Taken In Hand is nothing to do with patriarchy

Institutions and structures such as the various forms of patriarchy are an affront to the commanding man. When society privileges the male without regard to his actual qualities it creates a society of bullies and thugs whose excesses are excused because such abuses are culturally acceptable.

Being dominant is not about being a bully, having power invested in you just because of your gender rather than because of personal skills, competencies and disciplines devalues the dominant position.

I have three daughters and I have ensured that all of them have the skills, and fortitude to be able to choose their relationships and not to be structurally dependent on any men for their well-being. If someone wants a relationship with any of my daughters they are going to have to be able to command her respect and not rely on patriarchal advantage.

I believe that all women should have rights, and equally important the means to access and enforce those rights. There is nothing inconsistent about Taken In Hand and women having rights.

I expect my wife to constantly choose to remain inside my domain because in that place she finds peace, security and the freedom to be herself... I do not see trapping women culturally, financially or otherwise into any relationship as being acceptable.


Taken In Hand Tour start | next


What are you talking about?

My dictionary says that "patriarchy" means: a social system in which the father is the head of the family and descent is traced through the the paternal line.

Could you please explain clearly what you are actually talking about, with specific and verifiable examples that you are sure haven't been misrepresented? I think you mean well and I don't disagree with what I think you are trying to say. But you seem to be accepting and quoting feminist propaganda about conditions that never actually existed.

Reply to 'What are you talking about?'

As the OP talks of “various forms of patriarchy” I assume his meaning goes beyond the narrow definition of ‘a social system in which the father is the head of the family and descent is traced through the paternal line’. An online search on the definition of ‘patriarchy’ reveals a variety of meanings that encompass the notion of a social system where men are dominant over women in terms of wealth, status and power and the ideology of the society acts to reinforce and perpetuate the status quo. This would be my understanding of what he meant.

However a definition has been requested so I await the OP’s meaning. I think your suspicion that he’s accepted and is quoting feminist propaganda about conditions that never actually existed might be a bit premature since he hasn’t stated any specific examples yet. For my part, I think historical record shows, for example, that in 18th century England a woman’s property became her husband’s when she married, in 1950’s England women were paid less for the same work on the justification that a man had a family to support, women were obliged to leave jobs when they married or became pregnant—so there were definitely historical inequalities. Whether we still live in a patriarchy today in the West is debatable. However there are still societies in the world where inequalities exist. I’m confused about the conditions you refer to that never actually existed.

To Lauren

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This discussion has veered way off-topic and all off-topic posts on this thread will be deleted. Please stick to the subject of Taken In Hand relationships in future posts, everyone. Thanks for your cooperation.]


Context is essential to understanding. With respect to your historical examples, two types of context are relevant: 1) the state of society at that time, and the relative states of men and women, and 2) the state of society at an earlier time, when the conditions that are being considered were different. One must then first evaluate conditions at that earlier time, and then trace changes and their effects through to the period being discussed.

And in doing any type of analysis, statistical or otherwise, one must account for all of the relevant variables. For example, if one did a study, or extracted from existing studies, to determine whether men or women were faster runners, but didn’t account for age, health, and so on, the conclusions would be meaningless.

This type of mistake or manipulation is one of the things that you should look for whenever you see a comparison claiming that “women [something] compared to men.”

Problems arise when data is selected to fit an agenda. But the worst conflicts are created when truth is considered irrelevant.

No one cares what the real numbers are. They just want to make political statements. [Kathryn Newcomer professor of statistics and public policy at George Washington University, in Insight magazine commenting on widely published rape statistics.]

The director of the UCLA Center for Women and Men told a reporter from the student newspaper that the “one-in-four” rape statistic was accurate and in fact had been published by the FBI and the American Medical Association on their websites. But when she was told by another journalist that this was untrue, she said, “The statistics don’t really matter that much in the big picture. We’re just trying to focus on the real issue here, to debate about civil rights, not bicker about numbers.” [Derived from National Review Online, May 18, 2001]

Bad statistics are harder to kill than vampires. [Joel Best, author of the 2001 book Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers From the Media, Politicians and Activists, New York Times, May 26, 2001]

When I inquired of Miss Hoeffler how she had arrived at the 40 per cent depression figure in the face of the finding that women were enjoying life most of the time, she candidly told me she was very concerned that the Harris study not be just another study reflecting ‘white male norms’ of research, adding that… she was doing her best to counter ‘phallocentric bias.’ I was not surprised to find that she had specialized in feminist theory at Hunter College. [Christina Hoff Sommers, Ph.D. (author of Who Stole Feminism), in the National Review, September 2, 1996]

When it comes to gender issues, journalists generally have suspended all their usual skepticism… We accept at face value whatever women’s groups say. Why? Because women have sold themselves to us as an oppressed group and any oppressed group gets a free ride in the press… I don’t blame feminists for telling us half-truths and sometimes even complete fabrications. I do blame my colleagues in the press for forgetting their skepticism. [Former CBS News Correspondent Bernard Goldberg, interviewed by Jack Kammer in Quill: The Magazine for Journalists, May 1992]

Please don’t take this as an attack on women.

I happen to like women very much. It’s just that I have found that it is difficult for men and women to have the best relationships, if we are full of bad feelings created by being given incorrect information.

And I would be happy to end this discussion on this note.

It should not take a legal structure to enforce his control

I agree absolutely with this article. A man who is really dominant doesn't need a legal structure to enforce his control, he can dominate through the force of his personality.

A society that gives men a legal right to control their wives is not necessary or indeed desirable for the growth of a Taken In Hand relationship.


This is one of the best posti

This is one of the best postings I have ever seen on this site. Bravo! I too have a daughter and that is what I intend to teach her. I also have sons and they too understand that they must be worthy of a woman's devotion if they hope to have the same kind of loving relationship their parents have.

I am a feminist. So is my husband. Yet, we live together in joy and peace in a Taken in Hand relationship. Being a woman who knows her worth, I choose to live in a way that gives me security and freedom to become all I am capable of. My husband doesn't want to keep me under a system of patriarchal rule; rather, he supports and nurtures me, and sees to the best of his ability that I have every opportunity to be the best and happiest person I can be.

What is more, my devotion to him makes him stronger. He knows his worth too.

Male ascendancy where codified by law or culture weakens men

I feel very much as the poster does—that male ascendancy where codified by law or culture can actually serve to weaken the characters of individual men, since they possess power over women whether they are deserving of its possession or not. The balancing act with the legal system that men may be forced to in our society can actually have the benefit of guaranteeing that whatever power men have in their relationships has been yielded to them strictly on the basis of their having actively earned it rather than having “inherited” it as a cultural default.

Great post.