Rasa Von Werder reads William Bond's latest article

Text of this article

Latest video from Rasa Von Werder

"FRIENDS, I WILL SOON BE BACK ON FACE BOOK IN A NEW PERSONA:  "COUGAR LIFE - CATCH A COUGAR BY THE TAIL"

RIGHT NOW I AM PRESENTING MY PERSONAL/PRIVATE LIFE STORY ON YOU TUBE.  SOON I WILL BEGIN FILMING MY 'COUGAR LIFE' WITH THE HELP OF MY WEB MAN.
HE WILL FOLLOW ME DOWNTOWN MEETING YOUNG  MEN & WOMEN, SINGING KARAOKE STYLE ON https://youtu.be/eXzJ_2v_2q4?list=UUbs2mz4ljiTIExCvya6zHrg

'OPEN MIKES,' ENTERING DANCE CONTESTS & TALKING ABOUT MY MANY YOUNG BOYFRIENDS & MODELS, PRESENTING IMAGES OF THEM.
IT MIGHT BE FUN.

PLEASE STAY TUNED......RASA VON WERDER AKA KELLIE EVERTS
PS I'M TEACHING A NEW COURSE ON FEMALE EMPOWERMENT:  OLD WOMEN MUST TAKE CHARGE OF THE YOUTH--SHOW AUTHORITY OVER THEM!"

THANKS VERY MUCH!

Kellie Everts, (Rasa Von Werder) on TV!

"KELLIE EVERTS IS NOW UPLOADING SOME OF HER MANY TV APPEARANCES ONTO HER YOU TUBE CHANNEL.

EACH VIDEO HAS A DESCRIPTION OF EXACTLY WHAT KELLIE WAS TRYING TO DO, IN THE EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN & FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

SHE HAD HUNDREDS OF APPEARANCES ON TV BUT COPIES OF THEM ARE NOT ALL IN HER HANDS.  SHE IS SHARING WHAT SHE WAS ABLE TO GET.  THERE ARE 18 SEGMENTS UP & 10 MORE TV SHOWS TO GO (THAT SHE WAS ABLE TO RETAIN).

SHE WILL THEN BEGIN UPLOADING SOME PARTS OF THE 400 DOMINATION VIDEOS SHE PRODUCED."

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbs2mz4ljiTIExCvya6zHrg/videos

How Sexual liberation help create a Matriarchal society.

Some feminist have claimed that one of the hindrances of female empowerment is that women have to, “sleep with the enemy”, and live with men.  Where, men have to advantage of greater size, strength and aggression.  But perhaps there might be a way around this, if we give up the patriarchal doctrine that men and women have to live together as a couple.

We can find an alternative to this; if we look to our ape ancestors chimpanzees and bonobos.   This is instructive, because both of these species of ape are our closest cousins genetically, because we share 98% of our genes with them.

What is very interesting is that the chimpanzees live in strict patriarchal societies while bonobos are matriarchal.  Humans also seem to be patriarchal but it seems in prehistoric times we once lived in matriarchal societies, which suggests that we humans do have a choice about what type of society we wish to live in.

Chimpanzee culture is very easy to understand, it has a strict hierarchal system where the biggest and strongest males are the boss and dominate other males who are not so physically powerful.  Though all the males dominate the females who are smaller than the males. 

Bonobo societies are more complex as the female dominate the males through a powerful sisterhood.  Bonobo males like chimpanzee males are larger than bonobo females but the bonobo females stick together in a powerful sisterhood.  The way this works is that if a bonobo male was to attack a bonobo female, all the bonobo females in the same area will come to her defence and attack the lone bonobo male.  Because of this, it is the sisterhood that dominate bonobo society and not powerful alpha males like with chimpanzees.

This approach has been suggested by feminists for humans who created the slogan, “the sisterhood is powerful”.  But unfortunately sisterhood among human females is not strong enough to overcome male aggression and dominance.  To appreciate why, we have to understand more about the bonobo and chimpanzee.

Another big difference between the chimpanzee and bonobo is that the bonobo seems to be sex mad.  Most animals only have sex for a few days every year.  This happens at the time of the year when most food starts to be available, so that the female is well fed during her pregnancy and when nursing her young.  The chimpanzee like most other animals is exactly the same, only having sex when the female is in season.  But there are two animals where this is not true, and they are the bonobo and human. 

Both humans and bonobos can have sex any time of the year and so are not restricted to seasonal sex.  As the result, we find that in bonobo society sex is not only used to fertilize females, it is used as a powerful method of social bonding.  Bonobo customs dictate that when two bonobos are in any form of dispute they make it up by having sex together.  This doesn’t matter if the two bonobos are a male and female or two males or two females.  It seems that in bonobo society there is no demarcation line between heterosexuality and homosexuality, everyone is bisexual.

This suggests that the strong social bonding through sex, greatly enhances feminine power and undermines masculine power.  This is because in any animal society the only way females can overcome the greater size and strength of males is through a powerful sisterhood, where females support each other.  This means that the sisterhood in bonobo society is possible when females bond, by having sex with each other

So it is interesting that homosexuality is discouraged or even outlawed in most human patriarchal societies.  Is this because they want to break up any form of sisterhood among women?  It suggests that lesbian sex has a far stronger effect is bonding females together, than homosexual male relationships.  It is probably because men’s greater aggression and competitive instincts works against males when trying to bond with other males, even if they are homosexual.  While, women’s instincts to love others, is enhanced, when having intimate relationships with other women.

Many feminists have pointed out that one of the reasons why women are powerless is because too many women seem to love men, more than they love other women.  The reason for this, might be that in patriarchal societies, women are only allowed have sex with men and are discouraged from having sex with other women. 

So where humans in the past like bonobos and women form a powerful sisterhood through lesbian sex?  One piece of evidence for this is the clitoris.  Patriarchal scientists and religions tell us that sex in only about reproduction, yet the female clitoris is only used for sexual pleasure.  The clitoris is not needed for reproduction as a woman can get pregnant without it.  This is one of the reasons why some patriarchal religions like Islam cut off women’s clitorises.  The clitoris may not be needed for sex between a dominant male and a submissive female, but is essential for sex between two females.  So cutting off women’s clitoris may be a way to discourage lesbian sex and so undermine sisterhood between women.

It would be unrealistic to demand all women to become lesbians but bisexuality may be possible.  After all, women do complain a lot about the behaviour of men when they live with them.  So any woman who has had a bad experience living with men may think about living with another woman, if this is socially acceptable.  Another point is that if more women start to live together it means that men will be forced to “up their game”, and please women, if they want to live with them. 

So would a return to matriarchy be as simple as simply encouraging women to have sex together?  It might be, because it seems to work very well for the bonobo ape.  The obvious way women can overcome men’s greater size, strength, aggression and competitiveness is to form a powerful sisterhood.  This then is only possible if women can love each other, more than they love men.

Patriarchy works well when it is able to isolate women.  We can see this in chimpanzee society where sisterhood between females is almost non-existent.  As the result, every female chimpanzee has to fend for themselves alone and has to look for protection from males to protect herself.  So being very submissive to please strong males, is the only way a female chimpanzee and her young, can survive in the brutal chimpanzee society. 

His is also true of women in patriarchal human societies, who likewise have to learn to please rich and powerful males to have a decent life or become successful.  Many actresses even today are interviewed on the ‘casting couch’ to get into films.  Businesswomen and female politicians also have to please rich and powerful men if they are to progress in our patriarchal world.  While marrying a wealthy man is still the easiest way a woman can gain wealth and power.

The contrast between chimpanzee and bonobo societies couldn’t be greater, where bonobo females can always look for protection from other females.  For this to work, it means that the patriarchal idea of marriage has to be broken up.  This then would require for women to live in commutes, which is a big advantage for mothers as they can help each other care for their children.  Men won’t like this, as it means they will have less access to females and have to be on their best behaviour, if they want to visit any commune to have sex.

So if women are encouraged to find sexual fulfilment with other women, then they will no longer have to, “sleep with the enemy”, and we be free to form a powerful sisterhood with other women.  This sisterhood can be used to create women only businesses and political parties so women no longer have to look to rich and powerful men for support and money.

Some women may object to this and claim they are strictly heterosexual and could never have sex with another woman.  Yet we know sexuality is flexible.  Confine people into prisons and both men and women will have homosexual relationships.  This suggests, bisexuality, may be far more commonplace than we realise.  People fall into heterosexual relationships because it is considered to be ‘normal’ and it is easier to be one of the flock.  Even today, homosexuality is seen as unusual and it takes a strong minded person to, ‘come out’ and openly declare themselves to be homosexual.  It also can be equally difficult to be openly bisexual, because people get confused by this. 

It is of interest that nearly all patriarchal societies and religions tend to see sex as a ‘sinful’ or ‘dirty’.  This is because even submissive women can use sex to influence men.  It suggests that patriarchy does see sexual liberation as a threat to it.  So if we can learn from the bonobo ape and be sexually freer, it could result in a matriarchal society. 

WILLIAM BOND HAS NEW INSIGHTS FOR THE MATRIARCHAL MOVEMENT

Lemurs

Rasa says: I pay close attention to the writings of William Bond, as he’s the most important male theoretician in the matriarchal movement. His insights have been important in shaping our theology and political POV.

William Bond says:
As you are now talking about Femdom again Rasa, I though I would send you a article I wrote some time ago, about this.

Male masochism as we see in the FemDom scene is a big problem for many academics, because they tell us that man has always been the dominant sex. Also men are bigger, stronger and more aggressive than women, so why would any man want to submit to women? This is why we get all these complex theories about male masochism to try to explain away this anomaly.

What is very problematic for male academics is that male masochism points to an uncomfortable fact that men might not have always been the dominant sex. We don’t have to look to complex theories for why we have male masochism, we can see it clearly in the behavior of other primates.

Male masochism and submission to females has been observed in bonobo apes, vervet monkeys, macaques, olive baboons, patas, rhesus monkeys, grey langus, capuchins, prosimians and Madagascar lemurs. So why would males of these species want to submit to female? Because in evolutionary terms it is a powerful tool for survival.

All evolutionary theories concentrate on males, (mostly because male academic invented them,) and in some these theories the role of the female is not even mentioned. This is an extreme male bias, because in evolutionary terms the role of the female is far more important than the role of the male. The reason is because it is the female that give birth to the young and has the main role in caring for the young until they are fully grown. Therefore, the survival of any species is far more dependent on the female than the male. So it is the female that brings the next generation into being and nurtures them to adulthood.

RASA SAYS: YES, AND IN THEIR LIES PATRIARCHS DEFY LOGIC, BUT WHEN THEY ARE IN CHARGE, PEOPLE JUST FOLLOW THEM LIKE LEMMINGS, NOT EVEN QUESTIONING THEM, AS TO QUESTION THEM MEANS CONFLICT WITH THE “RULING PARTY” AND MOST PEOPLE DON’T WANT TROUBLE.

This is why in evolutionary terms the males of any species are expendable. Simply because one male can fertilize hundreds of female, so even if most males were wiped out, it doesn’t matter, because only a few males are needed to keep the species going. Whereas if most of the females were wiped out then the whole species would be in grave danger, because female are limited in how many young they can produce. It is true in small rodents a female can produce large numbers of young in a year, but in larger mammals like human beings, one baby a year is the average woman’s limit. This means that in evolutionary terms, the survival of females is far more important than the survival of males.

This is also why, in the island of Madagascar all the lemur species live in female dominated societies. Madagascar has a very long dry season of 8 months, where lemurs in that period find it very hard to find nourishing food. Now, in this situation, if lemurs lived in male dominated societies they would quickly become extinct. This is because during the dry season, the alpha males would grab all the available food for themselves and allow the females to starve. Which means the females wouldn’t have enough food to grow young in their bodies or have enough nourishment to suckle their young with milk, or be strong enough to care for and protect their young. So in these conditions a male dominated Lemur species would quickly become extinct.

Whereas what happens to Madagascar lemurs is that even though females are smaller than males, the male always give way to the females in all disputes. This means that in the dry season alpha females get to feed first with any food the lemur communities find. This ensures the females stay healthy and are more able to breed, and if some of the males die of starvation through the dry season, it doesn’t cause any problems to the survival of the whole species.

Now, the human beings have also evolved through very difficult conditions. Scientists claim that we are 4 million years old. This means that more than 99% of human existence happened in the Stone Age. So we are still basically Stone Age people and what happened over the last five thousand years of human history has made very little difference to our true nature. In our ancient past we have experienced ice ages and times of rapid climate change, causing the extinction of many animals like mammoths, sabre-tooth tigers and even other species of humans like the Neanderthals. This means in these times of rapid climate change, species of animals that are female dominated will have a decided advantage over species that are male dominated.

More so for the human being because unlike any other animal, the human baby is completely defenseless for the first few years of its life, and it nearly 20 years before it is fully-grown. So the human mother has to put in far more time and effort into caring for her young than any other animal. This means that in times when food is scarce, it means that only female dominated tribes humans would survive. This is because the males would sacrifice themselves, allowing the women and young to eat first and not use their superior size and strength take food away from women. Whereas in male dominated tribes, the alpha males would eat first and the women and children would die, and the tribe wouldn’t survive when food became plentiful again.

In is noticeable that patriarchy happened only after the invention of agriculture, which produced an abundance of food. This allowed alpha males to dominate human society through violence without threatening the survival of the human species. Unfortunately, men are not used to ruling and do a terrible job in ruling our world creating a world of conflict, war, inequality and suffering.

Yet we are all still Stone-Age people, so the desire within men to submit to women is still within us. This is why patriarchy needs to teach men to degrade women to prevent them for reverting to their natural instincts. This makes it possible for men to give blind obedience to alpha men rather than to women. This is why in many strongly patriarchal societies women are degraded and subjected to male violence, to teach ordinary men to overcome their desire to submit to women. Though, his is now changing in Western countries, where women are no longer being degraded in the same way. This allows men to get in touch with their natural desire to want to worship women.

This means that the Femdom scene is not a perversion or mental illness as many academic male physiologists will want you to believe. It is a natural instinct that comes from our Stone Age past. Men have only been taught to suppress this instinct by the alpha males who conquered the peaceful Matriarchal civilizations of the Neolithic age. When men are no longer taught to degrade women and dominate them through violence, then women will once again take their true role of the dominant sex of the human race.

RASA SAYS: THIS IS SO BRILLIANT AND CAN SCARCELY THINK OF ANY MORE TO SAY. JUST READ AND APPRECIATE. AND THE IDEAS ARE NEW AND WILL NOURISH OUR MOVEMENT GREATLY.
Submitted May, 2016

She Bear

For a long time I have advocated that women should rule the world.  This is because for the whole of history, men have clearly done a terrible job of this by creating a world of continuous wars and a big gap between rich and poor.  Yet, sometimes when I have said this I have been told by women that females have no interest in ruling the world. 

The reason for this could be that men tend to be more competitive than women and will therefore spend more time and effort competing against other men for power and wealth.  The problem with this is that if women are not willing to compete again men for power they leave a large power vacuum that can only be filled by men.  So that the way the world is ruled, only serves men’s interests, which are competition, conflict and war.  It doesn’t serve women’s interests of caring and nurturing children, animals, the sick and elderly.

We can see masculine instincts in nature when two male animals fight each other for dominance and access to females.  While the feminine instinct in nature is all about motherhood as female animals will nurture their young and care for them until they are old enough to look after themselves. 

So masculine power is all about force, aggression, competition and violence, while feminine power is maternal and is about love, caring and nurturing. This then is the reason women are not as competitive or aggressive as men are, but if that is the case, what can motivate women to gain power?  Because clearly they less selfish and competitive than men,

Some people claim that; the only way to be powerful is to also be aggressive and competitive.  But dictionaries tell us that power is the ability to act, to change or influence events.  Women have great power, because they bring life into our world.  Without women’s ability to give birth and look after their children, none of us would exist.  So surely that is a tremendous power that seems to be unrecognised in our male dominated world.

There is a poem called, “The hand that rocks the cradle, is the hand that rules the world,” by William Ross Wallace (1819-1881).  This idea seems a paradox; we intellectually feel that this should be true, because the biggest influence on any child is its mother.  The child then grows up as an adult still strongly influenced by what its mother taught it.  But if this is correct, why are we living in a world ruled by men?  The reason is that mothers don’t use this power to benefit themselves or other women.

We can understand this by looking at the extreme male dominated religion of Islam. In many Islamic countries they have genital mutilation where the clitoris of young girls is cut off.  The shocking thing is that this is being done by women.  So why would women mutilate young girls is this way?  Because it was done to them and they have been indoctrinated by their mothers and their culture to do this. 

The same is also true of honour killings, where in Islamic culture a husband has a duty to kill his wife, if she dishonours him by refusing to respect or obey men.  Fathers will also murder their daughters who refuse to conform and even brothers will do the same to their sisters.  Even today in some Islamic countries a women can be stoned to death because she committed adultery, or whipped because she dare to complain when she was raped.

Children are cared for by mothers but mothers try to train them to fit in with the society they belong, because she loves them.  This is because if she was to feed them ideas that go against society’s customs or traditions, she knows that this will cause her children conflict and alienation.  It could even cause them to be killed, in extreme Islamic country.  For this reason, mothers end up being staunch upholders of traditions, to protect their children, even though these traditions are detrimental to women. 

A man who kills his wife, sister or daughter in an honour killing, was once a small boy in his mother’s arms, but the mother never used her influence to tell him as a child, that honour killings are a bad thing.  So, when he grows up he may end up dominating, assaulting, abusing or killing his wife and daughters. We can see in this instance that yes, mothers do have great power, but as this power is being used against women, it does not benefit them.  So the question is how did it come about that women are not using their power over children, for their own benefit?

The answer would be that mothers tend to love their children more than they love themselves.  But by doing this, they have left a power vacuum that has been filled by men, who do not love their children to the same degree.  These men then use this power to indoctrinate children for their own advantage and to the disadvantage of women. 

This power also does not even benefit most men, as male dominated societies tend to be very warlike and young men find themselves dying in wars.  An extreme example is again in Islamic countries, where they use suicide bombers.  To do this, they have to indoctrinate young men into blowing themselves up in suicide attacks.  So the mothers of suicide bombers haven’t helped their sons by teaching him Islamic tradition.  All the mothers have done was to make it easier for their sons to be brainwashed, when they have grown up.  So they can be easy indoctrinated to commit suicide, by blowing up other people.

So by being upholders of patriarchal traditions might make sense to women, on the short term and individual level, to protect her children.  But if we look at it from a wider perceptive, if women end up powerless because they have allowed men to take it away from them.  Then they do not have the power to protect and nurture, their own children. An example of this, in nature, is female bears. 

Mother bears are one of the most dangerous animals in nature, but the reason for this, is that male bears and predators like wolves and lynxes will kill bear cubs.  So a female bear has to be extremely aggressive and powerful to be able to protect her cubs.  As the result a mother bear will fearlessly fight a larger male bear to do this.  The lesson for human mothers, is that a powerless mother cannot protect her children in the way she wants to.  Nor can a mother who doesn’t recognize that males can be a threat to the welfare of their children.

Unfortunately women are not as big as female bears and don’t have large claws and teeth.  Though it is true, that women can take up weight-lifting or martial arts to protect their children.  This might help, when dealing with violent men, but human power games are far more sophisticated, than animal power games. 

An example of this is the book, “The Prince”, by Nicolo Machiavelli, which has become essential reading, for successful politicians.  It has in it, infamous sayings like, “It is better to be feared than loved,” and. “The end justifies the means.”  So when female politicians play power games with male politicians they end up having to be very Machiavellian, to compete successfully against male politicians.  Though in doing this, some female politicians end up as being as bad what they are.  But if women do not compete against men for power, they find they are very limited in what they can do, to protect their children.

An example of this is a feminist mother who tries to prevent her sons from playing with toy guns.  Only to be undermined by TV action films to video games, which glorify violence.  These films portray violent men as heroes that become role models for many teenage boys.  The problem with this is that other teenage boys also watch these films and as the result teenage boys find they are in a violent gang culture when they socialise with other boys. Mothers also find it hard to protect their daughters or themselves, if the police can’t be bothered to prosecute rapists.  So Feminists find themselves wanting to change not only TV programs, but customs, traditions, laws, and the educations system, and this requires women to work together, in collective action. 

This in turn, does get some women interested in politics, which has a wider implication because men do a terrible job in ruling our world.  Patriarchal governments create wars and genocide as well as rule societies where there is a large gap between rich and poor.  What is hardly even discussed, is that if we had caring women rule our world, we would unlikely to have wars and they would more likely to create more loving and caring societies.

It is true that now in many countries we have more and more female politicians.  But these women have to join patriarchal political parties and expect to act and behave like male politicians.  As the result we find female politicians who want to get promotion in any political party, have to agree with anti-women policies.  As well as trying to be as aggressive and ruthless as any ambitious men.  These women might follow Machiavelli’s ideas that, “The end justifies the means.” But end up losing all their ideals, as they compromise far too far.  They also throw away the big advantage of not using feminine power. 

Unfortunately; female politicians, who act like men, give female politicians a bad name.  As it gives the people the impression that women in power, are just as bad as what men are.  If given a choice of which is better for our world, the masculine power of force, aggression, competition, conflict and violence or the feminine power of love, compassion, caring and nurturing.  Most sensible people would say feminine power is far better.  But what most people would also say is that it is unrealistic to think that we can live in a loving and caring world.  Not realising that this is just an excuse patriarchy governments always use, when challenged about the terrible way they are ruling the world.

In our present society we have to accept masculine patriarchal power because we are not given any other choice.  In democracies we are not given the choice of voting for two or more patriarchal political parties and the voters end up voting for the one that is the least worse.  What people don’t have, is the choice between a ruthless patriarchal political party or a caring and loving matriarchal political party.  This is because women have failed to organize themselves in the way men have.

We also find the same in religion where we are only given the choice of joining patriarchal religions that worship a male god with a male priesthood.  We don’t have the choice of joining a matriarchal religion with a loving female deity and with only female priests.  It is true some religious sects now accept the idea of a male and female god, and have some female priests, but women still find themselves part of a long patriarchal tradition. 

Feminist like to claim that man and women are the same.  In spite of the fact that men cannot give birth, while women have far less testosterone in their bodies which makes them physically weaker and less aggressive than men.  Yes, women can take up body building and martial arts but she to compete again men on a level playing field she has to also take steroids.  As steroids will not only make them stronger but more aggressive as well. 

The same is true when women compete again men in politics or business; they are told they have to learn to be assertive and aggressive as men.  So in our patriarchal world, we are told that the masculine force is all powerful in our world and the feminine is too weak to stand up against it, but is this really true?  Or is it that few people understand what feminine power is and therefore it’s not being used enough in our world. 

For most of our history it has been believed that the masculine methods of force and intimation are the best way to influence people, but in the 20th century this view has been challenged.  Many psychologists are claiming that rewards are a better way to influence people than punishment.  Now, rewards are the method that women are far more likely to use. 

Most sensible people would want be ruled by loving and caring feminine women, rather than aggressive and selfish male rulers, but are never given this choice.  So people can only choose if women are willing to organize themselves along with men who respect women to form Matriarchal political parties and Matriarchal religions.

A female bear also recognizes how dangerous a male bear can be to her children.  Human mothers have to think along the same lines.  Not only can men inflict violence or sexually assault her children.  When men rule the world, too many women end up in poverty and are unable to feed their children, because male rulers selfishly keep the wealth of the country in their own hands.  Patriarchal governments also like wars and use teenage boys as “cannon folder” to fight these wars.   What the mothers of these boys think about this, is not important, because they are powerless to prevent this happening.

If women want to be free to nurture and care for their children they cannot leave it up to men to rule our world.  Because men do not have the same maternal instincts women have and therefore have far less interest in the welfare of children than what women do.  Women have to learn from female bears, that a good mother who can truly care for her children, has to be also a powerful mother.  A weak mother cannot care for her children no matter how much she tries.   So if women want to be good mothers and care for their children they have to make sure they have the power to do this, and they can only do this by collectively working together to rule the world.

Why do men love and hate women?

"We are not feminists because we hate men; we are feminists because we respect and love men and we don't understand why they do not always return that respect."

Germaine Greer, author of the “The Female Eunuch”

Many women have been puzzled by this lack of love and respect.  After all, logic suggests that if you love someone, they would naturally love you in return.  Yet many women in relationships with men don’t find this and often experience the complete opposite.

To be fair, there are some men who can fully appreciate a woman’s love for them but it isn't true of all of them.  The mystery for too many women is that when they try to love men, they only receive contempt, abuse and even violence in return.  As a result, large numbers of women all over the world are beaten up, raped and murdered by men.  The most common way women become murder victims is to be killed by their male partner.

Not only this, many women today have access to pornographic videos on the internet and are shocked by how badly women are treated in these films.  The same is true of video games made for young men, which are full of extreme violence, some with female characters on the receiving end of it.  It suggests that many men are sadists, because they become sexually excited by seeing women being mistreated.  The question women ask is, “why are men like this?”

One of the barriers to understanding this is feminism itself.  The feminist dogma, which claims that men and women are the same, is not helpful, because it is clear that they are not.  Yes, it's true you can find feminine men who will act like women, or masculine women who behave like men, but people like this are in the minority.  The way the majority of women and men think, feel and behave are radically different from each other.

The biggest difference between men and women is that women give birth to children and men don’t.  The very fact of childbirth and childcare makes women unlike men in so many ways.  The maternal instinct makes women far more caring people than men.  Feminists don’t want to be reminded of this. It would be too easy for chauvinistic men to use this fact to claim that women should stay at home and look after the children while men go to work. 

Unfortunately, when following the feminist dream, women find themselves trying to hold down a job as well as look after their home and children, with limited support from men.  This is because, on the whole, men do not have the same commitment to care for children as women do. They love them, maybe, but not in the way a woman does. As a result, too many men are left free to pursue their careers and hobbies and mostly leave childcare to the woman. 

If we look at the animal world, we can get a clearer understanding of why this is so.  In most species of mammals, (which is what humans are), males fight each other for dominance and access to females.  We see this clearly in animals like stags, rams and bulls who bash their heads together every year.  So we find that males instinctively associate competition, aggression, violence, dominance and submission with sexual desire.

Male birds have been observed helping to care for the young and in some species do as much, or even more, than the mother.  This is not true with mammals, where most males do little to help and support the mothers with young.  In some species like bears, tigers and lions, the males will even kill and eat the young of their own species.

Female animals rarely fight each other, as their instincts are largely concerned with giving birth and looking after their young.  The masculine drive concerns competition, aggression and violence, while the feminine one is maternal and is all about love, caring and nurturing. They couldn't be more different.

This is why many men who are loved by women do not always give love in return. A man instinctively competes against everyone, including the woman he is having a relationship with. She shows love for the man, but he is fighting her for dominance. It's not going to be a successful outcome for the woman.

When male animals battle each other there is no sense of fairness or equality.   The winner has greater access to females and food, while the loser is pushed away.  We see a similar situation in human males.  When men compete against each other for money or power, the rules of the game are, “the winner takes it all”.  We can see the result of this in the big gap between rich and poor in all patriarchal societies. The poor are the losers in the endless fight for dominance between men.

If a man exhibits the same attitude in his relationship with women, he may compete against the female by verbally abusing her or beating her. What he wants is her submission to him. When he thinks he has won this game, because he has made the woman frightened of him, he then assumes he has the right to dominate and mistreat her.  Many men, who are losers in games they play with other men, feel that this is the one game they can easily win, because they are bigger, stronger and more aggressive than women. 

The crazy truth behind all this is that many men want loving women, who will  care for and support them, but instead of being grateful, they return this love with abuse. What these men don’t realise is that women are not playing male competitive games. They don’t know they are supposed to be fighting for power with their male partners; all they know is that for some strange reason, their partner is being horrible to them. It's a mystery. 

Women then try to tame men by being even more loving or trying to reason with them. Sometimes this can work, as occasional men come to realize that their relationship with women is not a fight for dominance.  Some men can even appreciate this, relax and enjoy the fact they are with someone they are not in competition with.

Although some men can wake up to the fact they are acting like jerks and become ashamed of their behaviour towards women, what often gets in the way is the pull of popular culture, which tells men they need to be tough and macho.  It encourages men to be even more aggressive than they normally are.  They believe that women love men who are assertive, dominant and even violent. Many women fall for it too and come to think they should love macho men.

Too many men can get away with their selfish behaviour because women tend to treat them like children.  Women love their children deeply, but on the whole, children show very little appreciation for the things their mothers do for them.  As some mothers have complained, “no one knows what I do, until I don’t do it.”  Women caring for children become used to giving and nurturing without reward or thanks.  This means that for many women, an unappreciative man is just another selfish child.

Men also use a double standard about women who freely have sex with lots of men.  This is exactly what men want- women who will give them sex with no strings attached.  But instead of being grateful, they call women like this whores, sluts and tarts and treat them with contempt.  Paradoxically, men seem to respect women who will say “no” to them and play, “hard to get” games, because they are behaving like men.

They have similar attitudes towards prostitutes who, again, are giving men what they want- sex with no emotional attachment. They show no respect for these women.  Many sex workers are frequently attacked physically as well as verbally and even murdered by men, unless they have some form of protection, usually a pimp, who may also beat them to show who's boss.  

So we have the strange situation that if women give men what they want, they show no gratitude. However, if a high-class prostitute demands large sums of money for her services or treats the man cruelly, then she is given far more respect.  This suggests masochistic behaviour in men. They only admire cruel and demanding women, because it reminds them of themselves. It's what they would do.

The possible masochism of men is another barrier to understanding what is going on between men and women.  This word comes from the works of a 19th century author called Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, who wrote a famous novel called, “Venus In Furs”.  In this story he describes a relationship in which a man is completely dominated and mistreated by a woman.  (It seems this story was partly autobiographical.)  From this book came the word masochism – the desire to be badly treated.

The irony is that von Sacher-Masoch was a man, but the word 'masochist' is generally used to describe females.  In the early 20th century it was commonly believed among psychologists that all women were essentially masochistic. They really want to be hurt and mistreated.  This belief has since been challenged by feminists but it still remains strong in popular culture. 

The problem for men trying to understand women is that the behaviour of women who give unconditional love without complaint and those who are masochistic are very similar.  The difference is that a person who gives unconditional love is acclaimed as a saintly person, while the masochist is thought of as being mentally ill, with self-esteem issues.

As a result, women with abusive male partners are hit with a double whammy. Not only are they being abused, but it's claimed they secretly like it, because they have a mental illness.  Men who mistreat women want to believe this, because it justifies their behaviour. As many men who abuse or rape women like to claim, “she was asking for it.”  It's a rationalisation. If they conceded that they were gratuitously hurting kind and caring people, their behaviour would be seen as abhorrent, even to them. 

Fortunately, not all men want to treat women badly, but even when this is true, women often have further problems. Some men want to go from one extreme to the other.  Instead of being men who mistreat women, they want to be men abused by women. This was clearly true in the case of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch.

So if men who hurt women are a mystery to women, what are they to think of men who want women to be cruel to them? In the Femdom scene men ask, plead and even pay for women to dominate and humiliate them.  Again we can make sense of this if we go back to men’s competitive instincts. 

There are men who still instinctually desire to compete against women for dominance, but because they recognize that women are caring and loving people, they don't want to hurt them. It's the first step on the road to loving women. As far as they are concerned, there is only one other option -  it means that women have to abuse them.  In men’s competitive games there has to be a winner and a loser. It's very black and white thinking.  If a man cannot be a winner because he is not ruthless enough to compete with and dominate a woman, then the price he has to pay is to be a loser.  He is not macho enough to be a winner.  Given the choice, such men would prefer to be in a relationship where women mistreat them, than the other way around.

For most women this makes no sense at all. They see no problem with simply being equals in a relationship. They are used to co-operating instead of competing. But the competitive instinct is too strong in men, even when they are aware of it. It's what is normal for them.  Just as caring and supporting people is normal for women. In most situations men naturally compete to get their own way or to impose their views, even if it makes their partner or children miserable. It's a very powerful instinct and difficult to ignore.

In the wild, male animals can only co-exist by establishing a hierarchy of some kind.  When two males meet each other, they growl, threaten and even fight each other, until one male backs down.  This then makes him subordinate to the other male, and a pecking order is established.  Most male animals end up playing the subordinate role because there can only be one male leader in any group of animals and he will demand constant submission.

Men are not much different.  The whole of patriarchal society has been created by men as a hierarchal system, though the pecking order in human society is mostly established by who has the most money.  Men have to do this, because it's the only way they can co-operate without constant conflict. As with other animals, most men end up playing a subordinate role, because in all patriarchal societies there are far fewer Chiefs than Indians.

Men want the same system in their relationships with women.  They want one of them to be established as the boss for the relationship to work.  If this doesn’t happen, then the man becomes unhappy until the pecking order is sorted out. He needs to know whether he's in charge or not.

This constant jockeying for position can be a problem even in the Femdom scene. Women complain that Femdom men try to “top from the bottom”. They instruct women how they want to be dominated or abused, so they hang on to control that way. They still want to be in charge even though what they are ordering is that women whip them and abuse them.  As a result, if a woman doesn't keep making it clear that she is the boss, she can find herself simply acting out their fantasies, just like any other woman. 

This might be just another habit. Men who pay a dominatrix become used to telling her their fantasies and having them acted out.  Truly dominant women have to put them right about this and change the relationship from fantasy to reality.  This is why in femdom relationships, men have to frequently go through rituals like kissing the woman’s feet, to remind them of their subservient role.  Femdom men call this 'going into sub-space', which is the feeling they have when submitting to female authority.

A relationship where the woman is the boss solves most problems for women. She can make her male partner take his fair share of looking after the house and children.  She can decide to continue working and make her male partner leave his job to become a househusband.  This allows a woman to have both a career and children at the same time, if that's what she wants.

A truly dominant woman doesn’t have to involve herself in the femdom game of abusing her male partner.  We cannot assume that a woman is cruel and vicious just because she is dominant.  It’s perfectly possible for a bossy woman to be a compassionate and caring person.  Just because dominant men tend to be brutal and selfish, it doesn’t mean dominant women have to be the same.  It is women’s strong maternal instinct that makes it possible for women to be caring and loving leaders, who do not abuse their position.

For women, love is instinctive and natural, so much so, that it has been suggested women 'love too much'.  For this reason, women who try to participate in the competitive games men play in sport, business, politics or even war, are encouraged to suppress their loving feeling towards others and try and be as ruthless as men are.  Some women are able to do this, but not the majority. Because of their maternal instincts, female leaders feel they want to be a good mother to the people they rule, not a cruel tyrant.

Men are also capable of love, but their competitive instinct gets in the way.  It's not easy to love someone you are competing against, but it happens. Take boxing for example. Before a fight, the two boxers will insult each other to try to “psych each other out”.  Then they will fight and try to inflict as much damage as they can on each other. Afterwards, they will embrace and even show genuine love for each other.

The same is true in all competitive sports, where sportsmen demonstrate a degree of both love and hate for each other.  It is also true of businessmen or politicians. They use all sorts of dirty tricks to try to outsmart their business or political opponents, but are still able to socialise with each other.  It is even true of soldiers in war, who are trying to kill each other but then can show genuine love for their enemy when the fighting stops.  Unfortunately, it can also happen when men have relationships with women, much to the confusion of the woman. Women do not understand why men can be both loving and cruel in their relationship with others.

Men complain women are very mysterious and complicated.  What is ironic and not so well-known, is that women say the same thing about men, as we see with the Germaine Greer quote at the beginning of this article.  The big problem for women is that they are largely unaware that competitive men tend to love and worship winners and despise losers.  If a woman presents herself to a competitive male as a loser, not able to beat him, then the man will feel contempt for her.  When women try to appease an abusive man, all that happens is that they receive even more abuse. 

There is a saying that, “people can only love us to the degree we love ourselves”.  This is the lesson women have to learn in their relationships with men.  A woman who doesn’t love herself is a sitting duck in any relationship with a man.  She is far more likely to accept either verbal or physical mistreatment from men.  By doing this, she unwittingly encourages them to do it even more.  This is also true for mothers caring for children.  A mother who is too self-sacrificial can be taken for granted and even treated badly by her own children.

A woman with an abusive male partner can find herself in a vicious cycle. She accepts selfish and cruel behaviour, which undermines her self-confidence and causes her to hate herself.  The man picks up on her self-hate, thinks she is a loser or a masochist and assumes, “she is asking for it”. The abuse becomes even worse.

It seems that men can love and worship women who love themselves, but find it much harder with women who are less self-confident. One way out of this dilemma is for the man to train or encourage woman to love themselves, as sometimes happens in the Femdom world.  Even though women will find it a very crude way to do this.

In relationships between men and women, women can teach men how to love others, but only if they are able to love themselves and take the leadership role.  Likewise, a man can teach a woman to love herself, if he is able to love and respect women himself.  What seems to get in the way of this is popular culture.

Many women read romantic stories, in which the heroine is swept off her feet by an alpha male type.   This might be fine in fiction, but when acted out in real life it means the woman can find herself the victim of abuse.  We can see this clearly in romantic novels like, “Wuthering Heights” and “Fifty Shades Of Grey”.  In these stories, the heroes are cruel and sadistic men. The women who are their victims appear to enjoy being treated like objects for the pleasure of the man. It's a powerful message of the wrong kind.

Men are exposed to similar ideas in books and films, where the action/adventure heroes are mostly violent men.  These heroes become role models for many boys and men and the underlying message is reinforced - that all problems can be solved with force, violence and aggression. It becomes a disaster when men apply the same solutions to problems in their relationships with women or even their own children.

What is clear from all this, is that men need to learn how to love others, so they will not hurt and mistreat them. Women need to learn how to love themselves and reject ill-treatment from sadistic men.   This can only happen in a relationship where the woman becomes the dominant partner. Equality is something most men cannot deal with, because of their competitive instincts.  So the best way a woman can protect herself from abuse and violence in a relationship with a man and get him to love her, is to take on the leadership role. She needs to demonstrate that she is, at all times and all circumstances, a winner and the person in charge. That way the whole family will benefit, as the head of the family will be a loving and caring person.