One of the correspondents (Bob) to this site (and, by the way, I am always grateful for feedback, opinions, suggestions and support!) made the very perceptive comment that in fact many more households are female-led than perhaps we think; with wives making decisions, controlling the finances and sharing the services of their menfolk (read his comments here, and here). Whilst this is undoubtedly true, were you to question either member of such a marriage if they consider themselves to be living in a female-led relationship or in a female supremacist marriage I suspect that either party, male or female, would probably laugh and deny it. They make make some joke, intended to be ironic, about “she's the boss” or some such – but it would be intended to convey humour.
So why would such couples deny the reality of the situation? Why not acknowledge the fact that the wife is the head of the household? Other than societal conditioning and patriarchal peer pressure, once again I have no real answer.
Another question. Given the unquestioned rise of women in western society, and given the communication revolution that has been wrought by the Internet, why is is still the case that there are more men seeking a female-led relationship than there are women? It is often said that there are around 10 submissive men for every dominant woman. I have no empirical evidence to support that number, but as I write today the (albeit very unscientific) poll on this blog has around 11:1 men:women responses. Now this is perhaps unsurprising in a blog of this nature – I'm pleasantly surprised that any women at all would read this – but few sites, even the redoubtable “She Makes the Rules” site, have a much better ratio.
On the face of it this disparity seems strange. Women the world over complain that their men don't do enough around the house, that they are not valued, and that men don't do as they are told; and yet there are thousands of men who want to live in the service of their wives. What woman would not want to to live in a household where her word was law, where housework – all housework – was a man's job, and where she is worshipped as a Goddess or treated as a queen? The answer to this question is complex. In part it is because few women have been brought up to expect this position, and in part it is because women can function in an environment based upon equality, in a way that men cannot, and often strive for equality in a relationship when actually they would be better to assert their natural superiority.
I need to explain that statement. Both William Bond (a prolific writer and Female Supremacist) and Ms Blanche Black (an intelligent and thoughtful proponent of Matriarchy) make much the same points; they argue that
“[women] 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”,1and so strive for equality. Men on the other hand are essentially competitive pack animals who look to become the pack leader, but who will show obedience to recognised authority such as with military hierarchies or sports coaches. As Ms Black says:
“...the men of our culture publicly show reverence and submission all the time. They show reverence for and unquestioning submission to rituals of national unity, fraternal rights of passage, military superiors, and athletic coaches. They show emotional abandon and devotion towards sports teams, sports cars, and successful male role models. In plain sight, men who our society recognizes as masculine are submissive with certain people, and in certain contexts. They know that public submission and deference to others doesn't make them weak-willed, because society recognizes the ability of men to be submissive in certain relationships while remaining competitive and assertive in others. As long as their submission is aimed at men and male traditional values, no one has a problem with it.”2
It can be said therefore that men need authority and discipline, women on the other hand are more capable of seeing the bigger picture and are able to function in a consensus-driven environment.
What we need to do therefore is to demonstrate to women that men function better when given structure and clear leadership and that women, given their greater powers of perception and clear thinking, are better suited to providing that leadership. If it is clear to a man who is the leader of the pack he will follow that leader without question. It should be clear from this therefore that women should co-operate with one-another, but should take the leadership role with men. Aiming for equality will not work. Men respect leaders, and are happier when it is clear who that is.
So how can we persuade more women of the undoubted benefits of a FLR? I think that part of the problem lies in the image of female domination. Most women, I suspect, are aware of the fantasy figure of the leather-clad, thigh-booted, whip-wielding dominatrix and most regard it as frankly ridiculous. It is of course a male fantasy. Some women might happily embrace the image as a bit of fun or as a temporary game to spice up a saucy night of passion (usually to please their partner), but few would consider it as a realistic proposition as a lifestyle. And herein lies the problem; we need a better marketing department. We need to get the message out that FLR is not the same thing as pandering to a slightly ridiculous sexual fantasy, it is a framework for a happy and successful relationship which benefits both partners.
There are positive signs. Amongst the wealth of fantasy sites, there are more and more now which are focussed not on fetish and kink, but on the woman's wants and needs. The redoubtable She Makes the Rules site is a leader in this field, but there are many more. To find them however, you need to be looking. Few women, I suspect, go looking on the internet for Female-Led resources unless they have been prompted to do so (usually by a husband or boyfriend). What we need is some mainstream publicity. One idea that I would like to see might be an article in a leading women's magazine like Cosmopolitan or Company with a sympathetic author prepared to point out the myriad benefits to both male and female of a female-led relationship without any sniggering innuendo. That, together with a realistic landing pad (such as the SMTR site) where prospective women leaders would not be put off by leery fantasists could provide the catalyst to far more women embracing the lifestyle themselves or appreciating and encouraging it in others. That is only one suggestion. But there are still problems...Who could write such an article? (It would have to be written by a woman, from a woman's point of view) and how could we get it published in such a mainstream publication? Anyone know any journalists / publishers? Any other ideas? Do please add your comments.
1 William Bond Why Men Are The Submissive Sex
2 Ms Blanche Black Chivalry is Not Dead
By the way - do please read other posts by the above authors.
Ms Blanche Black