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.




Saturday, January 14, 2017

Why Some Women Make Patriarchal Choices

One of the most disturbing things for many of us during a time like this - a time when a misogynistic biggot is about to take the highest American political office - is not that the majority of his support comes from Ku Klux Klan members, or that his election indicates that approximately 50% of Americans have no problem with his blatant white male- supremacist worldview. No, it's that among the 50% of Americans that voted for him, there are a surprising number of women.

This can come as a huge and disheartening surprise to men who have chosen to kick their male privilege to the curb in order to make room for the rise of a Matriarchal new world order. However, it's not so much of a surprise to us women who have been on the front lines of expressing our Feminist, Matriarchal mindset. We get flack from men and women alike.

Many a man will ask me why (some) women are so especially cruel and evil towards their fellow women. The Boys' Club really has nothing like it; nothing has prepared them for witnessing what life is like on the "outside" of that club, which can quickly degenerate to Lord of the Flies like politics. Well, lucky for you, I spent most of my 20's and 30's digging through an abundance of literature to get to the bottom of one question: Why do some women make very bad, patriarchy-supporting, decisions? -or- Why do a large portion of American women support male dominance at what is quite obviously their own expense?

Quite simply, I believe they are suffering from an epidemic form of Stockholm Syndrome. It's one of the consequences our society suffers from for conforming to patriarchal double standards of punishments and rewards that change depending on a person's gender.

Patriarchy is a system that convinces both men and the women financially dependent on them that women's welfare does not matter. Women in America are in all different phases of waking up from this brainwashing, as are American men. Some of them see through it, and some of them do not.

Women can only help society as effective social leaders once they are liberated from self-effacing behaviors, which patriarchal double standards ingrain in them during their youth, when they are most vulnerable. A woman who is self-effacing is repressing her Feminine instincts, intuition, perception, and any other strengths she has to offer.

However, if you want people to come out of this brainwashing, the way that you do it is to focus on what you can do, rather than on what certain women are not doing for you.

Matriarchy is not a random group of women agreeing to financially, socially, and sexually dominate men for their own benefit. Matriarchy is a mindset - one that is not necessarily shared by people on the basis of their gender. Patriarchy destroys, and one thing it destroys is women being in touch with themselves.

So, men, if you want Matriarchy, you have to foster that mindset by taking a public stand to this effect. Enlightened women will appreciate you for it. Women who still live in patriarchal denial will not.