’s competitive nature the only way we could have a peaceful society is if women were the rulers of these ancient communities and were able to control men. 

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 are the natural submissive sex then there would be no reason for men to use extreme violence against women to force them to be 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 is not their natural behaviour. 

It is like in slavery, the only reason why slaves where whipped, beaten and murdered 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 instinctive nature. Yet we find that slavery is a femdom fantasy of women turning men into slaves. This suggests although men do not want to be slaves to other men, they perhaps don’t mind being slaves to women. So when women did rule the world, were men women’s slaves? But they were slaves not because they were forced to do this, but because it was their natural instinct. 

Patriarchy always had problems in forcing men to be the dominant sex. 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 is further proof that women are not naturally submissive.

Likewise the claim by patriarchal propaganda that man was the dominant sex in prehistoric times as they were violent brutes who dominated women even more than they did in historic times. Is only speculation as there is no proof of this whatsoever. Scientists know nothing of the social structure of pre-historic people, but that doesn’t stop them presenting these speculations to the public as scientific fact.

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, have been taken in completely by patriarchal propaganda. 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, 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 whom they think are beneath them. 

This is because if men are told that women are lower than them in the pecking order then they will use violence to keep their place higher than her. It would also 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”. And violence is the main method men have dominated women.

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.

Bibliography

On The Psychology Of Military Incompetence -  M Dixon and Norman F Dixon 

A Society without Fathers of Husbands - Cai Hua

Women at the Center: Life in a Modern Matriarchy - Peggy Reeves Sanday

On the Trail of the Women Warriors - Lyn Webster Wilde

The First Sex - Elizabeth Gould Davis

The Great Mother - Erich Neumann

Lost Civilisations of the Stone Age - Richard Rudgley

Earliest Civilizations of the Near East – James Mellaart

Why Men Don’t Iron: The Real Science of Gender Studies – Ann and Bill Moir

History's Most Insane Rulers: Lunatics, Eccentrics, and Megalomaniacs From Emperor Caligula to Kim Jong Il - Michael Rank