Thursday, June 5, 2014


(Note from Mark Remond: I’m conflict averse, a trait utterly in keeping with my comfort level in a “Yes, Dear,” wife-worship marriage. I grew up in an often acrimonious home, and I’ve seen, and deplored, many marriages where even the silence is charged with hostility. In our home, my wife wisely decides and I happily abide. In this spirit I was particularly pleased by a recent civil exchange between two reader-commenters on the topic of whether women are truly outperforming men in more and more arenas of everyday life. Pleased because each commenter, while arguing for his position forcefully, was at least respectful of the other’s viewpoint. I was pleased as well by the thoughtfulness of the comments and the lively back-and-forth, so much so that I reprint the exchange here with only a few minor deletions.)

Readers Debate “dennis:LEADERSHIP WEARS HIGH HEELS! 

Mr. Concerned comments:

You are over-generalizing. Anyone can pick out an isolated anecdote about women outperforming men or vice versa. If you were outperformed by another man, would you bow down to him in obedience and servitude? Should the CEO of Samsung have bowed down in obedience to Steve Jobs? That's just silly.

I understand your fetish requires you to frame it that way, but get a grip. You do realize the most powerful people in the world are men, right? And by a huge margin.

More and more women will gain positions of leadership and authority as time goes on. I realize women never had opportunities before. Now that they have access, their numbers will swell in the higher ranks… they have nowhere to go but up. The upper ranks were exclusively men previously. So obviously, the growth of women in top positions will drastically outpace that of men.

I just don't get this mindset where people celebrate any female success as “women are taking over the world.” It's comical and sad, really.

L.S. replies:

To Mr. Concerned above… please allow me to offer an answer to you. First, the belief that women are innately superior to men is NOT based on anecdote. For example look at the metastudy below--a study of 308 studies involving 1.1 million children--that shows that in school girls outperform boys IN ALL SUBJECTS not just recently, [but] for the last hundred years. The authors credit "female thinking styles."

It's hard to explain this away.

Second, [you] argue that being outperformed isn't that significant because it doesn't (and shouldn't) translate automatically into male obedience. [You’re] right. But, given the larger context of patriarchal beliefs and conditioning, the truth of female superiority is highly significant. It shows that male entitlement to have the world oriented around their selfish desires is simply bad for all. Once these patriarchal beliefs are widely understood to be wrong--and it is happening with accelerating speed--two things happen:

First, men get into the habit of seriously listening to Women, asking their advice and following their leadership. It becomes something that men do in everyday life rather than a kink or a fantasy. Meanwhile, when women realize that EVEN WITH NO SPECIAL HELP, THEY WILL NORMALLY OUTTHINK, OUTPERFORM, AND OUT-LEAD MEN simply because they employ their own superior ways of doing things, this will give women greater confidence to think for themselves and not turn first to men. That will accelerate their ascension into leadership positions in work and family.

Second, as men realize that their gender wasn't born to rule, they will give up the equation of male identity with patriarchy. This means that over time more and more men will relinquish the mindset of competing with one another for a few scarce positions at the top and explore the joys of being a nurturer, including being a homemaker. Every man can be a nurturer of women. Being a nurturer means they can get vicarious pleasure from facilitating the pleasure of others--in this case women--especially when that facilitation comes at their own expense. Meanwhile, women come to see themselves as entitled to receiving such pleasure from men; it's their privilege as women. This will be the real end of patriarchy. This shift has a sexual component because more and more men will be attracted to strong women, and women will be attracted to men who can supply them with unselfish pleasure from taking care of them and their household.

Does this mean that men are subordinate? Yes, but being subordinate is not necessarily bad. It is only bad if it is forced and deprives a person of her opportunity for fulfillment. But if it is done voluntarily and gives a person satisfaction, it is a good thing. The joy of serving others instead of being oneself served has always been a high goal for religion. Why shouldn't men try it for a change? Not only is it voluntary, but it is more in accord with the truth of overall female excellence and expands the overall potential of society. Each sex will be exploring its own unrealized potentials in a refreshing way. In short, what is called matriarchy here is a social advance and a win-win for all.

Mr. Concerned responds:

L.S.: Eloquent, indeed, and quite an extrapolation into the future. You've sure got it all figured out. Thank you for the link to that study. Girls outperforming boys for 100 years? Wow! I admit, I'm impressed. I won't give my analysis here because I fear it will be unwelcome and I will be shouted down.

All I will say is that the researchers suggested several possible explanations. They did not credit superior female thinking. Different learning styles, cultural expectations, and parental encouragement were all cited as possible explanations. You chose to focus on the one you like and cite it as a rock-solid conclusion.

However, you've raised some issues worthy of serious discussion, and I'd love to discuss it with you privately if you're interested. Serious discussion will not be sexy talk appreciated on a blog like this.

But let's assume that females are generally smarter than males. Okay. All I was saying is that the prescription for ALL males to become a subservient underclass to their superiors is ridiculous. Do you really think that Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet wouldn't have been successful if they had to compete against women?

Now, those are exceptional people, but we can all be successful according to our own abilities. I'm just saying it doesn't follow that men should just pack it in and take up housekeeping. Get out in the world and compete and find your place. Don't just pack it in and say "I can't compete with them." That's for losers.

L.S. responds again:

Dear Mr. Concerned, You will not be shouted down by me, only welcomed. And I apologize for not fully enumerating the possible reasons for the results of the study demonstrating girls' superior achievement. I certainly don't think all men should be full-time housekeepers. Neither does Nancy, if i remember her correctly. It's just that their talents can best be utilized under female leadership.

But let me address your underlying patriarchal mindset that is evident when you stress competition. In a society that is based on merit, there will always be some level of competition, but more and more people choose self-fulfillment and personal enjoyment as their highest goals in life. Trying to claw one's way to the top, though it may give you status, wealth, and power, is not personally satisfying to most people--men or Women. I suspect that may hold for you as well. To find out, I would invite you to try this experiment:

Abandon the idea of competing with women at least for a short while. Instead of viewing Women as your rivals, try just supporting and following them for a short period--perhaps a month. Seek out their advice whenever you have a problem; during meetings support their views (without compromising your values); when talking to women, listen to them attentively and quietly without interrupting them; try looking at things from their point of view; become better versed in women's topics and issues; try to anticipate their interests and needs; volunteer to do things on their behalf. This doesn't mean becoming passive or a loser. It means setting your male ego aside and enlisting your efforts and intelligence on behalf of others.

While you do these things, consult your own feelings. You may find that this gives you the kind of nurturing fulfillment that I discussed earlier. You may also find that you are become more popular among the women of your life. If this works for you, push ahead and carve out a space for this kind of behavior in your life. It's not all or nothing. You don't have to take up this lifestyle completely or not at all. You can just make it a small or medium-sized part of your life at first. It all depends on what gives you fulfillment. As for me, I am not in the kind of relationship dennis or Mark is, but I do get satisfaction in supporting and following women in many parts of my life--whether I'm among women or among men.

It's possible that you don't get any nurturing satisfaction from doing these things. in that case, you have learned a valuable lesson and you no longer need to visit these sites. My hunch is that you are intrigued enough to try out this little experiment. If you do, please report your experiences on this site. Many will find it quite interesting and instructive.

Mr. Concerned gets the last word:

LS: That's an interesting experiment. I suspect that I would enjoy some of it. I just don't interact with that many women on a daily basis. I don't have the type of job where I see many women.

Let me just state, my comment was in no way an indictment of female dominance/male submission. I'm a sub and am very attracted to calm strength and assertiveness in women. I even enjoy being "trained" by a woman in a relationship, even in the vanilla sense of the term.

All I was saying is that I think men are selling themselves short when they drop out of the race thinking they can't compete. Showing up is half the battle, and I think that's one thing young women have on men today--they show up--to college, to job interviews, to work.

Women may have the biggest edge in soft skills--responsibility, maturity, cooperation. Men seem to take longer to learn these things. However, I think it's a toxic and self fulfilling prophecy to say "I can't." Because then you surely won't.



Anonymous said...

LS is correct....the world around you is the best forum for observation...keep in mind the M jobs are overwhelmingly male...

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry Denis but concerned own that one, good debate though:)

Anonymous said...

Honestly, I have a difficult time as a man reading these articles. Switch women with white people and men with black people and you'll find the same arguments used by slavery proponents.

Don't get me wrong. I love strong women. But LS makes a huge leap between what works in her home and what would work for the entire world.

Anonymous said...

Hi Denis, just wondering were you ways a feminist or did it come out more in your relationship with Nancy? I would've never considered myself a feminist but definitely submissive but now the more I submit to my fiancée and the more she loves it and takes the dominant role the more her feminist views are coming out. And the funny thing is I find myself agreeing with them despite initial resistance. What do you think?

Kathy said...

I enjoyed reading the post as well as the comments. Yet, on some basic level it is my view that both the posting and comments miss the point of what femdom is all about.

The act of a man Worshipping His Wife is not about the wife being superior or smarter. It is not women out performing men in school or in the work place. This is all part of a male fantasy.

What is real though is the very simple, elementary need for the male to serve the female. It is not about education, it is not about intelligence, it is about the way people are made.

My husband is smarter then most women, smarter than me, yet he has this primal need to worship me as his personal goddess. Our relationship works because I have learned to accept his gift of submission.

Love, Kathy

Love, Kathy

Anonymous said...

The following comment is in two parts:

These are all interesting questions, and I would suggest that we all must be humble, in the sense that none of us has a certain answer. That is the spirit in which I hope this discussion goes on.

There are two questions involved here. One is whether or not women in general are superior as leaders and in positions which involve all-round intelligence. To argue that they are does not mean every woman is superior to every man; only that this is an important factor, which shows itself most strongly when all other factors that go into intelligence and leadership are held constant. Because reality is always very complex, not all women are going to be superior to all men. But, the gender factor seems to be a very strong one because virtually everywhere, now that the "playing field" between men and women is being leveled, we see women outperforming men: in education, in the professions, and in managerial positions below CEOs, etc.. Those people who reject the idea of female superiority are going to have to explain why this is the case. Because of the ideology of equality, it is somewhat daring to say women are superior openly, But, whether we say so openly or not, we have to make sense of these facts. In fact, most people are already doing so in their private thoughts and in small social circles. I think it is likely that some version of recognition of female superiority is already spreading quite widely, underground if you will.

One of the major deterrents to speaking openly about female superiority is its similarity to toxic ideas of racial supremacy, such as white supremacy and Aryan supremacy. But, there are critical differences that should make us open to thinking this through dispassionately. First, hardly anyone advocates forcible female rule; for the large majority disparities in power are to be established voluntarily by individuals. Second, unlike ideas of racial superiority, female superiority does not reinforce existing structures of oppression and traditions of inequality. In fact, they counter and undermine the longstanding structure of patriarchy. Finally, there is an important paradox to keep in mind regarding this issue. The more we accept the idea of female superiority the more we can minimize it to keep men from sliding too far behind women. If female ways of thinking and acting, whether they are biological or cultural or (more likely) a combination of both, are superior, then the best way to minimize its results is through men learning from women. In other words, the more men accept the need for female leadership throughout our culture, the easier it will be to reduce the growing gender gap.


Anonymous said...

Second part of comment:

The second question is what is the relationship between female excellence and FLRs. It is certainly the case that FLRs can exist without a shared belief in female superiority. But, recognition of female superiority is closely related to FLRs in a number of ways. First, it makes it very difficult for women to justify being in submission to men; conversely, it makes it easier to justify men being in submission to women. Men just feel more comfortable following superior women. Second, men tend to be hierarchical; following authority in the military, in sports, and in the workplace seems to come very easily to men. There is also the well-known tendency of men to compete with each other for power and then to submit to that power. These tendencies are much less evident among women. Therefore, accepting female superiority can be a way of switching the either/or, alpha/beta tendency to a male role of followership of women.

A different way of saying this is to say that social norms largely determine how individuals live their lives. There is a close and causal tie between the social and the individual. Confining FLRs behind closed doors tends to keep them marginalized and in the realm of sexual fantasy. A wise woman once said: "The crux of the issue is that men should be doing so (deferring to women) consistently, in a reliable way that does not waver with their mood or sexual whim. The only way to ensure that the men of a social group are consistent in their behavior towards women is to base it on a set of philosophical, or theological, and moral principles that can be used by the community to hold men accountable for consistently following that code of behavior." Recognition of the excellence of women and their ways of doing things can be a big part of establishing such a set of principles

I hope all of us participating in this discussion can do so with an open mind. We all have things to learn from each other.


tony said...

Kathy hit the nail on the head, big time. Thank you, Kathy, for saying so much in 3 short paragraphs. Could John put it as well? :))

Mr. Concerned said...


You raised a couple interesting points. You say that women are outperforming men now that the playing field has been leveled. How can we explain this away?

First, we ask if they actually are outperforming men. I touched on this previously. Women have had no where to go but up. So it certainly appears as if they are "taking over" while men remain stagnant. The Law of Large Numbers will sort this out eventually. Only time will tell.

Second, we ask if the playing field has been leveled or slanted in the opposite direction. I won't hash that out here, but rather, refer you to Christina Hoff Sommers' book, The War Against Boys. There's a lot that would have to be explained away to support the level playing field theory.

None of this proves that you're wrong. But it does suggest alternative ways of thinking that you are neglecting. You seem to have locked onto an ideology and filter all your information through that way of thinking.

Mr. Concerned said...


I agree with you on that. Femdom is not about superiority. Some men seem to need to invent an ideology of female superiority to justify their submission. That's where the slope gets slippery and they end up creating a religion.

Anonymous said...

Female Superiority is undeniable when looking at a picture of Ms. Scarlet Johanson. If that is not some special creature from above! Stop trying to go back and forth rationalizing what you feel inside. Ms. Kathy of course said it right! Some people are just born to be served. If Ms. Scarlet was with me right now and I could do anything I wanted with her, before the sex I's massage her, hug her, listen to her, look at her eyes, kiss her, and treat her lie a queen. Why? Because that just comes natural to me, she just makes me want to be there for her. When she smiles in a movie I melt, I love hearing her voice. She's just... Ms. Kathy, please excuse the word, you never liked it but I can't tell you to cover your ears: Superior.
And you know why? I don't. I also... don't care.


vs-boy said...

I am a submissive male, and have to agree with Kathy when she says that this is not about one gender being superior to the other, but that one gender was designed or evolved to serve the other.

I have outperformed most people, women included in academic settings, including all my partners, and I don't think that they think better than me. However, I still feel the deep need to submit.

As for academic results, I think that society has "feminized" itself, and is more responsive to a female's way of thinking than a male's. Will women one day rule? Maybe, maybe not, but if they do, it will not be for some innate gender superiority, but perhaps because our need for strong women facilitates it.

Mark Remond said...

Dennis replies to Anonymous 4th from top ("...juts wondering were you always a feminist..."):

Well, i suppose that i've always been a Feminist in terms of my thoughts and sentiments. i was raised in an all-Female household so i learned to respect and appreciate Women. i learned that the Women i knew didn't fit the prevailing social stereotypes; Women, their intelligence, what they believed, their friendships and support system were to be admired and - hopefully - made the norm. i learned that Women were being kept down by patriarchy and excluded from the same opportunities as men. When one relegates Women to 'pink collar' jobs that pay low wages simply because these jobs are primarily occupied by Women, well that's just wrong. i was involved with Women's groups before college, but it was in college that i became a Feminist - a radical one i might add - and it was in college that i met Nancy, also a Feminist. Now being a submissive doesn't necessarily mean you are a Feminist. Many men move into Feminism when they discover that Women haven't been treated right by the male system and want to do something about it. Men also learn that they too have a stake in the feminist struggle when they realize that Patriarchy adversely impacts men, too.


Mark Remond said...

dennis responds to LS ("The following comment is in two parts...")

i'm not going to say that all Women can outperform all men – that's not the case – but many have a stereotypical view of Women dating back decades. This world view often prevents them from seeing new and powerful roles for Women in the workplace and, as a result, more powerful roles at home and in Women's personal relationships. Women are moving into positions that previously have been denied them by societal norms and they are doing so in great numbers. For example, Women haven't been channeled into lucrative STEM fields but have been directed into care-giving and service professions where no doubt they excelled, but were financially and opportunity limited.
Feminists moved to economically empower Women, not only to advance, but to make real changes in society. The key to advancement is the ability to earn, and in our post-industrial, information-driven economy, that requires education. Women have responded and have swelled college ranks. We are seeing more and more Women applicants presenting stellar credentials while, at the same time, we are seeing fewer men with similar credentials. Who are we going to hire?
Additionally, we see time and time again that Women are adept at leading teams of highly skilled persons, are collaborative, and inclusive. All traits that are highly desirable when dealing with complex information systems. Bottom line, the education and personal skills Women bring are just what's needed. A few Women have always brought such skills – and not advanced – but now the playing field has been leveled. One is only going to see traditional roles change at a quicker pace – get used to it!

Anonymous said...

.nothing worse than being married to a nag.......

Anonymous said...

As tony said, Kathy of course has made the best point. My Wife and I are each "smarter" in different areas, we each have our own strengths and weaknesses and that is one of the reasons we fit well together... I may have excelled more academically and/or professionally but I still have an undeniably strong urge to worship her as my own personal goddess.

Mr. Concerned made a very important point as well though, that the playing field has not been leveled but rather tipped in favor of the girls, classrooms and curriculums are now structured to female learning styles leaving the boys disadvantaged so of course girls will out perform boys. But the point about females having no where to go but up and The Law of Large Numbers leveling everything out seems off, when 2/3 or more of all college students and graduates are female and things wont level out until the playing field actually is level from elementary school through college.

The ideas of female superiority and supremacy were invented by men for their fantasies; in reality I want my son to have the same chance to succeed in life as my daughter, at the same time I want them both to have the freedom to pursue whatever role in life suites them when they grow up (she is young and already quite bossy, gets it from her mother).

And anon just above, if you obeyed your wife the first time she wouldn't have to nag...just sayin'