Why Men Are The Submissive Sex.

By William Bond

We have been told for thousands of years, that men are the natural dominant sex
and Women are naturally submissive. And this is confirmed by the fact that men
dominate every government in the world. We still have only a minority of female
politicians and a very small minority of female leaders of countries. The same is
also true in business, law and religion, Women, are in the minority anywhere,
wherever there is power and status.

If we look back in recorded history the situation is even worse. Very few Women
have ever achieved power. We can think of a few Women like Cleopatra, Elizabeth 1
and Catherine the Great but the vast majority of rulers have been men. And if we
go back before recorded history we are told that men were even more dominant. The
caveman, we are told, was an aggressive brute who dominated cavewoman through
extreme violence. So the picture we are given, is that man, always has and always
will, dominated Women.

It is true that Feminism claims that men and Women are equal and the same, but
this claim doesn’t square with the facts. There has never been a time in recorded
history where men and Women have been equal, and Feminism can only point to a few
stone-age tribes where this might of happened.

So with all this overwhelming evident that seems to prove that man is the dominant
sex, how is it possible to claim that man is the natural submissive sex? The
reason is, is that man’s natural submissiveness is the reason why alpha men rule
our world.

Throughout most of history there has always been powerful warlords, kings and
emperors whom have gained power through violence and warfare. The origins of all
countries and empires have been through warlords who have conquered other people
and ruled over them. Much is written about very successful generals like
Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Cesar, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and
Napoleon, but not a lot is written about the ordinary soldier who fought for these
successful generals.

Whenever the military talks about attributes of being a successful soldier, what
is put at the top of the list, is always discipline. A successful general has to
know that whenever he gives an order, he has to have instant and unquestioning
obedience. Successful generals have to be able to use their men like pawns on a
chessboard, and will willing sacrifice thousands of them, to gain a tactical or
strategic advantage.

An example of this was in the Zulu wars between the Zulus and the British in the
19th century. Chief Shaka, to demonstrate to a visiting dignitary, how his men
were so obedient, ordered a troop to march over a cliff to their deaths. Then the
Zulus won the first battle with the British, in the Battle of Isandlwana. It was
only the discipline of the Zulu warriors that made this possible. Although they
were only armed with spears, they continued to attack British troops armed with
modern rifles, until they finally overwhelmed them. The Zulus finally lost the
war when they simply ran out of men.

In the 20th century, with the invention of the machine gun, war has become even
more deadly. In the First World War it is claimed that the ordinary soldiers
were, “lions lead by donkeys”. This was because all the generals in the conflict
didn’t know how to fight a war with modern weapons like machining guns, modern
artillery and poison gas and so millions of lives were sacrificed needlessly, for
very little gain. Yet, in spite of this, the ordinary solder still obeyed orders
to come out of the trenches and face near certain death, in the face of enemy
machine gun fire. In the Second World War the Japanese took things even further
by ordering their airmen to crash their planes into enemy shipping in Kamikaze
attacks. In more recent times many guerrilla groups like the Tamil Tiger in Sri
Lanka and many Islamic terrorist groups use suicide bombers.

This means that if you can train a man to risk his life or even commit suicide
when ordered to do so, suggests that men are very submissive. Yes, it is true
that Women suicide bombers have also been used, but Women suicide bombers haven’t
been so successful. In the Palestinian conflict there are a large numbers of
Women in Israel jails whom were sent out to be suicide bombers, but couldn’t go
through with it. Unlike men, Women have the sense, to see the stupidity of what
they are being pressurised into doing.

It is men’s complete obedience to authority that has paradoxically makes him the
dominant sex. The Feminists once had a slogan that, “the sisterhood is powerful”,
unfortunately this hasn’t been the case. Women have totally failed to create a
powerful sisterhood. It can be also said that men haven’t produced a powerful
brotherhood either, but they have done the next best thing. Men’s total obedience
to authority allows alpha men to gain great power, by being able to mobilise large
numbers of men, who do as they are told.

A despotic dictator has great power over the people because he has an army of
young men, whom if ordered to beat up, murder, rape or even torture any member of
the public, will obey without question. This means that the average man is not
either very dominant or bossy but very submissive, because it is men’s very
submissive behaviour in obeying those in authority, that keeps the whole
patriarchal society going.

The problem is that if you ask any man, “are you submissive?” he will deny it
completely. This is because men all over the world have been trained to think of
themselves as dominant. Or at least dominant as far as Women are concerned. And
the men who would most likely to strongly deny their submissive behaviour, would
be soldiers. After all soldiers do have a very strong machismo image, and to
suggest they are submissive, would be like suggesting that they are wimps. And if
you pointed out that soldiers would always obey orders without question, he would
claim it is discipline, and not submissiveness.

Yet whether a person is disciplined or submissive, the result is exactly the same,
both types of people, do as they are told. The only difference is perception. So
although macho soldiers are not a sort of people we normally associate with
submissive behaviour, the reality is, is that their extreme obedience to
authority, where they will risk their lives or even commit suicide, when ordered
to do so, does make them very, very submissive.

The same is also true in the civilian world. Feminists have already observed how
the whole patriarchal society is a hierarchal system. Most men like to claim that
they only obey their boss at work, because he pays the wages. Yet, even though
men may moan and complain about their bosses, or the politicians, or anyone else
in authority over him, men on the whole, do as they are told. And this
instinctive obedience by men is the foundation of patriarchy, if men didn’t
instinctively obey those he considered to be in authority over him, then the whole
patriarchal system would collapse.

This then is the basis of political power. Because men do instinctively obey
those in authority, then political power comes from being perceived by the
population as the alpha male. If we look at the patriarchal society as a whole,
then men look up to and even sometimes hero worship those in he perceives as being
above him in the pecking order, and will ruthlessly exploit those he perceives as
being below him. In all patriarchal countries nearly all the wealth and power of
a country are in the hands of a few alpha men and the rest are poor and powerless.

This is true for even a modern Western country like the USA, the top 1 % of the
population owned 34% of the country’s wealth. Also, the top 20% of the population
owned 85% of the wealth of the country. Leaving only 15% of the wealth for the
bottom 80% of people. In poorer third world countries these figures would be even
worse, where there is an enormous gap between rich and poor. Yet in spite of the
fact this causes great resentment in men all over the world, revolution doesn’t
happen very often and as we have seen throughout history, revolution doesn’t solve
the problem either. The new rulers end up behaving as badly, or even worse, than
the leaders they have replaced.

To make society function smoothly, we are all taught obedience from a very early
age. Children are expected to be obedient to their parents and then later to
their teachers at school. The paradox is that as boys learn to play macho games
in sport, the more he is taught to become obedient. All team sports need the
players to do exactly what their coach tells them, to become a winning team. This
is also true of individual sports as well, where most sports coaches act like
sergeant majors on a parade ground.

So boys from an early age are given two contrary messages. The first message is
that men have to be very strong and macho and be willing to ‘stand up for
themselves’. Yet at the same time they are taught to obey those in authority
without question. No wonder teenage boys when they grow old enough to think for
themselves, become very confused. As clearly both messages are in contradiction
to each other, and so it encourages schizophrenic type of behaviour.

So obedience and passivity is part of the human condition, but how boys and girls
react to this is very different. Scientific studies done on children show a
distinct difference in how boys and girls react when given a project to do. For
boys they first have to elect a leader, who tells the rest of them what to do, but
if they cannot do this then nothing gets done, as they continue to argue among
themselves. This is not true for girls, who are far better communicators and can
discuss among themselves what needs to be done, with far less conflict and so can
work together without a leader.

We can see this throughout the patriarchal society where leadership is all-
important. In business, under good leadership a company can thrive, but under bad
leadership a company will quickly go broke. The same is true for political
leaders a bad leader can destroy a country as we see in the case of Robert Mugabe
the leader of Zimbabwe he is a terrible leader but the people are still helpless
in the face of this power and seem to be unable to replace him. It is very true
in war. For instance Napoleon won every battle he ever fought in, until the
battle of Waterloo, where he lost to another general that also had an unbeaten
record. The French army has never been so successful before Napoleon or after
him. It was his leadership that made all the difference. In these situations the
common soldier feels totally powerless, because he is totally reliant on the
leadership of the army whether they will be successful.

Another instance of the common man’s feeling of helplessness is the1929 Wall St

crash that caused a worldwide Depression, the common people had no say in the
decisions that caused the crash, but it was they who suffered the consequences.
During the cold war the USSR and USA had thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at
each just waiting for someone to ‘press the button’, that would wipe out humanity.
The general public was very frightened of this situation, but were helpless to
stop it going on. The cold war only ended with the economic collapse of the USSR,
who couldn’t keep up with the USA in producing more advanced weapons. It didn’t
end with both sides seeing the stupidity of what they were doing.

What is very clear, is that to be able to work together collectively, men need to
have a leader. Unfortunately if the leader happens to be an idiot, then the whole
group is in trouble. In the past there have been cases of kings who have become
insane like Ivan The Terrible of Russia, yet in spite of his insanity he was still
allowed to rule. It seems men will still faithfully obey their leader even though
they know he is mad.

Therefore political power comes from being in control over the majority of passive
men. About five thousand years ago alpha men learn to control men through
violence, a small group of violent men were able to dominate a far larger group of
less violent men. Today they would be seen as a gang of organized criminals, or
bandits. These bandits then recruited more men from the general population to be
part of their gang and so the leader became a warlord who used his power to
conquer other areas around him. In time these warlords became kings, pharaohs or
emperors, where they ruled whole countries or empires and to ensure that the
people respect them, they set themselves up as gods.

Back in the Neolithic times archaeologists have discovered a lot of evidence to

suggest that Women ruled these early civilizations, but the trouble is that many
people find this hard to believe. After all, throughout history we have been used
to brutal alpha males who have ruled countries by force and violence. The problem
is that what archaeologists have discovered is that warfare was unknown back in
the first Neolithic civilizations. When they excavated ancient cities like Catal
Höyük in Turkey and Caral in Peru, or the Neolithic civilizations of Malta, Crete,
Eastern Europe, Japan, China and the Indus Valley civilization in Pakistan, they
couldn’t find any weapons of war. Not only that, they couldn’t find any skeletons
showing any signs of violence, nor could they find any carved images of war and
violence and any fortification protecting the towns and cities. Whereas the
evidence of war and violence was overwhelming in later Bronze and Iron age
excavations. With thousands of weapons of war being discovered, skeletons in
graves showing signs of damage by swords, axes, spears and clubs, with very strong
fortifications around all towns and cities, and carvings on walls of wars, acts of
violence and torture.

So how was it that all over the world civilisations could live in peace and
harmony for thousands of years, but then suddenly these peaceful civilizations
were swept away and replaced by extremely violent empires?

The theory put forward by the archaeologist Marija Gimbutas, was that warlike
patriarchal tribes from the North conquered these peaceful Matriarchal
civilisations. Now, this makes sense of how some of these Neolithic civilisations
were destroyed but it doesn’t explain where these patriarchal tribes came from,
and why they suddenly turn to war and violence.

To explain this, some people have pointed out that the Sahara desert was once a
wetter and greener place 6,000 years ago, and then is slowly began to dry up. So
it was suggested that the people living there faced years of starvation and it was
this starvation that turn these people into warlike monsters that went out and
conquered the world.

I personally think this is a terrible idea. First of all, the Sahara didn’t
become desert overnight. Yes, things would be tough if the rains didn’t come for
a few years and many people would starve to death. But this is not unusual, and
situations like this have happened all over the world, throughout history. In
this situation with the fertile lands turning to desert, the people will start to
move out of the area. After all it has taken thousands of years for the Sahara
region to become desert it is today. The process is still going on today, as the
Sahara desert is still moving south. So it means that the people living there had
time to adapt or move.

Also I am not sure that starvation does turn people into monsters. Yes,
starvation does stress out the whole community but in modern times charity workers
that go into famine areas find the biggest problem, are people becoming lethargic.
Many of them lose all hope and sit down to die, just waiting and hoping things
with change for the better. Yes, some people will fight for life but not
necessary will fight other people. Human beings do have brains and they are more
likely to use them to find alternative sources of food. After all, humans are
ingenious enough to even find food or water in a desert, as we can see with the
present inhabitants of the Sahara Desert and with the Australian Aboriginal. It
is true patriarchal societies tribes in times of famine do fight each other and
steal each other’s food, but I don’t think Matriarchal tribes would do this and
would be more likely to help each other out of a difficult situation.

Why Matriarchy was overthrown is open to speculation but in my opinion this may of
came about because of Women’s complacency. Because men are so passive, Women may
have taken their obedience for granted and perhaps tried to give men equality. As
the result they were no longer telling men what to do. This created a power
vacuum, where men looked around for someone, anyone, to tell them what to do, and
alpha men then took over the dominance of men and filled this power vacuum.

The concept of a power vacuum comes from patriarchal politics, where if there
isn’t a strong leader ruling a country, then this creates a power vacuum and
someone like a warlord ends up taking over. This has happened in recent time in
Somalia, with the collapse of its government in 1991, no other political group has
been powerful enough to take power. This has resulted is that the country is
being controlled by competing warlords.

A power vacuum only comes about because men are so submissive they need someone to
tell them what to do. So if no one is doing this, then it is open to anyone to
adopt the alpha role and take power. Because men are so submissive and were so
obedient to Women, many Women got the idea that men were not a threat to them.
And because Women in general are fair-minded, some of them began to feel it was
unfair that men were second-class citizens, and decided to give men equality.

There is some archaeological evidence for this. Towards the end of the Neolithic
age were previously archaeologists had found only images of Goddesses, then
suddenly there appeared Goddesses with sons. They at first were infant sons but
then it seems the sons grew up and become the Goddess’s brother or lover. So
these images suggested strongly that men and Women are equal. This might sound
very sensible and reasonable, but men didn’t know what to do with their newfound
freedom and were still looking around for someone to tell them what to do, and
this created a power vacuum.

If Women were not telling men what to do, then men looked within their own sex for
a leader, so these alpha men filled the power vacuum left by Women. Yet even then
Women may not have done anything about this, they didn’t see the danger signs and
let things progress. They at first may of found it convenient that instead of
telling a lot of men individually what to do, they just tell the alpha male what
to do and he would organize everything for them. And so it wasn’t a problem while
these alpha males were still subordinate to Women. It only became a problem when
the alpha males decided they wanted to rule Women in the same way they were ruling
other men.

What many Women don’t understand about men is that equality is an alien concept to
the masculine mind. If we look at male animals like stags, bulls or lions the
males fight each other for dominance and the strongest male gets to mate with all
the females. There is no concept of equality, you are either a winner or loser,
and the winner takes it all and the loser gets nothing. We can see the same in
competitive sports which men really like, there has to be a winner or loser. The
same is true in war, with each side fighting to win, and it is also true of the
patriarchal society, which is organized as a hierarchal structure. Even when men
set out with the purpose of creating an equal society like with communism and
socialism they completely failed.

So if men were not allowed to be subordinate to Women, because Women were claiming
that man and Women were equal, then because the masculine mind didn’t understand
equality, the only other option men had, was to dominate Women. And they learnt
they could do this through violence. After all, men being bigger and stronger than
Women, always had the advantage in violent situations. The problem alpha men had,
was that normal men didn’t want to do this, so they had started a propaganda
campaign to convince men that Women were inferior to them. So by becoming
convinced, through clever propaganda that Women were after all inferior to
themselves, men no longer had any qualms about using violence against Women.
Starting a worldwide revolution where men have been dominating Women through
violence ever since.

Once one Matriarchal community become patriarchal then these new patriarchal men
started conquering neighbouring Matriarchal tribes and civilizations. The world
didn’t become patriarchal overnight it is estimated that the first patriarchal
tribe came into being about 6,000 years ago, but the last major country to become
patriarchal was Japan, at about 300 BC. Some areas of Matriarchy have clung on
into fairly recent historic times. Like the Basque people of Northern Spain and
Southern France, the Czech people in modern day Czech Republic, the Berbers of the
Sahara desert, the Gypsies and the Keralal people of India. Some of Matriarchal
communities have survived into modern times, like the The Minangkabau people in
Western Sumatra, the Moso people of China and the Hopi Indians of North America.

Therefore men have a choice of being ruled by alpha men or by Women. I am aware
that Feminists who prefer sexual equality reject this concept but they have to
accept that men are very different to Women. Feminism makes no sense to men,
because it is about sexual equality, all they want to know is where they stand in
the pecking order. So if they are told that Women are inferior to him he will
exploit and abuse Women, and if he is told that Women are superior him he will
obey Women and expect her to exploit him.

This is what happened at the beginning of the patriarchal age. Men were told they
are equal to Women, but this made no sense to men. So in the minds of men, if
Women were no longer superior to them, then they had to be inferior. Once men
accepted this idea, then it made patriarchy possible, but in modern times, if men
were told that this was wrong and Women are superior to men after all, then
Matriarchy becomes possible once again.

For this reason, in every patriarchal society, alpha men have seen Women as a
threat to their power. Even today in Islam they have the ‘honour’ system, where
Women are beaten up or killed if they are ‘disrespectful’ or disobedient to men.
Social pressure has forced men to kill their wives, sisters and even mothers. If
Women were the natural submissive sex then there would be no reason for men to use
extreme violence against Women to keep them submissive. Women would simply do as
they were told without violence and intimidation. The fact that, Islamic society
has to encourage men to beat up and even kill Women to make them obedient,
suggests that Women are not naturally submissive.

It is like in slavery, the only reason why slaves where whipped, beaten and killed
were because slaves resented being forced to work for no money. So if violence is
used to force anyone to obey, it means they are being forced to go against their
natural behaviour.

What is less known is that they had a similar though not so extreme system in
Western countries. Up until the 20th century a husband was considered to be
‘unmanly’ if he couldn’t dominate his wife. So men were encouraged to ‘control’
their wives through violence. Also Women were denied education and not allowed to
have any job or career that gave them power, wealth or status. So the very fact
that the patriarchal society has to actively oppress Women to ‘keep them under
control’ means that submissiveness is not Women’s natural behaviour.

Patriarchal propaganda likes to claim that man was always the dominant sex, and
claims that in prehistoric times men were violent brutes who dominated Women even
more then they did in historic times. Yet, there is no proof of this whatsoever.
Scientists know nothing of the social structure of pre-historic people, but that
doesn’t stop them speculating about it and then presenting these speculations to
the public as scientific fact.

There is a lot of evidence from the large amount of Goddess statues discovered in
prehistoric excavation that humans once held Women in very high esteemed. But
this fact is not told to the general public.

What holds Women back from regaining power and dominance over men once more is
patriarchal brainwashing that tells men and Women that men are the ‘natural’
dominant sex. So that even today in the West, men still think they have to
dominate their wives or they are not a ‘real’ man. While many Women suppress
their normal dominance over men, because they think it is ‘unnatural’ for Women to
be bossy.

The fact is, that the average man would be far better off living in a Matriarchy
than the present patriarchal system. Simply because patriarchy doesn’t benefit the
average man, it only benefits the very small minority of alpha men, who ruthlessly
exploits the general population and do stupid things like start wars with other
countries. The average man would be far better off in a Matriarchy where the
female rulers would care about the people they rule and wouldn’t be interested in
fighting wars to settle disputes between countries.

So it means that we all, (both men and Women) need to see patriarchal propaganda
for what it is, just propaganda. It is vitally important that we question the way
patriarchy brainwashes our children to act against their natural instincts, so men
can accept their submissive behaviour without feeling ‘unmanly’, while Women can
likewise accept that it is natural for them to dominate men.

Academic Feminists, like Cynthia Eller, have been taken in completely by

patriarchal propaganda completely, so they believe that if women were to demand
Matriarchy or even a Goddess worshipping religion, men will react against them
with violence. Yet, if we look around the world, what we find is the opposite.
The greatest degree of violence against Women is in extreme patriarchal countries
where Women have no legal rights whatsoever. In Western countries where Women,
legally at least have equal rights, is where there is far less violence against
Women. Men do not beat up Women whom they think are above them in the pecking
order, they only beat up Women who they see as below them.
Men only beat up, rape and murder Women because they have been brainwashed into
believing that Women are inferior to them and they have to inflict violence onto
Women to retain their place in the pecking order. It would certainly help to get
rid of the ‘role models’ boys and men see on films or in video games of extremely
violent ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’. These films and video games give out, the not so
subtle message, that, “you can solve all problems through violence” and that, “a
‘real’ man is a violent man”.

This means that both Women and men are victims of patriarchal brainwashing, and
the sooner we can get rid of it and stop it being fed to our children, the better
off we all will be.