Resistant to their own emancipation? Complicit in their own oppression? Self-hating collaborators? Yikes!

Resistant to their own emancipation? Complicit in their own oppression? Self-hating collaborators? Yikes!

This site tends to attract a lot of disapprobation elsewhere on the net. What do you all think of the discussion linked below?

The article itself is clearly written by someone who has never read this site, judging from the alleged ‘quote’ she made up (or perhaps it is a third party's idea of Taken In Hand—it is certainly not mine anyway), not to mention the paragraph suggesting that we advocate ... well take a look at this (be warned: it is very sick and twisted):

Taken in Handers practise what they call "consensual non-consent", which basically boils down to physical and sexual chastisement, up to and including rape, as punishment for the woman's transgressions. It apparently doesn't matter if she screams and cries throughout her ordeal, no amount of pleading is going to make the "punishment" stop: by dint of the fact that she's in the relationship in the first place she's deemed to have consented to any mistreatment and abuse her husband doles out.

Holy shit!!! Talk about malicious misrepresentation!

Most of the comments following the article are also by people who have not the slightest idea what this site is about (and I don't blame them for not wanting to familiarise themselves with Taken In Hand after reading Cath Elliot's hatchet job on it!), but a couple of posters did politely argue with the nannying authoritarian feminist line that any woman whose choices in life differ from the authoritarian-feminist-approved ones are thereby self-hating collaborators, resistant to their own emancipation, betraying women in other parts of the world where women are not free, agents of the patriarchy, complicit in their own oppression, irrational, uneducated, and so on and so forth. (Oh for goodness sake! Get a grip, ladies, get a grip.)

Read Cath Elliot's Guardian article and all the comments following it but please understand that Taken In Hand is absolutely nothing like Cath Elliot portrays it.

Oh, and don't miss Mendoza's laugh-out-loud comment about the wife getting her chains polished.

If you find stuff like this on the internet, do post about it here, for fun.

If you want to reply to a specific comment from the linked Guardian discussion, click the share link next to the comment and paste that link into your post here, or directly quote the comment so we can properly attribute it.

--
The Taken In Hand Site Owner and Creator
http://www.takeninhand.com/

Comments

Equal rights and this web site

When I accidentally ran across the Taken In Hand site, it was for research. At first I was quite shocked and shook my head at many of the posts I read. But it soon became clear to me that a Taken In Hand relationship is completely consensual between husband and wife.

I have never been a great supporter of the feminist groups. I advocate equal rights of all humans regardless of sex. That being said I would like to make a very personal statement. My husband and I both agreed we felt it would be better for our family if I was a stay at home mom. I possess an above average IQ and am quite able to hold my own in the working environment. It was a choice and one of the most rewarding and exciting jobs I have ever had the pleasure of doing. But my husband once told me he often felt sorry for me because he could not imagine being happy chasing after children every day. Again let me stress it was a choice we talked about before we were even married and if I had chosen to work instead my husband would have supported that decision also.

Now by the very definition isn't the feminist movement about having equal rights to pursue the career that makes you happy? This site is not about being against a woman's right to vote or think for herself, and in fact it tends to be the woman's idea. What two consenting adults do behind closed doors, even if someone else sees it as something they would not want to be a part of, is their own business as long it is consensual.

If we are going to fight for equal rights then we cannot insist everyone do things our way. No man has a right to force his wife into a sexual encounter she does not want, unless that floats her boat, so to speak, and then that is not rape or abuse but erotic for her. That would not float my boat but if it floats the boats of my neighbors and they have a happy marriage who am I to say they are doing it wrong? I do believe women have the right to be happy in their lifestyle choice within the boundaries of social legalities. Isn't that supposed to be one of the principles which feminism is based on? You might have a completely different view and I support your right to your beliefs.

Tracy D

Depends...

Now by the very definition isn't the feminist movement about having equal rights to pursue the career that makes you happy?

Uh, maybe by some definitions. But many feminists see themselves as living their lives in a manner to move women's place in society "forward", with "forward" meaning, of course, whatever they think it means. Women, in this view, can make "bad" choices, not just "bad" for the person doing the choosing, but "bad" for all women. You see some of that in the ludicrous comments on the article that essentially said that white women in U.S. suburbs in Taken In Hand relationships are contributing to women being oppressed in the Middle East.

Still, this article is no surprise. It is not hard to read through here looking for quotes or thread titles to use to bash the site. Actually engaging with the site, now that requires paying attention and a fair mind. Too much work and the article that resulted would not fit within the desired theme.

She didn't do her homework!

The accusations of the article were so unfounded that I didn't have much of a reaction other than wanting to scream, "I am NOT Christian, conservative, anti-feminist, anti-gay, uneducated, weak, self-hating, or abused!"

Reading through the comments got me a little down, though. I'm vain enough not to like the idea of disgusting people, and the repeated statements of disgust from people who looked at the site (and recognized that the relationships here are consensual) surprised me a little. Obviously tastes differ, but I wouldn't have thought this taste would be one that made people gag. For the most part, I think people in love are sexy together though their sexualities differ from mine.

Um

Who cares?

Every time you meet a follower of an -nism, you meet some one who thinks that all people have to follow his/her ideology.

Why care and why trying to discuss with this kind of people? They have the one and only truth. And all others are blockheads. So, you can't argue with this people. In my opinion the best is to let them alone.

I find these kinds of

I find these kinds of articles quite funny. In my egalitarian industry, where I work with many competent women across several organizations, many of them directors or CEOs, they never manage to get exactly what they want from anybody in the thorough way the women of this site seem to get what they want from men.

That said, the author had to meet a hard deadline, and I think all of us who have ever written a column understand how lazy one one will become so as to not submit late. No hard feelings, Cath.

The unfortunate infiltration of politics.

I have been lurking/reading Taken In Hand for about three years now. It fits exactly with what my beliefs and what I desire for my relationship and future marriage. I'm a young man, in a committed monogamous relationship but not married yet.

I decided to post here a few days ago for the first time. Over the last few years I have also become aware of and participatory in another group I agree with. This other group is the men's rights movement, a movement which like Taken In Hand is also often wholly misunderstood. Although I think it likely that among the men and women of Taken In Hand there are many beliefs that coincide with those of the men's rights movement it is clear to me that they are also completely separate, even at odds in some areas.

On the internet at least, over the last few years, men's advocates have become a more vocal and threatening voice to many feminists.

Although I am glad that the voices of men are for the first time in quite a long time being heard. I also believe that the rise in these voices has had and will have some unfortunate side effects. One of these side effects is that in the escalating political clash between feminists and the men's rights movement sites like Taken In Hand which are non-political will be pulled into politics. Indeed as I see it, the linked article above isn't even about Taken In Hand. It's clear that the author took little to no time in actually understanding Taken In Hand and harvested from it those fascets which appear the most extreme and weaponized them. Indeed Cath's article conflates the men's movement with TiH and then paints Taken In Hand in the most negative light possible.

The irony of the linked article is that after reading it I don't believe the article was directed at Taken In Hand. The article was an attack piece but it wasn't attacking Taken In Hand despite appearances. Instead the article was attacking the men's rights movement, using Taken In Hand as an example, although contrived, of how the men's rights movement supposedly supports spousal abuse by men. I fear that attacks of this nature, wherein movements like Taken In Hand are used as amunition against a group with which Taken In Hand has zero connection will only become more common as feminism becomes more desperate to stop the rising tide of anti-feminist beliefs.

Sincerely Compassion is Key