Supremacy of Man

According to this article, "the housewife is back," with the attendant interest in domestic skills:

Return of the 1950s housewife?

The article itself, unfortunately, errantly uses mostly circumstantial evidence of this renewed interest. That is, some of the motivating factors for cooking at home, gardening, sewing and other activities may be accounted for due to financial constraints or even increased interest in gourmet cooking, for instance. Accordingly, the article concludes that the refreshed desire of females in the home is more pragmatic, than an intrinsic desire for that role.

Nevertheless, the concept of younger females wanting to be more domestic and interested in living as a housewife is not necessarily a surprise to me. I have long believed that many females in my approximate generation (aged 25 to 35 or so) desire to not be like their mothers, which, admittedly, is true of most children. However, instead of being like their mothers, I see many of these girls longing for the lives of their grandmothers, with the associated security and femininity. While their mothers may have experienced much discord in their lives due to societal upheaval, their grandmothers were able to enjoy, at least in the homestead, peace and security. Thus, I do believe there is a renewed interest in cooking, cleaning, gardening, and perhaps even sewing, but not for the reasons in the article.

What do you think? Do you perceive an increased interest by females to be housewives, or something of similar import?

Cross posted in humbled_females.

Recently, two articles were published that I have not seen discussed in any other forum. In fact, I was somewhat surprised that the articles involving this subject were published by major U.S. newspapers. The original article, from the L.A. Times, can be found here:

They love to do their homework

A less antagonistic and more supportive article is in the Christian Science Monitor, which was just published a few days ago, and can be found here:

In this college course, a focus on homemaking

Both articles discuss on programs in some Christian colleges and seminaries, most notably at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, that are now granting females baccalaureate degrees in homemaking. The courses include household management, cooking, tablesetting, "joyfully submitting to their husbands," and "how to meet their husbands' needs and keep marriage exciting."*

Not surprisingly, the rag from the City of Angels expressed disbelief that such a program exists at all, and sought to "balance" the story by including the perspective of a female in which she "confides" her "resentment," as well as the apparent disapproval of moderate Southern Baptists. It appears that these programs replace what was traditionally known as a finishing school, nevertheless, it is refreshing and encouraging that these programs still exist in the U.S. to teach a female her role, and how to serve.

* One has to wonder what is involved in a course about "how to meet their husbands' needs and keep marriage exciting."

In my view, Western society has all but eliminated any kind of formal training of the sexes with respect to traditional roles and their attendant skills and customs. That is why I found this article particularly interesting:

( Full article here )

Referred to as a "boot camp" (which, incidentally, is quite a misnomer), the article discusses how the Ndebele tribe in South Africa acclimates young females to adulthood by teaching them cooking and cleaning skills, intimacy with men, grace, and moral virtue. Upon graduation from this "course," the females display their newly-learned humility and skills during a community celebration.

Western society is now devoid of any similar activity. Charm schools have disappeared, and even home economics classes, perhaps the last bastion of formalized female training in modern education, have been removed from most curricula. Indeed, any sort of homemaking skills are no longer learned by girls from their mothers, at least generally speaking, and are perhaps only learned when girls go off to college, or worst yet, when they marry, if at all.

The comparison of the different kinds of educations extant in other cultures makes the paucity of the same sort of training in our society even more glaring.

N.B. The article tantalizingly refers to male training, as well, but fails to elaborate. Not only would further elucidation on that be interesting, but it would also be interesting to consider how Western society traditionally trained its young men.

As society has changed, so has the lens in which it views females. Indeed, not long ago, including both before and after the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment, law considered females, at least the ones that were married, in a totally different light. Under the common law, that is, the legal tradition that was carried from Great Britain to the United States, as well as other colonies and dominions, such as Canada and Australia, females became one, indivisible unit with their husbands. Most everyone knows that prior to the Nineteenth Amendment in the United States, females could not vote in federal elections, but fewer realize that females were also restrained from serving on juries and inheriting in the same manner as Men. Perhaps the most interesting to me is that females could not pursue litigation on their own. To file a lawsuit, a female would have to seek permission of her husband, and even then, was not directly named in the suit. For instance, if John Doe and his wife, jane, were to sue in court against Tom Smith, it would not appear as it would today as "John and Jane Doe v. Tom Smith," the suit would have appeared and "John Doe et ux. v. Tom Smith." "Et ux." is an abbreviation of the Latin "et uxor," which means "and wife." This characterization ended in most states during the late Nineteenth Century, and almost completely ceased after universal sufferage. However, to both my surprise and delight, the custom remains in some well-publicized quarters, even if it has lost its meaning.

More regarding obedient1's idea about the putative Society for the Enslavement of females. Membership, and the function of admitting members would be extraordinarily important, as I discussed in response to amayos's comments here. The gatekeeping would have to be extremely tight, in order to keep those with antithetic views, or even those with a more socially correct disposition, out of the organization. Only those with an implacable belief that all females are naturally subservient to men would be admitted.

Consideration of new members would initially be charged to a committee, who would investigate the beliefs of the prospective member. Men, females who were aware of their place, and Male dominant/female submissive couples would only be considered. Men in a relationship with a female that was not aware of her place, or females who did not fully believe in their inferiority to men would not be permitted. Obviously, "dominant" females or "submissive" men would not be allowed, either. In investigating the candidate's character and beliefs, the committee would conduct an interview of the man, female, or couple, in which the rules of the organization would be enforced. Provided the individual's application met the approval of the committee, the individual would be forwarded to the organization as a whole. The candidate or candidates would be permitted to meet the group in a social setting, and at the next meeting of the group, the organization would vote on the prospective members.

Perhaps the organization would be ritualistic, and there would be a ceremony for new members. More on that later.

Recently, obedient1 has written about ClubFEM, a topic she has discussed before. According to ClubFEM's website, it is "a social organization composed of individuals who want to develop sincere Female dominant/male submissive relationships." I gather from obedient1's original post on the organization that it previously had a more distinct "female supremacy" ideology, though a cursory review of the websites of the various chapters seems to indicate that it has softened its stance a bit. Nevertheless, as it forbids Male dominant and female submissive members, its intentions are clear.

In her posts, obedient1 conceives an antithetical organization dedicated to ideology of Male supremacy. The concept has not been lost on me. I have often considered such a group, and have sought one in vain. Most D/s-oriented organizations are "pan sexual," and provide "a forum for the many different expressions of power in love and play." CORDS, an organization located in Central Ohio, formerly catered to Male dominant, female submissive relationships, but has since devolved into a "real time D/s support group."

Not one to write fiction, much to the certain chagrin of obedient1, I am disposed towards expressing my thoughts on the structure of such an organization. More than a mere fantasy, my conjectural organization would also be a social association. Of course it would have meetings, but it would also gather for dinners, drinks, watching sporting events, and other social events. The rules would emphasize Male supremacy and female inferiority, and would be formulated in a general nature applicable to all females to highlight equality in their inferiority. For instance, females, regardless of ownership, would not be permitted clothing, not be permitted to sit on furniture, and not permitted privacy. All females would be required to address all Men as "Sir," or other title appropriate to the Man. The females would wait on the Men, bringing them drinks or attending to their needs, or, if at a dinner party, as an example, prepare the meal and serve it to the Men, standing behind the Men's chairs when not fetching food or removing china.

Enough for now. More to follow.

This news article purports to herald the end of the "metrosexual" era, and a return to the "macho man."

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2092965&page=1

The article is interesting, if slightly misguided. The highlight of the article indicates that "macho" is "about being competent and feeling traditional, filling traditional male roles." But the article fails to adequately explore the why "men say their role in society is unclear and that they feel 'less dominant' than in previous decades." Instead of addressing the relevant causes of the confusion of men regarding their gender role, such as feminism and a loss of respect for traditional roles of men, the article essentially characterizes "metrosexual" and ultimately "macho" as a cultural phenomenon destined to ebb and flow cyclically as an expression of personal style or social fashion. In my view, a better article would have explored how feminism compelled men to believe the contradictory idea that men must become more feminine to fulfill their masculine role.

Fortunately for men and females, the appeal of the "metrosexual," like feminism before it, is short-lived once it is lived and fully examined.

Symbolism is extraordinarily important to me. Perhaps the axiom that actions speak louder than words succinctly distills why I find symbolic acts so enjoyable. Body language and positions, accordingly, are important to me because they are inherently symbolic. The posture and position of a female is thus very meaningful to me. One such position, quite possibly my favorite position for a female, is one in which the female is prostrated in prone. Occasionally, this position is referred to as a kowtow, or in a specific genre of literature as "obeisance."

The position at once transmits the distinct, unequal relationship between a man and a female. It emphasizes the unspoken communication that the role of a female is subservient to that of a man, that she exists in that place to serve and wait upon the man. The forehead and face -- the sole part of the human body that indicates character and personality -- is kept close to the ground, below the lowest part of the man's body, his feet. The back is in a sloping arch, such that it is vulnerable. The female's hindquarters are spread, exposing her biological essence with respect to the physical pleasure of men as well as reproduction of a man's offspring.

It is a position all females should have intimate familiarity.

The roles of females vary from the sundry to the engaging. I draw distinctions between four categories: The first is sexual, which, of course bears little explanation. The second is domestic. This would include, among other roles, that of a maid, cook, laundress, waitress, and chambermaid. The third is non-sexual. This is by far the most varied category. Included in this category are such roles as footstool, seat, cushion, masseuse, table, shoe shine, and chauffeur. The final category would encompass roles that offer personal service, such as a social escort or a personal assistant.

Of course, I have not always held these beliefs. Or rather, I should say, I did not always know that these beliefs were a part of me. I was born and raised in the quintessential American suburban family. As I grew, I had natural interests in females, and began dating at fourteen. The age of fifteen forever changed me, however. I was always drawn to literature, but not never modern American teenage literature. I preferred immersing myself in the stacks of the library, and when I could, the main, downtown public library. The one in every major town that was built in 1870, that has millions of volumes, but suburbanites never dare to tread. I have always enjoyed non-fiction, and in my constant roaming, I eventually discovered sexually-oriented literature. There I quickly discovered encyclopedic books on bdsm and D/s. Some illustrated, some academic, some narrative. From there, I quickly turned to fictional literature, chiefly Story of O and the Beauty series, but I do vaguely remember sneaking off to a Border's to pick up a cheap ponygirl paperback. I subsequently began experimenting with my high school girlfriend. Though fun, it was rather light, ranging from soft spanking, to roleplaying, to tie-up games.

I college though, it all changed. The internet was really coming into its preeminence, and I discovered a whole new side of D/s, not previously found in the published word. I found articles, and pictures, and chatrooms. So after I found real life groups, but that is a topic for another entry. With some difficulty because D/s was at that time still a shadowy subculture of society, I began exploring D/s and bdsm in real life with others who shared the interest. At first, I carried the societal values that I had been raised with since youth into my experiences with D/s. I considered all individuals to be equal and all relationships to be equally valid. However, I soon began to feel that the people and relationships I encountered were a fallacy. So I began re-examining my beliefs. I read a number of works, including The Failure of Feminism by Nicholas Davidson as well as classical feminist works such as the Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan. I even read more mainstream works, such as The Surrendered Wife by Laura Doyle. My ultimate conclusion, after several years, quite a bit of reading, and countless conversation with others was that a natural hierarchy existed within and between humans. Synthesizing all these resources, I came to the conclusion that men were the implicit leaders -- or, put another way, they were the superior gender of the species. Females, in contrast, were the followers, and thus the inferior gender of the species. Thus, I concluded that the D/s dynamic, for an innumerable number of reasons, is the be reflection of the natural dynamic between men and females.

The inevitable question - why start an online journal? Easily asked, but not easily answered. Undeniably, I am a man of strong but unpopular beliefs. Precisely because of this I lack a forum to express my beliefs or a quiet place to collect my thoughts and articulate my feelings. Hence, I have created this quiet forum for precisely that purpose.

The cardinal precept of my beliefs is this: intrinsically, all males are dominant and all females are submissive. I do not equivocate or qualify my statement in any way. Certainly, there are various nuances and different imports of my belief based on specific circumstances, but the core of my belief is constant. What fascinates me the most, however, is not this precept itself, but rather the corollaries that flow from it.

Accordingly, I dedicate this journal to the exploration of the natural and utter dominance of men, and subservience of females.