The Female Dominant

All Rights Reserved By Mistress Steel
comments or email steelbfl@sonic.net
other articles can be found at http://www.steel-door.com (Site no longer up)

Dominant - to hold supremacy over by superior power, strength, authority or prowess.

The issue of the nature of a female dominant tends to surface over and over again as a puzzle teasing at the mind of our perceptions of societal structure. It is not uncommon to hear debates about what constitutes a recognizable form for female dominance, where these traits might emerge from and how these traits and the female dominant might come to exist within the framework of a male dominant model.

Well, perhaps that is the crux of the matter. As you may note from the definition which I used to describe the term dominant, the language used to identify 'dominance' is reflective of a 'male dominant model'. While the term dominant can be used to form a general idea of what dominance is, it becomes important to recognize that the model viewed and used to describe the nature of dominance within common usage framework itself is from the human male model. The corresponding female model for dominance is or appears to be missing from the definition and perhaps of more interest to me, since I am a female, from the recognition or identification processes of the individual. This is not entirely true of course, but what is true is that we tend to categorize dominant behaviors or traits as those which appear to agree or fit within the male model.

By and large, to be recognized as a 'dominant' within modern society, the female must display traits or characteristics identifiable as male dominant characteristics, within the male sphere or arena where this display becomes 'valid'. I have occasionally been known to call this cross-gendering behavior the presentation of the He-Female. There is a perception that men and women live in the same world. While it is certainly true that we as human beings do share the same planet, same continents, cites, towns and villages, it remains equally true that this sharing of physical space does not co-mingle our genders into a uniform androgynous 'human'. I can go from here to Mars and when I get wherever it is that I am going, I will still be a 'female human being'. I cannot say merely that I will be a 'human being', although at times I would like to lose the gender issue entirely. From my perspective the structure of male/female is not defined by the shape or design of genitalia but goes right down to a cellular level. Our differences may not be as visible as the presence or absence of genitalia, but those differences do exist and are real. As a female, I live within a 'female world'. My perceptions, orientations, thought processes, areas of concern, determination of path and direction are all in part an extension of my construction model. While I can examine and explore the behaviors of men, and to some extent reach a consensus, at least in my own mind, as to the probable reason for those behaviors, in a very fundamental sense, I will never entirely grasp the essence or nature of being a male human being, because, I am not and will never be or ascribe to be a human male. For me, the recognition of a female dominant lies entirely within the female behavior structure, to compare apples to apples as it were.

You may be asking yourself why I am bringing this up? Well, it returns to the fundamental question of the female dominant. Since being 'identifiable' as a dominant is of interest and relative importance to many people within this particular community, it does become significant to look at the measuring system used to describe this trait to determine if this measuring system itself has merit or worth in its current design. Perhaps I can better describe this issue by re-directing the question in reverse; what traits, behaviors, skills, techniques and thought processes most accurately reflect the female dominant model?

What is it that females do, and hide so well?
First, let me explore what males do from within our current modern framework. Men garner their abilities and traits, form or direct them through education toward enhanced delivery, they then use these abilities and traits to demonstrate or reflect their personal mastery or supremacy over the object or nature of the sphere in which they have chosen to exist within. By and large, (from a female standpoint), I could say that this arena or sphere which is most directly of interest to the male human, is that environment or arena which begins at the door of the household home outward.

Now I can return to my first question. Well, if you look closely you will immediately note that you can use this paragraph with a few minor alterations to describe what women do as well. The exceptions come when you look at the arena of 'primary' importance to the female. The female does not instinctively look 'outside' of the household home at the 'larger world', but instead looks 'inside' the household home at the 'smaller world.' Within a woman's perception her world begins and ends within her family, her home. Without family or home, most women tend to feel stripped or bereft. This does not mean that all women must be homemakers, or that all women are good at being homemakers, or that all men are not interested in what occurs within the home, in fact the opposite is true. What it does mean is simply this, for a woman to be 'identified' within current society as a dominant female, she must be able to show dominance within the 'larger world' of the human male AS WELL AS maintain her dominance within her already existing 'smaller world' of home and family. Some women can and do exchange their role as a mother for the role of male, working in the larger world, but they cannot escape the scrutiny of society in observation of their 'failure' to maintain the structure and integrity of their home/family for the 'lesser' goal of dominance in the larger world. Did you note that I said 'lesser' goal? We as humans view success at a job as vastly 'less' important in any fundamental way than success at home. But, the connections between both types of success are more complex and for men in particular, more important.

By looking just a little bit closer at this situation it becomes clear that the male human being who works actively and hard toward becoming dominant in his selected sphere of choice, exhibits and demonstrates this behavior in order to bring the rewards (necessities for maintenance of life) home to his 'primary' identification of importance, the 'smaller world' of his home/family. By and large, his 'success' or measure of 'valid' dominance is reflected within his ability to delivery to his 'smaller world' ample spoils from his adventures outside in the perceptible 'larger world'. This brings something else to mind, as you might notice here this behavior accurately indicates that for both the male and the female human being, the home/family is the PRIMARY arena of importance and concern. By extension, the individual who demonstrates the greatest sphere of influence within this 'primary arena' can be fairly said to be the dominant within the 'overall' framework of society itself. It is important to remember that a woman cannot, without intense censure, vacate her role as mother/manager/director of her home while a male is not expected to display behaviors or traits consistent with mothering, managing and directing his home in ADDITION to his actions within the 'larger world'. However, the male MUST demonstrate success in the outer world or be equally severely censured by not only society but by his female partner as well. A failure by a male to sustain success may present a situation where their female partner summarily 'vacates' the relationship, or abandons the male as ineffective, weak and/or in lieu of a more successful mate. A failure by a female to sustain success within her home is less likely to result in the immediate loss of spouse, although in the long term the results tend to be similar. By and large, society is less accepting of the idea of a male discarding a female (children).

We like to suggest that the male - directs - the females behaviors of nesting, mothering, caring for and managing the household when by and large the male abdicates his direction 'willfully' to his female partner. If you ask a man if his wife or partner obeys him, most men will look at you blankly, a slightly horrified look in their eyes and veer away from answering the question. Taken further, if you ask a man if his mother obeys him, you will get a totally offended posture. The idea that a man would 'expect' his mother to do whatever he told her to do (picture her on her knees scrubbing the floor with son standing over her telling her what to do) repels. To a large extent most men would find such a thought disrespectful and diminishing of themselves as a man. To a man, the center of the primary arena is often required to lay within the hands of their female partner, this is the spot that is most important to a man, in truth, it is the center of both the male and the female's world. By trusting in the competence, abilities, traits, behaviors, characteristics, and thought processes of their female partner, the male is ABLE to proceed into the 'larger world' without 'primary' concerns and best DELIVER their mastery or supremacy over their chosen sphere. Without this trust, without the able action of the female within the primary arena, the male is not able to delivery the entirety of their energy and attention upon their chosen goal, this effectively diminishes their ability to dominate either arena.

It is important to recognize here that the female who must present both dominant models, and deliver in the larger and smaller arenas cannot maintain effective dominance in both either. Years ago when this model became the in vogue ideal for women, it was called the Super Woman, "I can bring home the bacon, and fry it up in a pan... " Well, yes, a woman can direct her energy and attention into any arena of her choice, and by or within the terms of that sphere she can be evaluated to be dominant or not-dominant, but if a woman, or a man, fail to identify their primary arena as within their home, their family, their children, then these external efforts at presentation of objective supremacy will land within a home life blown apart, it's future blackened and bleak. As humans, we are oriented toward providing for and selecting the means of creating, protecting and delivering the best possible children, humans, possible for our future. All the rest, is window dressing.

What is true, is that both men and women attempt to select 'dominant' mates, or the compatible individual who they belief will be most able to demonstrate success within their given spheres. It is the underlying idea that you select a sword with both sides sharpened as the best weapon for defense against a difficult world. When these worlds tend to conflict instead of cooperate is when the dominant sphere of either side expands or attempts to expand into the dominant sphere of the other side, creating conflict with each other instead of alignment together outward in protection and defense of both.

In the end, when you look at the uncertain union of man and woman, what you have is a unified effort by two distinctly different dominant models agreeing to work together for the express purpose of dominating their unified environment. This agreement is based ENTIRELY upon the best interests of the self/family/home.

Within the overall framework of the human psyche, we are all equally dominant and submissive, capable of displaying traits and characteristics of both sides. This flexibility allows us to work together without trying to kill each other. It is when these specific characteristics match within our individual personalities that we find relationships that are joyous, whole and sustainable. It lies within our ability to 'shift' from one presentation to another that our long term unified 'dominant' success exists.