Submission is good for women

Did you ever read Asterix comics as a kid?

I did. I still do.

There is one particular favourite of mine called Asterix and the Secret Weapon. It is one of the funniest and most brilliantly insightful jabs at feminism that you will ever see- and chances are that you won't even see it as such until years later. I sure as hell didn't.

In it, the village of indomitable Gauls loses its bard, Cacofonix, after a minor difference of opinion regarding his musical abilities becomes a large one. A new female bard is brought in from hip, cosmopolitan Lutetia to take over. Naturally, being a liberated woman, she immediately sets about ramming her feminist beliefs down the throats of the village's women; the inevitable result is, of course, that the village's famous unity disintegrates and the men simply leave, setting up their own society in the forest outside their village. Meanwhile, the women, faced with a new threat in the form of an all-female legion sent by Julius Caesar as a secret weapon to destroy the village of heroic resisters to the Pax Romana, are bereft of their identities as homemakers and mothers, and the village rapidly falls into disrepair and chaos. In the end, it is the wit and wisdom of the men that saves their village, and their way of life, by turning the very nature of Caesar's secret weapon against itself.

It's a thoroughly subversive comic, and I highly recommend that you read it when you can. I used to read it back in my blue-pill days without having the slightest clue just what a sledgehammer blow it was to modern feminist thinking; when I read it now, I'm amazed at just how well the feminist agenda is destroyed in this book through simple and repeated application of humour.

For all that, however, the comic obliquely addresses a very important fact: submission is not only a good thing for women, it is what they need, what they crave, whether they admit it or not.

If there is one topic that makes feminists go completely batsh*t insane, it is the notion that women can, and should, submit to their men. Few topics will make their heads explode faster than the idea that a woman should let her man take the lead at home and beyond. The Strong Independent Woman should be in charge of her own destiny, dammit!

And yet... the reality is that women are now more free, more independent, more liberated than ever before- and they have never been unhappier. Antidepressant use is higher among women than ever before*. The female imperative has largely subsumed Western culture; it is women who in large measure dictate our politics, our education, what we watch and what we eat. Yet women themselves are chronically unhappy with their lives and their careers; researchers at the NBER called it "the paradox of female unhappiness" in a rather interesting paper published back in 2009. If feminists didn't spend so much of their time trying to cudgel their brains into doing things that are entirely contrary to human nature, they would realise that they are committing fratricide.

Part of the problem, I suspect, lies in a complete misunderstanding of what "submission" really means.

Matt Forney has a particularly good take on this- submission does not mean that a woman simply caves in to her man's every desire; this turns a woman from being, well, a woman, into a mere doormat. Some men are fine with doormats, and indeed they have their uses. I suspect most men, however, would rather be around women who complement them, who give them a caring and nurturing environment, and who energise them through their warmth and compassion.

And that, ultimately, is the point of female submission. When a woman submits to a man, she becomes happier herself. Consider the case of a former child TV star who became a devoutly Christian housewife and homemaker:
‘I love that my man is a leader. I want him to lead and those major decisions to fall on him,’ she said.

She was careful to add that this ‘doesn’t mean I don’t voice my opinion, that I don’t have an opinion - I absolutely do.’ 
Mrs Bure also cited military power structures as evidence for why being ‘submissive’ is not a bad thing: ‘It is very difficult to have two heads of authority. It doesn’t work in military…we have one President…and when you are competing with two heads of power that can pose a lot of problems or issues.’

Mrs Bure is not the first notable person to claim submissiveness is a key to marital success. 
In her book My Foot is too Big For This Glass Slipper, former Olympic volleyball player Gabrielle Reece wrote that 'to truly be feminine means being soft, receptive, and – look out, here it comes – submissive.'
There are a number of subjects that Mrs. Bure hits on here that are well known and well understood by us here in the 'Sphere- the concept of the Captain and the First Mate, the idea of letting the man take charge, and the understanding that men and women are, and were always meant to be, complementary to each other, not interchangeable.

Matt's take on the subject is particularly useful for combatting the toxic feminist doctrine that women must at all times be free to do as they please:
You’ll notice a theme here: the greater the emotional distance a woman has from the man she has submitted to, the worse off she is in every way. The average Jizzabeller can crow about how successful she is… right up until her boss fires her so he can give himself a raise, or for no reason at all (thank you, at-will employment laws). Tanisha from the ghetto can watch Maury with her three bastard brats all day… up until the budget collapses and the state has to cut back on her gimmedats. Statistics consistently bear this out: the happiest women in America are the married, God-fearing, middle-class GOP voters whom the coastal lefties turn their noses up at. 
No matter how much you toil away for your boss, no matter how fervently you vote for socialist politicians, it can all be taken away from you in the blink of an eye. 
It is woman’s lot in life to be ruled by man, not because of men but because of women themselves. In the absence of immediate masculine authority, women will chain themselves to anything that promises them food on the table and a warm place to sleep. And while women may chafe at their husbands’ or fathers’ yokes, even if they break free, they just find another man to kneel to. They’re trapped in a neverending cycle of submission and rebellion, never once realizing what they’re doing.
This is one of the hardest ideas for most women- and indeed most men, when they choke down the bitter bile that comes from their first serious dose of the Red Pill- to accept: women are happier when they submit to their men. One of the best stories I've read recently comes from a fellow misanthrope and INTJ:
I started on a program to Reverse-Alpha my husband (reverse me being a complete ball-buster) last year about this time & it’s going swimmingly! What I did was quit doing all of the things that made him back down into Bad-Beta (the cringing Beta, not the flowers & sweet words Good-Beta). By me not nagging & shit-testing him, he improved dramatically! I think this is what the seven-year-itch is about – it takes the wife that long to know exactly how to suck the soul right out of domesticate the husband. 
Then, I quit initiating sex (I was the main initiator & sometimes felt like I was forcing myself on him) while always ‘accidentally’ being ready & available for it. Oopsies, look I just happen to be clean, nude & cuddled next to you when you wake up! I told him about 6 months later that my body was his to touch whenever & however he wanted: not just ‘never say no’, but ‘always be very enthusiastic’. That’s when he discovered his new-found passion of swatting my ass, lol. 
I had been running the marriage (yeah, I know, I know), but I stepped back & quit making the big decisions. I pretty much quit making all decisions except my personal work ones & little ones, like what I’m cooking for dinner. I started leaving pertinent Red Pill blog posts on the screen when he got online to check his stocks & the news. He started bookmarking some of them & then he would sometimes implement some of the ideas therein. I have the most amazing marriage now. 
Tl;dr: Men are much more Alpha when they are not miserable!
This cannot be repeated enough: if women submit to their men, by letting them be men, then their own happiness increases. You would think that this is a simple and sensible idea, but one thing I've learned, often the hard way, is that common sense is almost always anything but.

For men, the lessons are clear and simple. Learn what dominance means. Get in shape. Improve yourself first- to hell with what your woman thinks about it, just do it. Get your finances in shape. Think for yourself. Be independent- carve out your own life, your own routines, your own niche. Do NOT, under any circumstances, let your woman dictate the course of your life- otherwise your relationship has simply turned into a giant s***-test, and you will have failed it completely.

For women, this is going to be very hard to take in (heh), but trust me on this- the warm, clean spray of wisdom that you receive will make you a better and happier person. Submission, as it should be understood, does not mean subsuming your personality to adapt to your man- just ask Tempest, Spacebunny Day, or Athol Kay's wife Jennifer if they think that their identities revolve completely around their husbands. It does mean that if you are constantly second-guessing your man, or are constantly nagging him to do things, or are unable to see the good in anything he does, then you are the problem, first and foremost. It does mean that you need to understand your primal, instinctive need to have a dominant male force in your life. It does mean that from time to time, you need to simply shut the f*** up because what you have to say is so utterly retarded that your man, and any other man with balls, has every right to call you on it.

Submission is good for you. Dominance is good for your man. Happy men and happy women are good for society. Could it possibly be any clearer than that?

*That factoid is worth taking with a heaping helping of salt; I know better than most just how aggressively the big pharmaceutical companies market the things, and just how skewed the incentives are for doctors to prescribe the damn things.


Popular Posts