Friday, September 24, 2010

Guest Post: Wife Worship & Female Superiority, Part 2


(Continuing the two-part guest post from “Beckie,” who describes, in a series of emails to me, her leading role as a wife in an FLR.—Mark Remond)

Guest Post: Wife Worship & Female Superiority, Part 2, by Beckie

Mark,

Thank you for this post [“Au876 on Financial Control, Part 1"]. It has given me refreshing thoughts. I referred this post to a couple of my friends to read and consider implementing some of the ideas.

I agree that financial control for the wife is the most important part of the marriage and solidifies her (my) control. This was hard for me to manage at first, but now I would not have it any other way.

I opened my own checking account a few years ago when I went back to work after having our last child. After reading this I thought it a good idea to close our joint account my husband pays bills out of. I talked with him and told him I would like for him to deposit his paycheck into my private account. I will start to pay all the bills and he will not see anything of his paycheck. He has a debit card he uses when he wants to get something for himself; he will no longer have access to that. He had questions and doubts, but I told him the decision is final and permanent.

After that conversation, my stomach was churning, maybe with some fear, but mostly with excitement. Total financial control over your husband is many times more powerful than control over everything else. I walked away with a real high, like on drugs.

I will not be giving him any allowance like others do. He has a blue-collar job, and brown bags it every day, so he doesn't need money for lunches. He is to have $10 in his wallet if anything comes up, and needs to tell me when it does so I can replenish it. If he needs to buy anything for the house or yard, he is to ask for my debit card. I am sure I will have to make minor adjustments to this as they come up.
Of course he wasn't happy when I told him of this. But afterward he said his happiness isn't important, his only happiness is to see me happy. Which I am. When done, I told his to return to his chores. It gives me “butterflies” in my belly when I tell him that.

—Beckie

Mark,

Thank you for your response. And thank for sharing this with your wife. I felt uncomfortable sending it to a man, but most female led relationship blogs by women are too much kink, dominant, male hating, and I don't want to be involved in that.
My story is “perfect-world”-based, of course. Are our boys always obedient and worshipful? Yeaaaa...right! As they say, life happens. They need to be reminded who they are. The way our daughters and I act sometimes, my husband and son must wonder sometimes what is so superior about females. Female superiority is natural, but we have a lot to learn about it.

Women are advancing in the workplace in pay and promotions. But most wives would still prefer not to have to work. I work part-time a few hours a week mostly for the interaction of the people there. My husband earns enough that I don't have to work. Would your wife prefer to not have to work full-time? I would encourage you to get a part-time job weekends so she could “kick up her feet” and do more for herself. Unfortunately in our economy today, too many wives have to work, though many find their jobs fulfilling.

I know how your wife feels with an egalitarian nature. A wife who understands female superiority means realizing your husband is inferior, and women have a hard time thinking of their husbands in a negative term like inferior. But the facts I laid out for you in my story give no other option. Once your wife sees herself as superior, that will allow her to accept your worship. Most husbands today understand, even if subconsciously, that they are inferior to their wives.

You say my husband is a lucky man. He has to obey even when he disagrees. He comes home from a hard day’s work (where they don't have A/C!) and, after taking a shower, starts supper, cleans after supper and does other chores. He is no longer allowed to watch TV (takes his focus away from focusing on my desires, and takes too long to get it back), has to be in bed by 10 p.m. (works 6:30 a.m. – 3 p.m.). After working all week, never sees or has access to any of the money he earns. He has accepted all this to worship me. He admits lucky is the last thing he is. He does it for me. I am the lucky one.

I can enjoy myself doing something I love and come home to a hot-cooked meal. The guys wait till us girls start to eat and they take what is left over. I have the evening to enjoy with the kids, watch something on TV, or go out with some girlfriends and come home late and not have to explain anything to him. I can sleep late and wake up to fresh coffee, he has to put on another pot when he leaves for work. I can spend money on whatever I want (within my budget). He occasionally has to work a Saturday. That allows me to buy something special that I show him so he knows what his overtime bought me; he specifically requested I do this. I don't want to discuss our sex life, but I pursue it when I want it, not him. And I am worshiped. “Lucky” is not the same at all as “worshiped.” No, I don't consider men in an FLR to be lucky. To be a woman knowing she is superior is special.

You have a good site, but you need to have female perspectives of what it is like to be worshiped.

—Beckie

Mark,

Yes, you may use my (real-life) story for your post, as long as you change the ages a little, and any other personal information I may have in there. And feel free to share with your wife, this is more important for all women to understand.

[You write] "...this is not an intellectual exercise, or a game, but real life." Most of what is on the Internet is not real life. Many (most) of the commenters on your site I am sure are not real. I wonder how many who talk about their wives are actually married. You are right, this is real life. I was encouraged to start a blog about us, but I really don't have any interest. I would run out of things to write about after a week.

When I talked about all my husband has to obey and do, I need to clarify a few things. I do some of the housework, the things I find more pleasing. I cook dinner 2-3 times a week, certain foods I am great at, and he is great at other meals. I also clean our bedroom (since he works early) and run the sweeper; he does the rest. As for the 10 p.m. bedtime, he has to get up early for work so he always went to bed around then. I just made the 10 p.m. a rule so he has to make sure his chores are done by then.

—Beckie

Mark,

I can understand how you have a hard time with being consistent, you were raised in a society where women were considered equal to men and were expected to share or do more of the chores than their husbands. I don't think you have accepted female superiority as a fact yet, though you want to. If you did and truly worshiped your wife, you would have no problem after you came home from work and started in on dinner and your chores. You need to set a good example for your children, and your wife will quickly accept her role to be worshiped.

In the past, men were always required to work 12 hours a day in hard labor 6 days a week. Farmers worked in their fields and barns from early morning till late at night 7 days a week to provide for their wives and children. You have the comfort of your wife's home to continue your work before you need to go to bed. Why are men in our society reluctant to do their job?
—Beckie

Mark,

Hopefully, this will get people to understand and accept female superiority as a fact of life. One point I would like to add. The last few years, women have been striving for equality in all things. We are not equal, we are superior. There are a few roles in life women should not be permitted to be involved in. These would be safety forces (police and fire) and military combat. It is the role of men to always protect women. In dangerous situations, men will put others at risk to protect a woman. In history men always went to war to protect women. World War I was the last war where they tried to protect civilian death. In the Civil War, over 500,000 men died and only 50 women. These 50 women who died were too many; it would have been acceptable if thousands more men died if it meant the 50 women didn't have to. Women should at any and all costs be protected from harm.

I understand this is a hard saying, especially in today's culture. But go back to our grandfathers, the “greatest generation,” and WWII. Ask those men the same question. Ask the men who survived the Civil War if it would have been acceptable for them to die if it meant women could have been saved. Ask those men on the Titanic who encouraged women to enter the lifeboats, knowing the kind of death that awaited them in the icy waters. Men understood the importance of women and protecting them at the cost of their own lives. A century ago, men understood and followed term "women and children first."

In the military, men have been trained and are willing to suffer painful death to protect all females. The military teaches men how to honor and respect women. Since the end of the draft in the early 70's, males show little respect and honor; men used to open doors for us, and used to stand when a superior female entered a room. You never see that anymore. I may be a pacifist and against war, but I believe the draft should be reinstated and all males from age 18 serve 4 years in the military.

--Beckie

(End Part Two)
*

33 comments:

Leslie said...

Beckie,

Ah, the female superiority argument.

In an abstract sense, the whole goddess thing can be beautiful -- in a courtly love kind of way. Kinda sorta. If you squint. (Okay, okay. I'll admit it. Courtly love pretty much makes me melt.) However, there are two sides to every coin, and the corresponding ideology of *male inferiority* is as flagrantly inaccurate as it is insidious.

Patrick wrote a stunning rebuttal. I won't even try to touch it, so superior are his skills in rebutting. :) Let me approach the superiority paradigm from a different angle:

Women are superior to men = ALL women are superior to ALL men??

So...

Andrea Yates > Mahatma Gandhi?

Sarah Palin > Thomas Jefferson?

Michelle "Bombshell" (Nazi Enthusiast) McGee > Winston Churchill?

I think not, madam.

You're entitled to your personal views. Diverse opinions make life interesting. For that reason, I fear the prospect of ANY single, extremist ideology imposed upon an unwilling populace, like some wild femdom re-write of Orwell's 1984. And compulsory military service for all 18+ men? Sorry, but if you want my 20-year-old, epileptic little brother, and/or my 25-year-old boyfriend, you gotta go through *me*. Nobody messes with my menfolk. :)

(cont.)

Leslie said...

I found my way into this lifestyle because the man I've loved for four years wanted to share that part of himself with me. This does not make him inferior. I would never date someone I regarded as inferior and I have no interest in cultivating such a union. FLR or no, I want my equal. I want to argue when we need to argue. I want him to be honest with me whether his opinion is invited or not. And, I even want him to tell me that I'm being completely unreasonable when I'm on a raging, b-word war path. (And he does, by the way. Even when I don't want him to.)

I'm not a god. And I'm not a goddess. I'm a regular girl with regular guy in a mostly vanilla relationship with occasional mild kink and more-than-occasional bossiness. While I agree that many couples could find happiness in FLR, I don't think it should become the BDSM equivalent of Islam's Sharia Law. This is not Iran. This is the United States. Let FLR have commensurate status with any other lifestyle or ideology.

Those who adopt it will do so because they want to. Not because they know no other way.

I have to admit, I was saddened to learn that you regard your son as inferior to your daughters, solely on the basis of his gender. Sure, 5,000 + years of unbroken patriarchy haven't been awesome, but what does that have to do with a 14-year-old kid, anyway?

Ah, well. Your life, your rules, obviously. I apologize for the length of this mini-manifesto; I don't know where it came from. And thank you (and Mark) for sharing your correspondence with the rest of us -- all complaints notwithstanding.

It was certainly a thought-provoking read. :)

Obedient husband said...

Beckie,
Having spent over twenty years serving in the U.S. military, I would like to opine that... well, your comments regarding the military are just silly.
"In the military, men have been trained and are willing to suffer painful death to protect all females" Gee, I must have missed that class. All I remember is extensive training that focused on staying alive and protecting your fellow soldiers.
"The military teaches men how to honor and respect women"
The military does teach soldiers how to render honor and respect, but I mostly remember those being bestowed upon comrades who fell at the hands of extremist idealogical islamic morons. Honestly, the only training I ever got regarding women revolved around avoiding STD's and (later in my career)avoiding sexual harassment type trouble.
"I may be a pacifist and against war" Nobody likes war, but it is sometimes necessary. Ever heard of Hilter, Stalin, Lenin, S. Hussein (yes he did massacre scores of people).

I have read your blog posts through several times now and have reached a couple of conclusions.
1. I don't envy your husband.
2. Wife Worship and Female Supremacy are very different things. One is pretty fun and makes for great marriage (yes, some of us ARE happily married).... the other is a pretty extreme idealogy that.... after careful consideration.... is B.S.

Allen said...

Obedient, you are correct but so is Beckie.

My father fought in WWII, in the Pacific. He faced many horrors that affected him emotionally for life, many he will not talk about. Among some of the ones he has told are what the Japanese did to women in occupied lands. We visited him this weekend and kind of asked him about what Beckie said. He is 90 but still has a sharp mind. He stated without hesitation that he and every man he served with would have given their life to protect any woman, they were trained that way both in the home and in the military.

But the 1960's and Vietnam changed everything, not only the military, but in our society. I would have been Vietnam bound if I hadn't failed my army physical (vision). People lost respect for everything and everyone. So by the time you spent your 20 years in the military, my father would not have recognized.

You also said that "2. Wife Worship and Female Supremacy are very different things." True, but she never mentioned supremacy, she talked about superiority and that is very different. Wife Worship and Female Superiority are synonymous. They go hand in hand. You cannot worship your wife if she is equal, my wife needs worshiped because she is superior.

Anonymous said...

I also beg to differ with you, Madam.

As a submissive male I visit many blogs and talk to many submissives and Mistresses. My firm conviction is that male submissiveness is af sexual kink - a paraphila. Many men including myself spend countless hours trying to convince their wives to take part in this - and often with no luck. Some do take part but do so reluctantly and a small percentage of women seek this of their own free will. IF you were right, I'm sure that many submissive men's lives would be much easier..

Otherwise I fully agree with Leslie and patrick's views. Your own arguments are naive at best and dangerous at worst.

Eurosub

Mark Remond said...

Allen,

Without joining the debate (which I prefer not to do), I wanted to thank you for your comment about chivalric traditions in the military. I, too, formed the definite impression that Beckie was referring to these traditions, which seem to hearken all the way back to the medieval institution of knighthood (the word “chivalry” derives from “chevalier”) and courtly love. Your story about your father’s private soldier’s code was especially poignant.

Knighthood, chivalry and courtly love are all cornerstones of Wife Worship, at least as set forth by Lady Misato, and in everything I have written on the topic. I too assume that Beckie was commenting on, and lamenting, the decline of these chivalric warrior traditions, codified or unspoken, especially since World War II and the “Greatest Generation.” I think my valued online friend, Obedient Husband, may have misread her at least on that point.

I don’t think Beckie believes that our current military personnel, whether officers or enlisted, are routinely instructed on the virtues of sacrificing their lives to protect women, at least in any general sense. It goes without saying that American soldiers, sailors and airmen/women have performed many chivalric acts, protected the lives of countless women and children and others, and will continue to do so. But they have also had to contend, at least since Vietnam and Mogadishu, and again in Afghanistan and Iraq, with women and children being used as combatants, IED planters, human shields, jihadis, etc.

It’s a whole lot easier being a knight errant, and milady’s protector and champion, on the home front, where chivalry is not dead.

I also appreciate, Allen, your making the distinction between Female Supremacy (which Beckie does not advocate) and Female Superiority (which she does). I pointed this out to Patrick in a Comment on Beckie's earlier post.

Mark

Obedient husband said...

hmmm.....
Excellent points (Allen & Mark)

Patrick said...

Great debate, everyone. At least there is a balanced discussion going on. Thanks for your compliment, Leslie. It's nice to know some women can look at this objectively.

I wasn't going to say anything else on this topic, but I've been challenged again, by Mark, on the topic of female superiority versus female supremacy. So please, allow me to offer a retort.

The separation of female superiority and female supremacy is a superficial and semantic one. Most women, and Beckie is included in this, that believe in female superiority also believe in their right to rule over men, based on their assumption of superiority. By definition, that is female supremacy. The old, "but I didn't SAY that" argument, is bad propaganda.

Imagine a white slave owner, who believes his race is superior to black people, and because of their inferiority, that black people should serve them. Whether he uses the words "white supremacy" or not, that's what it is. By their fruits we shall know them.

You can believe you are superior to somebody, but if you simultaneously believe in ruling over them because you are superior, you've crossed over into supremacy thinking. Does that clear up the issue for everyone?

I'll pull just a couple examples from Beckie's own entries to demonstrate that she is advocating female supremacy.

She denies him access to money. Her money is hers, and his money is hers. He wasn't happy about this (her words) but she's doing it anyway, because it is her right as the superior wife (my interpretation). The belief in superiority led to an act of dominance. That's female supremacy.

She also stated that her husband doesn't consider himself lucky. He has to obey whether he likes it or not, simply because he's inferior to her. Female supremacy?

She stated her boys are not always worshipful and have to be reminded "who they are". I can only imagine how they are reminded, but it implies force. Is punishing someone for not worshiping you, an act of supremacy?

She advocated slavery for you, Mark. It doesn't matter if you work 12 hours a day. If you really believe in female superiority, she advised you to come home and immediately start serving your wife. Hmm, that sounds very close to the definition of female supremacy.

One last example, the most appalling, she advocates wholesale sacrifice of male lives in exchange for a few female lives, even if it means THOUSANDS of men die, simply because they are men. If that's not the smoking gun of female supremacy, I don't know what is. Again, just think of it as white people in place of women, and black people in place of men in this example. Offended, yet? You should be.

Finally, if you still want to push the superiority/supremacy distinction, I refer you to my second comment on part 1, where I deconstructed the notion of superiority.

Cheers.

Patrick said...

As an amendment to my last comment, I'd like to direct you to an essay by Andrea Dworkin, entitled "Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous Idea". It reinforces my point about the inseparability of superiority and supremacy.

It's not my intention to put down the idea of wife worship. However, I always took the term "worship" to be poetic. It symbolized courtly love and romance but not female superiority. A man can put his wife on a pedestal and treat her like a queen without being degraded himself.

Unfortunately, I've seen too many times, that women who accept the idea of female superiority, ultimately end up treating the man who worships them very poorly.

Dworkin describes matriarchal societies of the past which believed in female superiority in which men were castrated and sacrificially slaughtered. That is a more extreme example than wives who enslave their husbands but the warning she issues is relevant.

She says "Wherever power is accessible or bodily integrity honored on the basis of biological attribute, systematized cruelty permeates the society and murder and mutilation contaminate it."

Her warning about the ultimate ends that come from an ideology of biological superiority is chilling. She states "And it is dangerous--because genocide begins, however improbably, in the conviction that classes of biological distinction indisputably sanction social and political discrimination."

That's what we're really talking about here, folks, when you turn romance and chivalry into an ideology which would enforce this lifestyle on everyone.

Beckie said...

Patrick, thank you for all of your posts. (what were you thinking with your first one?) You have done a lot of research in this area. I am glad someone finally realizes what I have been talking about.

Mark Remond said...

Patrick, I also enjoyed your last two extensive posts, and Beckie’s brief, judoesque rejoinder.

Like Beckie, I don’t argue with your argument, so elegantly framed. I might say, there is little danger (alas!) of my wife adopting Beckie’s female superior, or female supremacist program, as much as I might wish it. She is far too egalitarian, as I have told Beckie. My wife has taken the reins chez nous, and rules in almost every area—well, in all areas, truthfully—but is at pains to maintain the status quo, fictional or not, of apparent equality between us.

Our power transfer exists, but is almost invisible. Her wifely directives are framed as polite questions. For instance: “Would you mind…?” But when Beckie gives us a peek into her domestic arrangement, my submissive soul responds with a yearning “yes!” I crave this! To live in an absolute matriarchal monarchy, where the female puissance is pervasive and palpable... a loving and benign queendom. Yes, even to accept secondary status. (This is also my response when I read the uncompromising female authoritarian postings of Ms. Lynda in the Spouseclub archives, available on my site; in fact, Beckie reminds me of Ms. Lynda in some ways.)

But I speak only of female-superior domestic arrangements, not a social prescription. That is Beckie’s prescriptive vision, and I guess your cautionary one, to extend female superior rule on a national basis, let’s say. I don’t think there’s much danger of that happening, do you? But perhaps more’s the pity, considering what de facto masculine rule has wrought ‘lo these many millennia.

I knew, as I said in an early response to you, that I was raising a red flag by inviting Beckie to guest post. Even Elise Sutton has shied away lately from advocating female supremacy, no doubt for all the reasons you so eloquently cite. But her replacement banner of Loving Female Authority is really the same standard, I think you would also agree. Like female superiority vs. female supremacy, it is a distinction without a real difference.

So yes, at last we have reached agreement between you and Beckie, if not concord. Both of you agree that she, as a believer in female superiority, “also believe(s) in their right to rule over men, based on their assumption of superiority,” and that “her money is hers, and his money is hers,” and “he has to obey whether he likes it or not, simply because he's inferior to her.”

Why do I crave it so?

Patrick said...

Thank you Beckie and Mark. I'm a little confused, though. I didn't think I was agreeing with Beckie. I was simply restating her position, as I understand it, to illustrate my point.

No, I'm not concerned about female supremacy becoming a national social arrangement, Mark. We're much too steeped in egalitarian views in the western world for that to happen. But that's not the point for the purpose of debating the merits of this idea.

Although it's true there has been a lot of death and destruction under a male supremacist world model, and it must be rectified, female supremacy isn't the answer. In the essay on biological superiority, Andrea Dworkin touched on what male supremacy has done to the world, but cautioned her fellow feminists that if they were to adopt female supremacy, "we will be no different".

Respect for each individual human life as an end in itself, regardless of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation, IS the answer.

That's great that you have a domestic arrangement that you're happy with. I might like my own domestic matriarch, not because I think I'm inferior to women, but just because I'm a little kinky and submissive. I couldn't submit to someone who thought I was inferior.

Leslie said...

Patrick,

I never thought I'd be swayed to Dworkin. At least, partially. (Her central thesis regarding sex isn't particularly sexy.) But, then again, Mark shared a Camille Paglia quote that shifted my view of strippers, and I'm not normally much of a Paglia fan. (She's almost Ann Coulter-lite.)

But, you're right. Personal sovereignty is (or should be) the foundation of society. If people want to rescind that within the context of their own lives, that is their right, as well.

I also appreciated this statement: "Respect for each individual human life as an end in itself, regardless of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation, IS the answer."

A refreshing worldview. (If everyone felt that way -- or, at least, most people -- then millions of tax-paying Americans would not currently be experiencing the most malicious violation of their constitutional rights since the advent of separate-but-equal drinking fountains.)

BOB said...

MR Remond
Thank you for having MS Beckie "guest post". I hope that you have her "guest post" again.

I try to avoid the arguements about "superiority'. i dont consoder either gender "superior" or "inferior". But i am always amazed by commenters who claim that a wife led marriage isnt possible and that a wife would only lead a female led relationship just to please thier husband.

Im sure that there are a few women out there that dont want thier husbands to do housework.But they are in the minority.As for women not wanting to be incharge.Women have generaly been in charge in one form or the other for centuries now.Nowdays they are just more blunt about it.

A lot of the photos on FLR blogs like this are from stock photo sites.As you know they are full of phots depicting men doing hosework while thier wives relax.Or photos of women "vanquishing" men at work.Even photos of women triumphiently putting thier foot on the chest of defeated male rivals who lay at thier feet.

These photos arent made for porn sites.They are generally sold to womens magazines.And the fact that there are so many of these types of photos seem to imply that they are in demand.This seems to suugest that there are many women who like the idea of a shirtless hunk serving them food or doing housework for them[ the basic theme of many of the photos].

Now , wives dressing up in leather and carrying whips is another thing. Thats a sexual kink that some men , and even a few women , like.But i dont think that its widespread .

But MS Beckie didnt mention whips or leather at all.What she described was , to me, a very believable account of a female dominated household.And i appreciate her sharing her experiences and i appreciate you posting them here.

BOB said...

MR Remond
I dont know if MS Beckie is still reading the comments section here.But i hope that you let her guest post again and for her to elaborate a little on the everyday aspects of her female dominated household.

While it is getting more and more common for husbands to do some , or all , o f the housework, i think that MS Beckies husband obviously stands out in serving his wife.i am curious as to what her female friends think of her relationship.

Do they notice that her husband cooks and cleans when they visit? Do they comment on it or do they just take it for granted as the way things often are nowdays? Or do they compliment MS Beckie on her husbands obedience ?

I am curious as to whether MS Beckie has changed the atitudes of any of her female friends .And whter she has "converted" any of them to the idea of a wife led marriage , by setting an example.

She mentioned going out with her girlfriends while her husband stayed at home doing housework.you did a few great posts on the "girls night out" concept.Does she instruct her husband about the housework in front of her friends ? And do they express approval.Or do they require thier own husbands to stay at home to d oo the housework?

I am also curious as to whether her husband has set an example to his freinds or changed thier atitudes.

For instance when they host a dinner party , do any of the husbands join MS Beckie's husband in the kitchen to clean up afterwards. Or when other teenagers are over do the boys join her son in the kitchen while the teenage girls relax.Young women are much more assertive then they used to be.Do the teenagers that visit[whether female or male] take it for granted that its the men that are serving food and drinks to the women?

i myself have found that people have a herd mentallity.If im at a dinner party ,i often volunteer to do the dishes afterwards.And 9 times out of 10 the other guys join me while the women relax in the living room.If a woman had gone to do the dishes first then the other women would probably have joined her.If one person does something, others usually follow.Im curious as to whether this has happened with MS Beckie's family.And whther they have influenced others

Does this sort of thing occour when her friends and their children come over.Or when she goes over to someone elses house.I am curious as to if she has ever heard one of her female friends tell thier husband to be "more like Beckie's husband".

Or whther they or any of her daughter's freinds have expressed admiration for how the women rule in the house.

Im sorry to be so inquisitive.But i find the everyday aspects of a WLM to be facinating.Too often most internet sites about Female Supremacy are filled with fictional stories about whips and chains.Thats why i enjoy this site.This blog focuses more on the realsitic every day aspects of a WLM.

I hope that MS Beckie returns again MR Rmond.And i hope that you can have some more women guest blog about thier real life wife led marriages.

Thank you again for all of the hard work you put into this blog!

Beckie said...

BOB said... "Do they notice that her husband cooks and cleans when they visit? Do they comment on it or do they just take it for granted as the way things often are nowdays? Or do they compliment MS Beckie on her husbands obedience?"

In my circle of friends, others husbands also serve their wives in various ways. All are marriages where the wife is in control. We have a couple of friends who want the arrangements we have but their husbands are uncooperative. Unfortunately they have chosen to avoid us when possible.

Yes, they are aware he is the one who does all the housework; others share the housework, or do most of it themselves. We (girls)have discussed this often and they have brought it up to their husbands. Their husbands agree they need to do more of the housework so their wives are able to spend more time in more fulfilling pursuits.

Though all agree they are in control of their marriage, they are amazed at my husbands obedience. None of the husbands criticize him; over the past few years, they have learned to be more obedient to their wives.

I have been in the company of some when the wife gave direction to her husband about what housework to do as we were leaving her house, so my husband and I have been a big influence of them.

Beckie said...

BOB said..."Or whther they or any of her daughter's freinds have expressed admiration for how the women rule in the house."

Since we are not just a "female led marriage" but we are a "female led family", I think it is important that I respond to this.

Our daughters are always having their friends over. They are all aware her father is the one who does all the housework. They are there when he comes home from work and starts right in on dinner, or perhaps the laundry while I am there reading, or enjoying myself on our deck. Their friends are right there and hear me tell him to do a certain chore and he never argues.

Their brother is always there as well. He is very obedient in his sisters "requests". They usually tell him "will you..." but I know it is really an order. Their friends are comfortable in telling him what to do as well.

In being a female led home, their girlfriends know it is more than I, it is my daughters who rule as well. They have had many discussions on female superiority, and all of them are in agreement that as females they are superior. I have overheard them talk about having boys worship them, and wanting to be goddesses. They are learning.

BOB said...

MS Beckie
Thank you for your replies.I hope that MR Remond lets you return as a "guest blogger" again and that you agree.I also hope that you reconsider having a blog.I think that you could write a very good one.

I like the fact that you talk about the day to day aspects of a Female Led Household instead of just the kinky aspects.

And i like the fact that you talk about the public aspects of your marriage. And that you just dont confine the Female Led aspect to the bedroom.

I hope that if you guest blog again you can discus more about not just your atitudes, but the atitudes of your friends and daughters as well.I like the fact that you have had an influence on some of your friends.It seems that your daughters have had an influence on thier friends as well

Jim said...

"There are a few roles in life women should not be permitted to be involved in. These would be safety forces (police and fire) and military combat."

Actually, I think that many accomplished women in these fields would disagree -- as would the people who they've helped.

"I may be a pacifist and against war, but I believe the draft should be reinstated and all males from age 18 serve 4 years in the military."

No one should be forced into the military, and not "all males" are suited for it. Some things really depend on individuals and not genders. Regards.

Anonymous said...

>> He is no longer allowed to watch TV (takes his focus away from focusing on my desires, and takes too long to get it back), has to be in bed by 10 p.m. (works 6:30 a.m. – 3 p.m.). After working all week, never sees or has access to any of the money he earns. He has accepted all this to worship me. He admits lucky is the last thing he is. <<

Becky - and you are calling this love? sorry, but that's awful.

how can you claim to love someone and at the same time not caring about his happiness? in my view you are misusing his good will. you only look what *you* can get out of this. but what about *his* desires? are they not at all important?

a successful marriage is about the happiness and fulfillment of both parties, not just about one.
my fiancé also does as he is told, but I would never restrict and opress him like you do with your husband.
although we are in a flr I have his wellbeing in mind and I am not reckless. he *is* a lucky guy, he admitted it himself.

so how can you combine love & respect for your husband with this selfih behavior you are describing here?

Lara

L. Marie said...

- "In the Civil War, over 500,000 men died and only 50 women. These 50 women who died were too many; it would have been acceptable if thousands more men died if it meant the 50 women didn't have to. Women should at any and all costs be protected from harm." -

Beckie, what did you learn in your history classes?! Where have you been as the teacher explained the Civil War? ^^
These 500,000 men did not die simply to protect women, they died because the northern US-states and the sounthern US-states had serious disagreements in economical, political and social areas. Gender-issues and the wellbeing of the female gender were of no interest in this war...

And your statement that the death of 1000 men is much better than the death of 50 women is really repulsive. You have obviously no clue about human rights and the value of human (that includes men as well!) life... What a dangerous and hostile ideology you advocate.

Anonymous said...

I have been looking to become more sympathetic to my wife's needs, perhaps without becoming completely subservient to her. I don't know that she wants to make all the decisions (fixing cars, paying bills, etc.) but we have children and I want her to know she is appreciated. What is a good way to start? I'm bad at chores, I admit, but have been working on that.

Mark Remond said...

Anonymous, This is an excellent question, how to show your wife she is appreciated. By the way, it's okay to be "bad" at chores, but you can learn--and she can teach you. But there are other good ways to start -- you can fight this wife-worship battle on many fronts simultaneously, and should. You might check my short course on wife worship on this website--http://worshippingyourwife.blogspot.com/2009/11/worshipping-your-wife-750-word-digest.html--
or pose your question on the excellent "She Makes The Rules" FLR message board. Or maybe you elicit further comments right here. Good luck and don't give up. As one of my mentors, fdhousehsuband, used to say, "We're all in this together."

Anonymous said...

I hope people are familiar with the term "Protection Racket".

In return for a apyment the threat of violence or destruction is held off.The person running the racket purports to be defending the victim against other bad people.When in fact they are the ones threatening the victim if he or seh does not pay up.

The armed forces and the different states act like this.

There is no security in the rather old fashioned idea that men are there to protect women.From what.Of course other men who presumably are protecting also.

No a move away from military solutions and the use fo force is preferable.

Anonymous said...

Beckie said... "In being a female led home, their girlfriends know it is more than I, it is my daughters who rule as well. They have had many discussions on female superiority, and all of them are in agreement that as females they are superior. I have overheard them talk about having boys worship them, and wanting to be goddesses. They are learning."

This is good. I think one of the problems relationships have is that the women are reluctant to take the authority. If they are able to see the benefits of it early on, they aren't as likely to have apprehensions about it later on.

I am curious though about this aspect of your family dynamic. What are the repercussions if your son shows disrespect to his sisters? Do your daughters know that their requests of him carry the weight of such repercussions (as that would give them more of a sense of authority)? What level of respect is he expected to show his sister's girlfriends when they're over visiting?

Additionally, are there any privileges that your daughters get that he doesn't? For instance, when they are watching television, do they share the remote control, or is it expected that the girls get the remote? If you aren't at the table, does he have to get permission from his sister before he's allowed to leave?

Mark Remond said...

Anonymous, these are interesting questions, and I hope that Beckie Sue (a) sees them and (b) decides to answer them. Unfortunately, I have no way on contacting her, as the email that I had for her no longer works. I've been wanting to ask her advice and opinions on several ideas myself. Good luck--to both of us. She's built up quite a little following, and I hope she checks back in!

Anonymous said...

I am new to this as I am struggling with feelings that I've had but kept below the surface for some time. I just want to thank everyone for being candid and especially Ms. Becky, who though I don't exactly agree with everything she says, makes very cogent arguments for her point of view. I also hope she reappears again, and I'll continue to watch this site as I deal with how to sort out these feelings and how to deal with them. Someday, I may even feel confident enough to not submit comments as Anonymous.

Anonymous said...

>>This is good. I think one of the problems relationships have is that the women are reluctant to take the authority. If they are able to see the benefits of it early on, they aren't as likely to have apprehensions about it later on.<<

I admit, I believed the same way like you do. Women are reluctant, women are inhibited, women are too accustomed to the old patriarchal system. And therefore they can't see themselves in a leading position, therefore there are still patriarchal leftovers in our society, therefore women have difficulties to dominate their men, even if their men WANT to be dominated. Yes, that's a problem. It's neither beneficial, nor fulfilling for submissive men and for potential Dommes.

But reading this text written by a so-called "superior" women I see another problem, that is (at least in my eyes) even more disturbing than the reluctance of many women: It is sickening how megalomanic women can get, if someone gives them power and pets their ego. I see absolutely nothing that is superior in Becky's text, her behaviour and her worldview. Women like her are a threat to every modern and free society. That's really frustrating; I firmly believe that women are able to throw off the yoke of patriarchy, but if they start to overcompensate, to loose contact with reality and follow a pseudo-religious ideology like Becky does... well, then we will go from bad to worse. Male supremacy and female supremacy - different color, same shit.

And I promise: As long as there are still intelligent, strong men and intelligent, confident, reasonable women out there female suprematists will not get a foothold in society.

Greetings from Germany,
Sharon

Steve said...

Dear Beckie,I might recognize that women have some traits that men don't, and that for that reason men should serve and be nice to women,and that women should be getting the most out of their men,but I will have to disagree with you.

Women might be superior than men in many ways,but both are genders of the same species. And there are some things you might never heard of,known as "human rights".And there are even "animal rights".

With all these in mind it is hard for me to agree with you,as you wish that more men should have died in a said war.A sane person doesn't wish the death of people,and it is considered that shouldn't also wish the death of animals too.

It is a very different thing to have a control to your husband,from wishing people to die because of their gender.
I don't find your hate reasonable.

MorriganAradia said...

I realize this is a very old post, but I felt like I had to say a couple of things. First of all, when we say that women are superior, we don't mean god-like and perfect. Yes, some women have done some horrible things. Just because some women have done horrible things, that doesn't mean that all women are not superior.

As for the argument that because there were some violent matriarchal societies in the past, that matriarchy will be violent in the present, that's a logical fallacy. That's like saying "chickens are birds, therefore all birds are chickens".

Marc James Small said...

Well, women are superior. Just ask my wife!

Marc

Anonymous said...

In instilling the mindset in the home that women are indeed superior, setting bed times can play an important role. For my three sons, lights out is 8 o’clock. That may seem early but it enforces the point each and every night. It’s the last message they get before they go to bed. Their sister, younger than two of them has to be in bed around 9ish. I’ve set my husband’s bedtime sharply at 10 pm, (keeping it on the hour makes it easy for everyone to understand.) I personally try to hit the sack around 11ish if I get the chance.
Setting these hours assert my authority and give me some much needed time for myself. While I know my husband wished he didn’t have a curfew, he does as he’s told. The problem is that with my daughter is turning 13 in a few weeks. She has asked if she can stay up later. I think her request is reasonable, plus in reaching her teens, it is time she assumes a greater position in the family hierarchy and is treated with more respect by her brothers and father.
I have informed my husband that on her birthday I intend to switch his and her bedtimes. It elevates my daughter, and also gives the two of us another hour of quality mother/daughter time.
Of course my husband is pouting, and feels he will no longer be second in command when I’m away. Worse, he fears he will have to answer to our daughter. I’ve assured him this is not the case, at least not yet, but he should be encouraging her to share responsibility with him, and accept that at some point he needs to step out of the way and let her pass him by. While I understand this is awkward for him, he must accept the change has to happen at some point.
I know I will have to monitor the two of them for a while, making sure he is respectful, and that my daughter does not take to bullying him, she can be a bit intense at times.
I guess this is my concern; over the next few years how will this exchange of positions take place? Will it be a natural transition or should I be setting guidelines? I rely on both of them very much. In the past my husband has kept an eye on our daughter and given her advice when appropriate. At some point should I let her supervise some of his tasks, like vacuuming? He tends to do a poor job of getting near the walls. I know she could be of help in this, but it would also be in her nature to not just correct him, but to punish him. That is not what I want. I am in charge of all punishment in the family, yet I am her role model so when do I let go? What is good for the gander is good for the goose. Tough questions.
If anyone has dealt with this before, I’d appreciate any thoughts.

Mark Remond said...

Dear Anonymous,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment, which raises again all the issues of this particular post by Beckie Sue. How I wish she would again join this blog discussion, for her advice would be authoritative. For my part, I have dealt with these issues as my daughter grew from early adolescence into young womanhood. My own desire to serve her was guided, of course, by my wife, but I certainly made it a point to keep her room clean and see that her school uniforms were cleaned and ready each day--among other approved services.

This topic has recently surfaced on Mistress Kathy's Femdom 101 blog, and here is an excerpt you might find useful:
Dear Kathy,

I am troubled by a couple of the comments on this thread that suggest that there is something immoral or perverted about a submissive man treating his daughters and other teen-age girls as he would other women. I lived with my best friend, Ruth's, family during my last two years of high school (my parents were assigned by Dad's business to an overseas location). I had noted that, from our early teens, Ruth tended to order her father, John, around. He acted like a respectful servant, which always puzzled me. Her father was also very respectful of my wishes whenever I was around.

After living with them for a couple of weeks, I could see that John was, in many ways a house servant or gofer. After a few weeks, Laura, Ruth's mom, took me aside and explained that I was causing some problems in their family dynamic. I had been "pleasing and thanking" John just as I would any older man. It turned out that this actually made John very uncomfortable. Ruth said that it was almost like a switch was flipped inside him when a girl physically became a woman, and he could no longer treat her as a girl but had to treat her as a woman. She asked me to try to fit into their family and simply tell John to do something when I wanted it done and never to thank him for doing it. She told me John would be happier if I did and that he viewed me as a "junior mistress", along with Ruth, Laura of course being THE mistress.

I complied with her wishes. I found it hard at first, but eventually became comfortable. There were two highlights that come to mind. The first was when John went above and beyond to solve a problem for me. I was so pleased that I tenderly said, "You're such a good boy, John." Tears came to his eyes and I was afraid that I had done something wrong, but Laura later told me how thrilled John had been to be addressed that way by me.
I eventually found my own submissive man and we have been married very happily for 26 years. We had two daughters, now in their early 20's, and while my husband was like a normal Dad to them as children, when they reached about age 14, he treated them like the women they were becoming. I had no problem with this and I don't believe any harm was done. They are both strong, well-adjusted young women. My feeling is, submissive men are what they are. Submissiveness is not something they can turn off. Learn to live with it.

Katie


Because I faces these questions at home, I made it a point to collect a great many online postings about how various female-led families, and the matriarch thereof, dealt with the submissive father-superior daughter issue. I would love to share all these (pages and pages) with you if you would send me an email at markremond@yahoo.com...

Thank you again