Anatomy of female power

You may now kiss your slave master (Notice her LEANING AWAY from him)

I just finished a book this morning called ‘Anatomy of female power’, which I can not remember where I got the book from (inevitably some manosphere comment or recommendation) but it was a very good book that opened my mind to a few things about women and feminism I did not think.

First, this book was written in 1990 and by an african guy, both of which are relevant.  I will go into details but he lays out female power, and at that time thought that feminism was waning because of its ultimately self-destructive tendency, obviously it hasnt, but that does not detract from his message.  Also originally being from africa where evidently the women were much more open about their power over males that ‘marriage was how I get a nest-slave’ and that women have songs about enslaving men coming to the UK where he lived was a likely reality shock of seeing all these females playing the victim card.

His premise is as follows: male ‘power’ is of an overt/in your face nature, whereas female power is subtle, behind the scenes, society reinforced, and because females control most males they therefore have more power.

Further, his main point is pretty damn simple: a complete outsider looking at a typical relationship or marriage would easily conclude the female is the superior of the two, the male works himself to death to give resources to the female.

The female has many tools at her disposal to train the male, anything from withholding sex, flirting with other guys to elicit jealousy, getting pregnant, all of which are ultimately supported by the society.

Essentially, men have a very effective trap for them: within their own power structure things like ‘honor’ are how they distinguish one from another, honor is something that must be kept at all times lest his fellow males exile him.  Within an all male structure, it works.  The problem becomes that females have easily co-opted it for their own use.  For example the biggest use is if a guy gets a girl pregnant its his job to ‘man up’ and take care of the kid. It is the ‘right’ thing to do.  Further, because it has become accepted as the ‘right’ thing to do fellow men will regulate each others behavior as casting out as a pariah some guy who does not do the ‘honorable’ thing.  This is the exact same mentality that treats single moms as somehow great heroes and the dad who left as irresponsible losers…oh and the men who marry single moms as honorable heroes for saving the girl.

Think about this last line ‘saving the girl’ this is how conventionally girls maintained so much power and control.  She gives the illusion of needed saved which our ‘hero males’ were raised to do.  So what does she need saving from?  Anything from her economic mess, her early pregnancy, her ‘mean dad’ or whatever ail her white knight can save her from.

The author lays out that throughout life a guy is routinely trapped and indoctrinated by women.  From his childhood his mom rears him, and this sets the stage for future female worship.  Upon getting older he is then enthralled by finding a girl he hopes to marry, and is dominated by either finding a girl, or if he has a girl keeping her.  In reality it is typically the girl manipulating the guy.  Really now how many of you have at least one guy you can point to that used to be baller and now is slowly and steadily being whipped by his girl into a ‘responsible’ ‘adult’ ‘male’?  Finally he gets married, which he was led to believe was some paradise of sex and love, and unwittingly is a hoist to his own petard as the power the women has over him in this position is great indeed.  Thus throughout his life he has unknowingly played the subservient role to a female the entire time.

As the author saw it, there were three types of girls: (and it is insane to see how these types have manifested today) 1: the matriarch-admitting and matriarch-loving women. 2: the tomboy. 3. the angry feminist

1: These are the women who WANT to status quo (pre feminism) meaning they did not want to work, they were happy at home raising kids.  The easiest example is imagine Victorian women, who were quite content over tea to be gossiping about everything while the man slaves away somewhere.  Modern day versions of this are basicly the ‘red-pill women’ or the stereotypical conservative women who wants her family and her family values.  They are somewhat opposed to feminism because they 1: do not want to work, and 2: do not want the truth of their power revealed and abandoned as more and more guys become disillusioned with feminism.

2:  These are the type that think they are boys, or wish they were boy.  So typically they are tacitly feminist.  They like the ‘be anyone you want to be’ mantra of feminists, they like the ability to have their own businesses etc as it is ‘manlike’, basically the type of girl that likes all the power of females, and likes the new found power of the male realm feminism has given her.

3: The militant feminist, these are the typical angry at society or especially men.  These are the type that say type1 females are ‘traitors’ to their sex, and that type1 girls are willing slaves to the ‘patriarchy’.  Now see this book was written in 1990 and it was obvious from his writing that this group was still small.  This was about my only complaint about the book as he thought that these type of women were naturally self-destructive enough that they would disappear from censure by the type1 females.  However we know that didnt happen.  Militant feminists have steadily grown.

Exhibit A


I could not believe the accuracy this guy had back then.  Among his predictions he said there were three types of men, the macho – who believes only in conventionally power, and therefore is utterly oblivious to the manipulation he is under- ; the musho – basically the feminized male-; and the masculinist – the forerunner to MRA/MGTOW guys.  There was one specific line in here where he mentioned the musho guys as they get progressively more whipped they then become the biggest ‘missionaries’ for the feminist movement, which that degree of foresight was impressive thinking of all these whipped males from the fallen hugo swayez or all the self-flagellating males who have ‘male guilt’.

Another thing he mentioned which I thought was interesting and has only gotten worse was his statements about the militant feminists who some dress provocatively and then get upset or charge that any man who shows interest or acts on the impulse should be punished severely.  (Reminds me of the multitude of false rape charges I personally have seen along which heard)  “Just because I dress like a slut doesnt mean I am a slut or want sex.”

Here is the crux of his book, females have power over males for a few reasons:

1: they withhold sex which males desperately crave,

2: they conventionally took care of domestic skills such as keeping him fed,

3: they can give him a child,

4: they were pedastlized as victims needed protecting.

Now as I mentioned, the only thing this guy got wrong was he said feminism was a destructive movement to female power and would naturally self regulate itself away, implictally in a short time and not amount to much of a social movement.  I totally agree that feminism is super destructive (to just about everything) but he was wrong about it not gaining traction, however he is completely right that it will implode because of this list above^

Feminism has essentially taken away 3 out of the 4 powers a female had over males.  The only thing females still retain is 3: the ability to give a man a child- a very very mighty sword they weild over males (which laws to back them up) and while this IS power they hold, this is the only one not immediatly imperiled by feminist movement.  It is still being sacrificed though by the whole mentality that ‘she doesnt need a kid’ or ‘career oriented’ bullshit that infests middle class white girls that are feminists main demographic.

Ways feminism is slitting its own throat: Lets start with 4, the victim menality still exists in disgusting amounts to this day, but think about females now supposedly being let into combat, do you think a victorian women would have EVER thought that would happen or was a good idea?  Feminists keeping bitching about equality in the work place enough and guys might start asking why dont we get some female quotas in coal mining and crab fishing and front line deaths.

2:  Now this one was interesting to me, as by the time I became of age domestic skills were gone, girls cant do shit.  I mean this literally, I could sew better and cook better than 98% of the girls I went to college with, and I only considered myself proficient not deeply skilled or anything.  There was a time girls co-opted guys self sufficiency by cooking, cleaning etc everything for him, so he could never leave her because he didn’t know how to do any of this.  Sadly, most guys still dont, and both sexes settle for endless ‘gourmet’ fast food instead of cooking themselves.

1:  This is interesting as there are entire blogs devoted to trying to get girls to ‘give it up’.  But in reality there is more sex flowing now than in the last 100 years (barring maybe the 70s, but I bet these days have those rocked).  Stds rates are something I’d use as evidence of rampart sex.  But regardless back in the day girls would coyly bait males with their pussy if ‘only’ they would marry them.  As much as I utterly hate the song ‘paradise by the dashboard lights’ this is the exact type of mentality that once existed predominantly, guy gets super turned on repeatedly by coy girl, and only release is promised if he devotes his life to her.  Now…girls are sluts.  That is the sad truth.  Will some girls demand over-inflated price for their used snatch?  Certainly, but on the whole girls want sex too and feminism has abolished the covenant by which females were able to extract much higher premiums for.

The destruction of feminism is picking up speed, especially with the internet, guys sharing stories of getting burned and collectively sharing knowledge.  Further, all these reasons I outlined are things girls once had exclusive domain and power oveir, and are being eviscerated from within.  Feminism is in no way empowering, where does it tell girls to do this or that for their dreams, instead it simple says things like a real man shouldnt make you cook, or that a real woman gets a career and (laughably) can have a family after her 20s or 30s.

Now think about this, feminism has inadvertently killed themselves in a multitude of ways, because think about what the author called the masculinist (aka MGTOW) and how females are now completely useless to him.  Anything advantage and way they COULD HAVE gotten our MGTOW male they have squandered, they dont cook/clean anymore, they are ugly thus sex is less of a prospect, most are not going to be giving out kids because they are more concerned with ‘careers’, and most are hostile to guys anyway.  So a typical guy who gets even a little bit it like ‘well what the fuck do I need a girl for anyway?  I cant get a kid true, but I was not getting one anyway, so other than that she is useless to me.’

Feminists do NOT fucking get it: if you are ugly, cant cook/clean, are a bitch, and are not giving anyone a kid a guy worth ANYTHING will not want you!  Everything that made you FEMININE was/is what guys want, and your unexamined belief in ‘feminism’ is going to eventually get you working in a salt mine somewhere wondering why life sucks so bad when you could have been at home with your slave working for you instead.

The delusion of course is on multiple levels, as certainly any high value guy does not want a feminist piece of trash.  But even the ‘ideal’ of a women who would stay at home and ideally stay hot, cook and produce kids still ultimately controls him as he is just a wage slave.  Complicated.  But…that is how life is, and why most people would rather not think and just get taken advantage of.  I realize the delusion of feminism, but personally is the slavery of marriage with a ‘typical’ female any better?  Certainly not, but what options remain?

“Just go to work for me already fucker.”

27 thoughts on “Anatomy of female power

    • If you’re interested in a ‘vintage’ prescient economics book (circa 1987), that validates your apocolypic premonitions I recommend Blood in the Streets, by James Dale Davidson. It was ‘Enjoy the Decline’ way before ‘Enjoy the Decline’. Of course, it might also make you reevaluate those apocalyptic predictions as they didn’t actually come to fruition. And no one actually enjoys a real decline…especially in their twilight years, might be relatively more fun at 20.

      • Another good one is Stoddard’s “The Revolt Against Civilization”; he gets a few things wrong, but he nails the way that the upper-class rejects mistake the under-class thugs for natural allies (Bane, Occupussies, and the 1%), and wind up allying with them against the elite to destroy society.

      • I read it a long, long time ago EK and don’t have it in my possession so I only remember the generalities.
        It was part of my dad’s library. He was a big investor, and it’s essentially contrarian investment advice based on where the author projected the future would go. It was pretty compelling, though, and the basic premise holds true more today than ever, though some of the specific predictions did not actually occur (then). James Dale Davidson also wrote The Great Reckoning (a sequel to Blood in the Streets, and I highly recommend it as well), and the Sovereign Individual (haven’t read that one).

  1. What exactly was the full title of this book, EK? Did you have to order it online, or was it downloadable? It sounds interesting, especially coming from an outside perspective…should be worth a read.

  2. 1 “Just because I dress like a slut doesn’t mean I am a slut or want sex.” AH!!!!
    2 Equality in the work place… you can have equality if you magically grow a male reproductive system, get rid of your boobs, and have a brain transplant.

    My husband and I would love to read that book! We have been working on this whole alpha and submission thing for only 2 months. I like how I feel already and what he is becoming. I was totally deluded and blind to my own behavior! I Still am of course since changing and growing is a process. Persistence wins it all. Thank you for sharing the book!!!!! I’m working so hard to be the ideal that i believe with the right goals is 10 years maximum. Including 100% submission in the bedroom area! Hopefully there will by hard polygamy in marriage 1.0 by then. ‘The slight Edge’ book is awesome for this.

      • The greatest thing that I feel from submission is PEACE inside. I have never had peace like this. A sense that everything IS going to be okay no matter the chaos in the world. I feel safe/ protected. I know I will always know where to go be provided for. Not HOPING I will. A woman feels she has control in her life when she feels, these things. And she can only feel those things WHEN she submits. What man wouldn’t want to love or care for her if she is submissive. She has Abundance.

    • @mrsdarlings

      Interesting take on life. I have some need for clarification on some things you wrote, if you don’t mind.

      1. Your “equality in the workplace” statement is a little confusing. Most businesses (both large and small) are equal already. I myself have worked for large corporations and currently for a “chain” Mom & Pop gaming/hobby store. Other than a single occurance, I can’t think of an example of inequality that has ever befallen me. Are your own workplace experiences very different?

      2. I’ll look for the book you talk about, “The Slight Edge”, and maybe it’ll answer some questions. But you talk about “hopefully” having polygamy in marriages rather than polyamoury. I was just wondering if you and your husband were Mormon, so some similar religion. Note that I don’t feel strongly one way or the other about having numerous wives (or even husbands), so long as everyone involved is over 18 and consenting.

      3. In your first comment, you make it sound like you are mainly talking about submissiveness in a sexual way (which is fine, if that’s what you and your husband are into). But then your second comment seems to be talking about being submissive in daily life as well (again, fine so long as everyone is caring for each other). I was just wondering which it was, and what tempted you to try this spousal model in the first place.

      4. I find it interesting that you say you “feel control” when you submit. I would agree with you on this if we were only talking about BDSM/sexual roleplaying, but I’m having a difficult time imagining how one can feel “in control” when they are submissive outside the bedroom aka not playing a predetermined role. Can you go into more detail about this?

      Obviously, it’s up to you what you want to actually answer!

  3. interesting article…

    The only reason yo have a serious relationship with a woman is to have kids with her. (I define serious relationship maybe a little different than others.) Due to biology a woman will be vunerable during pregnancy and children need provisioning, hence a man is pushed into protector/provider role. Otherwise I see no other reason to take on that role.

      • people can have lots of different arrangements where both can leave at any time w/o legal consequences. IE the so called Friends with Benefits. Perhaps they even love each other but since there is no obligation and either side can end things at any time, it is not “serious.” I also wouldn’t recommend co-habitation as I’ve heard that in some places after x amount of time it is considered marriage.

        That is also in my view why “gay marriage” makes no sense. –Except for legal provisions such as allowing a partner onto health benefits or recognizing the legal relationship so one can visit the other in the hospital as “next of kin.” Why else do two people need the government to recognize their relationship?

        In most relationships, there is a shit-ton of male disposability involved. Sure, we could argue all day as women also have liabilities in relationships. But it is the man who is expected to pay a ton for a wedding ring…

        • Exactly. I’ve been in a FwB arrangement since I was 21, and he is still the only sexual partner I’ve ever had. Why change a good thing, you know? I do love him, and I know he at least cares for me. That’s pretty much all I can ask for. Yeah, co-habitation is common law marriage after a few years where I live. Big no-no, and besides, I need my alone time.

          I have had a few gay friends in high school and college, they were wanting marriage legalized for those exact reasons. It’s frickin’ stupid as hell that you can spend 30 years together, but not be allowed to see each other in the hospital past visiting hours.

          I was never one to look at others as disposable, regardless of what’s between their legs. People are people, they all have worth. As for the engagement and wedding rings, if I ever went crazy and decided to marry, I wouldn’t want an expensive ring. A simple band or inexpensive stone would suffice. I mean, I have an absolutely beautiful opal ring that I wear on special occasions…it was $85 at Kay Jewelers. Who the hell needs more than that?

          • Eh, why get a ring at all? Isn’t it the reciprocity of the love and loyalty enough? Other than the fact that flashing said ring could stop strangers from inappropriately hitting on you…what good is it?

            If I was the marrying kind, I’d want my fiance and myself to save up our funds to afford a home or a truly memorable honeymoon that we could treasure for years to come. A ring? Just another material possession.

      • I’m very fond of the “going your own way” set of ideals. It’s hell for some, but perfect for others. Isn’t it odd how so many people fruitlessly attempt to measure their self-worth based on whether they are in a relationship or not?

        So puzzling!

  4. You could see the traditional marriage institution – a.k.a. the most “serious” relationship ever – as a “commitment device” of some sort. Making future oneself more dedicated to previously chosen course of action. Well, but that’s no longer the case, right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s