Saturday, June 24, 2017

Wonder Woman: Not Just a Fantasy

The recent movie Wonder Woman was a great example of the collective unconscious acknowledgement of women's power and potential public dominance of men. There are so many cultural instances where fascination with women who dominate men manifests through one individual or another, and this seems to be the latest one.

I love coming across such instances buried in history, seemingly detached from all surrounding cultural activity. They betray the existence of others like us, scattered throughout cultural (and world) history, like evidence of the universal nature of our sexual orientation.  Some of my favorites include:

  • 1924 A Guide to the Correction of Young Gentleman & The Governess Compendium, by Jacqueline Ophir and the Alice Kerr Sutherland Society
  • 1950’s German Women Wrestlers
  • Red Sonja comic book from the 1970’s
  • Grace Jones
  • and of course, the original narrative of Wonder Woman 

Of course, you will notice that there isn't much cultural resistance to these expressions of support for FemDom and Matriarchy, as long as they are relegated to the realm of entertainment and personal fantasy. 

However, this tolerance of public support for Matriarchy stops just shy of the realm of politics, which is riddled with double standards designed to impoverish women. This means that though the fantasy is to have women in power over society, the reality is a society where women are blocked from the funds that would otherwise enable them to rule over their male counterparts.

For example, men's Viagra is covered by insurance, however women's birth control (including non-abortive) is not. Men, you do realize that women pay for that birth control - right? There is, in fact, no birth control Fairy.

Yet another example- the Equal Rights Amendment, the amendment that would help ensure equal pay for equal work between women and men and protect women from income-harming sexual discrimination, has still not been added to the Constitution, though it is now seventeen years past the turn of the last millennium. 

Add to this the impact of our collective extra social demands on women - the regular purchase of makeup and beauty treatments to avoid professional criticism; the strange fact that women’s clothes (of any kind) are priced at two or three times the cost of men’s clothes; the money and social prestige women lose because of the time they are expected to invest in childcare and household chores compared to the men of the house - and you have a reality where women are being paid less than men while also paying more than men do to remain employable and be included in the same economy. 

No wonder why so many of our women remain financially “dependent” on men, while our men undervalue them. Our judicial system crafts a world where women are not ensured reliable pay, professional opportunity, (including professional athletic opportunity, if Title IV is eliminated ), or reliable bodily protection outside of servitude to men, which usually takes the form of conformity to men’s extra and costly social expectations.

We often discuss symptoms of social sexism on this blog, specifically the lack of respect women deal with from their male peers, and how women can deal with this attitude of male-favoritism in their men most effectively. But there are things that would make it a lot easier for women to deal with men's issues effectively. Female solidarity, for example, would make disciplining the men in our lives much less work for us. So would eliminating one of the primary factors contributing to social attitudes of male-favoritism in the first place: political male-favoritism.

Our current set of judicial regulations protect the financial independence of men from pay discrimination while also giving men a large degree of impunity from the consequences of breaking the law, whether that be sexual assault (EG: Bill Cosby), or underpaying female employees. Those same judicial regulations deny the protection of women’s financial independence by allowing plenty of opportunity for employers to get away with underpaying professional women while also burdening women with disproportionate healthcare costs for sexual health. In fact, there are no legal consequences for businesses who overcharge women for the same services they provide men. Next time you think about getting a haircut, look up the relative cost of a haircut for the opposite gender and take note of the significant discrepancy in cost, to the detriment of female customers.

Regardless of what vapid political puppet is elected as president, if men see our judicial system repeatedly choosing to empower men in society at the expense of our women, they will emulate the behavior of those providing them with such power. Sure, they may be unloved by all the women in their life and have to pay through the nose just to bribe someone into being their "girlfriend". But at the end of the day it is money that does the talking for them. According to our analysis of political Matriarchies up to this point in time, it is the financial independence of women from men that enables Matriarchal societies to develop in the first place. In the same way, it is our current set of legal regulations, or the lack thereof, that create the patriarchy we now live in.

If you want a Matriarchy, study how Matriarchies are formed, and then try to recreate the circumstances that formed them in the past. According to the analysis of matriarchies we've done so far, it all stems from the financial independence of women. How can we make that a reality? By using our individual position in life to reverse the situations that are impoverishing women in our society. Political action, pressuring Congress, educating your peers, reducing the price of women’s clothing (and subsidizing it with the sale of men’s clothing) - all of these are viable and effective actions you can take on our journey to the realization of a Woman-led society.

Patriarchal societies develop, in large part, from circumstances that require women to sacrifice their collective female solidarity for the survival of others. Once that solidarity is sacrificed, can it be regained? I believe it can, but it will take a similar sacrifice from men to do so.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Real World Domming: Personal Experiences

I recently started a new job despite a few reservations I felt regarding the boss. Once I began the job, my worst fears were confirmed. He was, frankly, a bully. A control freak, macho, a braggart, unbearably patronizing, and often taking pleasure in sadistically mocking others - he behaved this way towards everyone in the office and eventually towards me as well. At moments he would admire something I did, but soon afterwards he would return to this dark alter ego. I knew that I, and most others working there, were performing stellar work; however, part of his control dynamic was to always find something wrong with people's work and to reject the first draft of any job, by principle. He was the stereotype of the boss who scares everyone into overworking themselves to death and then brags about it. Nevertheless, he himself was notoriously disorganized, impulsive, easily distracted, terrible with communication management, and unreasonably close-minded on certain things. In other words, macho, entitled, and hypocritical.

I dealt with his bursts of temper and punitive psychological abuse like a rock, truly unimpressed and unintimidated, patiently holding my tongue and waiting to get back on track with the actual business at hand. I truly had no time for theatrical monologues and implied threats. Since he was in his 70’s I didn't take his unpleasant behavior personally since I figured he was from another era as well as possibly senile. When he mocked me I would stand up for myself while keeping my disagreements with him “light and bright” so as not to undermine my employment with him.

However, the day came when I had to get more confrontational. He had scheduled a meeting between me and a new client, and in his typical terrible-communication-management fashion he gave a 20 year old guy, with no professional experience in my field, the job of prepping me for the meeting. Of course, the 20 year old was not prepared to provide me with relevant information such as the client’s business name, the purpose of the meeting, who would be attending the meeting, and other useful information like that.

I knew my boss would be unreasonably close-minded about me bypassing the 20 year old to get the information I needed directly from him, thwarting his chosen communication-management strategy and interrupting his morning meeting schedule. Yet there was no way I was going into a meeting blind and having my professional reputation suffer for the sake of his eccentric whims. Like hell.

I had had it and didn’t care at this point about getting fired. This guy was steering his business into a ditch, so I was going to have to manage it for him.

I came into his office without warning, in between meetings. I sat down and got right down to it. “So, Dan, I’m really excited about the meeting we’re having this morning. What’s the name of their business?”. He stared sternly at me, “ Well, they don’t really have a name yet”. I continued, “What’s the purpose of the meeting?”. At this point he protested, “You were supposed to talk with (the 20 year old) about this. Did you talk with -“. I interrupted him and over spoke him, “I ALREADY spoke with (the 20 year old). WHAT IS THE PURPOSE of the meeting?” I get icy in a controlled way when I’m angry and it tends to unnerve people. He was shaken but hid it well, and started answering my questions… respectfully.  And I got the information I wanted.

After that encounter, something had changed. He treated me like we were in collaboration with each other. He admired my psychological prowess with clients. In private, one day, he fondly reminisced about his mother, how she used to run the family business and how her temper used to terrify people.

One morning soon after, he greeted me and asked what I was working on for the day. I told him I was printing out sample booklets (for one of the clients) and (hand) binding them in the workroom. He joked, “You're practicing bondage with the binding machine in the workroom?” I quipped, “No, I'm already adept at that.” Either he hadn’t quite heard me or he couldn’t believe what he had heard, and asked, “What?” When I verified my response for him, he literally chuckled like an excited boy and happily joked, “In that case I'll leave my door open”. He has treated me with respect and quiet interest ever since. No more mocking and pointless criticisms. Now he appreciates my first drafts and recruits my input. How did I get from "outsider" to "insider" with this guy? Patience, consistent displays of psychological independence, and selective displays of aggression.

I learned a while back that dealing with bullies works in the opposite way one expects. When male customers would try to yell and intimidate me across a desk or over the phone, I found that I could change the dynamic by playing "bad cop" and out-intimidating them. They would grow quiet and become pacified, even mystified. They would seem to go into sub space, accepting that I was the alpha dog and that it would be a cold day in hell before they were going to get what they wanted from me by coming out-the-gate swinging. Acting like a drill sergeant in those situations served the purpose of chastising their attitude while addressing their concerns and getting the issue resolved. 

It's rare that I have to use that tactic these days, as I limit my exposure to such people; but when I encounter people who use intimidation to try and control others I find this is the only way to redirect their compulsion and bring them into submission.

What does this story demonstrate? A number of things, I guess. It demonstrates that sometimes macho bullying behavior is a mask and a symptom of an underlying desire to be topped by a woman. It demonstrates that people with a bullying worldview often only understand love and reliability when it comes in the form of domination. It also demonstrates the wonders of taking the upper hand and turning the tables when it comes to bullies. Exerting intimidation techniques back in response to the male bully speaks to him in his own language and has the power to pacify him when executed selectively and in a justified fashion.

For the women out there, what I have found in dealing with men is this: under most men's machismo is the desire for a woman to take the upper hand with them. Some men, however, are so in denial about this and so broken from lack of a strong maternal figure that they are simply too contrarian to be worked with. The way to tell the difference is to flex your will, ever so slightly, when they try to push their will on you, so that you get them to bend; then increase that dominance more profoundly at times when their willfulness is simply too much to bear to emphasize that you are ultimately in control due to their dependence on you and that you can take that control over them at any time you wish (and believe it is necessary). See if he encourages your Dom nature by setting up situations for you to assert yourself in, or if he just acts afraid and avoids you. Either situation is an improvement.

For the men out there who enjoy provoking me and other women, keep this in mind: flaunting your spite only comes across as a desperate plea for someone to Dom you; also, just because you’re begging for it doesn't mean we're going to give it to you. If you're consistently unlikeable and unbending, we're just going to block you from our life. We women simply have too many actual admirers to waste time responding to your testing behavior. You have to earn our attention by displaying vulnerability in response to our direction and will, coupled with ongoing acquiescence. Without that, you just come across as a whiney, needy child. The true sub man will suffer a woman's reprimand with grace, then offer to cook her dinner in exchange for working her up.

There is something to be said for cutting male bravado down to size, which is - It needs to be done, it’s fun to do, and once you get the hang of it relationships with men of all kinds seem to improve.

Thursday, February 2, 2017

The Matriarchy Strikes Back

Hey Everyone- I'm back, and have been charged up ever since the Women's March in December. Nothing pleases me more than a worldwide Matriarchal protest that also happens to be the largest national one-day protest in US history to date.

I know these are discouraging times, but this show of solidarity was not in vain. As a direct result of the March, multiple bills and initial administration plans have been reversed over the last few weeks. Most importantly, people across the country are politically and socially engaged more than ever.

However, there is something larger than the current US Presidency happening right now. See, any hope in hell that anyone had regarding the feasibility of Patriarchy is quickly disappearing, leaving everyone to consider what government would look like if the women who showed up at the March ran it.

In fact, many people are confused as to what the Women’s March was all about, since many media sources have reduced this protest to an “anti-Trump” march in an effort to narrow down the message. Meanwhile, those who watched the March itself noticed protester signs which connected a string of apparently related causes, specifically: Women’s Rights, Black Lives Matter, Immigrants Rights, the reality of Climate Change, and that Trump is the antithesis of all of these community and family values.

Interestingly enough, what the Media did NOT report on was the large number of protesters whose signs protested Patriarchy and “toxic masculinity”, as well as the number of signs calling for the establishment of a Matriarchy or expressing Female superiority. Mine was one, of course. In fact, my sign read, “If over 50% of your population is being ignored, then Patriarchy has Failed. Women = Priority. Try a Matriarchy”. It seems a number of people were in agreement with its message, because quite a few actually stopped to take pictures of it, while simultaneously nodding, throughout the March.

I would say that out of all the signs I saw during the 5 hour long, 400,000+ sized NYC Women’s March, approximately one out of every 30 signs tapped into this theme; given the number of signs at the March, this means quite a few of them. This is indicative of a growing zeitgeist.

Which brings me to my next point. The Women’s March didn’t lack focus, and the focus was not Trump. Trump was just a catalyst- just a reminder - of the problem. The common denominator of all issues represented at the March is the underlying structure undergirding all these infringements on human rights. It was not iterated by the Media, nor by most women, because to do so involves iterating the pair of words that are apparently on just about everyone’s mind at this point in time but which might seem too impolitely polarizing to say. This is about Patriarchy vs. Matriarchy.

The march was actually defined by it’s three organizers as not being an anti-Trump march but rather “This is pro-women. This is a continuation of a struggle women have been dealing with for a very long time. " Another organizer said, “It’s about the systemic inequalities highlighted by his rise to power. I like to think about these actions – these marches – as anti-hatred, anti-bigotry and anti-misogyny.” For some reason, men in the media seem to have a difficult time understanding what these women mean, so let me break this down very simply:

“We women all oppose corporate-elitist government decisions. Stop blowing us off. Don’t defy what we want further, like you did by electing Trump, or you won’t ever have sex with a ‘pussy’ again.”

The majority of women in this country oppose corporate-elitist values despite the choices of our government servants; specifically, these women oppose every national policy that places the welfare of a very few over that of the masses. Women have been expressing what they want for policy choices through movements like Feminism, Planned Parenthood, Black Lives Matter, environmental organizations, organizations supportive of immigrants, and similar movements. In response, the male-dominated political machine has been systematically blowing off this political input from women up until now, expressing the ultimate opposition to these values by voting for a quintessential “elitist” for president. Women were simply saying that all of these policy issues are connected by “systematic inequalit(y)”, as well as by being in opposition to what most women want, so they showed their numbers and exposed the blowing-off all of these seemingly separate “issues” as part of the ongoing expression of male-favoritism and female-discrimination our country has become accustomed to.

The limitations of Patriarchy as the socio-political system defining our country’s government and history have been obvious to many citizens for awhile, but they are especially noticeable whenever Patriarchy’s foundational belief in male privilege and elitism intersect with, and are used as justification for, other types of political and social inequities and atrocities, as were protested at the Women’s March. Historically speaking, the problem of Patriarchy has come to light primarily when women take leadership roles in various human-rights movements, then find that their work is sabotaged and their voices ignored by men in their own movement due to the deep intersection of patriarchy with every other form of human exploitation in many cultures. However, the failure of Patriarchy is now becoming widely evident to the American public as they have watched someone who is a product of all these privileges - Trump - secure the highest political position in the country, regardless of the majority’s disillusionment with the influence of corporate-elitist values on social behavior and the economy. And those who initially voted for Trump are slowly changing their minds with each passing day of his administration as they see what the ultimate Patriarchy really looks like.

What you’re watching on the news, in social culture, and in entertainment culture is the slow death of Patriarchy and its corporate-elitist values. Slowly, female solidarity is rising up with its community-based values to take its place, and this is essentially the foundation of matriarchal rule.

So why are women shy about boiling this down to the belief that a Matriarchy would be more successful morally, socially and politically than a Patriarchy? Well, confidence in such beliefs come with time and testing, this March being a test of sorts for women in exercising female leadership. And that went well, so their confidence in their own female-led initiatives has increased, no doubt. I’m sure they will need additional testing of the waters, though, before becoming emboldened Amazons. Additionally, our culture has come to associate social and political “dominance” with elitism, as if elitism is the only way to achieve social dominance, as well as the only reason for it. This is not necessarily the case, as many relationship models demonstrate: parent-child relationships, nurse-patient relationships, teacher-student relationships. Domination can be motivated by altruism, with an end result of unity achieved through equality of welfare. Matriarchies, historical and current, demonstrate this kind of “domination” and succeed at creating non-violent, inclusive, diplomatic and productive societies, featuring - I would argue - just as much if not more great sex between women and men than patriarchies do. They are therefore educational for envisioning and creating a new socio-political structure. I think all Feminists, Womanists, and proponents of worldwide Matriarchy should study them.

What the Women’s March demonstrated was a population of social altruists, asserting dominance - Dominant Social Altruists. United dominance by a collective group with this agenda provides a balance of power to this tide of corporate elitism, preventing it from devouring everything sacred among us. You may ask, how can we achieve a sustained, peaceful society in the face of all the dominant narcissists trying to tear it apart? All I know is, you cannot fight the allure of Elitism with the worldview of Individualism. You must become part of something much greater than yourself.