AREN'T WOMEN REALLY IN CONTROL? _____________________________________ Introduction     Controllers are people who feel the need by or for whatever their circumstances to have some force or influence over others  for their own subjective needs.     Control of others can be both positive and negative.     This control by one or many, is to subjugate one or many to ideas and behaviours that they, the controllers have with or for a purpose which the controllers may or may not be aware of.     It is very complex.     Authority, which is usually self-imposed, takes many forms, from the concept of government of a mass of individuals, to the authority of one person over another. Authority is rarely positive for anyone else.     There are the controllers and the controlled.     Those that want to impose their will over others are controllers  and those who are imposed upon are the controlled.     We all operate on many levels. Many things 'drive' us to perform the behaviours that we have.     These drivers may be conscious, sub-conscious or unconscious.     We cannot always have knowledge of these 'drivers' but they are there and the more we can see into ourselves and delve into the past (but not live it!) the more we can hopefully learn about ourselves and to break certain chains that bind us to what we do, how we react and how we live our daily lives.     It is assumed by many (men and women) that it is the male who dominates society.     Taking a turn-around of thought, my argument is that it is really women who have the ultimate control and it is fear of this by men that they pretend it is not so. That is the basis for this dissertation.     I want this article to remain as positive as possible. I will try to leave little room for negative thoughts, though they must necessarily appear, if only to emphasise the positive.     As a male, I am prepared to 'bare my soul' in the pursuit of answers to all things. A better understanding of men honest enough to do this, might result in a much better world, where mutual co-operation of the sexes by understanding will eliminate a 'war of the sexes' (read: emancipation, whatever that means) and whoever stated that nonsense, anyway?     The mother is the bearer of children. That is, a female bears a child. The male is the author of a book. He is the necessary factor in the bearing of an offspring. Purely biologically, he determines male or female depending on something over which he has no control, the sex of the child (which is in his genes).     His role is determinator of sex and the genes that he carries (that are part of his being). Other than that, no man or woman has charge or control of the sex.     Thus the male is very important. But once having been important, his role is left up to the conception of the child within the womb of the mother. It is now up to her to control the factors that will provide for a viable sibling (child, embryo, foetus or whatever science calls the growing child).     A child is born.     It's first inkling of life on this planet is squeezing through the birth canal into the open. Traumatic enough! But then it is then subjected to the mores of science. The cord which is attached to the mother/womb is cut. The symbiote is no longer. It exists in its own right. It is alone. It knows only of the comfort of warm water; the comfort of the maternal pulse; the comfort of words spoken through flesh that it cannot hear (?) but feels.     Then it is on its own. Not alone, mind. There is a lot of difference.     But it is on its own and dependent. Of course; it is a human baby. It is not weak, though, as many would have us believe.  It is on its own and needs food, warmth, comfort, reassurance, and will accept these things from any body (body being another living organism) that gives these, natural or no.     The any body is a mother. This does not imply a female human, however. It could be any body.     Usually, however, the dependent infant depends on its natural mother. That mother then begins to control the life of the infant.     The infant depends on the natural breast. This breast gives the infant the sustenance it requires in its natural proportions at the right time. The breast supplies the food, the comfort and the maternal pulse. Without this, everything else is second best and in Chaos Theory supplies the 'Butterfly Effect' that continues throughout life, producing a further and further disadvantage to the child.     The female is in charge by natural means. She has no control, whatever over this.     If, however, the female decides that she does not want to feed the child from her body, she need feel no guilt (she has 'hang-ups' she doesn't know about or can't come to terms with etc.)  then that is fine as long as it is conscious. A new regime must be placed in order to give the infant a proper place in the world. The mother must realise that she can't or won't give her body to the infant. She is in control.     The problem lies in the fact that once in control, the mother has a responsibility to that infant but much more than she feels.     As soon as you introduce artificial means to satisfy an individual, you unleash a vast number of variables which will affect that individual throughout its life. Every man loves a tit.      A woman's sexuality revolves around the breast. If that breast was natural (as a baby sucking on it), a man will go for it. Even if the breast were artificial ( a bottle), the man will still go for the breast. It is his comfort. (I deny any man that will not admit to it, even as a joke. A joke is the element of truth).     A woman's initial control is her breast.     A breast is therefore a woman's responsibility.     Sorry, it's tough out there. You as a woman have a breast (the two become one in this essay).     Both girls and boys relate to that.     A cuddle is to the breast. The woman is in control.     Although she doesn't know it, the woman is always in control, although she doesn't always realise it. Men do not like to admit it.     The reason that men don't like to (or won't) admit it is because he makes himself feel more important in the respect that he feels the need to provide. Although this need to provide is in our history, it does not make it a truth. It is merely a denial of a truth.     I submit that men are basically fearful of the woman (and thus deny to themselves her control) and work towards a pretend universe in which they are in control.     There really is no need to worry about this. It's not likely to turn into an amazonic society, certainly not over night!     The fact of the matter as far as the woman is concerned, (when she realises she is in control) is that she has a far greater responsibility to the world than she may care to have. Thus begins the concept of better understanding and mutuality.     Women need to be cared for; they may not want to control.     But the control I am talking about is not necessarily direct control of the male. It is a handling of the situation with a woman's touch. It is a realisation of that control. Not the mother saying: do as you are told I'm in control. Rather a knowledge of the situation that she is in control and should use this information with tenderness, not to be in charge.     The man is not subservient to a woman; he is an extension of her life. It is living in mutual harmony that matters, not who is in control and why.     That is the essence of what I am saying.     It is when both partners of a relationship understand why they are like they are, that they can live harmoniously.     The reason for writing this article is to break down the barriers that have existed since we became aware of being aware. That there is not a truth in man's delight in putting down anybody, let alone the opposite sex.     Control can be power and usually is. All the horrible things that man does to wo/man are based on fear and that fear creates something (I don't know what you'd call it) that makes people batter each other physically and mentally.     I feel strongly that if we realised where the real control lay, we would not have to have women's movements to prove a point that is not there anyway (in real terms) and that that movement now lowers the man's credibility to such an extent that he feels sickened by it.     Women are thus using their direct control of men's' affairs. This is not leading to a harmonious society but one that is full of conflict and negative behaviours. Conclusion     By their nature, women are in control. This does not mean that they need exercise direct control of others, merely that they are simply the bearers of control.     This puts an enormous responsibility on women but it need not be a trauma. The trauma comes with the expression of this control to subjugate others. That is, to directly control by using it (as a weapon).     A realisation of this control is the first step to a harmonious society and can only be positive.

Return to CONTENTS page