A code you can live by

I think myself that there must, for many people, be a happy medium between total war and total surrender. That is, it must be possible to have a relationship in which both people have input, and decision making is shared, rather than one person making all the decisions, and the other being totally controlled.

I personally would want my children to treat their partners (if they eventually have any) with kindness and consideration, and I hope I would encourage that. But I don't particularly see that as involving one having total control over the other; I don't see that as a necessary component in a relationship, unless it is what you specifically desire.

I mean, it seems to me that Taken In Hand is a rather extreme form of relationship for most people, and it isn't something I would personally encourage my children to expect in real life. My sons might, or might not, find women who are happy for them to make all the decisions, and never disagree with them etc, but I would not encourage them to think that women like that are necessarily going to come their way.

Louise

I am so glad you have found someone that makes you so happy Hane. I have been searching and none have been the Taken In Hand kind of men. The gentleman I am seeing now might go for it in the far future but he does not seem to be the kind that wants anything other than an equal partnership. We shall see. As for raising your daughter to think differently, I cannot speak for you because I only had sons. They do seem to be creating Taken In Hand type relationships but I keep out of it unless they ask me. I have found that young people today have to do their own experimenting and discovering for themselves what works for them. It might be painful or comical, but each child is an individual with their own quirks and they will know best what will make them happiest. I think if you raise your daughter to love and care about others, be a decent human being and to show respect to all, no matter color or beliefs, then she will be well prepared to make the right decisions in her life. She will find what makes her happiest and will be thankful that you counseled and did not preach.

Warmest regards

Libby

Hey Hane!

Glad I could blind you with my million watt nonsense. Anyway, I am very happy for you and will keep my fingers crossed (and my eyes) that This is THE ONE!

All my best

Libby

Men are wonderful. Women should give them a break. But we still need to work very hard to ensure women on this planet are allowed to vote, drive, get an education. We should all be protesting about things like this - 5 schools adding to the 178 destroyed in Afghanistan and educatino for girls now banned, women not allowed to go out without a man. Saudi is not much better.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/20/pakistan-taliban

Women still have a very unfair lot on this planet and any man worth his salt should want to compete equally with competent women in the world of business, medicine and the like and not feel threatened by that. I have never been out with a take-charge man who has a problem with my career. It enhances relationships rather than threatens them.

But I certainly agree that anti male (and anti female) comments should be wiped out.

You say "no major cultures in history of mankind have been run by women" huh... wonder what these are then because they sure look like rulers to me.

Though most of the rulers of the ancient world were kings and pharaohs, there are a few women rulers who wielded power and influence. There were queens, empresses, saints and other women rulers who ruled their kingdom in their own name. These women had great influence on their subjects. Here are a few of the most powerful women who controlled their kingdom with the rule of thumb.

Artemisia: Artemisia ascended the throne after the death of her husband. She was proclaimed the ruler of Halicarnassus (present day Turkey). Xerxes was the ruler of a state, which was the part of the Persian Empire. Artemisia helped Xerxes defeat the Greeks in the naval battle of Salamis. She supported Xerxes by sending her men and five of her warships. Artemisia became a threat to the Greeks. Greeks were ready to reward anybody who would capture Artemisia. However, no one succeeded.

Boudicca: Also known as Boadicea, she was the queen of the Iceni tribes. She was known as the warrior queen. She led a revolt against the Roman occupation in East England (present day Norfolk and Suffolk).

Cartimandua: Cartimandua was also known as "sleek pony", that probably was the meaning of her name. She was the Queen of Brigantes. Bringantes were the largest English tribal community. As Queen of Bringantes, she signed a treaty of peace with the Romans who invaded England. She ruled as client of Rome.

Cleopatra: Cleopatra was the Queen of Egypt. She is also known as Cleopatra VII and Cleopatra VII Philopator. She was famed for her beauty. She was associated with famous Roman rulers such as Julius Caesar and Marc Antony. Cleopatra was the last pharaoh of Egypt and the last ruler of the Ptolemaic dynasty.

Queen Elizabeth I: Queen Elizabeth I was known as the Virgin Queen. She ascended the throne of England in 1558.Queen Elizabeth I was the last ruler of the Tudor Dynasty. She knew six languages and her reign was considered the golden period in English history.

Hatshepsut: Hatshepsut was a Pharaoh of Egypt. After the death of her husband, she reigned over Egypt until her son Thutmose III, grew up. Hatshepsut was endowed with many titles and powers. She called herself the "Female Horus". She wore ceremonial clothing of male Pharaohs and a false beard.

Queen Isabella: She was the Queen of Castile. She along with her husband King Ferdinand, conquered Granada and Spain. She was instrumental in sponsoring Christopher Columbus’s voyage to America. Queen Isabella made many reforms in the Spanish society before she died. She opened schools and reformed the church in Spain.

Catherine the Great: Her real name was Sophie Fredericke Auguste von Anhalt-Zerbst. She was a German princess married to Grand Duke of Holstein. After marriage, she moved her base to Russia. The Russians overthrew the duke from power and proclaimed Sophie as their empress. She was named as Empress Catherine II. She won two important battles against the Ottoman Empire and extended the borders of Russia to the shores of Black Sea. She signed agreements with Prussia and Austria that led to the partition of Poland. Because of this treaty, Russia acquired more area in Europe. She made reforms in the government and gave importance to education and literacy. Catherine the Great supported westernization.

Joan of Arc: She was also known, as Jeanne d’Arc. When she was a girl, she had visions of the angels asking her to free France from the clutches of the English army. Shortly, the King of France sent Joan with a French army to Orleans. Here for the first time, the French defeated the English. With her help, the French won more battles against the English. However, she failed in capturing Paris, only because her army was not given ample supply of resources. Her victories made it possible for Dauphin to be crowned as King Charles VII. She was later burned to death at the stakes. In May 1920, the Catholic Church of Vatican gave her sainthood.

Cleopatra Thea: Cleopatra Thea was the Syrian queen who exercised power after the death of her husband. She ruled Syria, until her son grew up to succeed the throne.

Elen Luyddog: Elen Luyddog is also known as "Helen of the Hosts". She was a Celtic princess who married a Roman soldier, who later became the Emperor of Gaul. He proclaimed her as the Empress. After his death, she returned to Britain. Here she propagated Christianity and Christianized the Britons.

Queen Victoria: Queen Victoria ascended the throne of England on her eighteenth birthday. Her reign is known as the Victorian Era. Under her rule, England progressed socially and economically. Since India was under the rule of the British, Victoria was known as the Empress of India. Queen Victoria broadened the suffrage to include English women, when she passed the Reform Acts of 1867 and 1884. The Victorian Era came to an end, when she died at the age of 83.

Nefertiti: Nefertiti was an Egyptian queen, renowned for her classical beauty. Her husband was Pharoah Amenhotep IV (later known as Akhenaten). She was instrumental in promoting the Aten cult or worship of sun god in ancient Egypt.

Queen Olympias: Olympias was the Queen of Macedonia and wife of King Philip II. She was the mother of Alexander the Great. She was known as snake charmer. After the death of Alexander the Great, she became the regent queen of Macedonia till her grandson Alexander IV, was crowned. Cassander, one of her enemies, later murdered her.

Queen Zenobia: Zenobia was a warrior queen, who fought against the Romans. She was the Queen of Palmyra. The soldiers held her in high esteem because she fought like a man on frontline. She conquered Phoenicia and Palestine. She defeated the Roman army at the frontiers of Egypt.

Queen Tomyris: After the death of her husband, Tomyris became the queen of Massagetai. Cyrus, a Persian king captured Spargapises, the son of Tomyris, on the sly. Spargapises committed suicide. This enraged the queen and she led an army against King Cyrus and eventually killed him.

Queen Samsi: Queen Samsi (Shamsi) was an Arabian who fought against King Tiglath Pileser III of Assyria. She also provided aid to the King of Damascus against Tiglath Pileser III. Queen was not willing to pay tribute to him and had to battle with the Assyrian army. However, she lost the battle and surrendered and was allowed to rule. However, the King of Assyria stationed an officer at her court to collect the tribute.

Trung Sisters: Trung Trac and Trung Nhi were the daughters of a Vietnamese lord. Vietnam was under the Chinese rule during the first two centuries. However, under the leadership of these two sisters, Vietnamese rebelled against the Chinese. The Trung sisters trained around 36 women to become generals. They gathered an army of 80,000 people to defeat the Chinese. Trung Trac became the ruler and was known as Trung Vuong.

Rani Laxmi Bai: She was an Indian princess who was married to Gangadhar Roa, the king of Jhansi. After the death of her husband, she became the throne Queen of Jhansi. She recruited women in the army. In 1857 mutiny, she led an army against the British rule in India, but lost the battle. She is one of the renowned women in the history of India.Then there's Sondok of Korea; A.D. 600's,Kristina of Sweden. She was the King of Sweden in the 1600's, and I say 'King' because she demanded it. She was one of the first feminists around; wearing pants, fighting with men, and ruling a country,Eleanor of Aquitaine. She was a strong-willed queen who knew well the duties of her life. She spoke up where other women remained silent; it was only the 1100's,and Lady of Ch'iao Kuo; she was the queen of Southren China in the AD 500's. so England, India, China, Sweden, Korea,and Egypt aren't major cultures of the world?

I think what Noone was getting at is that there have not been any actual matriarchal societies of note during all of human history. There are many feminists with fantasies of matriarchal societies, but that's all they are, just fantasies, with no historical evidence. In virtually all cultures throughout history until very recently, men have held most of the positions of power; simply because their greater physical strength allowed them to seize and maintain control over the women.

There are also arguments from evolutionary biology to explain the universality of male dominance; such as the book "Why Men Rule"by Steven Goldberg: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0812692373

Of course, even in male-dominated cultures there is occasionally a woman who ends up as queen or whatnot, most often by accident of birth. But that does not really change the culture of male dominance, and in many or maybe most cases those women were more like a symbolic figurehead than an actual warrior or ruler. (For example, Joan of Arc; her main role was to lead the male troops by *inspiration* -- it wasn't because she was any kind of great warrior herself. And, btw, Boudicca got her butt kicked by the Romans, and led her people to disaster and ruin.)

I also agree with Noone's point about misandry -- hatred of men and/or manhood -- which is very blatant and obvious among extreme or radical feminism; and even obvious today in much of mainstream culture too. What's called "feminism" in third world countries is still fighting for the bassic rights and needs of women; but in modern western culture it passed that point long ago, and started heading towards the radical feminists who harbor a deep hatred for manhood and masculine dominance, even within a loving marriage.

Those are the bitter, vitriolic, toxic feminists who keep on pouring their scorn and contempt onto sexually dominant men and the sexually submissive women who love dominant them. And *most* feminist rhetoric today hold as axiomatic core beliefs the anti-natural ideas that: men and women should be seen as equal in all ways; that it's good for women to get more and more "power" and be more and more assertive in all ways, including sexual aggression of a most unfeminine kind; and that any kind of physical coercion or dominance that a man might exercise over his woman is always bad.

I see no reason why any of us should feel obliged to voice any agreement whatsoever with that kind of feminism; especially since they are are not at all shy about denouncing us. So I think it's very important to denounce them in return, and do battle with that mindset of radical egalitarian feminism, whenever we can.

Although I agree with the fundamental principle of the turn this thread took, read books like The Chalice and the Blade for evidence of the dominant power of matriarchal societies; they certainly did exist, and there is historical record of their power. The power women had in matriarchal societies revolved around their ability to heal and be seers, wise-women, and keepers of the mysteries. This is not insignificant, but it also is not the kind of power most people mean when the talk turns to building bridges, roads, and empires, no. However, I love women and our history enough to not want to lose that knowledge and connection with the past.
gunnalison@gmail.com

This may be a bit off-topic, but I noticed mention of Queen Elizabeth I and thought I might shed a bit more light on her reign. Frankly, I don't think I would have had the guts she had sacrificing her life's desires for her country. Her life, her happiness, her contentment ALL **TERMINATED** when she accepted the Crown. In short, her life ENDED when she became Queen. If she died and was buried before that event, I truly believe she would have been happier. But, such was NOT the case.

I don't know much about Queen Elizabeth I, but it is my understanding that she had NO desire to be Queen. This was a role FORCED on her by circumstances. All she ever wanted was to be a wife and mother. Her fate denied her both of those yearnings and instead snapped the Yoke of Royalty around her neck.

She condemned herself to a lifetime of misery under the crushing weight of the British Crown because fate required of her the political power she unwittingly and unwillingly wielded. Her commitment to Royalty was a blessing to her country and a curse to her PERSONALLY. Her assumed role caused her DEEP AGONY for the duration of her reign.

She sacrificed her personal happiness for the good of her Realm, but she never had ANY desire for the Crown, which NEVER gave her ANY pleasure.

My impression is that she was a woman denied her true desires by political happenstance.

Mike Starre

Women who don't respect men in general will have trouble respecting a particular man. (It is also true that men who don't respect women in general will never have a truly fulfilling relationship with a particular woman. A man cannot cherish, love and care for a woman if he doesn't respect her, and he will in the end earn only her contempt, not her respect. Mutual respect of all people is the foundation for building a Taken In Hand relationship.

I do not believe that her happiness ended when she became Queen. On the contrary, that was when it began. She had not had a happy childhood or a happy younth, and the five years before she became Queen, when her sister Mary was Queen, had been frought with danger for her.

Nowhere in any biography of Queen Elizabeth that I have read have I seen it said that she was yearning to be a wife and mother. She might have married, had the circumstances been favourable, but she never seemed to want it enough to actually take th eplunge, and she certainly had plenty of suitors.

That her role caused her agony is not the impression I have got from what I have read about her. Much of the time, she seems to have thoroughly enjoyed being Queen. She loved wielding power, loved admiration and flattery, and gained great satisfaction from being able to impose her will on her council.

Louise

Well, I don't think Elizabeth I made a definite decision to stay single at the beginning of her reign. She certainly entertained many suitors, and as late as the 1570s she was still entertaining the idea of the Duc d'Anjou as a possible husband, her 'frog' as she called him. His mother, Catherine de Medici, certainly wrote to Elizabeth as if she believed the marriage was a real possibility (though Catherine was no fool herself, and probably in reality knew that Elizabeth was unlikely to go through with it.)

She might have married if the circustances had been favourable, but her attitude towards matrimony seems to have been somewhat ambivalent, I'm not sure that she was wildly enthusiastic about the idea of matrimony at all, or that staying single was that much of a sacrifice for her.

I think David Loades put it very well in his 'Elizabeth I'

'Elizabeth was that rare creature, a genuinely independent woman. However gratifying an orthodox sexual relationship might have been, it would have meant sacrificing that independence; and probably the independence of her kingdom by which both she and her subjects set such store. It is unlikely that she ever made a decision of principle not to marry; but every time that a particular decision about a courtship had to be made, the price of consummation was always too great.'

Alison Weir writes about her attitude towards matrimony in 'Elizabeth the Queen':

'Sixteenth century husbands - even those married to queens regnant - were notoriously autocratic, and society regarded them as the masters in their homes. Women were expected to be submissive and obedient, in honour of their marriage vows. A queen regnant was a novelty in that age, and stood in a virtually impossible position; placed by God in authority over her people, she was yet required to be subject to her husband. Queen Mary had reached an uneasy compromise in this respect, but was much resent by King Philip when she did not heed his advice or requests. Such a situation did not make for marital harmony, and elizabeth was of a far more independent mind than her sister. her formidable intellect and pride in her royal blood woul dhave made it difficult for her to become subordinate to any man. She meant to rule by herself, and had no intention of permitting any interference with her prerogative. If she married, both independence and prerogative would be under threat.

Privately, she was inclined towards a single existence. In 1559, she confied to a German envoy that "she had found the celibate life so agreeable, and was so accustomed to it, that she would rather go into a nunnery, or for that matter suffer death, than be forced to renounce it." The IMperial Ambassador was informed by her that she would much prefer to be "a beggarwoman and single, far rather than a queen, and married." On another occasion she stated that she took the issue of her marriage very seriously, it was a matter of earnest with her, and she could not marry as others did. She once told parliament "If I were a milkmaid with a pail on my arm, whereby my private person might be little set by, I would not forsake that poor and single state to match with the greatest monarch." '

In 'The Virgin Queen' christopher Hibbert writes:

'Her reluctance to commit herself was endlessly discussed by her Councillors, to few of whom did it ever occur that a woman of such independence of spirit might actually prefer to remain single than submit to the loss of freedom that a marriage would entail, that she might prefer to remain a virgin rather than enter that state which, in a society dominated by men, was considered one that all normal women by their very natures must desire.'

Louise

Perhaps Elizabeth I didn't think much of marriage because of her parents? When your father chops off your mother's head, and abandons and murders his other wives, you might get the idea that husbands are a bit of a downer!