Assertive Femininity and the New Masculine

Women have been taking leading roles in their relationships with men for a long time, despite the patriarchal structure of modern society. History is full of women leading men in science and engineering, computer development, medicine, humanitarian expeditions, exploration, and social activism (just read the Blanche Black recommended reading list).  And in fact, even though that history was obscured and neglected for many years, due to poor character and discipline among Western Civilization’s rather socially-insulated male scholars, the collective work of female scholars within the Feminist Movement managed to recover a large portion of it for us.

Perhaps one of the most potent demonstrations of women’s abilities as cultural leaders has been the development of the Feminist Movement over the last two centuries. Beginning in the 1860’s over the issue of women’s suffrage, the movement eventually began to address a much broader scale of political and social concerns, all of which were tied together by a common feature: the persistent censorship and repression of women’s self expression and self determination. As it turned out, the cultural female gender identity that had been prescribed for women by their social and professional peers wasn't working for them; rather, it proved to be consistently ineffective in protecting women against exclusion from family and group decision-making, domestic violence, sexual assault, denial of legal recourse, lack of employment opportunities, homelessness, and other depressing topics of discussion.

The Feminist Movement, however, was the collaboration of female thinkers, writers, researchers, academics, intellectuals, and activists who addressed this challenge by redefining society’s cultural and legal understanding of womanhood, redefining women’s concept of their gender role in heterosexual relationships, and changing public policies and laws to protect these developments. These women pioneered the first revision of a cultural gender identity - in a patriarchal and nearly global society - and they did so knowing the “heat” they were going to take for it from insecure men and women. And despite that clearly foreseeable backlash, they expressed their true gender identity anyway. We Feminists continue to do so.

So, there has never been any shortage of women out there leading men.

The reason misogyny and backlash against assertive women is still so widespread is not for lack of women leaders effectively leading. It is for lack of men following women’s lead by coming “out of the closet” regarding their own identification with and admiration for women’s cultural contributions, as well as their desire for a new masculinity – one that compliments the self expression of their newly “liberated” female peers instead of attempting to compete with it.

Men- the intimidation tactics resorted to by those who cleave to the myth of machismo for fear of change is merely an indication that it is time for men to follow in the footsteps of their assertive female peers and have their own gender identity revolution. In many social situations, it is only the example of socially-evolved men, and their increasing success with pleasing women, that makes other men begin to question the necessity, or even usefulness, of using attitudes like egotism and self-centeredness to prove their “maleness” to others.

It is in public that men really show others what their perception of masculinity is. Public behavior, not private life, is what demonstrates whether a man defines his masculinity as complimentary towards a women’s self expression, or dominating towards women. Is a man doing and saying whatever he’s doing and saying to impress other men in the room by attempting to demonstrate a form of power and control over women?  Is he aggrandizing himself and other men in his own eyes, and in the eyes of others, at the expense of the women in his company? Or does he use those moments when others are looking on and listening in to demonstrate a woman’s importance to him, as a man, by making her needs and interests a priority, even over those of his own?

And a man’s concept of his own masculinity determines how much room he allocates in his mind for perceiving and considering women. When it comes to evaluating a man’s potential as a prospective romantic partner, it’s the details of his public persona that tell a woman how he really thinks of her and her gender.

Fortunately for women, the overdevelopment of ego in a man usually shows itself as a subtle yet transparent disregard for others unlike himself. For example, men who engage me in conversation long enough to notice I am confident, independent, and most likely Feminist, often try to pass themselves off as supportive of Feminism and other assertive behavior in women in order to get a date with me. In the course of a lengthy conversation, they are quick to deny interest in porn and readily condemn perpetrators of domestic violence; yet they casually refer to the women in their life with the diminutive term “girl”. They are “all for” women in leadership, yet they are quick to criticize female leaders in the public eye and skeptical of women’s judgment in business and work situations, in contrast to their relatively blind faith in the men that occupy similar positions. They are not familiar with any female pioneers in their fields of interest, and in the midst of a speculative philosophical or scientific statement they blithely refer to the entire human species as “mankind”.

These are the ‘guys’ whose concept of “submission” to a dominant woman consists of lying on their back during the sex act.

These are the type of men that keep the dildo industry in business, simply for purposes of time efficiency.

Women- if you’re dating a guy who opens the door for you, yet fails to offer to carry the heavy backpack and grocery bags you’re carrying, you’re dealing with a self-centered guy. If you’re dating a guy who commonly refers to males over the age of 18 as “men”, yet refers to post-pubescent females with the same word he uses for pre-pubescent females, you’re dating an egotistical guy with the creepy inability to distinguish between age groups when relating to females. Other symptoms of an overdeveloped ego in a man include: interrupting women in mid-sentence; walking in front of his date in public; lack of interest in asking a woman questions about her opinions or livelihood; eating off a woman’s plate in addition to his own during meals; lack of gastro-intestinal control; and lack of grooming, research, and other forms of self-exertion in preparation for dates.

Personally, I’d much rather spend my time with a man who thinks enough of women and their wants to groom himself, in body and in mind, to their liking. What turns me on is a man physically disciplined enough to get his body in beautiful shape in anticipation of pleasing a woman visually, while also being mentally disciplined enough to choose his words wisely; a man who refers to adult females as “women”, in acknowledgement that they have more-than-earned a title that distinguishes them from children; a man who loves sports enough to know who Babe Didrikson and Jackie Mitchell were; a man who is well versed enough in the history of social activism to know who Mother Jones was; a man who would have voted for Victoria Woodhull in 1872 when she ran for president of the United States; a man who knows about the first group of tested and trained American astronauts that made up the Mercury 13 space program, and that they were all women; a man who knows that the inventors of the first computer software program, as well as the first computer language, were also women- along with the inventors of Kelvar, windshield wipers, and the Mars Rover; a man who knows the definition of Feminism and isn’t afraid to use it in front of other men.

Check out this example of masculinity by Jackson Katz, in his TED talk “Violence & Silence” . This is a man who works with men in professional circles, institutions and industries where machismo and a deep misunderstanding of manhood runs high (athletics, law enforcement, the military, college campuses); yet he coaches these men to be affirming and protective of women in order to be effective social leaders for their male peers. His example of appreciation for female leadership and his public demonstration of respect for women should be the official standard for any self-respecting heterosexual man who considers himself a lover of Womanhood. And among the hoards of men he has mentored and influenced there are many others who follow his example and mindset by demonstrating love and appreciation for assertive women in their interactions with other men.

So you can believe there are a lot of men out there redefining the gold-standard for masculinity with their Pro-Feminist worldview and attitude. And there are a growing number of women out there who know enough not to “settle” for any less.

There is a rich history of assertive femininity and female-affirming men out there that has paved the way, as well as a wealth of human activism all around us giving birth to the new manhood; both have been actively censored from academic textbooks and popular media channels by those industries that stand to lose money from the social changes such a collaboration would bring about.  It takes a socially-evolved man to follow in the footsteps of his Feminist female counterparts by reclaiming this stolen heritage, liberating himself from the unsustainable gender identity of machismo, and redefining his cultural gender role towards women to achieve meaningful and authentic relationships with them. Indeed, that is the only type of partner worthy of a “liberated” woman.


Additional Resources:
Tony Porter, A Call To Men
Jeremy Meltzer, Where Is Men's Roar 
Ingrid Vanderveldt, The Art of Making the Impossible Possible
Codes of Gender, Infantilization of Women
Lauren Zander, No One Is Coming To Save You (How women can get what they want)
Joel Stein, My Search For Masculinity
Educational Resources: The Bro Code
Educational Resources: Tough Guise 2

How to Train a Boyfriend: Other Women's Experience

As if confirmation of an ideological Zeitgeist fell from heaven, a friend recently came across a dating advice article entitled, "6 Ways to Train Your Boyfriend", where the writer interviews Amy Sutherland, author of "What Shamu Taught Me About Life, Love, and Marriage: Lessons for People from Animals and Their Trainers". Here are two other women who can attest to the power of psychological awareness and behavior modification for communicating more effectively with your man.

One part worth quoting emphasizes how communicating what you want to a man through specific direction and demonstration gives him a chance to show his true attitude towards you and his potential as a partner:

"The average guy is plenty romantic, but he's not hardwired to plan out the little details. So if you can't remember the last time he put together a romantic night for you both, you'll have to show him the way. Start by staging your apartment with cues that get you going, like candles and a sultry soundtrack. Have your favorite chilled wine on hand so you can ask him to open it before dinner. This creates a ritual in his mind. Eventually, not only will he get a sense of what your romantic needs are, but he'll also start making a game plan of his own."

See Dating Advice: 6 Ways to Train Your Boyfriend

Also see What Shamu Taught Me About Life, Love, and Marriage: Lessons for People from Animals and Their Trainers

How to Train a Man

Let me let you in on a little secret: Despite all their posturing, men are actually really vulnerable to women, and most men will do anything to hide this. Every day, they obsess over women’s bodies, women’s sensuality, women’s opinions of them, their ability to please women romantically and in bed…. and how to cover all that up under the illusion that they are indifferent to whether women like them or not. Some common ways men are encouraged to prove this indifference to themselves and others include disrespectful talk about women with the guys, trying to hurt women’s feelings, and generally defying what women want. Curiously, all such attempts from them seem to require an audience, usually male, which operates as a pep rally for psyching themselves out until they actually believe themselves.

They go to great lengths to hide their constant vulnerability towards the opposite sex from themselves. In relationships, they might hold on to this persistent façade by arguing, being contradictory, teasing and pushing buttons, and acting out in brazen selfishness with anything from using porn to blowing off household chores.

The thing about denial, however, is that the charade used to mask what one is so ashamed of has to escalate in intensity in order to keep blocking out one’s ever-nagging consciousness of it. And so you see some men making public attempts to provoke women with insults, making a show of indifference towards women’s unhappiness with them, speaking about women in a diminutive way with terms that trivialize their womanhood, and even acting out in physical ways against women. They make a hobby out of denying their emotional vulnerability to women’s approval of them, apparently bitter that women still dominate their thought life.

The fact that so many men work so hard to act this way in front of an audience shows just how much their behavior is an attempt to change their social image rather than being an indication of how they actually feel. Why do they have to prove their emotional invulnerability to others if they are so secure about it? Why put so much effort into denying something if they don't have something to hide?

It’s just like what many of us experienced with boys back in elementary school: boys often went out of their way to provoke, insult, and otherwise annoy the girls they actually liked and wanted to be around in order to prevent them and everyone else from knowing it. (Brilliant, eh? Lot of good it did them).

So, if men’s posturing and arguing don’t necessarily indicate what they want, but how they want to appear, what are they hiding? Consciously or subconsciously, men want more than anything to be wanted by women, to be able to attract the focused attention of the woman they're pursuing to the same degree that she attracts they're attention, which is a lot. Why do you think they drop their guy friends so readily once they get love-struck by some mysterious woman?

This means that whatever behavior of his manages to draw her attention and keep it on him largely determines how he treats her, whether that be because he is charming her or pissing her off.

When a man is really interested in a woman, whatever she wants in a man is what he wants to be for her, because he wants his already intense attention and appreciation of her womanly charms to be reciprocated. If she accommodates her own interests, he will adjust his behavior to ensure he continues to remain one of them. Once he has that reciprocation, however, he’s got what he wants so he has no reason to change what he’s doing. That’s alright if what he’s doing is bending over backwards to please you, but not if he’s slacking off. Give a man his ego trip and your attention and he’ll take both. Make him choose between the two and, if he’s into you, he’ll eventually choose your attention and drop the attitude.

Behavior therapy is very handy for this purpose.

The incentive for a man is a woman's expression of pleasure and approval when he leaves his comfort zone to try and charm her. Consistent acknowledgement of what a man does right will evoke more of the same from him, and willingness to go even beyond that to do other things you suggest. Expressing satisfaction when he does it right is the key to keeping it going. That satisfaction and pleasure as a response to him signals that he's just succeeded in making himself more important to you.

All men, however, are prone to slip into the selfish modes of their upbringing. If they think they can’t be what a woman wants, they will settle for negative attention from a woman and begin to provoke her. Often, women can reinforce a bad behavior in a man just by giving him extra attention for it, even if it’s negative attention. That’s why negative attention towards men, like nagging or throwing dishes at them, rarely keeps a bad behavior of theirs at bay for very long- it is still a type of attention. This is where your honesty about how his behaviors turn you on or off comes in handy, if it’s expressed as an increase or decrease in your interest.

One of the best ways to discourage a bad behavior then is to highlight your lack of interest in it. Whether he’s just getting to know you or he already knows better, let the loss of your attention be the punishment for his disrespectful or difficult attitude by taking distance from him in whatever way works best for you.

If he complains about your cooking, for example, have him cook for himself the following night while you go out to dinner with a friend. If he teases you or makes jokes at your expense, look at him as if he’s speaking gibberish and acting unusually strange, then postpone your Saturday night plans with him and go out with the ladies to a hot comedy club instead. It will be much funnier than him. If he argues with your personal decisions, or pressures you to change them, cut your time with him short by saying you have to get up early in the morning and need the whole bed to yourself to get a full night’s rest. Subtle reminders that you have other things you can be doing and other people to see will usually snap a man out of his indifference act.

If he repeats any of these negative behaviors, tell him directly what you don’t like about what he’s doing, and what behavior you want from him instead. If he persists despite your warning, tell him to leave so you can re-evaluate the relationship, then ignore his calls. Don’t argue. Take space and cool down. He’ll regret it later. A woman doesn’t have to get emotional and upset to teach a man a lesson. Just give him a choice.

If you’re in a female-led relationship, you can make a policy of stopping a heated argument by tying him to a chair in the bedroom for a little while and getting other things done around the house. Don’t forget to gag him! It gives him time to calm down and rethink his approach and it gives you time to do something you enjoy instead. Finish that book you’re in the middle of, or order take-out and enjoy watching a movie in the next room.

To complete his lessons, wait until he shows a change of heart and until you’re feeling better, and then give him a chance to rephrase what he was trying to say before. Tell him what behavior you want from him instead of what he did, what type of behavior will please you, and have him do a few practice runs with you right then and there. When he does it to your satisfaction, reinforce this with some light praise.

Then, just to prove to the both of you that he can earn back your trust and confidence in him, assign him an unpleasant task or duty as a punishment for having upset you in the first place. It will prove just how sorry he really is for putting you down and being knowingly offensive. It can be cleaning toilets, buying tampons at a crowded supermarket, or bending over to take a spanking of some sort. You’ll be surprised how much better you’ll feel once he accomplishes this as a token of his commitment to change his attitude. And once he endures it, he will feel much more optimistic about trying to be the man you want, now that he has a way to make up for his possible failures and start over with a clean slate from you.

The more a man thinks he can be what a woman wants, and knows she won’t tolerate anything less, the more he will try for the positive attention rather than the negative attention.

In fact, assigning a man tasks that benefit you, especially tasks that challenge him, and showing him positive attention when he carries them out, strengthens this positive dynamic, increasing your trust in and satisfaction with him and increasing his sense of adventure in pleasing you.

Physical challenges are the best. Ask him if he can cook a three course French meal totally nude without burning himself or the food. See if he can carry both you and the groceries up the stairs and through the front door at the same time. Have him vacuum the whole house each day with 20-pound weights on his arms and legs. That will help get him in shape. Suggest he practice Kegel exercises and see how many times in a row you can have sex without him losing his erection. There are endless variations on this theme. Make sure when he succeeds to show him how excited and pleased you are by the results of his hard work. Challenge him to make slightly larger sacrifices of his comfort zone than he is used to in order to accommodate your sense of fun, and both of you will be excited when he exceeds his previous achievements. It will increase his excitement about making you ultra happy.

These are just the basics, of course. A woman can develop her own strategies along these same principles, according to what she knows about her partner, and the relationship will take on its own style of conflict resolution and romance.

Training a man is all about a woman getting the most from her man for the building of intimacy in the relationship, which requires him to come out of his privileged status so he can get to know and relate to her more. Helping him break free from ridiculous corporate myths and personal denial by confronting him with his desire for and attraction to her is all part of it. Why should other men's delusions control his state of mind towards her and get in the way of the intimacy between them?

For more, check out Sherry Argov's advice on getting the most out of your man.

Chivalry is Not Dead

Many people in our culture often give women the impression that the way to get a man to contribute more to a relationship, to motivate him to meet a woman’s needs and wants, is by figuring out what men want and giving it to them. Hogwash.

Put them to work. Give them a list of duties to accomplish that will free up your time if they want to continue taking it up. Assign them challenging tasks that would really excite you to see them carry out, and tell them what they can do that will really impress you and make you want them over other men. Decide on rules of conduct for them that will make you comfortable when they are around you, and determine the consequences, both bad and good, for breaking or keeping these rules. Then carry them out accordingly. Why do you think men are so devoted and dedicated to their workplace?

For a relationship to last and keep both partners interested it is important to put the woman’s happiness first before the man’s, because in romance and sex men are easily pleased compared to women; and if she’s happy, he’s happy.

Nevertheless, many people consider it to be a sign of weakness of will for a man to defer to what a woman wants of him, or what she values as right, on a regular basis. In a culture where male dominance is considered the norm, male reverence and submission to women is difficult to confess the existence of, usually resulting in people going into a panic whenever they are forced to confront it.

Yet, the men of our culture publicly show reverence and submission all the time. They show reverence for and unquestioning submission to rituals of national unity, fraternal rights of passage, military superiors, and athletic coaches. They show emotional abandon and devotion towards sports teams, sports cars, and successful male role models. In plain sight, men who our society recognizes as masculine are submissive with certain people, and in certain contexts. They know that public submission and deference to others doesn't make them weak-willed, because society recognizes the ability of men to be submissive in certain relationships while remaining competitive and assertive in others. As long as their submission is aimed at men and male traditional values, no one has a problem with it.

So, the controversy surrounding the concept of male submissiveness is not over men having a submissive side, but rather over what men choose to ascribe sacredness to and recognize the power of.

When men in our culture choose to apply their submissive adoration towards other men, they also choose to channel their physical competitiveness and self assertion elsewhere- and guess where that might be. Current male social leaders and media directors still discourage men from offering their submission to female role models, female authority figures, or any symbol of collective female values, fearing that to do so would eliminate the one area of life where men still have opportunity to express their aggressive and competitive natures without immediate danger to themselves –their relationships with women. They prefer to use social interaction with women as an outlet for their physical prowess and pioneering independence by attacking women and defying women's desires. Tackling a female associate to the floor doesn’t require much discipline or risk of physical injury, nor imagination for that matter, and it doesn’t endanger a man's popularity with other guys; yet it gives them the appearance of being competitive and triumphant in the eyes of other men.
I suppose you could say such men are “dick-whipped”.

Believe it or not, there was a time in history when venerating and deferring to a woman was seen as a sign of heterosexuality. Yes, it’s true. Back then, men consciously chose to meet their need for submission, their need for a leader and a source of inspiration, by deferring to women and worshiping female values. Out of loyalty, they devoted their physical strengths and hormone-derived valor to protecting the interests of women and applied their desire to compete to male troublemakers or alternate suitors. Prestigious men were expected to serve and entertain women, which was considered a sign of strength of will. To not serve women in this way eliminated a man’s common ground with other men, came across as undisciplined, and made him generally unpopular. In fact, public submission to women was one of men’s most favorite hobbies and gave them opportunity for all kinds of creative play and adventure. This cultural movement was chivalry, practiced across Europe and England from the 11th century to the 13th century. The men who bound themselves to live by its code did so to join a brotherhood of knights who worked to protect their society.

These men were not afraid of risk or hard work. After choosing the profession, a man went through a long and arduous right of passage before being tested and approved to serve as a knight. His right of passage involved: seven years of working as a servant for a knight’s household, another seven years serving the prestigious woman of his choice by carrying out duties for her designed to test and refine his character, being ordained a knight in an elaborate ritual, fasting for twenty-four hours, staying up all night in a church watching his new uniform, and undergoing a religious confession and communion, all before being allowed to swear loyalty to the code of chivalry.1

It seems the code of chivalry was so attractive to these hardened men of war because it gave men an honorable social role and a meaningful guide to measure their own manliness by. The principles of the code were the love of adventure, carrying out service as guards or soldiers with noble virtues, protecting the safety and honor of all women, showing loyal devotion and deference to one chosen noblewoman, and carrying their services out with self-sacrificing generosity and courage. This often took the form of practical protection of women from physical attack, which led to the practice of a noblewoman selecting a favored knight to escort her to her carriage; the role of escort eventually allowed opportunity for a knight to express his devotion to protecting a noblewoman by deferring to her wishes, as trivial or challenging and risky as they might be. This included defending women’s honor by protecting them from insult, as well as simply entertaining them with creative praise or performing athletic challenges.2

The movement was believed to be a reaction against the barbaric violence and corrupt excesses that were the customs of battle for warriors under the direction of feudal lords; the notion of chivalry developed among knights as they began to pursue a more just and noble purpose for their social role. In contrast to past self-centered values, chivalric knights identified their purpose as adventurously protecting women, upholding traditionally female virtues, and worshiping the inspirational power of femininity.3 They worshiped femininity in spirit and in action.

Spiritually, they venerated what they considered to be female values by emulating them. The values of honor, courtesy, hospitality to the poor and oppressed, deference to others, unselfish love, endurance of suffering, loyalty, chastity, and faith in God- these were all seen as the virtues of the Virgin Mary, which they valued as noble and sought to experience personally for their own edification of purpose.4

In action, they protected women from physical danger and social insult while also putting their newfound female virtues to use by honoring and pleasing women with their masculine strengths. Knights saw the truest and purist expression of heterosexual love as a man’s worshipful longing for a woman in response to her powers of sensual appeal and savvy, channeling their passion for her into honor and praise for lack of a sexual outlet. For this reason, knights from this period of time courted their chosen mistress while practicing chastity.5

One historian says,
“Thus, the lady leaves her isolation and becomes an inspiration; the relationship between the sexes tends to acquire a teaching dimension, above all else for the man, the sentiment of feminine gentleness and the joy of serving the lady disciplining and gentling his warrior roughness and ferocity.” 6

There are still men who connect with this archetype of masculinity and relate to its way of building relationships with women. Though they do not have the advantage of an organized brotherhood or a universal code of demonstration to be recognized as such by women, they do tend to have certain features in common and their behavior takes on a similar pattern.

They make their woman their first social priority. They like to run errands and take care of chores for a woman, cook dinner for her, and attend to her in public. They like to listen to a woman without interrupting her, take an interest in what she thinks without arguing with her, and show a great interest in her work with the admiration and support of a devoted fan. They see the merit in doing things her way at home and in the relationship. They remember what she likes and do it often. They let her set the pace for sexual activity, and once invited they attend to her needs and interests first; they are intensely sexually loyal. They don’t take their sexual cues from porn films. They do not ejaculate prematurely.

They might open doors for women, but it is not out of an effort to confine women’s labor or public role. On the contrary, these men prefer to play the role of assistant to women who are professionally successful and highly independent -women who have their own sense of direction and are not afraid to apply it to men. And yet, at the same time, they will confidently compete with other men, even aggressively, and assert themselves in their profession or hobbies. Again, male selective submissive allegiance to a woman is hard for some to conceive of, but it is much the same thing as a sports fan’s intense admiration for a highly skilled and talented professional athlete. Women may tend to take their strengths as women for granted, but these men don’t.*

Contrary to popular belief, there are a good number of men out there with this disposition, though they are not always obvious to women because they aren’t the ones causing a public commotion in a desperate attempt to get female attention. They’d rather pay attention, and then appeal to her personal interests to earn her attention from her. Perhaps the best way for a woman to find them is to develop a healthy interest in what she wants and use an online profile to let men know exactly what that is so that discerning men will find her. This tends to weed out the self-absorbed ones.

The more clearly women perceive how masculinity and male submissive allegiance to women are not only compatible but also interdependent, the higher women’s standards for men’s attitude and behavior will rise, and the men who want the adventure of a real relationship will meet the challenge. Setting low standards to help a self-centered man get the swing of things in the adult world is a waste of time. Men are not stupid. Men are quite capable; if they aren’t taking direction, the issue is one of willingness.

But there’s no need to contend with an unwilling man. Men that are chivalry-oriented are already motivated, getting a sense of adventure and importance from performing a service for a woman. They are willing to work for a woman’s love and happiness because they don’t take women for granted. All they need is direction.

And why should women doubt it? Women’s physical sensuality and intellectual power exerts a force over men that disarms them of their competitiveness and inspires them to serve instead. It has inspired men to do all kinds of spectacular things in the effort to be as noticeable and interesting for women as women are for them. Women’s power of sensual allure has inspired whole fleets of warriors to rein in the barbaric carelessness and wasteful excesses that were the custom of their position in society and to conform their way of life to a strict ethical code of behavior. All without having to give sex to any of them.


* For a great example of the chivalrous man, and this combination of competitiveness with female adoration, watch The Widow of St. Pierre, with Juliette Binoche and Daniel Auteuil. Also read Graceling by Kristin Cashore.



1 (Sidney, pp.260-261), (Elvins, pp.2-8, 59-61)
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., (Westerson, 2007)
4 (Elvins, pp.2-8, 59-61)
5 (Westerfield, 2007), (Elvins, pp.2-8, 59-61)
6 (Elvins, pp.7-8, quoting Giuseppe Salvioli from ‘Cavalleria’, II Digesto Italiano, Florence, 1912)

Elvins, M. T. (2006). Gospel Chivalry: Franciscan Romanticism. Leominster, Herefordshire: Gracewing.

Sidney, Low, Sir.(1973). Dictionary of English History. New York: Cassell.

Westerson, Jeri. (2007, November 12). Getting Medieval: The Code of Chivalry and Courtly Love. Posted to http://jeriwesterson.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/the-code-of-chi.html

Women and Power

For a continuation of our dialogue on the differences between women and men in their use of power, check out one man's perspective in Give Women Guns by Randy Cohen from last week's NY Times. 

Also check out Men have messed up. Let women sort it out by Gillian Wilmot from Financial Times, and Do women make better managers? by Joanna L. Krotz.

It seems these concepts are part of a larger Zeitgeist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matriarchy: The Power of Collective Female Leadership

Men have been the favored crowd, the popular crowd, for quite a while in Western culture. This “boys’ club” has been handed the podium, family inheritances, career advancing favors, center stage in literature, visibility in the media, sexual entertainment, and social leadership positions as far back as most of our schools’ history books go. And with that public favor they have managed to hoard decision-making power about everything from public policy to the entertainment industry.

And because this society’s favors for men have made “the boys’ club” the place where the public spotlight is, the place where all the fun is, women have often chosen to emulate men’s apparent social and material success by adopting the male behavioral strategies that supposedly have led to it. This includes men’s standards for treatment of others, as well as men’s attitudes towards women. Many women choose to conform to these standards themselves and apply them to other women simply to be included and avoid the nine circles of hell associated with being an outcast: being excluded from public leadership, left out of board rooms and after parties, ignored as cultural role models, forgotten in history books, trivialized in entertainment, criticized by boyfriends and husbands- wait… come to think of it, that’s also the cost for women’s inclusion by the boys’ club.

But beyond issues of self-censorship, women have resorted to adopting the behaviors and strategies of this self-serving group of men and their male leadership style. This is the group of men who have led Western societies into scandalous and genocidal religious wars since the Crusades, who have pirated the natural resources and lives of other cultures since European colonialism and slave trading, who have trashed and mismanaged their own natural resources and painted themselves into a corner with environmental collapse, who have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot with overspending and looted the people under their leadership to cushion themselves from the consequences: this is an undisciplined group of bullies and blundering idiots.

The problem is that women have lost touch with themselves in the attempt to emulate male aggression and other destructive coping mechanisms from our society’s traditionally male leadership. When the most badly behaved group of people is rewarded the best social treatment in the form of professional alliances, social fawning, and exemption from family obligations and the rules of fair play, their society is demonstrating a system of rewards and punishments that encourages the well-behaved among us to throw away their good social habits for the sake of social advancement.

In our society, violent crime, as well as sexually violent crime, is predominantly a male problem. Typical annual statistics are as follows: 83% of spouse murderers are male 1, 79.9% of all non-fatal family violence is committed by men 2, 75% of dating partner murderers are male 3,
87% of all stalkers are male 4. Men commit 100% of rape against women, and 70% of all rapes against men; similarly, 92% of physical assaults against women and 86% of physical assaults against men are committed by men 5. This is not violence towards an external or national threat for preservation of oneself and one’s country. This is violence turned against one’s own culture and support system.

Perhaps this cultural phenomenon of violence among men is a sign of too much power being handed to those without the social ingenuity to know what to do with it.

Over the last decade, researchers in the social sciences have conducted studies on high school students in Western cultures to determine gender differences in their learning and educational processes. These studies have found that male thinking styles and methods of coming to conclusions are “exclusionary”, eliminating other points of view and perspectives from consideration in favor of an individual one. Their problem solving style is one of immediacy, basing their solution on the context of immediate circumstances to get quick results without considering larger contexts such as environmental or human impact. This is reflected in their social style in group settings, where their approach to group dynamics tends to be hierarchal and competitive to the degree that others are excluded from group activities 6. This aptitude for reduction, immediacy and individual competition might make men very valuable for meeting short-term goals requiring visibly noticeable results and measurable impact, but perhaps not so much for meeting goals like social cohesion or long-term sustainable production.

In contrast, researchers found that girls and women demonstrate “connective” thinking when problem solving, immediately recognizing the connections between abstract solutions in the lab or classroom and practical results for the environment and community. Their style of making conclusions is “inclusive” of other people’s perspectives and points of view, assimilating other alternative possibilities to the one they’re promoting. Likewise, their social behavior in groups is socially inclusive and their approach to group dynamics is holistic rather than individualistic 7.

Women’s instinctive leadership style, like their thinking style, reflects their group consciousness, comprehensive problem solving, and awareness of others’ welfare. It is evident in their mothering of young children, their multitasking, their tendency to instigate social reform movements and start up charity work, and their prevalence in the social services. Their aptitude puts them at an advantage in fostering social solidarity, sustainable economic growth, and cultural quality of life- all things our society could use more of.

These differences in thinking styles are perhaps partially due to differences in brain construction and operation between women and men. Researchers in neuroscience have found that hormones effect brain development, resulting in a higher degree of intercommunication between the different areas of the brain in women, and a higher concentration of activity to localized areas of the brain in men. Their studies on gender differences between female and male brains suggest that female brains process multiple aspects of information at the same time, and more quickly, and process communication more thoroughly than male brains do 8. This implies that women are able to perceive the multiple aspects of a problem, or multiple alternatives for achieving a goal, at the same time, and then effectively communicate the solutions to others. Meanwhile, male brains are more singular in focus at any one time and are more perceptive of physical aspects of a situation like rates of speed and time, or human sexual behavior. This indicates that men excel in specialized tasks, or in achieving more specific goals 9. Overall, these findings would suggest women are most likely more effective social leaders, providing more holistic strategy and perceptive direction, while men are excellent as executers of such direction.

However, the development of the male thinking style into social aggression is apparently not inherent in male hormones or physiology. Rather, as a fascinating study by anthropologist Peggy Sanday shows, male expression of aggression towards others is socialized, based on the external factors of cultural orientation and segregation from women. It is a cultural habit, not a male instinct 10.

Similarly, the female behavior of catering to the male crowd and sabotaging other women, and sometimes men, seems to be more a peculiarity of certain cultures than an inherent norm. This is especially evident when examining the gender dynamics of other cultures.

By comparing cultures traditionally led by male solidarity groups to cultures traditionally led by female solidarity groups, it becomes apparent that when women follow collective male leadership their quality of life goes down and their behavior slowly conforms to unchecked male behavior, which is usually anti-social and violent 11. When men follow collective female leadership, this is not the case.

The leadership styles of women observed from a number of non-Western cultures demonstrate consistent results in the areas of social stability and quality of life. Societies where women are the primary decision makers for public policy, political action, and/or economic management result in egalitarian gender relationships, the elimination of male violence towards women, and greater provision of nutrition, healthcare, and education for their children compared to societies where men dominate decision-making. They are often associated with peaceful national prosperity 12.

In other words, under female leadership both female and male behavior improves, relationships stabilize, and quality of life goes up for all.

Specific examples of the benefits of female leadership can be found in documented and observed matriarchies, a couple of which still exist. Matriarchies provide great examples of female-style thinking in operation. Such societies feature women collectively exercising political and economic authority or power, in some cases attributed to them by right of a culture’s religious beliefs and in other cases gained by them because of the vital or economic importance of their labor to the society 13. In addition these cultures are known for their lack of male aggression towards women; in turn men are eligible for certain political or religious positions delegated to them by female leaders 14.

In a scholarly documentation of all known and researched societies worldwide between 1750 B.C. and 1960 (A.D.), 32% of these societies qualified as matriarchies by this definition. Some feature women in public positions of power, like the Lovedu (South Africa), or the Abipones (Argentina); others have women in collective economic control and leadership, delegating public roles to men, like the Ashanti (W. Africa), the Iroquois (N. America), The Tchambuli (New Guinea), and the !Kung (Africa). Some feature female collectives that hunt and war independently from the men in their culture, like the Eastern Cree (N. America) and the Abipones. Others show women integrated with men in their culture while retaining certain legal privileges over them, like the Minangkabau (Indonesia) 15.

But all exhibit the features of female-style thinking in their operation, and all are essentially matrifocal. In matrifocal societies, female solidarity and interpersonal alliances are strong and male conformity to female values follows.

A society becomes matrifocal when collective female decisions and activities override the importance of male activities for society because of the concentration of socio-economic power among women 16. Men then focus on and respond to the interests of women as social habit, because that’s where the public interest is, that’s where important things are happening, and that’s where all the fun is. As a result, men come to emulate and learn from the female values of the women. Women constitute the “popular crowd” in their society because of their success, and because of their solidarity, which seem to go hand in hand.

Interestingly enough, the pattern of values found in the female leadership styles of matriarchies seem to closely resemble the female thinking and problem solving styles found among female students in Western culture 17.

Upon further study, it becomes apparent that matrifocal societies, or matriarchies, are led by female-style thinking. Female leaders do not hoard decision-making power, despite their ability to do so, unless absolutely necessary on a temporary basis to prevent social dissension. Instead, they often prefer to delegate their political duties and share government leadership with men for the sake of labor efficiency and the men’s sense of social inclusion. In some matriarchies, these delegated positions are more for show or symbolism than political function. In other matriarchies male positions are more functional but limited by female leadership through female selection and female veto. Either way, this strategy increases social cohesion by benevolently providing visible social identity for men, while simultaneously extending women’s capacity to rule and keep watch over both the public sphere and the family sphere, leaving them time for childcare and economic productivity 18. The majority of matriarchies result in sexual egalitarianism between women and men 19. They are much less likely to be engaged in war than patriarchies 20. Most matriarchies seem to rule their society peacefully through the power of attraction, accumulating prosperity and showing generosity with it towards their followers and allies. Their priorities seem to be social peace and a high quality of life, economic stability, efficiency in human resources, and future survival of their society. And being their priorities, those goals are met.

The benefits of matriarchy for women are evident: supportive social networks and mutual aid groups, economic self-sufficiency, economic security for one’s children, control over the home environment, responsive public policy-makers. And according to researchers, matriarchy would certainly be in the best interest of children. However, the benefits of matriarchy for men and society as a whole are easily overlooked, mainly because these societies are unlikely to make international news. They’re too peaceful and contented, and aren’t prone to invading the countries surrounding them.

To give an example of matriarchal social values in action, I will offer a quick description of the Lovedu, a royal matriarchy in South Africa that was still in existence, although on a much smaller scale, as of 2001. For over 400 years the tribe was ruled by a succession of bachlorette queens which had a reputation among neighboring tribes and even roaming European invaders as politically savvy, avoiding altercations and battles through “skillful diplomacy”.

By excellent management and public policy, these queens increased economic productivity by making labor enjoyable and full of benefits, like free food and alcohol on the job, and avoided unnecessary rules and regulations for public life and work. Their diet was vegetarian and extremely healthy and well rounded.

This motivated them to be extremely hardworking. The economy prospered, and by investing in quality of life for society members and avoiding war they managed to maintain and accumulate that prosperity. Human resources were applied to the mastery of botany for food and medicine production, maximizing use of their resources for self-sufficiency. As a result, the Lovedu were a contented and self-supporting, stable society.

Women were independent and well respected in Lovedu society. They ruled religious life and, many of them occupied important political positions along with men. Critical diplomatic positions were occupied mostly by women, and both men and women in these positions were referred to as “Mothers”. Because of the abundance of impressive female role models, men were sexually attracted to the confidence, maturity and independence of older women and pursued them romantically. Marriages were performed by mutual consent.

Their foreign relations strategy was to diffuse political tensions with generous offerings of land and brides for intermarriage. In this way, each queen always managed to secure protective treaties and form prosperous alliances with their neighbors, increasing the monarchy’s respect and renown in the area.

Anthropologists who observed their culture first-hand considered them to have a “genius” for social life 21. As Ann Jones explains:

“Lovedu wealth was not based on trade; cattle and land passed from one household to another as gifts, and security lay in faith in reciprocity and the equivalence over the long term of services and obligations.” 22. This was how all Lovedu were raised and this mentality was positively reinforced with social inclusion.

One has to admire the frame of mind that would lead a group of people to behave in such a trusting and productive way, and yet wonder where it came from. It seems that Lovedu culture and society placed a high value on such personal behaviors as “appeasement, compromise, cooperation, helpfulness, tolerance, generosity”, and the ability to live at peace with others. They disapproved and looked down on the practice of individual competition, aggression, exploitation, and all forms of coercion, quarrelsomeness 23. The attributes the Lovedu lived and governed by were the group-inclusive and holistic tendencies of female-thinking styles.

It seems the benefits of being accepted and popular in this society outweighed the short-term gains of selfish behavior, creating strong positive reinforcement for conformity to these values. The social expression of disapproval for anti-social or self-centered behavior provided the negative consequences that reinforced people’s positive behavior.

And there you have it. Rule by attraction rather than intimidation, unless you count the fact that other cultures feared losing the advantages and benefits of being associated with the Lovedu queen and on good terms with her.

Today, this culture is just a small-scale version of what it used to be, due to the monopolizing effects of European colonialism and Westernization in the area. Like all societies, matriarchies come and go. But the wisdom of socially oriented female instincts remains powerful in potential. When feminine aptitude is applied to social and economic development on a mass scale through female solidarity, collective goals such as social peace, egalitarianism, economic prosperity, sustainable resources, environmental preservation, productive foreign relations, universal child health care- they all become viable. Women live in safety from assault. Men are influenced and guided by female values while the most useful aspects of their male-thinking style are developed and their productive social potential is realized. Society at large enjoys a better quality of existence.

And as usual when it comes to female leadership, men benefit from it.

Oh, and as for how collective female leadership deals with the occasional signs of male attempts to hoard political power from women? They usually assert their dominance over men in the form of an agricultural and foraging food supply strike, or collective confrontation and public male humiliation. Or, as in the case of the Abipones, sometimes women enforce a mutually agreed-upon tribal ritual where they inflict public whippings on all the men in the village to keep their male egos in check.

But who says assertiveness and strict discipline aren’t inherently female values too? ;)



1 U.S. Department of Justice, (2005)
2 U.S. Department of Justice, (2005)
3 U.S. Department of Justice, (2005)
4 U.S. Department of Justice, (1998)
5 U.S. Department of Justice, (2000)
6 Pierce, (1998), Zohar, (2005)
7 Pierce, (1998), Zohar, (2005)
8 Gurian, (2001), Moir, (1989), Pringle, (2008), Rodgers, (2001)
9 Gurian, (2001) pp. 29-42, Moir, (1989) p.47, Pringle, (2008), Rogers, (2001) pp. 26-27
10 Sanday, (1981) pp.9,165-172
11 Sanday, (1981) p.156-160
12 Sanday, (1981) pp. 131, 165-177, UNICEF, (2007)
13 Sanday, (1981) p. 114
14 Sanday, (1981) pp.114-115, 165
15 Jones, (2001), Mead, (2001), Murdock, (1969), Sanday, (1981), Sanday, (2004)
16 Sanday, (1981) p.116
17 Pierce, (1998), Zohar, (2005)
18 Sanday, (1981) p.115
19 Sanday, (1981) p.177
20 Sanday, (1981) p.174
21 Krige, (1943)
22 Jones, (2001) p.17
23 Jones, (2001) pp. 15-17

Bibliography

Gurian, M., Henley, P., & Trueman, T. (2001). Boys and Girls Learn Differently!: A Guide for Teachers and Parents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, A. (2001). Looking for Lovedu: a woman’s journey through Africa. New York: Vintage Books.

Krige, E. J., & Krige, J.D., (1943). The Realm of a Rain-Queen: a study of the pattern of Lovedu Society. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mead, M. (2001), Sex & Temperament: in three primitive societies. New York: HarperCollins.

Moir, A., & Jessel, D. (1989). Brain Sex-The Real Difference Between Men & Women. New York: Dell Publishing.

Murdock, G.P., & White, D.R. (1969). Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. Ethnology 8: 329–369.

Pierce, G. (1998, Winter). An Inclusive Paradigm for Education-Valuing the Different Voice. Initiatives, 58(3): 57-66. Retrieved February 11, 2007, from The Contemporary Women's Issues database.

Pringle, A. D. (2008). How Boys and Girls Brains Differ. Master research module posted at the University of Science, Arts and Technology website, retrieved December 23, 2008, from http://www.usat.ms/Master/ENG062-How_Boys_and_Girls_Brains_Differ.pdf

Rogers, W. & Rogers, R. (2001) The Psychology of Gender & Sexuality, Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

Sanday, P.R. (1981). Female Power and Male Dominance: On the origins of sexual inequality. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Sanday, P.R. (2002). Women at the Center: Life in a Modern Matriarchy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 169592. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes.

U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 183781. (2000). Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv. Washington, DC: Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes.

U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 207846. (2005). Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence Statistics: Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances, at 31-32. Washington, DC: Matthew R. Durose et al.
UNICEF. (2007). The State of the World's Children 2007. New York, NY: UNICEF.

Zohar, A. (2005, January). Physics Teachers’ Knowledge and Beliefs Regarding Girls’ Low Participation Rates in Advanced Physics Classes. International Journal of Science Education 27(1): 61-77. Retrieved February 5, 2007, from The Academic Search Premier database.

Getting the Respect You Want

Recruiting the assistance of men in this culture often proves to be a disappointing experience, so it is logical that many women avoid doing so unless absolutely necessary. Whether a woman is agreeing to allow a man to show her a good time, letting a male partner know she wants an errand or household chore accomplished for her, or even doing business with a serviceman, the low standards for men in this culture usually result in them being less than generous materially and energetically.

The responses men offer to women who express what they want might contain elements of cooperativeness and respect, such as a one word acknowledgement that they still retain their hearing, or even a partial show of interest in the woman’s request while they exhibit preoccupation with something else, but it is often followed by joking excuses for their lack of follow-through on those requests, or mere procrastination for completing the task using unsolicited comments on the woman’s sex appeal, as if she cared to know what their sexual mood was.

This kind of teasing is a mixture of flirting with “the blow off”, which is a way men avoid working on behalf of a woman while trying to disguise their laziness and apathy with cursory flattery, and even that pertaining to their own selfish preoccupation with a woman’s sensual stimulation for them. It is a form of disrespect.

Rather than wasting their energy explaining how disappointing men’s apathy is, a woman often gracefully tolerates a man’s irrelevant sexual comments and leaves him in the dark as to how to gain her genuine interest in him.

This, of course, is justice for him, but not enough justice for her, for there are men who would eagerly compete with such a man for her interests, and that can be used to satisfy her wants and discipline the disrespectful man by rubbing his nose in it. Often, it is not until a man feels he is losing out on the opportunity to get a woman’s attention that he is motivated to treat her the way she wants.

A woman reveals her standards for tolerating male company by making specific requests of them and verbally, as well as sensually, expressing her happiness or disappointment with the responses men exhibit. She is guaranteed to get a man’s attention when she tells them how their behavior changes her perceptions of them, like letting them know that their joking in response to her concerns is their “failing to convince” her that she “can take (them) and (their) skills seriously”; or that their request for her time without the hospitality to offer service to her, like buying her dinner or entertaining her, is really them “not showing sincere interest in” her.

Likewise, she is guaranteed a man’s attention when she avoids a disappointing experience with him to get what she wants from someone other than him. His competitiveness for female attention causes him to take an avid interest in what is attracting hers. That’s why it is in a woman’s best interest to always admit what her interests are and to give her attention to them as well as to the men who contribute to her achievement of them.

So, when a man disregards a woman’s request for his service, or her concerns for a prompt response, or her interests in being shown respect and offered things she enjoys, he loses his opportunity to gain more attention from her. He defaults. At that point, getting what she wants is as simple as by-passing him to find another man who will respond to her request for service with the treatment she likes. When she disregards men who disregard her and lets them see her reward her attention to the man who respected her interests by showing his solid interest in them, she allows other men to regret their delay towards her and gives them motivation to change.

After a few repetitions of this experience, most men reach a state of willingness to exit their comfort zone to regain the woman’s interest in them, often displayed as a plea to let them do something for her at her convenience and a claim that they “don’t want to lose” her. Of course they don’t. Up to this point she’s offered them more than they’ve ever offered her, mostly because of her female character and at least because of her sensual appeal for them. They have a lot to gain from being in her presence.

It is at this point that they are ready to follow and that she can begin to take the lead and tighten her rules for rewards and denial with strict enforcement. She can choose to give them another chance at achieving her desires, or not, but the important thing is that she doesn’t suffer for their lack of readiness and that they learn to respect her for it.

Recognizing Your Allies

There are two kinds of heterosexual men: those who are turned on by themselves, and those who are turned on by women.

There are men who are turned on by self-aggrandizement, who use the compliance of women to their will as evidence to others that their self-importance is not a delusion. By default, they are habitually unmindful of their woman’s feelings and injure her pride often. This kind of man can be nice, and he can tell a woman what she wants to hear, but he does so only on the condition that he gets extra-credit from her for it. He then reverts to the minimum level of compliance necessary to keep her from looking for someone else.

Then, there are men who get turned on by women who seem more important than themselves, who outsmart them, win out over them, achieve professional success ahead of them -women whose will they want to comply with. Such men will always find opportunity to point out to a woman where she is more brilliant than themselves and others, where she outperforms themselves and others, and their passion for her, plutonic or romantic, is ignited by all the times she displays her self-contentment and social independence from them. In essence, they are infatuated with her for her leadership qualities, which inspire them and others to follow.

One noticeable distinction between them is that self-infatuated men rarely see themselves as being self-absorbed. Women-infatuated men, by contrast, are usually hyper-aware of their potential to be self-absorbed and fault themselves for missing or not noticing the preferences of the woman they are with. Men are either essentially one or the other, it seems. This is most likely due to their tendency to be hierarchal-minded, assuming leader-follower relationships, rather than community-minded, assuming egalitarian relationships, when not under the consistent influence of female thinking.

With men who love women, their attraction to a particular woman
has more to do with her success at getting what she wants rather than
any particular set of bodily features. That is because they don’t
perceive women as a form of entertainment, in contrast to the former
kind of man who seems to believe he is conducting casting calls for
a Broadway musical about his life. A man who loves women sees a woman as his inspiration, a role model, and seeks to be included in her perceived social popularity and success by entertaining her, and by responding frequently to her will in a needed vacation from his own.

A woman will know this kind of man by his conversational habits such as frequent attribution of credit to her, acknowledgement of her insight, and tunnel vision of her successes in competitive situations. This is the kind of man who women wish they were with when they are involved with the other kind. But for a woman to enjoy and maintain that kind of admiration and support, she has to understand what this kind of man is responding to in her and receive what he is offering.

False modesty and expressing self-doubt are of no use here, despite their usefulness in wielding the will of self-absorbed men by baiting their ego. The habits developed in the company of less desirable people must be broken, because they mask the very strengths and genius of a woman that these men value her for.

By agreeing with a man’s bragging over her accomplishments, talent, cleverness, social popularity, beauty, and most of all complete independence from him for success, a woman allows this kind of man to have a place in her life, one of a follower or loyal ally; but most importantly she confesses the previously censored truth about her to herself and others. It is the truth about her because a person’s true social identity comes from what potential they have to be important to others, not unimportant to others.

When a woman emerges from the shadows to own up to all the ways she impresses the men who actually see her, she is claiming her right to enjoy herself and receive overdue credit for her skills and achievements. She is also rewarding a man for his righteous attitude and attentiveness towards her with her approval and acknowledgement of his success at pleasing her. This reinforces his behavior and makes other men question theirs.

This way of interacting with men is worth making a habit out of, one likely to be self-reinforcing and socially contagious.

Leading By Example

A reoccurring issue that often seems to aggravate confident women in female-male relationships is the problem of a proposed female-loving man who tends to “top from the bottom”, so to speak, or feign devotion to pleasing a woman while only serving her in the ways that turn him on. Worse yet, some men claim to revere a woman's will, then try to push her to participate in sexual activities which they desire after she has made known to them that she does not.

This mixed message from the male can turn off a woman and even discourage her from sharing her dominant side with them at all. This situation confronts a woman with two choices- continue or leave. The question, however, is ‘can a woman stay with such a man and not be topped by him?’

I have found that men who try to dictate the terms of our encounters through their selective resistance are best dealt with by standing up for my principles and not backing down. My terms for our sexual activity or dating are the only ones that matter to me, and his resistance to them makes him less worthy of my time. Although, I do customize my expectations according to the varying capabilities of certain men if I think they have the potential to do much better for me in the future.

However, when I refuse to compromise the boundaries of my pleasure I risk being rejected by the man I am correcting for failing to heed them.

I have been walked away from by a number of men who initially showed respectful behavior towards me. Upon telling them something that clashed with their existing ideology on what they should be capable of, or what approach to relationship with women was best for them, those men disagreed with me and then withdrew. This has happened with two dating partners, once with an online admirer, and a few times with a past lover.

One dating partner originally responded to my corrections, but when it came time for him to admit his need to take direction from me rather than just giving me lip service and some flowers, he rejected my beliefs and my leadership.

Another dating partner took my comments that he should get a car, a proper place to live, and a broader range of dating skills to mean that my standards were too high for any guy to meet.

One online admirer had difficulty accepting some ideology he was unfamiliar with from me and stopped writing me.

And the past lover responded to my reprimanding of him several times by throwing an intellectual temper tantrum and threatening to leave.

Each of those times I refused to budge from my original perception of their difficulties, left them with a farewell correction, and let them follow their bright ideas elsewhere.

What eventually happened was that the first dating partner contacted me to flaunt that he had started to see someone else; then after two and a half weeks of silence he text messaged me, emailed me a few times, and sent me an overgenerous birthday present, all without my encouragement. The other dating partner started texting me a month later, right after he got a better apartment, and has been texting me since to offer new dating options, all of which I have ignored up to this point. The other admirer wrote me back after a while with a more open-minded response and has been chatting with me avidly since then. And the past lover wound up returning each time to ask for my forgiveness and admit I was right, with two-week delays each time, and eventually discovered for himself a passionate affinity with my way of seeing things to the neglect of his interest in other women for a year after I broke up with him.

What has this taught me? It has taught me that I don't have to be afraid of letting a man sulk. It has taught me that I don't have to be afraid of "winding up alone" for rejecting a man's unappealing treatment of me and not responding to him until he cooperates with my standards. Even when it requires me to be alone for a period of time, that demonstration of confidence from me eventually returns more male attention than it initially costs.

Because men follow women who lead. Men seek the attention of women who follow their own convictions. A man is motivated by a woman who rewards him with attention for joining her in following her convictions, and who denies him her attention for straying from them. And when a woman has convictions about how she deserves to be treated, and how a man is in need of treating her, her convictions become the goal post and every man a competitor. And men love to compete.

Men will doubt in their ability to reach her goals. Men will deny the validity of those goals and claim that no one can reach them. But when a woman is meeting her own goals with her own treatment of herself and her quality of life, it becomes obvious to men that her goals are attainable and it is their own performance that remains unconvincing.

This doesn’t mean that men don’t have certain needs and convictions of their own. Men are focused by nature and are at their best when their focus is singular. So, men have the need to keep their focus on one legal code, one authoritative standard, be it that of an institution, a gender group, or an individual. And each man has a need for a personal criterion for selecting that ultimate leader and deselecting the leadership of others.

A man who is open to female leadership uses his own criteria to select a female leader that inspires him in personal ways, outside of gender dynamics. However, it is the woman’s code of behavior and goals for quality of relationship that give him direction as to how to win her approval and inclusion of him in her plans.

What makes him attentive is not necessarily what pleases him. It is what challenges him mentally or socially, what indicates that there is a higher level of achievement for him to apply his efforts to, that gets and keeps his attention.

In the end, I follow myself- my own perceptions and beliefs that are
based on my feelings and experiential knowledge- because I am only happy when I am happy. And when I am happy, I am confident, which is the most alluring quality in a leader for those who like to follow.

Porn is Not Man’s Best Friend

What prevents female-male intimacy in relationships is self-centeredness, which men are encouraged all their lives to feed. And male-centered porn is one of the most potent ways they feed it.

The vast majority of porn is male-centered and focused on male orgasm and self-flattery. This kind of porn nurtures their isolation from women in their perceptions and thinking on sex, and as it influences their attitudes in relationships it eventually leads to their social isolation from real women.

However, the habit of porn hurts and fools them in the end, because they continue thinking and acting in self-centered ways that keep them oblivious to what women like myself want, both in sex and in social etiquette. So they become unsuccessful at preserving real relationships with women, who aren’t as non-existent as the women featured on the screen.

Despite their self-flattery that women vicariously enjoy sex through men’s orgasms, a woman continues to want what she wants. Real Women continue to seek their own pleasure, that is to say, Women who get Real. And if men are unprepared to follow and relate to female pleasure then they remain unsuccessful at gaining and keeping female attention. It is their loss, unfortunately, as we women don’t get anything out of being with selfish men.

Male self-centered thinking and behavior can’t take away a woman’s wants or prevent her from getting them met elsewhere. It can only blind men from seeing how they can make themselves relevant to women.

Why?

Why should men favor the will of women over their own? Because basically most men are entitlement hogs. They were conditioned to be. They were conditioned to think women want them to be.

In female-male relationships men are working with women, a people group that doesn't have the same sense of entitlement to receive as men do because they haven't been encouraged to be the center of attention and support in group situations; and men are dealing with an ego that blinds them to the needs of others so that they tend to assert their wants over others' needs. Unless they change relationship dynamics to build up her confidence and minimize his ego, they will most likely grow farther apart.

How can a man and a woman trust their minds not to play tricks on them as they revert back to her denial and sacrifice of what she wants for his assertion of what he wants? -By a man making active sacrifices of his wants to nurture hers, and his self-importance to demonstrate hers, as an exercise or effort to remind himself of the humility he needs to get in touch with to be fair to her. It is an exercise, both for the man and the woman, to talk differently and act differently than the "norm", if you will, in order to practice this mentality, which is like a ritual that helps one internalize ideas to achieve a mental or character change.

In order to make a woman happy, a man needs to focus on responding to and supporting her will; and this cannot be done while the man is simultaneously focused on what he wants, because he will never focus on his benefit and her benefit equally. He will always favor his benefit unless he makes a conscious effort to favor her interest and benefit.

When a man pushes and pushes for his will in a relationship by giving lip service and then pushing the boundary she has already expressed by making suggestions and taking actions that counter her will, his sense of entitlement wears down a woman until she gives up being confident in her will for herself, or the relationship. She starts to doubt the importance of her will as she sees his confidence and energy competing with hers in all kinds of disagreements. This motivates a woman to leave a man.

And men are easier to please than women. So it is more of an accomplishment for a man to please a woman than it is for him to please himself, and this accomplishment is pleasing in and of itself.

Unless men approach a relationship with a woman by focusing on what they have to offer her, rather than what they want to get, they will not be able to please a woman, and the only way it seems they can enter this state of mind is to actively deny their wants in order to help meet her needs, and her wants.

The Power of Demonstration

When it comes to female-male relationships, achieving fairness can be a tricky thing. How does one reconstruct a sense of entitlement for themselves that sturdies them against the tendency towards over-entitlement in the behavior of their lover? How does she balance the vulnerability of sex with the independence of will needed for her to lead and set the standards for her man’s behavior? Is male favoritism something that all men can be conditioned out of, or must there be a predisposition towards female favoritism in a man for him to have such potential? To what degree is male competitiveness towards women a hormonal problem from the over-ingestion of modern-day meat and dairy products? For me, I often wonder what makes the strategies I use to alter male behavior so effective, and if they are consistent with the principles of honesty, fairness and justice that inspire me in other areas of my life. For that reason, I have found myself drawn to effective strategies for modifying male behavior in my presence that are effective specifically because they utilize emotional self-control and self-preservation to allow the natural consequences of a person's actions to teach them justice.

Women are natural leaders in relationships, and when a woman realizes this it becomes apparent that she has the power to create justice in a relationship simply by controlling the pace of a man's access to her and regulating her rewards for good behavior. Bad behavior can be dealt with in a number of ways involving deterrents that demonstrate social justice and inspire behavior modification, but this involves energy and an investment in a man. When dealing with bad behavior from a man, one has to ask themselves if they are planning on holding on to him for a while or not. If not, it is more energy efficient for a woman to simply move on. Some men are best taught by demonstration that a woman he wants can leave him and never look back if he takes his chance to honor her for granted.

Justice Happens When People Are Honest

Justice for a man’s behavior towards women comes about when the woman he’s pursuing is honest about the feelings she is left with after spending time with him. When considering whether to put up with something or not, and how to spare a man’s feelings from reality, it is the most honest thing to assert one’s own feelings, needs and perspective, and in the end it is the best for his eventual enlightenment and happiness. Initially, though, it might lead to his crankiness.

A woman always has the option of masking her instinctual response for the sake of keeping a man compliant, or invoking his compliance, with what she wants from him. However, when a woman agrees to endure a man’s insensitive, unsupportive and unsacrificing behavior towards her she is not demonstrating an instinctual response but a contrived one where his failure to please her is compensated for by her over-exertion at the expense of her emotional peace.

This can be a way of manipulating the outcome of their encounter in the attempt to ensure the relationship works, or appears to work, even though she is not amused by this man’s behavior. It requires a person to bypass their emotional instincts and trespass their Goddess/God given comfort zone, which exists to protect them from injustice and thereby prevent others from being able to get away with acting unjustly towards them. So, responding to one’s instinctual sense of what is admirable or what is asinine ensures that a man is held accountable to the mechanism of universal justice that is built into our souls.

If the situation calls for disappointment with him and orders to get lost, honesty requires that it be done despite the desire to make the relationship appear like she wishes it to be. No pandering is necessary, and no sugarcoating of the true emotional situation he has precipitated is going to help him. Simple communication about the matter allows him to see the social consequences of that behavior and how it can undermine all of his relationships.

Avoiding The Not-Yet-Humble Man

Many disrespectful forms of behavior from men go undetected because of the excuses that these behaviors are common among others or are just meant as a joke. Such behaviors include not responding to what a woman says, interrupting a woman when she is speaking, touching a woman without permission, teasingly provoking or countering a woman or otherwise not causing her to laugh at his self-flattering joke, diminishing or playing games with the honor he owes her, denying that he owes women compensatory preference, and resisting concern for women's interests on the basis of preserving his own from them. Provoking and countering are the behaviors of a combative man who has a defiant disposition towards women, perhaps out of defensiveness over his failures towards them in the past. These signs indicate that a man is pretty much going to be useless to women for a long time under the best training conditions.

If a man's reoccurring behavior indicates a deep attitude problem, one where his thinking process is self-absorbed, self-preoccupied or egotistical, and therefore blind to the emotional needs of a woman, it is likely that his capacity for awareness of others and non-manipulative self-sacrifice is considerably stunted. Without others consistently demonstrating his undesirability when he employs selfish behaviors, or the potential for his romantic life once he shows a change in attitude, he will not have any reason to raise his effort level.

Trying to change the mind of this person or teach him a woman’s perspective is expended energy that is not worth the trouble, because he is not yet convinced of his vulnerability to women. Let life teach him this. The warning of an honest woman, a woman who appeals to him, and losing his access to her will bring him back to reality. The most efficient form of correction is for a woman to preserve her energy by stating her disapproval and leaving to let his own feelings teach him the rest. Leaving him by himself, or at least without her company and support, is non-combative because it is simply the acceptance of his anti-social behavior and her freedom from exposure to it.

The benefits of access to a woman’s presence and her company are powerful motivators for men, and the withdrawal of these benefits in response to careless or disrespectful behavior is punishment enough for them to have a change of heart over time.

Designing Sustainable Relationship Structures Through Honesty

In this way, fighting people and their wills is a waste of energy and is not necessary to demonstrate one’s importance or the importance of women. Nor is fighting with people necessary to achieve one’s standards for social behavior in a relationship.

Once a woman gets in touch with her true feelings regarding what she likes and what she doesn’t like, what she desires, and what her standards for social behavior are for men in her presence, she has the ability to teach a humble man how to please her.

It is also important for a woman to understand what role men play in fulfilling justice for women. Men are made to nurture women. It is built into their instincts. They are happy when their woman is happy, and when they see they have played an essential role in making her happy they are inspired to do more to please her. All they need is direction from her on how, specifically, to do so at that time. When a woman is willing to accept a man's sacrifices for her comfort and honor of her above himself, in public and in private, she is accepting the support she deserves and allowing a man to gain self-esteem through spiritual self-development. Women's insight and beauty nurture men's lives, and the symbiosis between women and men is for her sensual stimulation and spiritual influence on men to be repaid with honor and service to her needs and happiness by men. (For more on this concept, see the other articles under the "gender philosophy" category.) Once she perceives her importance to men's lives as a recipient of their nurturing, she will have clarity in perceiving how to preserve her resources around men and more confidence in asserting her emotional boundaries with them.

A woman first creates a structure of behavior for herself by determining her own interpersonal boundaries, such as what she will or will not tolerate in other’s treatment of her, and what level of intimacy she is willing and able to give to a man in the context of a certain show of trustworthiness and reliability from him. She adheres to her own structure by setting her limits with men in public and not tolerating exposure to anyone’s disrespect.

Once she is in a relationship, she provides or shares this structure with her chosen man by teaching him her boundaries. Only she can determine what tasks or achievements a man must accomplish for her in her presence in order to win different levels of her trust, and increased privileges to her attention, and these are based simply on her knowledge of her emotional responses and what enables her to enjoy herself and to trust a man.

Decisiveness regarding her standards and consistency about enforcing them is essential to inspiring him to be devoted to pleasing her. The more decisive and consistent she is in demonstrating her expectations, and the more reliable in action, the more confident he is that he knows how to please her and the more motivated he will be to show himself successful at it. It works well when she keeps her standards high to begin with, yet attainable for him, so that both her esteem for him and his own self-esteem will grow from the process of pursuing her favor.

Discipline and Boundary Enforcement

Preserving trust requires that a woman hold a man accountable for respecting her boundaries. Enforcing her boundaries in a relationship doesn’t require any fighting or emotional struggles. All it requires is for a woman to be decisive, to get her emotions under control in private, to relay the rules of intimacy and disciplinary measures to him in a straightforward way, and then follow them up with action when the situation arises. Just like a woman cannot argue with her instinctual emotions or her comfort zone, there is no argument to be had over the structure she has created based on these if he has chosen to accept her as she is. It is through demonstration of her own adherence to her boundaries that she enforces them with him, so there is no need for fighting to gain his support. He either follows her example or he leaves and gets his own place.

When there is a breach in trust because of his failure to respect her in attitude or action, the trust can only be repaired by a restoration of her faith in him, and his own faith in himself, to do better. An effective way to do this is to create a way for him to demonstrate his reversal of attitude through temporarily sacrificing his own comfort or honor in his own eyes to contribute to her comfort or honor. This can take many forms and depends on the couple and the symbolic metaphors that have developed between them for expressing sacrifice and respect.

Because it is the woman’s boundary that has been violated, it is she who initiates the confrontation with him to communicate the emotional effects of his behavior on her and what the consequences are for him with regard to his access to her. Likewise, she is the one to decide what temporary sacrifice he can make, what gesture he can give, to show his change of heart and devotion to honoring her.

When a woman asserts her need to have her faith restored in her man before they continue to be intimate, and when she allows him to make sacrifices for her by creating tasks for him that will benefit her, she gives him a chance to really earn her trust back and to impress her again so that she harbors no resentment or distrust. The opportunity provides the man with a catharsis for his sense of guilt and unworthiness of her in the form of his personal sacrifice, and when he benefits her in the process his self-esteem and self-confidence in his worthiness of her love grows. This success makes him much more devoted to protecting her honor and welfare, which he has begun to personally nurture and invest all levels of himself in.

Conclusion

A woman can believe in her importance and demonstrate it to others, whether they succeed at acknowledging it or not. Disrespectful men might think that losing her companionship won’t matter, but their feelings eventually demonstrate that it does matter, and that women are very important to their happiness. When a woman follows her own code of behavior for self-respect and respect for women, she inspires others by example, not argument, and avoids needlessly spending her energy on things like engaging emotionally with combative men. Perhaps one of the most convincing demonstrations of self-respect is the preservation of one’s own time and energy when dealing with men by using fewer words and more action.

Being a Woman in Western Society

There are so many reasons why it is great to be a woman. For many years I was blind to the value of being female and feminine because of a presumption in our society that women are disadvantaged biologically compared to men and are therefore inherently predisposed to losing physical and social battles with men. Thus, the assumption by many a coarse person that women are losers, wimps, or “pussies” as the phrase goes.

This perspective places way too much importance on the material world and appearances of power based on material measurements. An example of this presumption is the idea that “bigger is better”, when referring to the amount of space an individual takes up, or the size of a car, or the size of a house. Obviously, none of these examples support this theory as it is probably more evident now than ever that material conservation in car size and house size is better for all of us environmentally, not to mention the discovery of most people that the bigger their house is, the more cleaning they wind up having to do. Similarly, body mass has its disadvantages.

Most importantly, biological evolution and human social evolution demonstrate that people and living things adapt to the limitations of their environment by finding other means and methods for achieving their original goals.

This is the case with women, as being female requires women to rely on ways of protecting themselves and getting what they want other than physical confrontation. Women often have to develop psychological strengths and rely on the mental skills of secrecy, planning, and cunning, as well as keen observation of other people, to protect themselves from others’ injustices and bullying. They often use political maneuvers, using their perception of social dynamics and motivations of people, to win what they want despite the blocking of their social opportunities by male favoritism.

Women are expert communicators with the ability to put their feelings into words, listen to others, and interpret nuances in what is being said. This is due to the fact that most women in this culture are encouraged from youth to channel their energies into communicating with others and other activities that seem physically non-aggressive.

Also, because of the encouraged practice among women to take false responsibility for other people’s happiness and pacification, women develop powers of observation to perceive what others think and feel. With practice, they acquire methods of psychological manipulation to charm people with flattery of their ego to appease them or indirectly influence the wills of those who dominate their life to get what they want.

These are formidable skills, giving women power that often overrides the physical aggression of dominating men and male favoritism in society’s judgments. Examples of this include the political cunning and success of Elizabeth I, Queen of England, considered one of the most, or the most, powerful and shrewd monarch in history; the amazing success and “luck” of Grace O’Malley, who I wrote about earlier in the month; the many women who successfully posed as men to join the American Civil War; and the successful career of Dr. James Barry, medical surgeon and soldier for the British army who rose to the rank of medical superintendent-general and wasn’t discovered to be a woman until his/her autopsy (Holland, 2001).

Women’s social training also gives them the extra awareness of others that enables them to be considerate, empathetic, and nurturing. Practicing these abilities creates a sense of intimacy with others that makes personal sacrifices and altruism worthwhile.

The regular practice of interpersonal skills also gives women additional confidence in their ability to identify and feel emotions without being overwhelmed by them. This often leads to a high degree of emotional and mental adaptability, making them adept at changing in and out of emotions without losing the ability to make practical decisions. For example, many women stay in unhappy marriages for a while for the practical reason of ensuring their children’s safety and material provision, as well as their own safety. Nevertheless, they can express and release their discontent and pain verbally and with physical expression to those who are trustworthy without compromising their decision.

Women's emotional adaptability also enables them to move on from a relationship with a man who no longer contributes to their practical concerns for safety and happiness. They are able to quickly change loyalties, if necessary, and switch their emotional ties with people to ensure their physical and emotional safety and comfort. Despite their emotional swings, women are extremely practical in their allegiances. This fact indicates that their emotional changes are not a sign of weakness but of confidence in handling emotions, and also that women’s emotional expressiveness serves the practical purpose of giving them the mental flexibility and resilience to deal with changes in their life situation. A minor example of this would be how women can easily switch their perception of a male “friend” to seeing him as a potential lover, or how they can demote a “lover” to the status of a male “friend”. These changes in perspective on relationships seem to come a lot harder and take a lot more time for men.

One of the benefits of being seen by others as “weak” and “vulnerable” compared to men is not having people be surprised when we cry. And crying releases tension, grief, and stress for women, most likely accounting for the fact that women have a longer lifespan than men. I have actually heard men lament their inability to cry, including a man who was mourning a family-member’s death and said he wanted and needed to cry but couldn’t get that emotional and psychological release because he had been so conditioned by others to not let himself cry or express emotion.

In fact, the benefit in being part of a people group that has been regularly under-estimated and discriminated against is the opportunity to perceive the wrongness of the behaviors that hurt you early enough in life to prevent doing them yourself. Those wrongs are mistakes that other people made, and will one day regret, so that you don’t have to. Freedom from the guilt and embarrassment of having been unjust to others is a beautiful thing and lasts a lifetime.

That is one of the reasons that I try to identify any hatred of women in myself, any predisposition towards over-scrutinizing and criticizing women, or attitude of over-crediting and making allowances for men, and deliberately change my way of thinking to reflect my convictions. Those convictions come from having been wounded, over and over again, by men’s critical attitude towards women, disregard for women’s feelings, lack of appreciation for women’s sacrifices and achievements, and double-standard judgment in favor of men. If I hate those attitudes and behaviors in other people because of how they short-changed me, then the gift in having been stung by them is to not be guilty of that foolishness myself. However, this requires me to heed what those experiences with men have taught me and to not be afraid to change myself.

Physically, women are powerful to the same degree as men, or more so, through their inherent sensual beauty compared to men. Women’s sensual allure has a more pervasive influence on people than male physical aggression does, because it evokes men’s pleasure and instinctive allegiance towards the woman they encounter, simply by sight. It hypnotizes them, basically. It is a more subtle form of power than violence, and encourages social and political pacifism. The subtlety of women’s physical power makes it all the more powerful for lack of anticipation by others, and carries a lot less guilt than intimidation.

So being a woman is an enviable social position that puts women in a position to be role models for men. The benefits of being female in our society are all around us, and only need to be acknowledged to be appreciated. Being a woman in the context of Western society produces the power to evoke desire and allegiance from others, the opportunity to avoid the moral mistakes of others, the enhanced abilities to perceive people’s attitudes and vulnerabilities to protect oneself or help others, the self-defense skills of cunning and outsmarting bullies, relief from unnecessary emotional tensions on a regular basis, an extra long lifespan, the ability to adapt to new social situations and roles for maximizing practicality, and the ability to understand and relate to other people and feel a sense of emotional intimacy from that. These advantages and forms of power enable women to win what they really want and circumvent other people’s resistance to it.

References:
Barbara Holland,2001. They Went Whistling: Women Wayfarers, Warrior, Runaways, and Renegades