Thursday, September 18, 2008

Do Men Have To Be Monsters?

In 1886 a book called the “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” written by Robert Louis Stevenson, was published. It became a instant best-seller and is now a seen as a great book. For those who have not read it: It is a story of a Dr Jekyll, (a decent and kind man) who invents a mind-altering drug, and when he takes it, he is turned to the monster Mr Hyde. The story is then about the fight between the two personalities for dominance. The popularity of this story is probably because it reminds us of a deep truth. That all men have the potential to be a Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde.

The Jesuit priests once boasted; “give us a child for the first seven years of their lives, and we have him for life”. In other words they were very successful in brainwashing children to believe in whatever they wanted them to believe. But this brainwashing of children doesn’t only effect Roman Catholics but every patriarchal religion and society in the world. And unfortunately the end result of this brainwashing has been to turn men into monsters.

Throughout recorded history men have constantly solved disputes between countries, religions and different political systems through warfare. As we can see in the cases of Crusader wars between Christians and Moslems, the many wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants, as well as the internal wars in Islam between Sunnis and Shiite Moslems that is fuelling the conflict in Iraq today. There has been also political wars, like that between communism and capitalism in the 20th century. War has also started for another reasons, like one ruler decided he wanted to loot and conquer other countries. As we can see in the case of Alexander the Great, Julius Cesar, Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler.

So why are men behaving like this? Why do men want to conquer other countries and kill other people? The scientific explanation is that men are driven by an ancient animal instinct.

It is natural and normal for most male animals to compete against each other. Every spring, male goats, rams, bulls, stags will bang heads together to see who is the strongest, and it is the biggest and strongest who gets to mate with the females. So we can see a powerful desire within all males to be the biggest, strongest and most of all, to be the winner. What is more, male animals become the winners through violence. For instance male hippopotamuses have been known to inflict horrendous wounds on each other, while bull elephants and lions have been known to kill each other.

Likewise, men have been known to kill each other fighting over a woman. This means that in his masculine mind, fighting and using violence is the ‘normal’ way to settle disputes. So that rival countries ruled by men, will have a desire to test each other out, to see who is the strongest, and they will ‘naturally’ do this through violence and warfare.

This has been taken to the extreme in the 20th century, in the First World War, (1914-18) 10 million people died or went missing. In the Second World War with the aerial bombardment of towns and cities, the civilian casualties was enormous, and about 52 million people were killed. These figures don’t include the millions of people maimed, as well as physically and mentally disabled, because of their experience in the war. Not to mention those who lost sons, husbands and other relations. These figures were boosted by the destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by nuclear bombs. Which in turn led to the cold-war between the USSR and NATO, where both sides produced and deployed enough nuclear weapons to destroy the whole of civilization many times over. This war became a real show of strength as both sides continued a arms and technology race to see who had the most deadly weapons. As the result the USSR was spending half of its gross domestic product on military spending while the USA has spent 19 Trillion dollars on the military since WW2. And for what? Why was it impossible for both sides to come together to see the stupidly of this war?

Simply because the male leaders from both sides were driven by their masculine instincts to compete and see who was the strongest. We are very fortunate that they managed to resist their instincts through the realization that if they had fought the war, they would of annihilated each other. The USA called there nuclear strategy M.A.D which stands for Mutual Assured Destruction, so they clearly realised the insanity of the situation. Yet in spite of this, the cold war continued for over 30 years with the whole world under threat of nuclear annihilation.

Both sides in all wars claim they have no choice but to go to war. Because if you are not prepared to arm yourself, then you are open to attack from countries who do have an army and military weapons. So even countries like Switzerland who managed to stay neutral during both the First and Second World War has a law, making it compulsory for young men do military training. And during the cold war, they built vast underground shelters for its population in case of nuclear attack.

This then means that if we cannot trust other countries not to build up military strength and use it to conquer other countries, then war is inevitable and will always be with us. Yet this is only true while men rule our world. While we have men in positions of power , they will want to compete with other countries using violence and warfare, because their competitive instincts push them in that direction.

Yet men’s competitive instincts are not the whole story. Yes, men like nothing more than compete with each other in a game, but it doesn’t have to end in violence.

After the Second World War the American military decided to interview all the returning troops to see if they could learn anything from their experiences. Most of these soldiers claimed; that in the war, they didn’t kill anyone and only fired over the heads of the enemy. It seems only a small minority admitted to killing anyone. Which is not exactly the sort of image we have of GI soldiers in Hollywood films.

The Japanese military had similar problems. Japan ranks with Southern Ireland and Switzerland as being one of the most non-violent and crime free countries in the world. Yet in the Second World War Japanese soldiers were even worse than German and Russian troops for brutality. So how did this happen?

It seems in the 1930s and 40s the Japanese military completely brutalised their troops. The new recruits were beaten up by older recruits at the beginning of their training. Then in the second year of training they were forced to do inflict violence the new intake. Later on many were made to kill prisoners of war, either as live dummies in bayonet practice or cutting off their heads. This total brutalisation made it possible for Japanese soldiers to kill without pity. Yet it is of interest that the Japanese military had to go this far into brutalisation to turn their troops into killers.

This is nothing new. In the First World War, when under attack, officers would walk in the trenches and threaten the men with a drawn sword, to make them shoot low. Because again, most of the men were firing above the heads of the enemy. In the American Civil War there was again the same problem, of trying to force the troops to shoot to kill.

In modern times this problem as been overcome by using behaviourist psychology, where soldiers are actually programmed to kill without thinking. The effect of this, is that soldiers today are more likely to kill, but it does them horrendous psychological damage. In the last fifty years, the suicide rate of soldier returning from wars in USA and Britain, who have fought the enemy, is greater than the men who died in action. This then begs the question; is war, violence and killing natural for men?

Not only are soldiers brutalised but this happens to whole societies. In Britain today there is the problem of ‘honour’ killings among the Asian community. It seems that if a Islamic girl was to disobey the wishes of her father or husband, then she is murdered by her own family. And to make it worse, in some cases the whole family like her mother and sisters are made to watch her being killed. So what is it; that allows a brother to murder his sister, a father to murder his daughter and a husband his wife? For daring to say, no. In our Western society this behaviour is seen as extremely barbaric, but in Islamic countries they are brought up to believe; ‘that a man must have honour’.

This behaviour is only possible because the whole of their society has been brutalised. In the West people in the past were brutalised in much the same way. This has been well documented in the books of Alice Miller in her books like; “For Your Own Good”, or “Thou Shalt Not Be Aware”. In these books she points out that up until the 20th century the beating and brutalising of children was ‘normal’.

Children up until the 20th century were basically brutalised in the Western world. It was normal for parents and school teachers to cane, birch and whip children. Favourite sayings then were, “spare the rod and spoil the child”, “children should be seen but not heard” and “if you see a child look guilty. Hit him. You may not know what it is for, but he does”. Children were brutalise even as babies. Male “experts” wrote; “that a crying baby was being wilful”, and mothers where encouraged not to pick up crying baby. They were also told that if a baby that cried too much, it was to be put in a room and the door locked, to let it cry itself to sleep. Then infants the moment they began to walk and talk they were subjected to physical punishment. (Boys in general were punished more severely than girls.) This was done not only to teach children discipline from a very early age. It was also done to make, “real men” out of boys. In other words by being brought up in a environment of violence, the boys naturally became violent themselves. They then make good soldiers and they are able to kill without pity and, “keep women in their place”. Which was also done through violence.

Then as the 20th century progressed, women became empowered and began to take control over the way their children were brought up. Female child experts and more moderate child male experts like Dr Spock began to write books on child care. These new child experts completely rejected the concept of beating children. The development continued to the point that today what was normal child-care in the 19th century, would be seen today as child abuse.

Children in the past were subjected to sexual abuse as well. That man who was the “whistle blower” was surprisingly a young Sigmund Freud. In the past men have got away with child sex abuse scot-free. Then in 1896 a young Sigmund Freud presented a paper entitled "The Aetiology of Hysteria". In this paper he said he had discovered that the neuroses suffered by his patients, stemmed from sexual assaults and violence they had suffered as young children. Most of these assaults coming from their own fathers, brothers or other male relations in "respectable middle class" homes. This paper went down like a lead balloon and his colleges put great pressure was put on him to suppress his paper. Which was singled out from all the other papers presented in Vienna in 1896 to not be published in psychoanalysis's Journal "Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift". Moreover no discussion of his work was allowed. In the end Freud caved in. To save his career Freud did suppress his paper and then came up later with other theories like "Penis envy" and the "Oedipus complex" to explain neuroses. Which hinted at child sex abuse, but never openly said it. These theories explained how the abused child felt and how it will effect them later. Unfortunately because these children were in reality were abused, but this fact was censored, this meant that the blame of the neuroses was put on the abused and not the abuser.

Now child sexual abuse is out in the open and not even Roman Catholic priests find they can get away with it. The result is that now children are being far less sexually and physically abused in the Western world. This lack of childhood abuse is causing men to be far less assertive. While women are becoming far more confident in themselves. So what is happening today was predicted back in the 19th century. When it was claimed that if you didn’t “harden” (brutalise) boys they will become wimps, and women will, “no longer know their place”.

This is why today Western soldiers need Behaviourist psychology to condition them to kill. But if brutality teaches men how to be violent, what effect does it have on women? Surprisingly except in a minority of cases, it doesn’t likewise teach women to be murders in the same way. This is because females are driven by their maternal instincts.

A powerful maternal instinct in mothers is needed for most animals to survive. All animals are at their most vulnerable when they are first born, so they need the presence of the mother to ensure they are protected, sheltered and fed. This is even more important in the case of the human being. A human baby is totally helpless when it is newly born, and can take up to 20 years before it is fully grown. So it means the maternal instinct in human mothers have to be very strong, to ensure human are protected, sheltered and fed as children. It is true also that men do have a maternal instinct in the same way women also have a competitive instinct. But the maternal instinct in women is far, far stronger. We can see this today when relationships break down, 99% of the time it is the woman who is left, “holding the baby”. As in most animals, the primary carer of children is the mother.

The maternal instinct makes women love their children unconditionally. This unconditional love in women is also extended to caring for old people, the sick and disabled, animals and husbands. In traditional patriarchal societies, husbands are encouraged to beat their wives and dominate them through violence. Yet in spite of the physical and verbal abuse women receive from men, women are still capable of loving them. Now, we should be congratulating women is being able to love others so deeply and unconditionally, that they are capable of loving an abuser. But patriarchy never gives women this credit. Women are condemned for being ‘weak’ or masochists. In fact up until the 1960s psychologists claimed that all women were masochists.

This powerful maternal instinct is the reason why women are far less likely to turn into monsters than men, when they are brutalised. If you brutalise a boy he quickly learns to hate, but if he is being abused by his father or school teacher he is too small to fight back. So patriarchy cleverly channels this hatred into other directions. Boys are taught how to hate the enemies of the government in power. So they are taught to hate the people of other races, countries and religions, which had fuelled violence conflicts all over the world.

Girls on he other hand are far less likely to learn to hate, if you brutalise them. They are still able to love their fathers and husbands even when abused by them. And they are far less likely to learn to hate the world they live in. Women like men, can be brainwashed by patriarchal propaganda, for instance, mother will teach daughters that they have to be submissive towards men. They will continue extremely barbaric practises like binding the feet of their daughters in China, (a practise now discontinued) or continue to practise genital mutilation on girls, which still happens in many Islamic countries today. Yet for most women, their ability to hate is limited. Unlikely men, few women get involved in violence, wars, murder, genocide and torture. There are always the exception to this, there has been female soldiers, murders and even pirates and torturers, but they are a very small minority.

The attitude of most women to the world of hatred and conflict created by patriarchy can be seen in the story of Edith Cavell. She was a English nurse working in Brussels, at the start of the First World War. When the Germans invaded Belgian she stayed on not wanting to leave her patients. She then got involved in smuggling, Allied prisoners of war out of Belgian and back to the Allied lines. But was finally betrayed by one of them, who told the Germans. She was then tried and executed by the Germans but her final farewell message became world famous. She was to write.-

Standing as I do in view of God and eternity I realize that patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone.

This sums up the attitudes of women completely, of still being able to love those who hurt and betray them. The paradox of her last message is that it was used as a propaganda tool by the British to whip up even more hatred against the Germans, which is the opposite to the sentiment of the message.

So both brutalisation and patriarchal propaganda doesn’t change completely the basic nature of women. This is not true for men. Brutalisation and indoctrinations of hate, can change a man’s nature completely and turn him into a monster. This is why prison doesn’t work with men. Putting people into prison has been the way patriarchy has dealt with criminals. Yet, this method doesn’t work, because crime is still a problem in every country of the world. Punishing people for crimes is very much about revenge, as is the patriarchal solution to crime. As many sociologists have pointed out prison is the “university of crime” criminals mix with other criminals and learn from each other the best way to steal, rob and cheat. Then when they leave prison they have very little chance of getting a decent job because they have a ‘prison record’. So they have the choice of living of unemployment benefit or going back to crime. In counties where prisoners are brutally punished or executed, we don’t see any reduction in crime. Violence it seems, is not the best way to teach men to be non-violent.

There is a matriarchal method that is far better.

Elizabeth Fry (1780-1845) came from a wealthy Quaker family, and enjoyed the benefits of a very academic education which was unusual for women of those days. In 1812 she began to take a interest in the plight of prisoners and visited London's Newgate prison for women, and was appalled at what she saw there. Prisoners were crowded into a single cells where they had to eat, sleep, defecate. Typically a woman's children would accompany her to prison, where they lived in destitute poverty. Obtaining clothes, alcohol, even food by begging or stealing. To tolerate this hell many prisoners only begged for alcohol and sat around in a drunken stupor stark naked.

Other prisoners who were unable to beg or cared for by families or charities simply starved to death. Children often remained in the prison until their mothers died or were executed. They would also cling to their mothers and watched as they were led to the gallows and hung.

The attitude at the time that prisons were places of punishment and that the inmate were evil, so this perfectly justified this appalling treatment. Elizabeth Fry didn’t see it like this and set about using all the influence of her position of wealth and privilege gave her.

She started by providing basic food, clothing and medicine for the prisoners. She then turned to education, ministering to the prisoners and establishing a small school. Recognising that occupation was essential to self-esteem and dignity, she convinced the wardens that the school should be run by the prisoners themselves. She also provided materials allowing the women to sew, knit and make goods for sale, in order to buy food, clothing and fresh straw for bedding. In 1817 she enlisted the help of ten friends to form the Ladies' Association for the Reformation of the Female Prisoners in Newgate.

Somehow her work did prick the conscience of the nation. She soon found herself in the role of a prisoner adviser and was invited to other prisons to advice on measures for improvements. She was also asked to give evidence on prison reform before a Committee of the house of Commons, in which she advocated compassionate treatment of prisoners. It says something for her personality that in a age when women were suppose to keep quiet, her views and opinions were listened to and some of them, became in time, encoded in the laws of England.

She was even invited to Ireland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Prussia to give advice to prison officials and reformers in these countries. Her work planted the seeds that prisons are place for reforming and not punishment.

Her ideas were tried out by a prisoner governor called Alexander Maconochie on Norfolk island in 1840-44. Norfolk island which was half-way between Australia and New Zealand was in many ways the British version of the more infamous French, Devil’s island. Where the prisoners were kept in harsh and degrading conditions to punish them for their crimes. Maconochie instead bravely tried reforming prisoners instead of punishing them. He set out a regime of rewarding prisoners for good behaviour, rather than punishing them.

After receiving contradictory stories about his reforms the authorities sent out a commission. His report was very favourable but Maconochie was still dismissed by a new Colonial Secretary. Yet his success can be measured by the fact that of 920 prisoners he released only 20 were re-convicted.

Back in Britain he was to obtain support from many people including Charles Dickens and became a very controversial figure. Because then people believe in a evil criminal class, the idea that criminals can be reformed undermines the concept of evil and the justification of punishment. Also it makes people also ask questions like, “why are people criminals”. If we ask questions like this, then we have to look at the unfair hierarchical system that gives some people great wealth, power and privilege and others only poverty and brutality. Because the overwhelming numbers of criminals come for the poor and unprivileged sections of society. So it is not surprising that most, “good” people come from the upper and middle classes and most “bad” people come from the working classes. (The word villain come from the middle ages and originally meant villager. So this word gives a insight about what the upper classes then felt about the common people).

This then is adding insult to injury. Not only do he rich and powerful keep the vast majority of wealth and power in their own hands. On top of this, they condemn the poor as being bad and evil, while they of coarse are good people.

Punishment and vengeance are the masculine solutions to problems. That is to say you overcome violence with violence. In other words, “two wrongs make a right”. In this situation the person with the biggest stick wins. Yet violence has another side to it in that it ensures that men have dominance over women.

This then is the attraction of prison and punishment. Yes, it doesn’t solve the problems of crime but crime and criminals ensure that the macho culture survives in society. In many ways the violent criminal is the ultimate ‘macho man’. The majority of films, comics, books and, more recently video-games aimed at young men greatly glamorised men of violence. The films of John Wayne, Clint Eastward, Sean Connery, Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Show men who solve all problems by extreme violence. Which indoctrinates young men watching these films that violence is all right and encourages them to emulate the ‘hero’ they see on film. As most of these films are made in USA it is not surprising that USA is one of the most violent societies in the Western world.

So we can see clearly how you turn men into monsters. You brutalise them from a very early age and teach them to hate. The advantages of this they are able to dominate women through violence and fight in wars. Also every dictator know that the only way he can rule is to have a army of brutal young men who will kill and torture the population without mercy. This is how dictators keep in power, if their army was to refuse to fire on crowds that demonstrated against them, then their power would quickly disappear.

Consequently, if we know how to turn men into monsters, how do we ensure that this doesn’t happen? We can from this device a list of what not to do.-

1. Do not beat up boys and men and use violence against them.
2. Do not teach them to hate.
3. Do not put men into prison
4. Do not glamorous war and men of violence
5. Do not give boys and young men violence films or video games
6. Do not teach men how to kill using clever Behaviourist psychology
7. Do not teach boys and men to abuse and rape women

So if we were to stop doing all these things would men become caring and loving human beings. This will work for some men but perhaps not for all. Men do not have such a powerful maternal instinct as what women have. So it is not automatic for men to be loving and caring of others, this is something many men have to learn. So the lessons men have to learn are.

1. To learn to respect and obey women
2. To learn to understand and respect the Feminine.
3. To learn how to love others
4. To learn how to care for others and put their needs before your own
5. To learn empathy, to experience both the joy and pain of other people.

The next problem is that how do we make this happen? how can we prevent patriarchy turning men into monsters? For this to happen; women need more power in our society. It was through the rise of feminism that far fewer boys are being brutalised by their parents. As feminist mothers have had to confidence and power to bring up their children the way they want to do it. Yet we still live in societies full of violent men, who will still rape, assault and murder women. So the job has only been half done and for men to be fully tamed, requires women to have greater power and influence in our world.

Feminist minded women can today ensure that their children at home are not brutalised. But she cannot protect them at school or in the street being brutalised by bullies. She will find it hard to prevent them being brainwashed by what they see on TV, films, video games. As patriarchy still uses the media to push out it’s message. What most people do not realise is that these ‘tough guy’ films of macho heroes who solve all problems by violence is basically patriarchal propaganda. This also comes through magazines and newspapers. A journalist once remarked; “a good newspaper story, leaves the reader hating someone or something after they have read it”. In other words; patriarchy is still doing its best to teach our young men how to hate. This is why it is so important that women take over not only the government, but also all media outlets, if they want to prevent men being brainwashed into becoming monsters by patriarchy.

The reform of men is not only the responsibility of women but men have this desire as well. Many men do not want to become monsters and neither do they want their sons to become like this. Although men haven’t played a active part in the Suffragette and Feminist movements, it was totally male Legislative Chambers that passed laws to give women the vote at the beginning of the 20th century. It was also male dominated governments that also passed sexual anti-discrimination laws in the 1960s and 70s.

It was also men who resisted patriarchal brainwashing, As they stopped beating their wives and children giving women confidence in themselves, opened schools to allow women to be educated and even allowed women to take on ‘men’s’ jobs and earn their own money. It is true that the brave women who first became educated and started careers received great opposition from many other men, but these women could not of got started, if some unknown men in positions of authority, gave them support.

There is something curious about the psychology of men. Men have shown very little interest in Feminism, which is about sexual equality. But they show a lot of interest in Femdom and Matriarchy which is about Female Dominance.

Because men see life in terms of a game of winners and losers the idea of equality in totally alien to him. This is very true in his relationship to women. Women who are physically and verbally abused by men, try to appease their tormenters, but are instead treated with contempt. This is because in the eyes of men, submissive women are losers and the masculine instinct is to despise losers.

This is why feminism along with socialism and communism has never caught on with men. Men were completely unable to make communism work because it was about equality. Men might secretly admire feminist women who demand equal rights, because at least they are standing up for themselves, but he has no interest in the concept of sexual equality. Men are only able to respect women if they demonstrate they are winners. But there feelings about female winners, go to the extreme and they tend to want to worship such women.

There is a natural tendency for men to put women on a pedestals and worship them, but this behaviour wasn’t allowed in patriarchal societies. Men were encouraged to look down on women and see women as losers. Now in Western countries with these patriarchal customs being eroded and undermined, many men now no longer see women as losers, but to the masculine mind if they are not losers they have to be winners, and men worship and adore winners.

Women who are assertive and will speak up for themselves find that men will react to them in three different ways. Some men will play the masculine game of competing with them to; “put them in their place”. If that fails, then men will either keep well away from women like this, or they will begin to worship them.

We can see how powerful are the emotions when men worship other men as winners. We can see this in the adoration kings and emperors received, and even brutal dictators like Hitler and Stalin, have also been worshipped by the people. The same is true on the sporting world, where great champions are likewise worshipped as well. Yet this worship can be even stronger when men worship women as winners, because is it mixed with another powerful instinct; and that is sexual attraction.

This might explain the behaviour of men within the FemDom scene. This is where men will go to a dominatrix and pay her to whip, torture and humiliate him. Or he will encourage his wife or girlfriend to do the same thing. Even hundreds of years ago in the rigid patriarchal society, some men have paid prostitutes to dominate them and to allow themselves to be worshipped by their clients. The word masochism come from a man called Von Sacher-Masoch who wrote books in the 19th century like the famous "Venus In Furs" about men being dominated and humiliated by women.

In recent years the FemDom scene has been growing in leaps and bounds. In the nineteen fifties many prostitutes were surprised to find clients who were not demanding sex at all and were willing to pay for the privilege of doing their housework for them. Then other clients were asking to be whipped by prostitutes and to be allowed to worship them. At the same time many were encouraged to dress up in macho black leather, rubber and P.V.C and so the modern Dominatrix came into being. The interesting point about this is that it is men who demanded and paid for women to behave like this.

In our present society a women can only dominate a man with the man's consent. Because a man is mostly bigger and stronger than a woman, this is also true in cases where a women uses physical violence on a man, because even if the women is into body-building or karate, a man is still free to walk out of the relationship. So again it is men who are helping and encouraging women to dominate them. If a man refuses to hit back against a violent woman or stays in a violent relationship, he is in effect communicating to the woman he still loves her in spite of how she is treating him. Which is a great boost to the woman's ego and encourages her to continue to abuse him.

So what is going on? Why would men encourage women to be dominant or violent towards him? We have to look at the symbolism of FemDom. The archetypical Dominatrix is dressed up in black-leather or PVC, (though in reality this is not always the case). Now black leather is a very macho form of dress, the sort of things that Hell’s Angels also wear. The whip is also a powerful symbol of dominance, as it is the sort of thing slave-owners use on slaves. So again, it is masculine power where dominance is achieved through violence. Some men ask the dominatrix to wear a strap-on dildo and use it on them. Now in some species of monkeys when two males confront or fight each other for dominance, the loser will show his submission by turning his back on the winner and allow him to mount him. So it is again a very masculine symbol of submission. Some men will ask the Dominantrix to verbally abuse him or even go on sex-lines to be abused by a woman. Again this is a very masculine way of dominance and men have been using it on women, children and other men to undermine their confidence in themselves. Sportsmen do this to each other all the time for the same reason and even male ‘friends’ do it to each other. Although men can be friends with each other, the instinct to compete with each other is still strong, that derogatory remarks and put-downs have become part of masculine humour.

There are many other symbols of submission men use like being dressed up as a baby or feminine women, or kissing the feet or bottom of the dominatrix etc. All these types of kinks are all symbols of masculine submission. So it is not surprising to learn that the whole FemDom scene is mostly dominated by men. It is mostly men who set the agenda and tell the female Dominas what to do.

Many men in FemDom are living a lie, in 'topping from the bottom' they are dominating without realising it. The problem for them is that; how long can you keep on fooling yourself? Many can keep on fooling themselves if no-one is pointing this out. The saying "topping from the bottom" comes from the FemDom scene, and many Dominas in the scene, are very aware of this problem. To men it is very helpful, that he goes to a Domina, and she points out to him what he is doing.

There are a lot of men who do far prefer FemDom or Matriarchy as a fantasy. But if these Femdom fantasies have a grip on you, then there is a limited time you can resist them.

Some Dominas have complained that some of these so-called submissive men are worse than ordinary patriarchal men, in their demands on women. The reason for this is, because of the resistance they are putting up. They have a powerful desire to surrender to women, but do not want to give into it. So in their resistance then end up behaving worse than patriarchal men. But over time they will finally they have to give in, and except genuine Female Authority.

So, the unconscious message coming from these men is a powerful desire for women to dominate them. Unfortunately because of thousands of years of brutality and patriarchal propaganda, women no longer have the confidence or knowledge of how to dominate men. During the patriarchal age apart from a few women like Elizabeth 1 of England and Catherine The Great of Russia there has been so few dominant women in positions of power. So men are forced to take the lead in this, and they interpret their need to submit to women in masculine terms. This means as a general rule they at first get it wrong completely, as do many women. During the 1980s we had Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minster of Britain, but one of the criticism of her was that she didn’t behave like a woman. The way she used power was very masculine, and we never got from her, the nurturing and caring side of women.

Yet by following their desires men and women do learn how to the true meaning of female authority. They can get there in stages.-

Stage One

A very patriarchal minded man finds he has deviant and kinky desires for Dominant Women. So he either goes to a Dominatrix or persuades his girl friend or wife to act out this role. At this stage, he is firmly in charge he will tell his partner or Dominatrix what his kinks are and she will act them out for him. For him, he is only satisfying his selfish desires and the Women is accommodating him.

Stage Two

He will at first be able to separate his kinky desire from his ‘ordinary’ life. So he can go to a Dominatrix to worship or be humiliated by her and then go back to his submissive wife and treat her like a ordinary patriarchal wife. Or if it is his partner he plays these kinky games with, she is only playing a role, but it is he who is still in charge. While the rest of the time they are a ‘normal’ couple.

But, being whipped or caned by a women, being on the receiving end of a strap-on, being verbally abused, worshipping a woman by kissing her feet or bottom, is going to effect him on the unconscious level.

Some men after awhile will want to take it all to the extreme and want to be really tortured and hurt by the Domina, or even want to eat her shit. Yet no matter how far he goes down this route he finds he is still not satisfied, because extremes like this are a dead-end. So what he begins to find is that his desire begin to leak outside of the kinky sessions into his ‘normal’ life.

He may find going to a Dominatrix whom he tells what to do, no longer satisfying and wants one who tells him what to do. He may find he has a desire for his wife to be more dominant and may consciously or unconsciously encourage her to be more like this in her ‘normal’ life. So he will find, he want her to dominate him outside of their sessions.

Stage Three

By being worshipped by the man and told; “you are in charge”, effects the women on the unconscious level as well. The result is, she begin to take charge of the sessions and begins to tell the man what she prefers. For instance; the man might want to be whipped or caned but she may not get any enjoyment from this, and decide they will do something else instead. Like him practising cunnilingus on her but denying him orgasm. So she find she can start to change things for her benefit and he will comply.

Stage Four

Femdom from a masculine point of view, is just about dominance and submission or sadism and masochism but when the Women take control, she finds she wants to introduce love into this mix. Submission to her is about the desire to give love to another, while dominance is about receiving love. She will also be very interested in the psychologically of the submissive man, and want to know how he feels. So she will introduce him to the idea that he wants to worship and serve her, because he loves her more than himself.

So now, the balance of power is changing and the Women is now taking control, as the fantasy is now changing into a reality.

Stage Five

At stage one the Woman was learning from the man. Now it is the opposite, and the man is now learning from the Women. He begins to learn from her; the Feminine point of view, of the joy of caring and loving others, of devoting your life to make another happy, and empathizing with them. So that their happiness becomes his happiness. Though he may also learn the hard lessons of empathizing with those who are unhappy and learn how to do his best to bring happiness to them.

The Women is now becoming more confidence in her Feminine nature as she sees her man is now far more happier learning from her how to love. She is also now learning how to love herself through the worship and devotion of the man.

Through these stages both Women and men learn how much better life is, if Women are in charge and how much better our world would be if Women ruled the world.

Off coarse not all men follow these five stages. Some men learn love through their children. Many wife’s today make their husbands watch the birth of their children and take part in caring for the child from a very early age. This teaches men to bond with their own children and learn how to care for them. Also, now that women have more power, influence and confidence in themselves mother’s are bringing up children in the way they want to. So from a early age many boys are learning from their mothers to respect women and are taught how to love and care for others.

This then means that men do have a choice: They have learnt they can dominate women through violence, but they pay a high price for this. Because in a totally male dominated world, like you still find today in many Moslem countries, men are dominated in the same way, through violence by other men. In fact, the only people who seem to benefit from male dominated rule is a handful a alpha men.

We can learn a lot about the behaviour of men through the study of dogs. It is recognized that if you want have a happy relationship with a dog in your house it is important to train it. A untrained dog can wee and poo in your house, it can get very aggressive with you, or with visitors coming to the house. It might steal food from your table and can make itself a nuance with other people when you take it for a walk. But if you train it properly from a early age; it will become the most loyal, devoted and obedient animal you can possibly have. Or you can also train it to be a killer. By savagely beating dogs, you can teach it to be very vicious and even teach it to kill other dogs or people. So the behaviour of dogs can vary tremendously by the way you choose to treat it. The same is true for men.

This means that all men have the potential to be a Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde. If you brutalise him teach him to hate others and despise women, then he becomes a monster like Mr Hyde. But if he is taught to respect women and learn how to love and care for others he can be turned into a Dr Jekyll.